HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 2003-01-13SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Pagel
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2003 AT 7:30 P.M.
Special Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: None
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE
AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL PLAN 2000 AND PROVIDING DIRECTION TO THE
GENERAL PLAN 2020 STEERING COMMITTEE RELATING TO ANNEXATION AND
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ST. VINCENT'S AND SILVEIRA PROPERTIES (CD) —
FILE 4-3-400 x 9-2-45 x 115 (2000) x 115 (2020) x 10-2
Introducing the item, City Attorney Gary Ragghianti emphasized the fact that this was a Special
Meeting of the San Rafael City Council. He explained the significance of this was important
since the Brown Act, in particular, and California Law, in general, forbids the conduct of any
business at this evening's meeting, save and except that which had been agendized. He
indicated that that which had been agendized, sent to and made available to the public, was
mainly the consideration by this Council of the staff report prepared and also made available to
the public together with the attachments thereto, relating to the policies of the City of San
Rafael concerning the lands of St. Vincent's and Silveira.
Mr. Ragghianti emphasized that this meeting would not result in any action by the Council with
regard to the San Rafael General Plan. He indicated that no amendments were proposed for
adoption or consideration; the meeting was simply to receive the staff report, and was an
opportunity for the Council to comment upon the staff report, which was prepared by staff in
response to the Mayor's December 6t" request for same.
Mr. Ragghianti believed this fairly summarized the purpose of the meeting.
City Manager Rod Gould stated that on December 6, 2002, Mayor Boro directed staff to return
with a memo setting forth the Council's options with regard to the planning and servicing of the
St. Vincent's and Silveira lands. He indicated that Community Development Director Bob
Brown had completed the memo with extensive input from various members of staff and with
Council's permission, would summarize staff's findings and recommendation.
As indicated by City Manager Gould, Mr. Brown stated he would like to address some of the
principal points in the staff report and respond to questions.
Before discussing future planning for these properties, Mr. Brown stated he believed it was
worthwhile mentioning some of the history of the land use regulations that had gone on for both
sites.
He explained that 30 years ago, the County included St. Vincent's and Silveira in the City
Centered Corridor along Highway 101 where all major development would occur. He stated
this action justified designating over 80% of Marin for agriculture and recreation and these
properties were the last remaining vestiges of the City Centered Corridor that had not been
developed to date.
Mr. Brown explained that at that time, the County also removed the Williamson Act contracts for
both properties, meaning that all the Silveira Ranch and a portion of St. Vincent's had since
been taxed as developable land for several decades.
Noting there had been three major planning studies for both properties, totaling over seven
years of public discussion, Mr. Brown stated that without a doubt, these two property owners
had participated in more public debate about what could be done with their properties than any
other owners in this County.
Mr. Brown reported that each of these planning efforts was conducted with full cooperation
between the City and County; the most recent joint planning effort resulted in a consensus
agreement of stakeholders, with the exception of Tony Silveira. He stated that both the City
Council and the Board of Supervisors accepted the Task Force recommendations, which called
for between 800 and 1,800 housing units on both properties, unless money could be found to
buy down some development rights, and called for preservation of at least 85% of these lands,
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 1
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 2
which he believed to be unprecedented for lands in Marin County that abut Highway 101
Mr. Brown indicated that last March, St. Vincent's filed development applications, which the
MOU signed by the City and County in 1998 anticipated, stating that such applications would be
processed by the City, and could be processed prior to the General Plan update being
completed if that proposal was consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force. Mr.
Brown reported that to the best of staff's knowledge, they were consistent and the
environmental review process was now ready to begin.
The question now being what role the County plays in determining land use for these properties
since they are in the City's Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area, Mr. Brown explained
that these designations were based on long existing policies of the City, County and LAFCO
(Local Agency Formation Commission) which state that development of these lands should
result in annexation to San Rafael.
Continuing, Mr. Brown explained that the County's involvement in the annexation process
comes in two ways:
• First, as part of the annexation application, which would occur subsequent to the City's
review of entitlement requests, the City and County must negotiate a tax sharing
agreement. This, he stated, is a means of compensating the County for property taxes
lost. While the County and all Marin cities have had an existing tax sharing formula for
decades, Mr. Brown explained the County could break this agreement and insist on a
tax sharing agreement that would reduce property tax to the City to a point where
providing services to the development would cost far more than tax revenue. He
indicated that State law really puts the County in the driver's seat on negotiating these
agreements;
• The County could also seek to have the annexation denied when it came before the
LAFCO Board. The County holds two seats on LAFCO and would have to convince two
other LAFCO Board members to oppose the annexation, which is a legislative decision.
While the County is not the lead agency on processing the land use applications, Mr. Brown
stated they could derail the annexation at the end of that process, should they so choose.
Before discussing the four options identified by staff for Council, Mr. Brown indicated one
further element of background was necessary.
He explained that the City had long looked at these properties as housing opportunity sites,
noting that some members of the public had stated that San Rafael covets these lands. Mr.
Brown stated this was certainly not the case in terms of potential revenues, since the City would
only seek to break even with service costs; however, they had been part of the long term
housing strategy.
Before vilifying the State of California regarding their housing policies, Mr. Brown stated that
San Rafael, and in particular this Council, had always been supportive of housing, more
specifically, workforce housing, and there was a severe housing need in Marin. He stated the
limited supply and high demand made housing in Marin so unaffordable. Residents talk about
their desire to retain this community's diversity, and he indicated this goal is directly tied to the
provision of additional housing that the workforce, children and seniors could afford.
To blast the State, Mr. Brown reported that the State's housing policy essentially pushes the
responsibility for solving housing problems down onto local jurisdictions, noting it was
essentially a top-down, one -size fits all approach. He stated the State requires that local
jurisdictions plan for a specified number of housing units, both market rate and affordable,
within a specified time period, and these housing needs numbers are calculated by each
region's council of governments, in San Rafael's case, ABAG (Association of Bay Area
Governments). He stated they are based on projected population changes, new births, and
people living longer, significant in that they would stay in their homes longer, plus the effects of
new job growth and a portion of the anticipated in -migration into the entire Bay Area.
Mr. Brown reported that San Rafael is required to demonstrate it has capacity for 2,090 new
units by the year 2006, with over half supposed to be affordable. He stated that 900 of these
units had been either built or approved since 1999, leaving approximately 1,400 units to be
planned for. Mr. Brown reported it had been said these housing needs numbers should have
been protested, and they were, explaining that of all the appeals filed with ABAG to lower the
needs numbers, none were successful. He noted the appeal period was over in August, 2000.
He stated that the State Department of Housing and Community Development is required by
law to review and approve the new Housing Element, which must include a detailed list of
possible housing sites and densities.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 2
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 3
As to what would happen in the event the City was unable to obtain HCD approval of the
Housing Element, Mr. Brown explained the City could be sued by housing advocates or
developers. He stated that almost certainly, the City would lose this lawsuit and would be
required to redraft the Housing Element and try again with the State. Should the City fail to
achieve an approved element, Mr. Brown stated that issuance of all building permits, even
those for very minor single-family remodeling, would be halted. He indicated the City could also
be unable to compete for some State grant funds, and would probably not have access to State
bond funds, such as those approved last year for housing.
Mr. Brown stated that increasingly, the State legislature was attempting to tie State
transportation funding, recreation funding and qualifications for bonds to having an approved
Housing Element. He indicated that a bill was pulled last session; however, would be
reintroduced, which would impose financial penalties on cities without an approved Housing
Element.
Mr. Brown believed that a strategy of refusing to comply with State Housing law would
ultimately be unsuccessful. He instanced Corte Madera, which having been sued by housing
advocates, lost, and had to finally adopt a Housing Element they were not wild about. He
added they also could be required to pay a half million dollars of their opponent's legal fees.
Mr. Brown reported that San Luis Obispo was being held up as the model for municipal
defiance to HCD. They had backed down after losing access to state grant funds and fearing
they would be unable to access new bond funds. He noted their new Housing Element was
being reviewed by the State and they expected to get it approved.
Mr. Brown stated that no city in California was happy about the State approach and most
believed they have some practical constraints that make it very tough, or impossible, to plan on
achieving the housing need numbers. He stated that in San Rafael, there were very few vacant
sites, except for a lot of dedicated open space that is entirely off limits, and there also was the
self-imposed traffic congestion limits; however, almost every city could make a similar case in
one way or another. Mr. Brown stated the state regulators do not care; their prospective is that
cities are the constraint to housing production.
With regard to how St. Vincent's and Silveira affect the City's ability to get its Housing Element
approved, Mr. Brown explained that originally, it was expected that some housing potential on
St. Vincent's could be counted towards these requirements. However, he stated that since the
application process had been slow, it was unlikely that any substantial number of units could
realistically be built there by mid 2006, which was the horizon year for the State's review.
Therefore, it would not be possible to count units at either of these sites for immediate housing
element needs.
Mr. Brown stated that the General Plan was looking ahead to the year 2020 and development
at both properties would be counted towards longer term housing production. He stated that
going through two more rounds of responding to state housing need numbers by the year 2020
could be anticipated; therefore, the effect of not counting St. Vincent's and Silveira would be felt
in future housing elements. This, he stated would mean looking for even more in -fill
opportunities within existing neighborhoods, which would not be popular with residents and
could very well violate the traffic congestion standards of today. Mr. Brown noted that future
City Councils would be fairly hamstrung and would have to approve higher densities, despite
public concern, unless state housing law changed, which was not the apparent trend.
With all this good news, Mr. Brown stated he would like to focus on the options staff had
outlined for Council on how St. Vincent's and Silveira properties could be dealt with.
Option 1
Mr. Brown explained that the first option was to continue processing the St. Vincent's
applications under the provisions of San Rafael's MOU with the County. The General Plan
Update would also be continued, which would precede decisions on the development
applications, and would probably establish a more refined density range for both properties. He
stated that virtually all the Task Force recommendations would be incorporated as policies in
the new General Plan.
As to what might result, Mr. Brown explained that since the General Plan Update would most
likely come to Council before the St. Vincent's Village applications, it was likely that adoption of
the new General Plan would cause the filing of a referendum and/or a lawsuit on the General
Plan's EIR (Environmental Impact Report), probably intending to reduce the allowable density
for both properties and sending the issue back to the drawing board. He stated that the
defense of a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) lawsuit on the General Plan EIR
would be borne by the City and could easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 4
Mr. Brown stated that when Council takes action on the St. Vincent's applications, a referendum
and EIR lawsuit would also be probable; the cost of defending this lawsuit would be paid by the
applicant. He stated that once all this had been sorted out, the County would have the potential
to derail the annexation, as previously discussed.
Option 2
Mr. Brown explained that this option entailed leaving both properties in the County's jurisdiction,
adopting a policy in the General Plan that the City did not intend to annex these lands and
provide them with City services. He stated that LAFCO would ultimately remove them from the
City's Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area, as a result. The County would have to
provide for some reasonable amount of development potential for both sites, as part of the
Countywide Plan update.
Explaining the possible results, Mr. Brown stated that should the City adopt this option, St.
Vincent's could either withdraw their applications and re -apply at the County, or seek to require
the City to continue to process their submitted applications. Should this be the case, he
explained that the City would have numerous opportunities in the CEQA process or in its
legislative discretion to not approve the EIR or the development applications, or ultimately to
oppose annexation.
Mr. Brown stated there obviously would be less pressure on the General Plan Update. As
previously mentioned, he stated the loss of housing potential on these lands would not have an
immediate effect on the City's ability to have its Housing Element approved by the State;
however, it would greatly impact future housing elements beyond the year 2006, and require
San Rafael to be even more aggressive at infill housing.
Option 3
Mr. Brown stated that the third option was to hear from the voters of San Rafael, or even the
entire County if done in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors. He indicated this could take
the shape of an advisory ballot measure, or even a tax measure to purchase some
development rights and/or subsidize more of the housing for greater affordability.
He explained this would result in taking time and probably leaving the General Plan Update in
limbo during that period. Ideally, he stated knowing public sentiment could reduce the potential
for a referendum on the General Plan or the project itself; however, there were no guarantees.
Mr. Brown stated there also was no guarantee that the Board of Supervisors still would not seek
to disallow future annexation.
Option 4
Lastly, Mr. Brown stated that another attempt could be made with a fourth planning effort, trying
to generate a development proposal more likely to be supported by the County and the
environmentalists.
