Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2006-10-16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2006 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Gary O. Phillips, Vice-Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember (left at beginning of New Business) Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBER – 7:00 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items. CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 7:00 PM – File 1-4-1a 1. a) Conference with Labor Negotiators – Government Code Section 54957.6 Negotiators: Ken Nordhoff, Nancy Mackle, Lydia Romero, Donna Williamson, Richard Whitmore Employee Organization(s): San Rafael Fire Chief Officers’ Association San Rafael Police Association San Rafael Police Mid-Management Association Association of Confidential Employees Western Council of Engineers SEIU Miscellaneous & Supervisory b) Public Employment - Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title: Chief of Police c) Statement of Facts and Circumstances Indicating the Possibility of Litigation: Oral statement indicating a threat of legal action against the City by a Fire Department manager, contains facts and circumstances that cause the City to believe, on the advice of legal counsel, that there is significant exposure to litigation against the City. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(b) Significant Exposure to Litigation - One Case No reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:08 PM a) Taxes and City Investment Policy: - File 9-1 x 8-5 Ivaldo Lenci expressed dissatisfaction with the City’s investment policy, and with regard to how his taxes were utilized, he believed San Rafael should receive a more substantial share. Mayor Boro stated that Ken Nordhoff, City Manager, would get back to Mr. Lenci to explain the City’s investment policy. b) Undeclared War: - File 9-1 Mary Morrison, Rachel Bell and John Jenkel expressed disappointment that San Rafael had not supported urging Congress to declare a ceasefire in undeclared war. c) First and C Street Intersection, San Rafael - File 9-1 x 11-10 x 9-3-40 Forrest Franklin stated that in the last few years he had witnessed approximately six accidents at this intersection, some reported, some not, had observed road rage of the greatest magnitude and saw a woman die after a pedestrian collision. Although such occurrences could be blamed on sunlight or driver error, as a former California Police Officer on the municipal level, and as a private investigator licensed in California for the past 36 years, having investigated hundreds of traffic accidents resulting in death and subsequent litigation, he believed the City should rethink its position on the First and C Street intersection. Lynn Bradescu suggested taking the traffic to the traffic and instead of spending millions of dollars, the alternative should be tried. Fran Halperin, having witnessed numerous accidents and near misses at this intersection, proposed that the City try placing stop signs there instead of spending money on traffic lights. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 2 Chandra Murphy requested that the City stop diverting traffic through the neighborhood and make D Street two-way. Steve Schoonover, having stood at this intersection this evening, noted it was extremely confusing and dangerous and he invited the City Council to join him on future Monday nights to observe the traffic. He stated they planned to be there each Monday evening until some solution was reached as it needed to be changed. Bonnie Pybus, having witnessed some horrific accidents at this corner and not wishing to have a traffic light placed on the corner of the intersection fifteen feet from her living room window, suggested making D Street two-way and eliminating this intersection. Eric Christ suggested making D Street two-way and noted that A Street (Andersen Drive), having become two-way, appeared to be working fine. Leslie Allen stated that making D Street two-way was the best solution for this area, as the intersection in question was very dangerous. Andrea Eneidi stated the City needed resident input and representation on the Traffic Committee so that decisions were not made behind closed doors and were not biased. Noting traffic in downtown was not the only concern, she indicated they would like to see priority put in their neighborhoods for traffic control also. Laura Ackley, noting architects and safety engineers were among the audience this evening, stated they had thought technically about the problems at this intersection. She indicated that the Traffic Engineer’s response to their suggestion that he seriously investigate two-way all the way to Second Street was “It was changed 35 years ago – we cannot change it back.” Ms. Ackley stated they had very specific plans on how changing D Street back to two-way would work. Garreth Shaw stated that as a former mayor and an engineer, the traffic study needed to be redone because it was flawed. Joy Phoenix stated that having witnessed the recent accident, she believed a change needed to be made at that intersection. James Phoenix, noting the intersection was dangerous and confusing, stated that everyone had a responsibility to make this intersection safer. Tymber Cavasian, applauding the efforts of the neighbors in their attempt to make changes, urged the City Council to address the issue this time. Lori Schifrin indicated that the traffic signs made available to them, although small, would help. She expressed disappointment that the issue with this intersection was allowed to go this far before the City Council began listening. David Schonbrunn, having listened to the speakers, suggested there be a formal process to accept public input and commit towards a resolution of the issue. Ann Stoddard stated she was present at the time of the accident and believed the problem at this intersection to be a very serious one. Noting correspondence had been received from residents and the homeowners group, Mayor Boro reported he had been advised that City Manager Nordhoff would be meeting this Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Manager’s office, City Hall, with Dan Miller and Tymber Cavasian, representing the neighborhood association. He had suggested to Mr. Nordhoff today that should the group present this evening wish to appoint one person from the First and C Street area to that committee, they would be most welcome. Mayor Boro noted this would be the beginning of a process to evaluate alternatives. As this had been an issue since the mid 1980s, Councilmember Cohen noted the problem had gotten worse as traffic volumes had increased, and having looked at it over the years, he believed a satisfactory resolution had not been reached. He believed a serious discussion with the neighborhood was necessary, while at the same time requesting that the neighborhood also look at the larger issues the City had to contend with. Most importantly, from the City’s side, Councilmember Cohen stated it was necessary to be willing to evaluate the problem with fresh eyes and not state “this is the way it has been for 35 years, so that’s the way we have to do it.” He believed the comment that “We couldn’t make A Street two-way until we did” bore some thinking about. Mayor Boro thanked everyone for their input. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION Approval of Minutes of Special (Closed Session) Minutes approved as submitted. 2. and Regular Meetings of Monday, October 2, 2006 Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications for 3. Call for Applications to Fill Three 3-Year Terms appointments to the Bicycle and on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Pedestrian Advisory Committee, to Committee, with Terms to Expire End of fill three, 3-year terms, with terms November, 2009 (CC) – File 9-2-55 to expire the end of November, 2009; b) Set deadline for receipt of applications on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk’s Office, City Hall, Room 209; and c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, November 20, 2006, commencing at 6:30 p.m. Accepted report. 4. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) – File 116 x 9-1 Accepted Monthly Investment Report 6. Monthly Investment Report for September, 2006 for month ending September, 2006, (MS) – File 8-18 x 8-9 as presented. RESOLUTION NO. 12132 – 7. Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services RESOLUTION APPROVING AND Agreement with Fiserv Health for Administration AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER of Dental Claims and COBRA (MS) – File 7-1-48 TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH FISERV HEALTH FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF DENTAL CLAIMS AND COBRA FOR 2007 RESOLUTION NO. 12133 – Resolution Waiving Competitive Bidding and 8. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE Authorizing Entering Into a Sole Source Agreement PURCHASE