Mr. Brown's guess was that this would result in a land use plan that would not meet the City's
objectives of maximizing potential for affordable housing and fairness to the property owners,
and it could be so little development, that it would not be cost effective for the City to provide
services. He indicated it would also leave the General Plan Update again in limbo, and could
still result in future lawsuits, either by environmentalists, or in this case, the property owners.
Considering all of this, Mr. Brown stated that staff was recommending Option 2, in the belief
that the City was no longer operating in concert with the Board of Supervisors. He indicated
that the chances of going through the General Plan Update and processing the St. Vincent's
applications, surviving lawsuits and referenda, and then being frustrated at the end by the
annexation process, were high. Given the City's financial situation, Mr. Brown stated the City
Manager did not wish to devote substantial City funds to what would probably be a futile effort
in the long run.
While it was hard to recommend giving up land use control and housing opportunities and
directing these two property owners to deal with the County, Mr. Brown stated staff believed
that pursuing the current course of action would ultimately not be successful and would be a
very frustrating experience for everyone involved.
Mr. Brown stated that a resolution was attached to the staff report based on this option.
He indicated that staff would be happy to answer any questions and noted that Mr. Peter
Banning, Executive Director of LAFCO, was present and could respond to any questions in
relation to the LAFCO process.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 5
As City Attorney Ragghianti had pointed out, Mayor Boro stated this was not a public hearing;
however, he believed there were some people in attendance who wished to address the City
Council. Indicating he would call the first few speakers in order, allowing them some extra
time, Mayor Boro stated that hopefully, subsequent comment from the general public could be
limited to approximately three minutes per speaker, to afford everyone the opportunity to be
heard.
Mayor Boro first called upon Brian Cahill, representing CYO (Catholic Youth Organization).
Brian Cahill, Catholic Charities, CYO, St. Vincent's School for Boys and member of the St.
Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Task Force stated they believed they had played by the rules and
cooperated with all of the City and County planning processes over the last twenty years. He
indicated they had respected, worked with and responded to all the interests within the County
of Marin over the past twenty years, and had respected, worked with and responded to the
interests of their colleagues on the Advisory Task Force, a process lasting for almost two years.
Mr. Cahill stated they also had respected, worked with and responded to the interests of this
City Council and staff, including the need for workforce housing, and had relied on the
principles, goals and process articulated by this Council. He indicated they had accepted and
relied on the principles established in the MOU, albeit not a party to that agreement, and, in
fact, it was impossible for him not to feel some bitterness and irony that this MOU, once
considered so sacred that it precluded them from siting their campus where it was desired on
their land, now appeared, in reading the report, to be somewhat less sacred and easily
dismissed.
Mr. Cahill stated it was one thing to deal with opposition to their proposal, which they accepted
and always would; however, it was something else to have the rules and process within which
they had fully, faithfully and respectfully worked, pulled from under them in such an abrupt
manner. Stating they were appalled at the recommended action in the report, Mr. Cahill
indicated that in their judgment, it did not represent fairness to the land owners, and they did not
find it acceptable.
Clarifying, he stated they had always been in this and would continue to be as they serve
abused and neglected children and had no choice but to rebuild St. Vincent's and find a funding
stream for its support, especially in light of the foreseeable future of government funding. He
indicated their belief they had no choice other than to support programs such as that in the
Canal, designed to support families and keep children out of the foster care system. This, he
stated was their mission and to be forced to go to the County was putting that mission directly
at risk.
For those reasons, Mr. Cahill stated they intended to proceed with development plans for their
pending applications to the extent permitted by law, and for those reasons also, requested
Council in the strongest possible terms, to reject the staff recommendation and instead,
continue the process, allowing the completion of the EIR, as their ability to proceed at this point
was linked to legal considerations relative to the City's proposed actions.
Mr. Cahill introduced their legal counsel, Mr. Patrick McGaraghan, to be followed by Mr.
Michael Durkee.
Pat McGaraghan, Attorney with the Law Firm of Gray, Cary, Ware and Freidenrich, stated he
was present to present a few thoughts on behalf of CYO.
As articulated by Mr. Cahill, Mr. McGaraghan stated the concerns this evening were not about
the final decision that might be made in any process that involved the St. Vincent's lands, rather
was one of process. He explained that this process had been underway for a long time,
involved a lot of people from a number of different constituencies, including the City, its staff
and political personnel, the landowner, the developer, the many who participated in the two
citizens Task Forces who had done such an excellent job of attempting to build a coalition and
a consensus that would allow the property to be developed in a very sensitive and appropriate
manner.
In evaluating the recommended action under consideration this evening, Mr. McGaraghan
stated that as the City Council looked at its course of action, he hoped it was attempting to
implement the main police power delegation of authority that comes from the Constitution to try
and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. In doing this, he indicated the main
limitation on the ability to act was the due process of law considerations that any applicant is
entitled to expect from its city government.
In evaluating the two considerations, police power and due process of law, Mr. McGaraghan
indicated they observed a very unbalanced weighing should this recommended action be taken.
Having scoured the staff report several times, he saw no basis cited that would allow a
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 6
conclusion that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of San Rafael were served by a
decision to avoid a process that had been underway for so many years that would allow for the
workforce housing the City needed. Rather, he saw only political expediencies as the basis for
withdrawing from the application at this point in time. When this was weighed against the
considerations of the landowner, which would be severe and significant if the process did not go
forward through the City, it did appear to be out of balance. Mr. McGaraghan stated the City
was required to have a reasonable basis for an action such as this and to not act arbitrarily and
capriciously. Should the City withdraw from the process with as much at stake for the
landowner and the City, it would be an action that could be considered arbitrary and capricious,
and they were concerned about this on behalf of the rights of the CYO.
A further issue related to the fact that the recommendation under consideration was not simple
and direct, rather conditional and based on Council's ability to make a conclusion, according to
the staff report, that, in fact, the planning partnership with the County was no longer viable. Mr.
McGaraghan noted that for the many years it had been involved in this project, Council had
been acting under a mandate agreed upon by the City and County in the 1998 MOU that stated
the City shall act as managing agency in processing any application for rezoning, annexation,
development agreement, tentative map and all other entitlements. The City shall act as lead
agency for CEQA purposes, and the County shall serve in an advisory capacity. Therefore, he
stated, there ought to be some good reasons to overturn and back away from the commitments
made by both the City and County. In evaluating such reasons, Mr. McGaraghan indicated all
they saw were some statements made in the course of the Supervisor's recently concluded
race and public statements made by County officials, that could raise some concerns as to what
the County's future could be when they got a chance to evaluate the application. However, he
stated, there had been no public meetings of the County in connection with the project, there
had been no mandates from the County in any directory sense, no public hearings or
consideration of the impacts of the project, or potential mitigations for those impacts. There
could not be any, he added, as the EIR had not been commissioned yet and no one had had a
chance to study that. Mr. McGaraghan stated that at best, a consideration of what Council was
being requested to do this evening appeared to be extremely premature and based on
speculation as to what the County might do two years hence, or whenever the process would
be completed to review the EIR.
Mr. McGaraghan requested that the County be given a chance to look at Council's action on
this plan, its determination of the impacts and what mitigation elements were necessary to
create a viable project that served the interests of this community, and at that time, allow the
County to determine whether it could live with San Rafael's decision, as the lead agency. He
stated it was obvious that San Rafael had given a considerable amount of thought and effort to
attempting to create an appropriate project and believed the City should be giving the County a
chance to accept its recommendations, rather than withdrawing at this point in time.
Mr. McGaraghan stated that tonight, CYO was requesting the City Council to reject the
recommendation made by staff and make what they considered to be the only rational decision,
which was to continue processing the project. They requested this be done, not only as it was
the only rational move, rather because it was the only fair course for the CYO.
Mike Durkee, Attorney on behalf of Shapell Industries of Northern California, confirmed
submitting a letter to Council this afternoon outlining the bulk of his proposed comments this
evening.
Mr. Durkee stated they were asked to believe that with one vote, the only option available to the
City of San Rafael was to concede to the County, and he respectfully disagreed. He indicated
they thought highly of staff, having worked with them for over a year and recognized them to be
extraordinary professionals; however, for the bulk of his presentation, Mr. Durkee indicated he
would boldly disagree with much of what had been articulated.
Stating that neither the County nor LAFCO possessed the powers of San Rafael, Mr. Durkee
explained that LAFCO was a body of statutory law, its very being was given to and taken back
from by that statute. They would consider what was put in front of them, they were required to
make statutory findings and should the evidence presented indicate the annexation should go
forward, that annexation must go forward. Mr. Durkee stated that the idea the County could
unilaterally pull from the City a tax sharing agreement after it had been in place for thirteen
years and not suffer legal vulnerability, was disingenuous. He indicated that clearly, this was
done formulaically throughout the County. Should they revoke this, their agenda would be clear;
to simply attempt to undo the annexation, which was not reasonable or legislative, rather
arbitrary and capricious, would not stand.
Mr. Durkee stated that San Rafael had its own autonomy, its own independence and he
questioned the type of concept if in every tough fight, the battle was conceded before it had
begun, i.e., concede to the County. Commenting that San Rafael's predecessors had not done
this, Mr. Durkee indicated there would not be the vibrant, successful, prosperous, diverse, most
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 7
livable city in this County, had those predecessors conceded all tough issues to the County. He
stated that cities became cities because they were tired of counties and wanted to form their
own community of interest to do what their community of interest wanted, and this was the
community Council should look to, as anything worth having was worth fighting for. Quite
bluntly, Mr. Durkee questioned the reason for being a city if these issues were conceded to the
County. He stated that was not what San Rafael or this community was.
Indicating their second point was that fairness and equity dictated that San Rafael be in charge
of this process, Mr. Durkee reiterated the sentiments of a previous speaker to the effect that it
did not dictate a conclusion, rather simply dictated who was holding the reins, which should be
and always had been, the City of San Rafael. He stated that for at least fifteen years, both of
the General Plans had looked to San Rafael to be that force. There had been at least three
studies, which again reached the conclusion that San Rafael should be that force. He indicated
it was known that LAFCO, through San Rafael's incorporation lines, Sphere of Influence, Urban
Service Area and through all of the different agreements, respected that San Rafael's
fingerprints were on this property, not the County's. Mr. Durkee stated that, in fact, up to three
months ago, San Rafael's draft Housing Element indicated San Rafael should be in charge.
Pondering what happened, Mr. Durkee stated that an election took place; however, this election
should not take from this room and this community, the consistent vision that this city should be
in charge.
Mr. Durkee stated that whether it be Shapell, or any other developer, should not be the issue;
rather, the issue was whether San Rafael should be in charge of recreational opportunities,
open space preservation, workforce housing, affordable housing and all the things the City was
aware this property could be. He requested that the City not abdicate its responsibility or
abandon this property, regardless of what it considered the merits of any particular
development proposal to be.
For his third point, Mr. Durkee stated State Planning Law requires that this property continue to
be included within the jurisdiction of San Rafael. He indicated that everything San Rafael did in
1996 demonstrated this to be one of the inventories of properties the City would look to towards
future housing. Whether or not to support the political wisdom of the State, it was known to be
law, in that people at the borders could not be turned back. California is the most popular and,
therefore, the most populated state in the Union and it continues to grow. Instead of laws that
state "go back, stay away," he indicated the legislature welcomes that growth and requests the
sharing in the burdens and benefits that growth delivers. He stated this is done through the
Councils of Governments (COGS), San Rafael's being the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). Their tedious task is to take those numbers and allocate them
throughout the nine Bay Area counties and within each of those counties, the jurisdictions, and
municipal service providers, where under the cornerstone of the law it is believed growth should
take place. Mr. Durkee stated that San Rafael's allocation and responsibility had always been
answered by looking to this property to satisfy those requirements.
Reporting that 2,100 units were promised in 1996, Mr. Durkee stated that although it currently is
in the General Plan, it may not be where the City wants to be presently. He stated the Task
Force had recommended a smaller range of density and that would be something by itself that
HCD (Housing and Community Development) would wrestle with. He indicated that it was
known from the draft Housing Element, not yet three months old, that of the 1,400 units that
Community Development Director Bob Brown displayed on the screen, 856 were proposed to
be constructed on this property, and those would be gone under Option 2. Mr. Durkee
commented that three months ago, that was the City's modern wisdom.
Noting from the staff report that State Senator Dunn in Sacramento had been pushing for
legislation that would give actual fiscal penalties for failure to meet housing obligations, Mr.
Durkee reported this had not passed and the staff report was very honest about the fact that it
was an ongoing effort. He stated a law was passed, Assembly Bill 2292 — Assemblyman Dutra,
Fremont - and that Bill states that if property identifying density is given to HCD, which the City
did in 1996 and continues to do, and the density is changed, it is prohibited, unless where it
actually was going could be identified.
Given the timeframe, even with an inventory of space, which the City did not have, Mr. Durkee
stated it was disingenuous to believe that infill could be converted, such as somehow, getting
1,400 units shoehorned into existing communities. He indicated that even if this could
physically take place, and it could not, it would not politically take place, as neighborhoods
would rise up against it, much more than currently. The law would prevent the City from shifting
this burden and he indicated the City could not hamstring itself and then argue it could not run
in the race.
By way of example, Mr. Durkee stated the City had been fairly successful on workforce and
affordable housing, having produced 15%, generally speaking. He indicated the Task Force set
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 8
a goal of 20% on this property. By way of implementation, Shapell had proposed 24% and
those things contained in the General Plan, which to this date the City had indicated it held true,
this applicant was attempting to deliver.
Fourthly, Mr. Durkee stated they would be processing their applications and the City could not
turn them away, indicating that no confrontation was meant, rather it was simply the law. Due
process meant "do" process. The City must process them; they would be funding the EIR and
would expect the consultants to be secured. He noted they should fund consultants, each one
was A+ and they had no complaints of staff or the process to date. He stated it was arduous,
time-consuming and resource intensive, as it should be, to deliver a project to be evaluated to
determine whether it merited being approved.
Choosing not to belabor all of the points raised in his letter regarding the law, Mr. Durkee stated
he believed staff and Council probably were aware they would get processed, should they so
choose, and this was, in fact, what they choose. As the cornerstone, Mr. Durkee stated that if
Council understood they would be processed, it stole the value out of Option 2, because if they
(the applications) had to be processed, the City had to include them in the committee's update
of the General Plan. He explained this meant that when it is dealt with, one way or another, it is
the subject of a referendum, should that be the decision of the community. He stated that ballot
measures were part of this County's being, it was a reserved right of the citizenry and
something they understood and employed, which was to be expected. Mr. Durkee also stated
that the Task Force, including us in the General Plan Update, would have to include us in its
EIR. Whether or not they were there, he noted litigation in this County was somewhat of a
common occurrence also and the idea the City would duck that bullet, he believed to be a little
wishful thinking; he did not believe it would take place.
Mr. Durkee stated that more importantly, and perhaps something the City will have to wrestle
with if and when the City adopts Option 2 and has it brought back, is the following: He
explained they were on an eighteen -month schedule to have their EIR completed, that was the
level of critique considered appropriate for development of this site. Should it be included in the
City's EIR, which it must as they would be appending application, Mr. Durkee indicated that
same level should be done in the General Plan Update EIR, which would take roughly the same
time frame. Unless his math was mistaken, he stated he did not understand why
independently, it would take eighteen months but less than that if included in the existing EIR;
however, perhaps there were some efficiencies of scale involved.
Stating the action taken by Council this evening had its own consequences, Mr. Durkee
explained that should Option 2 be adopted, the City would realize what California was dealing
with. Taking out a piece of the pie would not remove the development pressure, rather would
increase on the remaining pieces of the pie. He indicated that meant that part of the
environmental critique for an action the City might take was what consequential or indirect
impacts might result from us (Shapell) taking this property out of the inventory of potential
development. He questioned whether the places it would be displaced or shifted to were the
same, better, or worse at handling the impacts that would be realized. In other words, he stated
it really was not "ostrich head in the sand" stuff, the development pressure was not removed,
rather it just shifted, according to ABAG, COGS and the State Legislation. Therefore, he
questioned where it would go, and whether it was better suited there than where the City
already believed it was better suited, at least for the past fifteen years.
Thanking Council for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Durkee stated he did not know whether this
project and the alternative to it would ever secure their support, as that was, in fact, what the
process was about. He believed there could be ballot measures; lawsuits were also likely and
they (Shapell) were not going away. Indicating Councilmembers were good and reasonable
people, Mr. Durkee stated they had every belief they would step up to their responsibilities and
do the right thing; however, regardless, they would continue with their applications.
Neil Sorensen, Attorney representing the Silveira family, stated he was present on behalf of the
family to urge Council to reject the resolution. He explained there was no rational basis for its
adoption, no rational basis to back out of the MOU that was signed some years ago, and
transfer land use planning to the County. Mr. Sorensen stated the reasons given in the staff
report that the County could back out of the MOU, had somehow changed its mind on this
issue and that the City could get sued in the future, he believed to be speculations, rumor and
hearsay, was planning by maybes and not what San Rafael does, nor was it its history.
According to the resolution, Mr. Sorensen stated staff was basing it on recent comments made
by certain members of the Marin County Board of Supervisors. He indicated that Council was
well aware from the Brown Act that it takes a public meeting and vote of the Board of
Supervisors to do anything. Individual comments by individual members were meaningless; it
was not possible to base a decision such as this on that type of speculation and hearsay.
As had been articulated by members of the St. Vincent's team, Mr. Sorensen stated that should
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 9
the resolution be passed, the City would lose up to 1,800 housing units it had been counting on,
and he questioned how these units could be made up. He indicated Council could not state
they would approve sufficient second units and enough infill housing to make up this magnitude
of units; it would not happen and any place where it was proposed to do this type of housing
would have the same or greater opposition being faced presently.
Most importantly, Mr. Sorensen stated this resolution was an outrageous way to treat the
Silveira family and St. Vincent's, as it informed them they had wasted their time in the past
three planning processes. Noting staff outlined there had been three different processes over
the past twenty years, Mr. Sorensen stated the Silveiras had spent thousands of dollars and
hundreds of hours of their time attending these meetings, paying consultants to attend the
meetings and passing this resolution was informing them they had wasted their time. Having
played by the rules and participating in the process, it got them nowhere.
Mr. Sorensen implored Council not to throw away the twenty years of planning completed,
based on maybes, speculation and rumor. He requested that Council have the courage to
stand behind the process set forth in the past and that set forth in state law to allow, not only
the St. Vincent's application to go forward, rather whatever happened on the Silveira property.
Noting the City was facing enormous political pressure, Mr. Sorensen stated that basically this
was a political exercise and not really land use planning. If the City had to do something, he
suggested they take one of the other options from staff and put this off until the General Plan
Update, which was ongoing. He indicated that some type of CEQA review would need to be
done to amend the General Plan, analysis would need to be done, Planning Commission
hearings would be required prior to amending the General Plan and an EIR would have to be
adopted, and he suggested doing this as part of the ongoing General Plan Update. Mr.
Sorensen stated this was the correct way, it was San Rafael's legacy of always standing up for
the correct way to do things and he urged Council to do so now.
Mr. Sorensen stated that staff postulated this would create lawsuits and he submitted that no
matter what was done on this property, there would be lawsuits. He urged Council not to
prejudge this process, noting the City Attorney had stated this evening's meeting was not to
amend the General Plan, which was correct; however, the resolution recommended for
adoption indicated Council wanted staff to return with an amendment to take these properties
out of the City's Sphere of Influence, and this, he indicated, was prejudging the process.
Whether all of the properties should be taken out, or perhaps portions left in should be analyzed
by the planning staff, Planning Commission and through an EIR. He again urged Council not to
prejudge the process by adopting this resolution as it was cutting the process short, cheating
not only the citizens of San Rafael, but themselves also. Mr. Sorensen urged Council not to
throw away thirty years of planning and reject this resolution.
Mayor Boro invited members of the Advisory Task Force to address Council, requesting they
contain their comments to approximately three minutes.
Fred Divine stated he was one of the community at large members of the Advisory Task Force
and he would be brief, noting the property owners had already addressed some of his issues.
Mr. Divine indicated his belief that this Council and staff had been the leaders in this County for
a long time in so many planning processes and this was so important to the County, being a
major initiative. Appreciating the staff report was well reasoned and detailed, he believed the
principle underneath to be the main issue. Explaining, he stated that from what he had learned,
the Advisory Task Force recommendations still stood. Everyone believed in them and should
that be the case, he was having trouble understanding the options before Council. Mr. Divine
agreed with comments that the only apparent change was an election and some threats
concerning November, 2003; however, the challenges were unchanged. He noted that the
challenges referred to in the staff report, even LAFCO, were all there through the process, and
while it was unknown what would transpire in these next several elections, the process would
take a lot of time. Mr. Divine noted there would be several elections, at the County and City
levels, there would be lawsuits, etc., and being unaware of their outcome, it was recognized
they would be challenging.
Reiterating that nothing had changed, Mr. Divine stated the principles put forth in the Advisory
Task Force recommendations were for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of this
community. At the end of the day, this needed to remain in San Rafael, as San Rafael was the
only body that would lead in the process. He noted it had been San Rafael's to lead with, the
City was aware that the issues raised were critical and that ultimately, the concern was for
people, not the environment or traffic. He stated that when the West Marin areas were
preserved thirty years ago, a different type of community existed in San Rafael; it was diverse
and economic, all had a chance to live and grow in this community, which was not true today,
and that was the reason for the importance of staying the course on these issues.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 10
Patsy White, Advisory Task Force member, representing housing, zeroing in on that particular
portion of the report and its importance because of the housing crisis in this community and
State, believed the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties to be the place to put this. While it
would take some time, she believed it should happen. The Task Force report itself also
preserved the Baylands and saved substantial environmental areas on the property, doing what
was necessary in this County, and she urged Council to continue with the process and not
abandon the need for the process or housing.
Nona Dennis, Environmental representative on the Advisory Task Force stated she was also
speaking on behalf of Marge Macris, environmental representative. Because such an emphasis
had been placed on environmental opposition and lists at the beginning of the staff report, she
believed it to be important to comment. Ms. Dennis stated she supported the Option 2
resolution, believing it to be essential that the full public be allowed to comment in some
manner on the proposed plans from Shapell, as well as long term plans for the Silveira ranch.
Addressing two misapprehensions, Ms. Dennis indicated the first related to the point made in
the staff report to the effect that two environmentalists chose not to follow the recommendations
of the Task Force. To clear up a point, she indicated they concluded the Task Force
deliberations with a wide discrepancy in the amount of development these properties could
sustain. Ms. Dennis stated it had been called a consensus document, had been interpreted as
a consensus document and was almost as though they threw out the limit of 500 dwelling units
as a bargaining chip in order to obtain 1,000 or 1,200. From the moment they concluded
discussions, the interpretation was that all agreed to some type of upper middle range of
dwelling unit level of development; however, she explained this was not the case and there was
a wide discrepancy. She indicated that the recommendations of the Advisory Task Force were
intended to be submitted for review and consideration in the San Rafael General Plan Update
project.
Ms. Dennis reported that for two and a half years, the Task Force recommendations had
essentially, sat on a shelf and had not been subject to broader public review. A facilitated
process was not full public response; therefore, when the public finally had an opportunity to
comment at the ballot box on this project, they did so. She noted they were not voting on the
competence of prospective Supervisors, rather it was in effect, a referendum on the project.
This, stated Ms. Dennis, revealed to her that it was not merely environmentalists, rather those
who drive in traffic, even fiscal conservatives who had concern about the project. She urged
Council not to hold the environmentalists entirely responsible; while they were extremely
involved, there was a larger public that must be heard from before making a final decision on
the project.
Joe Walsh, Chairman of the Board of EAH (Ecumenical Association for Housing) and member
of the last St. Vincent's/Silveira Task Force, stated that when Council requested he and his
Task Force colleagues to make a General Plan recommendation on the last developable large
property remaining on the 101 corridor, paying special attention to preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas and providing fairness to the property, they did an excellent job.
He explained the fact that two "environmental community" representatives had since reneged
on the agreements achieved through so much civilized compromise, was not only disgusting,
rather it boded very badly for future accommodations with these people. He questioned
whether all of the hard work and carefully crafted recommendations were to be flushed away
because some of the public had been misled into thinking there was no difference between
good development and the sprawl that had led to this mess. Mr. Walsh stated the City's own
traffic experts proved to the Task Force that these housing units would be built somewhere and
the traffic would get even worse. He questioned whether it made environmental sense to have
that somewhere be prime Sonoma agricultural land and then put more polluting commuters on
(Highway) 101.
As part of the City's General Plan Update, Mr. Walsh stated City staff and the consortium for
workforce housing had been pouring over some seventy odd possible affordable housing sites.
He indicated these would probably be pared down to approximately fifteen feasible sites and all
would be hotly contested. Should the first site be "caved" on, the best one of all, because of
the threats of an elitist, NIMBY population, Mr. Walsh questioned whether the actualization of
those to follow would become easier, or more difficult. He stated all the NIMBYS would have to
do on the next one would be to threaten to do mischief.
Mr. Walsh sympathized with the real concerns about money, lawsuits and referenda and was
aware the City had a fiduciary responsibility and political futures to ponder; however, he
indicated there never would be a more practical and morally correct opportunity to provide vital
community benefits. He suggested forming a partnership, explaining that should the public be
informed about the overwhelming benefits to be realized from proper development of this
magnificent site, he believed they would enthusiastically come on board.
Mr. Walsh stated that EAH, the Marin Athletic Commission, the San Rafael Chamber of
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 11
Commerce and many other organizations would be available to provide resources, time,
volunteers and whatever else it took to see the dream realized. He indicated that support and
leadership were needed now from this Council.
Judy Binsaca stated she was the representative from the League of Women Voters on the St.
Vincent's/Silveira Task Force. She explained that the League of Women Voters of Marin
County had been associated for over a decade with planning efforts for the St.
Vincent's/Silveira properties. She stated they commended the City Council and staff for their
commitment of money and energy to support and sustain this long term, comprehensive
process, where all the stakeholder interests were represented and carefully considered. She
expressed special thanks to Community Development Director Bob Brown for his exemplary
leadership in this process.
Ms. Binsaca reported that the League had consistently supported what it considered to be
compatible positions in its participation in the planning process, balancing the overwhelming
need for affordable housing with the protection of the environmental features of this site and
fairness to the owners. She stated they would continue to support these positions, even if a
decision was made to change the jurisdiction responsible for making the planning decisions on
these properties. Ms. Binsaca indicated they had strongly supported permanent set aside and
protection of valuable baylands on the eastern edge of the properties, and the preservation of
wildlife habitat in general. In doing this, she reported they relied on the extensive regional
ecological studies contained in the baylands ecosystem habitat goals project, published in
1999. She stated this was a cooperative effort that included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the California Department of Fish and Game, Save San Francisco Bay Association, The
California Coastal Conservancy, and the National Audubon Society, including the Marin
chapter. Ms. Binsaca stated this was now the generally accepted document used by groups
involved in saving the baylands and wetlands.
She reported that the League also has a position supporting the three corridor policy contained
in the 1973 countywide General Plan and its 1994 update, in which the St. Vincent's/Silveira
properties lie in the City Centered Corridor, as it provides the potential for a meaningful amount
of workforce housing.
Ms. Binsaca stated they believe the creation of a well-designed community in harmony with the
environment would enrich the Marin community.
She urged that as the long range planning for St. Vincent's/Silveira moves forward, a
comprehensive and thoughtful public process be continued and the participants be committed
to a shared solution beneficial to everyone. Noting that sound open public process takes time,
Ms. Binsaca stated it, however, improves the legitimacy of decision-making and in the end,
would create a healthy and diverse Marin community.
Shiloh Crowell, concerned resident of Marin County, having read the staff report indicated she
sadly understood the recommendation was seen as the least of evils. Ms. Crowell stated it was
her belief that the City of San Rafael was in a better position than the County to handle
processing development plans for this site; however, she understood the situation the City was
in. She indicated that many in the community had been duped by no growth advocates posing
as environmentalists; however, she and others like her had not. Ms. Crowell stated their
campaign slogan that developing desperately needed housing would increase congestion was
a lie; that was not the traffic problem, she was the traffic problem. She explained that she and
her husband work in San Rafael and for many years up until last summer, also lived in San
Rafael, walking to work in less than ten minutes. On deciding they wished to start a family, they
needed to obtain somewhere to live which was larger than their studio and being unable to
locate anything in San Rafael within their price range, Ms. Crowell stated that as with many of
her peers, they were forced to look further north.
Ms. Crowell reported having purchased their first home last June in Hamilton, thereby adding
one more car to the southbound traffic between Novato and San Rafael, between 8:30 and 9:00
a.m. every weekday morning; her husband is also alone in his car, traveling that same route
earlier in the morning. She stated she would love to be able to get to work somehow other than
sitting in the 101 parking lot by herself in her car. She questioned why the voters in Marin
County had repeatedly failed to pass transportation measures that would have provided
reasonable alternatives; however, believed the reason to be the hysterical fear instilled in them
that creating transportation alternatives would be growth inducing, and she did not blame them.
Ms. Crowell noted people did not have time to research the issues other than by reading the
loudest paid advertising, as they already were wasting too much time sitting on the freeway.
With regard to the sites being permanently preserved to remain a view corridor, she questioned
what else she would have to look at during the thirty minutes it takes to drive between three
exits. In a recent letter to the Marin Independent Journal, she noted that fortunately, Don
Dickenson sounded as though he had found the money to foot the bill and she wished to see
the money as well as where in Mr. Dickenson's neighborhood that lost housing would go.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 12
Learning that a member of the Board of Supervisors recently inquired as to what the growth
feeling was in the County, Ms. Crowell responded it was when couples like her decided they did
not want to have children, following China's example of limiting births per family. Until then, she
stated a plan was needed for smart growth on the precious remaining developable parcels so
that on finally getting home from work, they would have time to enjoy the heritage of open
space that remains 85% of Marin County.
Agreeing that if it was built they would come, Ms. Crowell stated they would come back from
their financial exiles, work their jobs vital to the vibrant community and get off the freeway. She
reported being unable to vote in the recent election upon which the possible future political
climate was based; she had to move from San Rafael, but would be voting in future County
issues, and she and others like her would support efforts to reasonably develop St.
Vincent's/Silveira.
Don Dickenson, San Rafael resident, stated he had spent three and one half years on the first
City Task Force looking at the property, and was speaking this evening as the President of
Citizen Advocates for the Preservation of St. Vincent's and Silveira.
Having read through the staff report carefully, Mr. Dickenson stated he found it to be a generally
accurate and surprisingly frank description of the current circumstances the City finds itself in.
After years of valiant efforts by the City, he stated it was clear the community was not even
close to agreeing on a broad consensus vision for the future of these high profile properties,
and probably never would. The disagreement over the properties had clearly become a
political, financial and legal quagmire for the City that could create significant problems for the
new General Plan.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Dickenson stated the staff recommendations were certainly
prudent and were actions he strongly urged Council to take this evening, i.e., indicating the
City's determination not to enact or to serve the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties, directing
LAFCO to remove the properties from the City's Sphere of Influence in Urban Service Area,
directing staff to prepare amendments to the existing City General Plan to accomplish this
through hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and forward this
determination to the current General Plan Steering Committee for incorporation into the new
City General Plan.
Mr. Dickenson stated it required wise public officials to realize when, in the best interests of the
entire community, it was time to change course on long standing public policy, particularly on an
issue as significant as this. In anticipation that Council would follow the staff recommendation
and do exactly what he described, he commended them.
Alan Scotch, San Rafael, sympathized with the St. Vincent's people for all the time spent going
through the process to arrive at this stage; however, doubted very much that the County would
not let them go through with what they wanted, as far as their own environment was concerned.
He reminded Council of a public meeting of the Board of Supervisors to discuss St. Vincent's
attended by Community Development Director Bob Brown. He reported that during that public
meeting, a member of the Board of Supervisors publicly stated she thought "St. Vincent's
should be 100% affordable."
Mr. Scotch reminded Council that of the St. Vincent's 766 units, only 184 were affordable and
the remaining would be priced between $600,000 and $900,000.
Mayor Boro reminded Mr. Scotch that tonight's discussion did not relate to the merits of the
project.
Noting that the attorneys referred to a state bill that would impose financial penalties on cities
that did not have certified housing elements, Mr. Scotch reminded Council that that bill did not
pass.
Reporting that St. Vincent's was in the General Plan thirty years ago, Mr. Scotch stated that to-
day's congestion did not compare in any way with that time, being an altogether different
situation.
Mr. Scotch encouraged the City to continue pursuing with the League of California Cities
appropriate and reasonable revisions to the State Housing Element Law, and calling for its
reform. He proposed proceeding with Option 2.
Sister Marian Irvine, resident of San Rafael and member of the Dominican Sisters of San
Rafael, a congregation of 142 religious women, more than half of whom reside in Marin County,
reminded all present that the first persons on the St. Vincent's property in 1868 were the
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 13
Dominican Sisters of San Rafael. Sister Irvine explained that St. Vincent's was an orphanage
for boys and not living in Marin County at the time, the Sisters commuted from Benicia to serve
the orphanage. They had observed the wonderful work of the CYO for the past twenty years
and cared about justice both to the CYO and the Silveira families on the properties.
With regard to the housing possibility, Sister Irvine stated they believed that housing
development on these properties, limited to 15% to include affordable and workforce housing
while preserving 85% for open space, was a very reasonable proposition and inquired why both
could not be achieved, i.e., open space preservation and housing, when the need for affordable
housing in the community was recognized as great.
Sister Irvine stated it had been an established fact that 30% of the County's workforce
commutes from outside Marin, with more than 16,000 traveling down Highway 101 from
Sonoma County daily, due in large part to Marin's high housing costs. She indicated these
numbers included public safety workers, policemen, firemen, paramedics, nurses, together with
a high percentage of teachers, and many of Marin's employers list a lack of workforce housing
as the most serious obstacle to the County's economic health.
She believed that those who advocate for housing and those who are strict environmentalists
could bring about a more just society in the County; however, to do so necessitated working
together in caring about the well-being of all concerned, and the question of whose values were
behind the housing crisis in Marin needed to be raised.
Sister Irvine stated it was their recommendation to pursue Option 1, indicating that the City, not
the County, should be the lead agency in the process and that the completion of applications
and the EIR should go on before a final decision is made. She stated they recognized the
housing crisis would continue and worsen as long as the choice was to hope it would go away,
adding there was no "going away" solution to this problem.
William Rothman, Belvedere resident, stated his presence and that of others not residing in San
Rafael was due to the fact that although the San Rafael City Council may or may not consider
this an issue other people should address, these people did feel the need to address it and
considered it a County issue.
Mr. Rothman stated that by permitting long presentations at the beginning of the meeting by
those who for whatever reason were in favor of the development, enabled them to present a
coherent, large and full picture dealing with issues from morality to lawsuits. He hoped Council
recognized that those not afforded a similar opportunity could not make a fuller case; he noted
they had made a much fuller case, for instance, in the recent election, which many considered a
referendum.
Alluding to a previous speaker who stated "don't concede to the County," in other words, stay
the course, Mr. Rothman suggested that turning it back to the County would not be conceding
to the County, rather conceding to the voters. Referring to a previous speaker's remarks that
those in opposition were "mischief makers," and explaining how the mischief was made, he
indicated they had a sign which stated "don't build on St. Vincent's/Silveria." He reported they
stated that one candidate wanted to build and the other did not, indicating this was not
deceptive and would be done again.
Mr. Rothman stated the reason for Councils and Representatives was the inability to fit every
resident "behind the table" and in an ideal sense, he believed all elected officials took the
public's opinions and then acted upon them. He stated that "political" meant "democracy,"
which he was not against and assumed Council was not against either.
Having spoken to probably more San Rafael voters than any member on the Council speaks to
in several years, he urged them to listen to what the public says, as ultimately, every elected
official should be responsive to the public, not to the attorneys who represent those, who for
their own purposes, want development.
Elissa Giambastiani, CEO, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and San Rafael resident of 37
years, stated it was with great disappointment that she drafted a letter today, as many had been
counting on Council's leadership to create housing for Marin's workforce on the St. Vincent's
and Silveira properties.
She indicated it was also unbelievable to learn that members of the Board of Supervisors would
go back on their word and rescind the MOU after participating in the lengthy process to
determine the development potential of the properties. This, she stated, would make the
County's MOUs worthless, should it be possible to overturn them at any time in the future when
the composition of the Board changed.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 14
Should Council decide this evening not to annex the properties, Ms. Giambastiani stated it did
not mean that members of the no -growth community had won, nor did it make the critical need
for affordable workforce housing go away. In fact, she stated, it would make the residents of
San Rafael quite unhappy when they realized that the housing potential for these properties
would now have to be incorporated within the City limits, which would mean more housing in
neighborhoods and commercial areas. She indicated the City could not have it both ways.
As was earlier stated, Ms. Giambastiani reported it was clear the State was getting tougher with
cities that did not want to create acceptable housing elements or plan housing with no intention
of building it. She indicated the State would not hesitate to take funding from cities that would
not create their fair share of housing; San Rafael residents could expect to have money
withheld from their city if housing numbers were not met.
Reporting that members of the no -growth community, including the recently elected Supervisor,
stated that the ABAG housing numbers could be met through infill, Ms. Giambastiani stated
they should stand up and demonstrate where this infill could be, stand up with them (the
housing advocates) and champion workforce housing, instead of just saying "No" to any site
proposed.
Should Council decide not to annex these properties, she indicated the battle would not go
away, rather just shift. Because of the agreement made in the 1972 General Plan that traded
development at the eastern urban corridor in exchange for no development in West Marin, she
stated it was quite likely the A60 zoning would be challenged.
Ms. Giambastiani reported that for decades, the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties had been
designated for development. A previous challenge to the A60 zoning was denied, only because
of the agreement to place development in the eastern corridor.
Reporting that one of the underlying conditions both the County and City agreed to during the
study of the properties was, as many speakers had alluded to this evening, fairness to the
property owners, Ms. Giambastiani questioned the fairness should the County reduce
development potential on the properties, the fairness to the severely disadvantages children
being served at St. Vincent's School for Boys or the fairness to property owners who had
protected these lands for over one hundred years. She stated that if leaders of the no growth
community wanted these lands to remain undeveloped, they should do two things:
1) Find the money to pay fair market value for the properties; and
2) Designate and support infill housing sites in San Rafael.
Stating this was not the end of the housing struggle, Ms. Giambastiani reported the need was
great and the housing advocates were not going away.
Kyle Kileman, Marin County resident since 1959, currently living in Terra Linda, stated he
rarely hears "cut to the chase" talk in city, or any government. He reported having been
involved in the last several years with a number of City Councils in Marin County; however, this
was his first opportunity to speak before this Council.
He indicated that tonight he heard the unvarnished truth — "Option 2 saves your neck." He
explained that eight months ago while standing in front of Scotty's Market, someone gave him a
Susan Adams flyer, and what he read enraged him so much that he worked as hard as he
could to convince people to vote for Ms. Adams, believing that not only would she be the best
possible candidate, but that the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties needed to be saved
because in his 40+ years living in Marin County, he had seen it turn into a mini Los Angeles.
Noting that no one had mentioned another referendum that was held in Novato, Mr. Kileman
stated that people there, just as in San Rafael, did not want gigantic developments with no
regard to traffic, water consumption, etc. As one of the "grassroots," he indicated he had had
enough and to call him a "zero-growther" would be fine, as he did not believe one more house
should be built in this County.
Mr. Kileman stated he had seen this County go from a place he loved to one he hated. For him,
relocating was complicated; no one had addressed the very interesting concept that children
had to live with decisions being made now. Rather than more development in Marin County,
he stated a complete reassessment of what was going on was needed. In his view, the only
people in favor of St. Vincent's, with a few exceptions, were those who stood to make money.
Concluding, Mr. Kileman noted Council had heard some threats this evening and while not
wishing to make a threat, he indicated that should they not choose Option 2 this evening, to-
morrow he would return to being a grassroots activist.
Noting Mr. Kileman wished to preserve St. Vincent's, Mayor Boro inquired how he proposed to
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 14
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 15
do this.
Responding, Mr. Kileman indicated he did not know as he was not a politician
Noting he was not a political person, Mayor Boro inquired whether Mr. Kileman, wished to pay
for it.
Mr. Kileman stated he believed the Audobon Society had expressed an interest in the property.
Mayor Boro indicated that they might have an opportunity.
Dotty LeMieux indicated she represented the moderate Sierra Club, was the Chair of the Sierra
Club in Marin County and worked with the Sierra Club at the State level, which presently was
working on a Livable Communities Initiative that hopefully, would help with some of the
problems under discussion, such as, where to locate housing, how to create housing, where to
get the money to purchase housing and also protect the environment.
Ms. LeMieux commended staff for not caving in to threats from attorneys and others, and also
for not falling for the illusion that building at St. Vincent's and Silveira would actually provide the
affordable housing the community and County needed as a whole. She noted the housing
would not be built in time to meet the current recommendations and would not be enough
affordable housing.
Stating that the Sierra Club was dedicated to seeing affordable housing, Ms. LeMieux indicated
their willingness to meet the challenge laid down this evening by the housing advocates to work
with them and the City to find those sites where affordable housing could be built, and also to
find other creative options such as housing trusts, in an effort to retain current housing and not
allow it to become unaffordable. She stated she evidenced tonight the beginnings of the
working together of this community for its betterment, and commended the City Council and
staff for so doing. She stated she could be called upon any time and would be happy to
ascertain how the Sierra Club could help.
Alice Vipiana stated she had read the CYO letter and that from Shapell's attorney and was very
much in agreement with both, noting CYO requested to develop only 90% of their 835 acres
and this was hardly taking over the land completely.
Ms. Vipiana believed a group to stand up for children was needed, a group that would display
signs indicating "St. Vincent's and Silveira land for the children," adding that no matter where
people were put, either in Sonoma or the neighborhoods, they would end up on Highway 101.
She indicated the children were suffering, their parents were paying very high taxes, both being
required to work and travel long distances, leaving their children alone; hence, development
was needed close in.
She stated that a recent newspaper article reported that a Southern Marin school took children
to the Left Bank restaurant to teach them table manners because not dining with their families
they were not being taught table manners by parents. She questioned what else could be going
untaught to these children and what they were doing when their parents were not home. She
pondered whether not providing housing for these children could be adding to the criminal
element.
Ms. Vipiana stated that not putting housing on the Silveira land would not only deny these
children the closeness of their parents, rather the City would need to do so-called infilling. This
would impact the neighborhoods by packing people in like sardines; however, regardless of
location, these people would end up on Highway 101, being the only North/South vein. She
noted that locating people in the neighborhoods would also create backups in traffic getting to
Highway 101, commenting that such backups get longer each year, emitting more fumes into
the air.
Ms. Vipiana stated that the Adams campaign was not a one -issue campaign, rather a brilliantly
run campaign on many issues; however, the only one being talked about was the Silveira issue.
She indicated the City needed to educate people on the fact that only 20% of the land in Marin
is usable by the people, noting that when she encounters objectors to building on Silveira, it is
very easy for her to turn them around. Ms. Vipiana stated she would be willing to design an
education plan for the City, Shapell or CYO; there were many present this evening who were
aware she had taken issues virtually written in concrete, and on completion of her education
plan, the concrete slate was turned over.
She referred to a statement in the letter from Mr. Durkee, Shapell Attorney, to the effect that this
was really a matter of preference of the City to take the St. Vincent's/Silveira ranch off the
radar screen. Indicating her extensive experience in politics, she indicated the City was not
going to "out -Green the Greens." She requested that Councilmembers re -read the CYO and
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 15
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 16
Shapell's letters, and then vote their conscience, not their fears
Alex Foreman stated he represents most of the City of San Rafael on the Marin Municipal
Water District; however, was present this evening as an individual. Noting the merits of the
project were not under discussion this evening, while he was in agreement with many of the
statements made by the housing advocates and those concerned with saving the school, he
believed this was not really the issue. Explaining, Mr. Foreman stated the City was faced with a
very difficult decision and being an elected official, he was aware this was an issue no matter
what, someone would not like.
He stated the overriding principle was that governments secure their power from the consent of
the governed, and those most impacted by the outcome would be the people of Marinwood and
Lucas Valley. Mr. Foreman stated that in evaluating those precinct votes, it was evident these
people voted overwhelmingly for a candidate who stated she would work as hard as she could
to preserve these lands. He indicated that those Marinwood and Lucas Valley residents were
not represented by this body this evening; however, they were represented by a member of the
Board of Supervisors, a Board that also represents everyone else in the County.
Appreciating the efforts to make it a San Rafael issue, Mr. Foreman stated it was simply too big
for San Rafael. He stated the City Council represented the people of San Rafael and these
people did not want San Rafael to expand and build another big development. Regardless of
statements by lawyers or statements of genuine motivation, he stated San Rafael was not
obliged to do this. He believed the City was standing up for a basic principle of the people and
even those most impacted had also expressed their opposition.
Should it go to the County, although it was not known what it would mean, Mr. Foreman stated
it did not mean there would not be affordable housing there; however, he believed it would be a
fair and more democratic solution.
On the same theme, Mr. Foreman stated cities all over the state were being informed of the
requirement to build "x" number of houses to satisfy some formulaic decision made by
bureaucrats, none of whom lived or worked in that city, which was another example of not
playing by the consent of the governed. He indicated his awareness that the City Manager had
been attempting to reform this and believed San Rafael had to stand strong for that principle.
Although a tough one, he stated it was Council's job and City staff had shown them the way.
Juliette Anthony stated she found it amazing that no one discussed alternative sites for housing.
Being a pro housing and pro environmental person she reported having discussed with
Community Development Director Bob Brown and Sandy Greenblat, the fact that being covered
in asphalt, the Northgate Shopping Center offered a perfect opportunity for development of a
village where people could work and walk without the need for cars. Being sixty-three years
old, Ms. Anthony stated she would be retiring and wanted to move some place where she could
walk to the movies and grocery store and would not need a car.
Having worked diligently in Sacramento for the past four to five years against MTBE, she stated
it was going. She reported having worked on an environmental bill last summer for net
metering, her group taking on PG&E and Southern California Edison, and although having been
informed they would not win, they prevailed 78:0. She stated that Dutra's bill, referred to by the
Shapell representative, could be overturned. Ms. Anthony stated it was possible to go to
Sacramento, take on the state government and win, adding they were now working on the
federal government.
Ms. Anthony reported having evaluated a number of different sites in San Rafael and
articulating this information to Bob Brown and Sandy Greenblat. She received a packet from
the Burlington County Vermont Housing Agency with very fine financial solutions for affordable
housing.
Living in Marinwood, she stated she would be affected by the traffic and having also done
research on traffic, she reported she discussed with an expert at Berkeley ways to work the bus
lanes, global satellite positioning and all types of solutions not alluded to this evening.
Apologizing for contradicting Sister Marian Irvine, Ms. Anthony stated that St. Vincent's was
originally founded for girls.
Barbara Salzman, representing the Marin Audubon Society, urged Council to vote in support of
the staff recommendation. She stated they found it a wise recommendation, being responsive
to the citizens of San Rafael, as well as the environmental constraints on the site. She stated
they are interested in protecting those properties and having their next campaign be to
purchase St. Vincent's and Silveira. As part of their campaign with Marin Baylands advocates,
they expect to close on their fourth site and she reported that none of the properties purchased
had been unfair to property owners, indicating that because a site was purchased did not mean
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 16
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 17
some unfair value would be placed on it to the detriment of the property owners
With Bahia, Ms. Salzman stated they found working with local government, county, and
property owner to be a very powerful partnership accomplishing what was assumed to have
been impossible.
She expressed their desire to work with the City and the property owners to be fair and protect
this property for future generations, not merely future generations of wildlife. Ms. Salzman
explained that growing up in Philadelphia, everything was developed, and she believed it
important to protect properties that had incredible environmental values for the benefit of this
and future generations, as well as with wildlife.
Jim Gonzman stated he had lived in Marin County for approximately thirty-three years and for
the past ten years, in San Rafael. He expressed satisfaction with the staff recommendation and
was present to urge the City Council to accept it and adopt measures to implement the
recommendations.
Noting many people had addressed many reasons for such action, to mention one, Mr.
Gonzman stated there was significant opposition in the community to this project, as there
would be to any like project. Simultaneously, there was substantial support for preserving the
property. Mr. Gonzman stated it was not in the interest of the community to become engaged
in a long, expensive, contentious legal battle over the property as it would not serve the welfare
of the San Rafael community.
For those concerned about the fate of the current property owners, Mr. Gonzman stated that as
Ms. Salzman had expressed, these properties could be acquired with public money. It would
not be done locally, rather would require a concerted effort at the local, state and federal levels,
noting it had happened, was happening and would happen in the future in Marin County. Mr.
Gonzman indicated he had been and would continue to be involved in that effort and the
property owners would be compensated at fair market value.
Roger Roberts, San Rafael resident since 1981, recalled an argument presented earlier this
evening to the effect that the applicants and property owners had relied upon planning
indications that this property was in the Sphere of Influence of the City of San Rafael, pursuant
to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County of Marin, and that they would be
unjustly treated and not given due process should Council adopt the recommendation of staff.
Mr. Roberts explained that a Memorandum of Understanding is a simple contract between the
City and County, which could be rescinded at any time by either party; the property owners and
any potential developers are aware of this meaning and for the County or City to withdraw from
the MOU is completely within both parties' rights. Mr. Roberts indicated there is no
capriciousness in this act, particularly in light of the City's desire to avoid contentious, and quite
probably, unnecessary legal costs and action.
Mr. Roberts inquired where the "beef" was for the property owners and developers. Should the
City not proceed with the planning process, Mr. Roberts stated the County would. A plan would
be presented which would be heard at the County without prejudice; therefore, the City Council
had no reason not to adopt the recommendation of staff and Mr. Roberts urged them to do so.
Phil Peterson, residing in Blackpoint and a Marin resident for forty some years, indicated he
was present to add his voice to a growing chorus of those who believe the effort should be
focused on preserving St. Vincent's and Silveira properties and not pursuing a development
plan such as Shapell Industries'. He stated the staff report gave him optimism that the City of
San Rafael was arriving at that same inevitable conclusion.
He reported over the past few years having followed the process undertaken by the St.
Vincent's/Silveira Task Force, which declared it had arrived at a consensus of all stakeholders;
however, many, including Mr. Peterson, disputed this claim. He reported also having
participated in the Department of the Interior's efforts to establish a Marin Baylands National
Wildlife Refuge, the creation of which would have included the St. Vincent's and Silveira
properties within its area, and as such, provided federal funds to acquire these sites.
Mr. Peterson indicated the Fish and Wildlife Service would be positioned to assist in making a
fair market value purchase, help fund the church's future endowment and stave off a traffic
nightmare such as that associated with the current development plan.
To those concerned about the housing shortage in Marin, Mr. Peterson indicated his belief that
it was necessary to get over the notion that the housing component for the Shapell Industries'
project would somehow, alleviate Marin's affordable workforce housing backlog. He reported
the proposed project includes over 120,000 square feet of commercial development.
Mayor Boro suggested not getting into the details of the project.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 17
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 18
Mr. Peterson indicated that the number of employees necessary to fill new jobs such as those
would create a greater demand for affordable workforce housing than the project would provide
and this calculation did not include all of the low wage service workers needed.
He stated the clear solution was the preservation of St. Vincent's/Silveira properties for their
natural resources in a way that would bring fair market economic compensation to the owners
and to this end, all should be working together on funding possibilities to make it a reality.
Jan Vasquez, long time San Rafael resident, believed this evening's meeting was due to the
election of Susan Adams, noting this had been perceived as a sea change from the MOU that
had been in place for a number of years; she saw Ms. Adams' election as a statement of
frustration with traffic. She indicated that a lot of people had simply met their tolerance point and
to suggest one more car on any street was one more than could be tolerated.
Ms. Vasquez also noted that the characteristic of traffic in Marin County had changed. While
there were morning and evening commutes, significantly, there was traffic all day long, which
was a reflection of people's lifestyles.
Noting the staff report reflected the various potential pitfalls between now and some future date,
Ms. Vasquez pointed out that no one could see the future. Politics being an uneven course, she
recommended not taking any action this evening or in the near term, rather continuing to
process the EIR. She indicated that completion of the EIR would provide a base of information.
The EIR would contain a "no project" alternative, which essentially would be not to build
anything, and is a position a lot of people support. She favored, however, a major outreach to
the community, not only the City of San Rafael, rather to the other most effected neighborhoods
in the County to bring to them whatever the EIR indicated, including alternatives, and
subsequently, to the public in an advisory measure on the ballot.
Noting reference this evening to having a democracy, Ms. Vasquez stated she had a great deal
of faith in the public and whether it be the Board of Supervisors or the City Council, all
politicians did represent their constituencies; therefore, why not hear from the public. She
added this needed to be done as a major education program.
Alternatively, should the City decide to relinquish jurisdiction over this area to the County, she
did not believe public outreach would be the same. Should there be too little development on
the property, there could be the most odd of circumstances, even a referendum, due to too little
development, and this would come from the housing advocates.
With regard to traffic, Ms. Vasquez indicated that in the long view, the Bay Area would continue
to densify. Since the time they yelled "gold," the State of California had increased at an
incredible rate, and currently, is increasing its population not because people are moving into
the state, rather because children are being born in California.
Ms. Vasquez suggested the City Council consider some very long term ideas, including
breaking the MOU with the County that would prohibit a transit stop at the St. Vincent's/Silveira
property, explaining that with no transit there, there would be no alternative for another means
of transportation. While perhaps only putting a dent in the commute traffic, she stated it would
address the all day traffic.
Should the City reach the point of considering a rail installation, Ms. Vasquez suggested making
it compatible with BART because as the County densifies, the network of transportation
throughout the Bay Area needs to be evaluated.
Jeff Schoppert, Terra Linda, stated he had two children enrolled in the public schools, was the
part-owner of a San Rafael business employing fifteen people, his wife teaches at a public
school in San Rafael and he was present to oppose the adoption of the proposed resolution.
Having read the thoughtfully constructed and persuasively argued staff report, he believed it
missed the point and did not address the leadership role provided by the City Council on the
workforce housing issues that would be so radically effected should the project be abandoned
back to the County.
While understanding that Council's decision on the resolution would be motivated by the cold
reality of politics and the need to balance competing public interests, Mr. Schoppert inquired as
to what would happen to the creation of workforce housing in the community should the issue
be turned over to the County.
Mr. Schoppert indicated he was impressed by the number of people who had risen in support of
the adoption of the resolution, noting that almost uniformly, those in favor of the resolution had
indicated their desire for Council to adopt the resolution, as it would mean no development and
no creation of affordable workforce housing on the St. Vincent's/Silveira site.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 18
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 19
From a personal viewpoint, he stated that lack of workforce housing in the community was the
greatest barrier to the hiring and retention of employees in his business, from the professional
down to the clerical level. Mr. Schoppert stated these people were vital to the community as
those who work and live in the same community were the life -blood of participatory democracy
and an irreplaceable resource for community and public service volunteers. He noted that each
of the people in his business participated to a great degree in those affairs.
He reported that his wife is a member of an eight -teacher department in a public high school
and during the past three years, nearly half of that department had left San Rafael because
they could not find affordable housing for themselves and their families.
Mr. Schoppert applauded the City's past efforts to develop workforce housing and looked
forward to supporting future efforts. Should the process be abandoned back to the County,
housing advocates would remain, and he believed the City owed it to public school students,
those living and working in San Rafael and the property owners, to treat them fairly and not
back off simply because of the tough political decision. He indicated the City of San Rafael had
the staff and leadership capabilities not yet demonstrated at the County level and he urged
Council not to adopt the resolution.
Robert Farnham, 11 Dolphin Isle, Bel Marin Keys, stated the election of Susan Adams very
clearly indicated the course of action Council should take this evening; he had lived in
Marinwood for twenty-three years and fully supported their mandate. Mr. Farnham explained
he came to San Rafael in 1955, residing on Forbes Avenue, and since then, development had
caused Highway 101 to expand from a two-lane country road to a six to eight lane parking lot,
with no corresponding improvement in the quality of life.
Mr. Farnham stated it was a pleasant surprise that after fifty years, there could be a halt to at
least some unnecessary development and he applauded Council for considering abandoning
plans for annexing the St. Vincent's/Silveira lands. He urged them to do so for the benefit of not
only North San Rafael, but also for the benefit of the entire County.
With respect to housing regulations requiring housing to be constructed, as an engineer, he did
not believe there was anything in the U.S. Constitution that addresses housing, and doubted
whether there was anything in the State Constitution. He, therefore, was unsure as to why the
City should await the State's direction on housing quantity. Should litigation be possible in one
case, it certainly would be possible to fight such regulations, and he urged the City to do so.
Colin Russell, Mill Valley resident and San Rafael business owner, reported having just lost his
top employee, the highest paid person on his staff, who for three years had lived in Petaluma in
a condominium. This employee and his wife, wishing to start a family and purchase a house,
found they could afford a ten -acre parcel containing a house in Auburn for the same cost as a
very small three-bedroom house in Rohnert Park, and the choice was compelling. Having two
teenage sons, one of whom would attend college next year, Mr. Russell stated that at this rate,
he did not foresee them affording a house in Marin County.
With regard to the proposed project, Mr. Russell stated that if not here, where, and if not now
when? After twenty years of trying, these property owners had come up with a project that is
fully 85% open space, and he inquired whether this was not preservation. Coming from Los
Angeles, he stated this was nothing like LA, rather a County that itself is 85% open space,
noting the quality of life in Marin to be wonderful compared to Los Angeles.
Mr. Russell stated this was an award-winning inclusive design proposal, which if built, would
become a model for future communities and even though tonight's decision was difficult, he
urged the City Council to stay the course and continue to process the applications, being the
correct thing to do.
Dirk Brinckerhoff, stated he had been a San Rafael resident for approximately fifty-five years,
had watched Terra Linda and Marinwood being built and wished all that housing had not been
built so that he could still wander those valleys. Despite this, he indicated he is the chairman of
the Workforce Housing Committee because people needed to live and work in San Rafael,
rather than being on the highways. They understood the motivation for staff's recommendation
and were disappointed that it should come to this.
Noting that Council had been requested to abandon the project and accept staff's proposal
because the St. Vincent's and Silveira projects would not solve the entire housing problem, Mr.
Brinckerhoff stated he did not believe anyone ever expected to solve the whole housing
problem with one or two projects; however, it was clear that every project that did not happen
reduced the chance of ever solving the problem.
Mr. Brinckerhoff suggested that the City continue to process the applications, continue to plan
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 19
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 20
for the project in the General Plan and not leave to future City Councils the need to amend the
General Plan when the Housing Element came around again with the need to produce the
necessary units.
Samuel Cogswell, San Rafael resident, stated that living in the Captain's Cove area, he was
very close to the area in question and was a member of the first St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory
Committee. Having spent a substantial amount of time evaluating the issues involved, including
both housing and preservation, he wished to join with the Audobon Society in recommending
that the staff recommendation be accepted and the preservation of these lands be supported
above and beyond all else. Explaining it was not that he did not have great concern over the
housing needs, Mr. Cogswell stated that in many of the committee meetings and other
discussions between the City and public over the past months and years, there were infill
opportunities and other methods of solving the housing needs; however, very little wetlands and
natural areas remained. In comparing Marin to LA, Marin appeared very environmentally
sensitive, which was commendable, and Mr. Cogswell stated this was an irreplaceable natural
treasure in the middle of a critical flyway. He urged Council to accept the recommendation put
forth.
Karen Nygren, reported having been an alternate to three members of the latest St.
Vincent's/Silveira Task Force, indicating she was very aware of all the issues raised about the
project and commended the City Council for taking action to reconsider direction on this
application. She stated that at this time, no application was complete and because of that, the
City Council still had the option to decide whether or not to continue with the project, noting that
without a complete application, there was no legal rationale to force such action.
Ms. Nygren stated the citizens were speaking and it was Council's charge to be responsive to
and represent the community. She reported that for over twenty years, San Rafael had
struggled with attempting to move forward with processing a proposal for the St.
Vincent's/Silveira property, which had resulted in no success.
Ms. Nygren recommended that the Council adopt Option 2, believing it was time to allow the
property of countywide significance to be processed by the County. She stated the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens, not only of San Rafael, rather of the entire county, would be
best served by passing the resolution recommended by staff, which would hopefully, permit a
resolution to the future of this land. By doing so, the County and community would finally be
able to move forward with so many other important issues.
Jerry Frate, Terra Linda, indicating he would like to make a pitch or a vote for Option 4, stated
that before deciding on Options 1 or 2, the City Council should take a reading from the County,
being part of the MOU. Should the City anticipate the County would deride the project
somewhere down stream, Mr. Frate questioned why this should not be discussed now. He
believed Option 4 would deal with process, and subsequently, the City could decide whether or
not to adopt Options 1 or 2. The County should be given an opportunity for dialogue on the
process as from recollection, Mr. Frate believed they were participating in that process, albeit
not the lead participant.
Michael Stevenson, recalling reference this evening to the Williamson Act, believed it to be
unfair for the St. Vincent's and Silveira people to be required to pay taxes on a property not
being used in such a manner, and he favored its change.
Proud to have been born, raised and living in the Bay Area, Mr. Stevenson stated he frequently
meets people from other areas, some were present this evening, who were in San Rafael
because their area was no longer palatable due to crowding. Living in this County, he had
watched the area grow and grow, becoming less desirable. He stated that affordable housing
issues in some cities had been dealt with by rent control and the idea that more housing
needed to be constructed to set aside some as affordable, added to the entirety of it all. Mr.
Stevenson felt fortunate to have a landlord who was not greedy. He indicated being offended
by attorneys from other areas with a "you do or we sue" attitude.
Mr. Stevenson favored staff's recommendation, at least for now
Sharon Fox stated she had lived in San Rafael since 1956, with the exception of a small
number of years in Southern California, attending every City Council meeting during her four
years of high school, and receiving the third place award for designing the San Rafael flag. She
recalled family members occupying affordable housing units in the past and the City being their
playground and spiritual support. Having attended St. Raphael's, Marin Catholic and San
Rafael High Schools she understood the need for a grocery store, busses, church, etc., nearby,
and was so grateful for growing up in San Rafael that she returned from some of the most
beautiful places in the world.
As a member of the Quality of Life Committee for the General Plan, Ms. Fox reported
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 20
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 21
addressing a lot of issues that create a full and vibrant community, and of utmost importance
was the ability to walk to stores, movie theaters, etc. While it may have appeared a wonderful
choice at one time to have 75% of needs met at St. Vincent's, the tide had changed and a new
set of circumstances had to be evaluated to reach a decision.
Recalling a newspaper editorial indicating what a waste of time it was for the Task Force, Ms.
Fox stated that while not on the official Task Force Committee, she was present for a year of
those meetings and would not think it a waste if Council adopted Option 2. She believed it to
have been an invaluable exercise in democracy, the City was not abandoning the project, rather
turning it over to the right hands.
Believing housing would eventually be achieved some place with an appropriate quality of life,
Ms. Fox applauded the City Council, encouraging them to adopt Option 2. She thanked staff for
their work.
Art Gray, Terra Linda, stated he was eighty-five years old and participated in Susan Adams'
campaign. He reported having learned during the campaign that perhaps the City would be
sorry if it did not proceed with the Shapell Industries' project and he did not understand why
there should be a problem.
He recalled that forty years ago in San Luis Obispo a wealthy lady from Houston intended to
build a 2,000 -student dormitory in his backyard. They organized a neighborhood committee,
made a presentation before the Planning Commission and City Council and the project was
cancelled. He indicated there was no legal recourse, no one was recalled, there was no lawsuit
and local government had its day, as did the neighbors. Mr. Gray hoped a similar situation
would prevail in San Rafael.
Mayor Boro invited reactions from the City Council.
Councilmember Miller requested confirmation from City Attorney Gary Ragghianti that this was
not a public hearing, rather an opportunity for the City Council to hear from the public in order to
give direction to staff to come forward with an action to be brought before a public hearing.
City Attorney Ragghianti responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Miller recalled an old saying "that the wise and wealthy man is he who
recognizes the cards in his hands and knows when to fold." Because of matters of conscience
and prudence, he stated he would not gamble with the expenditure of the financial and human
resources of the City of San Rafael. For all the reasons elucidated in the staff report he stated
he would vote for the recommendation that the 2020 Steering Committee adopt the policy
stating the City's intent not to annex the lands of St. Vincent's and Silveira.
Councilmember Miller presented his observations on the staff report:
Church Property — Councilmember Miller indicated he greatly appreciated the church's desire
to fulfill its mission by seeking to provide a steady stream of funding for St. Vincent's School for
Boys and for programs to benefit new immigrant families such as the highly successful Kids
Club at Pickleweed Park. He explained that the church's mission to the world is one of social
justice. In this event, the church exercises its right to economic gain from its land and places
that gain in pursuit of the social justice goals of the boys' home and programs for new
immigrant families. Councilmember Miller stated the church intends to accomplish the financing
of the social programs by harnessing the market forces of sustainable development that
Herman E. Daly defines as "a progressive social betterment without growing beyond the
ecological caring capacity."
St. Vincent's Task Force — Councilmember Miller stated that the St. Vincent's Task Force was
comprised of a broad spectrum of community interests, including the property owners,
environmentalists, housing advocates, neighbors, business owners and a member from the
community, City Council and Board of Supervisors. He reported that the Task Force met over a
twenty -month period with over 70 outreach efforts to verify their work, and in the end, delivered
a document that gave the parameters for the development of an economically sound,
ecologically just and socially correct urban village that preserved and enhanced St. Vincent's
School for Boys and provided a diversity of housing opportunities that would aid the City of San
Rafael to meet the state mandates for housing units. Councilmember Miller stated the Task
Force allotted no more than 15% of the property for new development, the very same ratio as
the County has for open space and agricultural land, to development in the City Centered
Corridor and recognized the principle that to reduce traffic one must reduce the distance from
home to work. He indicated the document was signed by all members of the Task Force, save
one property owner, and included all three representatives of the environmental community,
one of whom was the County Planning Director at the time the property was excluded from the
Williamson Act. He stated that the County Board of Supervisors and City Council of San Rafael
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 21
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 22
accepted the Task Force report that represents an outstanding community effort to wed
ecological and social justice.
County Control of the Project — Councilmember Miller explained the benefit to the County is
that the County of Marin now has the opportunity for housing and meeting its housing goals.
The benefit for the church and their chosen developer is that they can apply to the County
without four or five years of frustrating litigation that could simply delay the application to the
County in the first place. Furthermore, he stated that on Saturday, at the visioning for San
Quentin, the County invited Andreas Duanny, a noted architect and town planner, to expound
on the principles of new urbanism, principles which are fully reflected in the St. Vincent's Task
Force report.
In -Migration — Councilmember Miller reported that the people of the County of Marin have long
struggled with the issues of elitism and in -migration. On hearing such statements as "Marin
County has virtually no unemployment and if we build more commercial and industrial, people
will come from outside Marin to fill these jobs," assertions that exhibited abnormal fear of
density and multi -family housing or those remarks that denigrate renters, he indicated he
assumed the struggle continues.
Recalling comments concerning a sea change and the MOU creating the presumption that this
was in San Rafael's Sphere of Influence, Councilmember Cohen stated he would provide some
historical perspective as Council deliberated.
Referring to the 1972 Countywide plan, Councilmember Cohen reported that smart growth was
being done in Marin County thirty years ago before the phrase was even thought of. It was
stated that development would be focused where it could be served, protecting all of West
Marin forever, which was a great thing. He indicated that many communities around California
are presently struggling to figure out how to do what San Rafael did thirty years ago.
Councilmember Cohen reported that at that time, the County made the decision to put these
properties into San Rafael's Sphere of Influence and in the development corridor. It was not, as
some had characterized, that San Rafael had been lusting after or trying to grab these lands
away from the County, rather the County policy and the community at that time made the
decision that this was how land use would be dealt with in Marin County. Development would
be concentrated along the Highway 101 corridor.
Councilmember Cohen reported that since that time a lot had been learned about the
importance of the baylands and protecting the lands around the Bay, most of which,
unfortunately, had been lost forever. He believed the work of the Task Force respected this
and the policy of the City had been that lands east of the railroad tracks would be off limits
forever, because they are historic baylands. Councilmember Cohen indicated a friend had
pointed out that the tracks were built as close to the Bay as possible, to avoid building through
the middle of good ranch land. He noted the MOU addresses protecting the environmental
values.
In running for Supervisor, Councilmember Cohen indicated he addressed supporting the work
of the Task Force and did not make the assumption of naturally going to the middle ground,
rather a public process was laid out and they were getting closer.
He stated that the sense this was a huge swing and a sea change was somewhat a historical.
Recalling a dozen years ago and Measure A, he stated the voters of San Rafael were asked to
consider zoning these properties agricultural permanently; however, narrowly, they decided not
to do that. He indicated that last fall, the voters of District 1 had a choice between two
candidates, one of whom stated absolutely nothing and the other indicated there was a process
and a partnership, suggesting it be explored to see what transpired. The candidate who stated
absolutely nothing was narrowly chosen. He stated the community remained divided on how to
deal with the difficult issues it faced.
Councilmember Cohen reported that four years ago the reason for negotiating the MOU was an
effort to maintain the partnership in dealing with the land use planning between the City and
County in an attempt to lay out responsibility and craft a common vision. This, he stated, was
the only example to his knowledge, at least in this County, of a city and county sitting down
together to jointly plan for land use. Believing good work was done, he commended those on
the Task Force who gave up years of their lives to do this. Should Council decide to turn this
back to the County to be the lead agency, in his mind, was not indicating the work was time
wasted or that those principles should not stand, rather that the partnership appeared to have
come undone. For the City to be fighting with the County and ignoring the wishes of a
significant percentage of constituents, possibly a majority of constituents, that these lands not
be developed would be that waste of time and resources and a waste of constituents' money
placed in trust.
Councilmember Cohen indicated there were some reasons for the County to be the lead
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 22
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 23
agency. He referred to a letter from Doug Elliott, Task Force member, who made an excellent
point and was one of the issues he attempted to discuss during the campaign for Supervisor,
which was the need to understand the link between transportation and land use and the need to
understand that regional transportation problems would not be solved until the land use issue
was dealt with. As was pointed out, he indicated the land use issue would not be dealt with
until the transportation issue was dealt with. Councilmember Cohen reported that the County's
position was much better than the City's to tie those two issues together. Again, he stated,
there was an attempt in 1998 to do this through a transportation sales tax measure, which he
believed failed for a variety of reasons; however, he was not convinced it failed because there
was an attempt to link transportation and land use. Should Council decide to hand this back to
the County to be the lead agency, he urged the County to evaluate and link the issues of land
use and transportation.
Concerning the issue of public acquisition, Councilmember Cohen reported he called for the
public acquisition of the development rights to the Silveira ranch and several speakers
commented on that this evening. He believed the County was much better positioned to do
this; however, he observed Marin County had not funded its Open Space District since 1972.
Should this be what the community wants, he believed the challenge was to step up to the plate
and do that. He called on the County, should it go this direction, to put this before the voters
and purchase these properties at fair market value in order to preserve them.
Commenting that no decisions are without cost, should the decision be made to hand this off to
the County, Councilmember Cohen noted the housing issue was the toughest. Recalling Mr.
Foreman's comments to the effect that those most impacted (Marinwood and Lucas Valley),
should be recognized as they spoke loudly and clearly, Councilmember Cohen stated while
they perhaps, could be the most impacted by development, they might not be the most
impacted should the City choose to eliminate these properties from its Sphere of Influence and
had to meet the state mandated housing needs within the existing limits of the City of San
Rafael. Even with some development of those properties, not 2,000 units, but at the low end of
the range recommended by the Task Force, infill projects would be challenging. From his work
as a representative of the City Council with the Steering Committee for the General Plan
Update, he noted infill projects would be very challenging as people began to see the numbers
required to be placed on the infill properties in order to have a hope of meeting, not necessarily
the 2006, rather the 2020 numbers projected. Quoting Alice Vipiana, "people would be very
concerned about the impact on their neighborhood," he stated this was a very good point and
would have to be taken seriously. While housing at Northgate was worth considering, 500 units
of housing at Northgate was something that gets a lot of people in Terra Linda very concerned
very quickly.
On the downside of the discussion in the election, Councilmember Cohen stated there were
several speakers who stated "well, it was about develop it or don't develop it" and it was.
However, it was not about the next question which was "what happens if you don't develop it,
where does the housing go?" He indicated he did want to continue to fight for housing in the
community. Councilmember Cohen stated communities around the State would be looking at
this issue; however, it was also necessary to deal with some of the realities, indicating it was
not some bureaucrat who made these numbers up, rather it was a reality of the growth of
population in the State and was no longer necessarily about immigration. He indicated there
was a lot of good material available to read and if interested in the issue, he urged taking a look
at the challenge of growth facing California.
Believing there were also issues of social equity, Councilmember Cohen drew on his own
experience. He explained that he grew up in Marin County; he and his wife coming back after
college and deciding to settle and raise a family in Marin. By good luck and hard work they
were able to purchase a home needing some help; however, from his trade as a carpenter, he
was in a position to provide that help, affording them the opportunity to remain in Marin. While
no longer working in Marin, because of living in Marin, they had been able to participate in the
community and he liked to believe that once or twice he had been able to assist in keeping
Marin special, perhaps even making it a better place to live, work and raise a family.
Councilmember Cohen stated that today, he would not be in a position to purchase his house
and certainly could not purchase a house in this community today on the wages a carpenter
makes and the wages made by a social worker working in a non-profit in the Tenderloin, which
is the situation he was in in 1985. He added that many in attendance this evening could not
buy their houses today.
Noting there were real challenges, not just those expressed by the speaker who stated "that is
two more cars on the road," he stated it was also about what the community would look like as
the houses presently turn over, and who buys them. He questioned where Firefighters and
Police Officers would live and how far they would have to drive to serve the community. These
were real challenges and he acknowledged that it did not matter what development might have
happened on St. Vincent's/Silveira, it would not have solved these challenges. Councilmember
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 23
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 24
Cohen stated attempts have to be made everywhere in the community to maintain a
sustainable future for San Rafael and Marin County. He believed, however, that it was
necessary to be practical and listen to constituents and he was convinced at this time that
constituents wanted their representatives to wrestle with the difficult challenges presented by
not proceeding with annexation of St. Vincent's/Silveira, not proceeding with the
recommendation of the Task Force that San Rafael be the lead agency. He remained hopeful
that the County, as the lead agency, could perhaps do some good work with the issue. He
indicated it was not simple and striking a balance with property owners would not be an easy
task; however, they and the voters had indicated pretty clearly they wanted to see the County
rise to that challenge and he believed the staff report laid out some good reasons also for the
County to be given that opportunity.
Having a little different perspective, Councilmember Heller stated she was elected to the City
Council in 1993 and being her first election, St. Vincent's/Silveira hit her in the face and had not
gone away. She believed there were many problems with the public's perception of what was
happening or would happen, and noting Councilmember Cohen worked on the Advisory
Committee, she reported having followed that from the first one in 1991 and then in 1998, and
throughout those years, was informed that the County and City were partners in this with the
environmental community and had plans to allow legal development on the properties. Through
sitting on LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission), Councilmember Heller stated she
had learned about what a Sphere of Influence is and could discuss at length its merits or
otherwise for government in any county.
She reported having been alarmed through the years, at public statements from present and
incoming Supervisors and the environmental community, and did not believe there was a
partnership any more.
Councilmember Heller stated she would choose Option 2 because the County, perhaps, could
make an attempt to develop the properties. Noting that San Rafael has three Supervisor
representatives, each having a small corner of the City divided by population to fill each
Supervisorial district, she hoped that when they get to that stage, the City would be a
contributing partner and the three Supervisors would be mindful of traffic mitigation fees and
community enhancements. She believed the project was a good one and was giving a lot back
to the community and that was never mentioned in any of the campaigns.
Councilmember Heller stated she understood the reality of today; the project would not
progress through the City as there were too many hurdles to cross and the County could
perhaps take a turn at it.
Councilmember Phillips thanked this evening's speakers, indicating that Councilmembers
prepare their summary comments based on input, and stating he does not come with prepared
notes as he wishes to listen to comments before making any final decision. While a lot of
thought is given to the issue before reaching this point, in many ways he stated the input assists
in formulating final judgment.
Councilmember Phillips stated they are influenced by a number of factors in a situation such as
this. He explained he had a daughter who attended the University of California at Davis as well
as Dominican University. She is a high school teacher and upon graduating from Dominican,
indicated her preference to teach in Marin. However, she was unable to because of the cost.
Councilmember Phillips stated to him this was an influencing factor, not only concerning his
daughter and her situation, but as a community, in that the community had lost Janette as a
high school teacher, which in his and others views, was unfortunate.
Regarding workforce housing and being an employer himself, Councilmember Phillips stated he
was aware how difficult it was to hire and retain employees in the area, because of the cost of
housing, indicating he was also influenced by that factor.
Addressing other issues that influenced his decision, Councilmember Phillips stated the election
was a significant factor. Explaining, he stated that those familiar with Councilmember Cohen
and perhaps those hearing him speak this evening for the first time, could not help but be
impressed by his insight and articulate way of presenting his ideas, which were thoughtful and
community centered. He stated he had a great deal of respect for Councilmember Cohen and
was shocked by the outcome of the election. This, he stated was not a slight on Susan Adams,
rather the ability that Councilmember Cohen would have brought to the County.
As a Terra Linda resident, Councilmember Phillips stated that getting input from a number of
residents, and debating with some, a clear statement was made with the election. Not
necessarily considering himself a political animal, he believed there was a higher reasoning for
making decisions, e.g., what did the community want and how could this be best
accommodated? This, he indicated was a strong influence on his decision this evening.
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 24
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 25
Councilmember Phillips stated he also was influenced by staff and their thoughtfulness and
consideration of the issues, and hoped the audience was also impressed, regardless of their
stance. He was also impressed with the report presented by staff this evening, noting the
choices were clearly outlined.
Reporting that he was struck by staff's conclusion that should the City continue the process, it
would be expensive, arduous and ultimately futile, and coming from a respected staff,
Councilmember Phillips stated he listened to this.
Having evaluated all the considerations presented, Councilmember Phillips stated his
conclusion was to support the staff report. Of significance, he noted from the staff report that as
the County goes through its process, assuming staff recommendation 2 is adopted, the City
would have an influence. He indicated he had not given up that right nor his convictions with
regard to workforce housing, and the City would exercise its right on behalf of those who
believe workforce housing is appropriate, if developed. He reiterated his appreciation of staff
and their thorough analysis and was comfortable with his conclusion to support the staff
recommendation.
Mayor Boro noted that when Councilmember Cohen was a student at Tam High, he was sitting
in this chamber as Chairman of the Planning Commission and did hear Marjorie Macris urge
him, in particular, to put this in the Urban Corridor. He indicated always having felt a real
obligation to both property owners because of what the County promised and what they
expected to happen on that site. Having been involved in the 1991 Task Force and co-chairing
the current one with Supervisor Kress and then seeing what had happened, Mayor Boro stated
it was not just the election, but a definite change in attitude at the County that had led him to
support the recommendation before Council this evening.
Mayor Boro indicated he truly believed the County had an obligation to do more than just look at
this site and believed the City could go through a process for a number of years, yet be unable
to deliver the product, and this had been a real concern to him. He reported having requested
staff on December 2, 2002, in a simple way, in light of recent events to consider the City's
options and return them to Council. Mayor Boro stated that to him the recent events were more
than just the election, rather also the attitude change.
Thanking all present for their attendance and courteousness, Mayor Boro especially thanked
Councilmember Cohen for the class he had demonstrated this evening.
Mayor Boro reported that the first paragraph in the MOU states the City and County have a
long-standing relationship to work together in planning for the future of St. Vincent's/Silveira.
Explaining how this latest effort was arrived at, Mayor Boro stated that he, Councilmember
Cohen and Supervisors Kinsey and Kress worked the issue and came up with the concept of
the Steering Committee. In turn, they influenced both panels to adopt this and jointly appointed
a fourteen -member panel. In 2000, the City and Board of Supervisors jointly accepted the
recommendation of this committee; therefore, with that in place it was assumed the City would
be the lead.
Mayor Boro stated he used to work with a friend who informed him it was necessary to be able
to read the signs; however, the signs were not always the written ones, rather the spoken
comments and occasional press comments. He indicated he listens a lot to what he is told,
either directly or indirectly, and had seen, not only because of a new Board of Supervisors
member, but as had been reported in the press, one or two other Supervisors making
comments concerning the election and the change. Mayor Boro reported that Supervisor
Brown had stated "there is another voice on the Board now that has serious reservations about
a development of that size." In a subsequent article he stated "that the County could design a
more sensible plan for the site, something smaller than the development proposed by Shapell,"
which he (Supervisor Brown) indicated would cause terrible traffic problems for the area.
Quoting Supervisor Brown further, Mayor Boro stated "the vast majority should be left as open
space, some affordable housing and some commercial space. It would be far less dense under
the County's jurisdiction." This, indicated Mayor Boro, was after Supervisor Brown was part of
the Board that accepted the report from the Steering Committee.
Commenting that Supervisor Adams had been very forthright, Mayor Boro indicated she stated
she wanted to see this land preserved and would fight to do that.
Mayor Boro publicly acknowledged that it was not a San Rafael plan that had caused this
uproar, rather a plan of fourteen people the County Board of Supervisors and the City of San
Rafael appointed. Further, as had been pointed out this evening, with respect to the vast
majority of this land being preserved, Mayor Boro stated that 85% of the land in total would be
preserved, calculating out to 186 acres out of 1,240 acres to be developed.
Having occasion to meet regularly with all members of the Board of Supervisors through
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 25
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 26
various committees, etc., and although some had commented this evening that the County had
not said anything, Mayor Boro stated that should the County feel differently, they certainly could
inform the City. His assessment was that there would not be three votes on the Board of
Supervisors presently to sustain this, rather just one, and as such, he believed the resources of
the City could be better deployed on issues that could be accomplished. He foresaw
tremendous hearings in the next few years on this project, a lot of energy and quite frankly,
ultimately no results.
Mayor Boro stated he was supporting staff's recommendation that it was in the best interest of
the City to discontinue this planning effort, the results of which would be denied at the end by
the County. He indicated the County had accountability to the property owners and believed
they needed to be responsible to the property owners.
Stating the City was not abandoning the project, Mayor Boro stated the three basic tenants of
the MOU remained in place, i.e., protection of the environment, providing for workforce housing
and fairness to the property owners.
Mayor Boro stated that he, personally, and he believed the City Council and City of San Rafael
would follow the future of these projects and lands. He indicated that tonight was not a victory
for one side or the other. He believed there was no victory without justice and justice would
come when the needs of the environment of this site were protected, homes for future residents
were achieved and fairness to the property owners also achieved.
Concerning comments made this evening, Councilmember Cohen stated a couple of the
attorneys indicated this was just a political exercise. His friend Joe Walsh, and others, had
indicated Councilmembers were concerned about their political futures, and that somehow,
politics is a dirty word and they should be doing something pure about land use.
Councilmember Cohen stated that democracy is politics and is about making decisions. Noting
someone had indicated Councilmembers were the representatives, he affirmed that was exactly
what they are and sometimes the challenge of leadership is to do exactly that. Challenging Mr.
Rothman, Councilmember Cohen stated he would wager just about anything that he talked to
more voters in San Rafael than he and had a pretty good read on where they are. He stated he
would not take back the positions he took as he told people what he believed and stood for. He
expressed how he saw it and did not make promises he did not believe he could keep. This, he
indicated, was part of tonight's action and was stating the City could not continue to make
promises that in the current environment it could not keep.
Councilmember Cohen stated that leadership sometimes is standing up for those principles;
however, also recognizing when constituents require something different. Although
occasionally referred to as "changing your mind" or "political expediency," sometimes it is
listening.
He believed the public wanted the County to have an opportunity to step up to the plate and
take a swing and was aware the property owners did not believe it particularly fair to them.
While their perceptions could be correct, Councilmember Cohen was sorry for switching course;
however, this is what he believed the City had been asked to do. Being comfortable with that
did not mean he would change positions, rather he would continue to advocate for the things he
believed in, even though some of that advocacy might have to take place in other forums.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 11237 - RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND
PROVIDING DIRECTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN 2020
STEERING COMMITTEE RELATING TO ANNEXATION AND
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ST. VINCENT'S AND
SILVEIRA PROPERTIES
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
There being no further business, the Special City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12003
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Special) 01/13/2003 Page 26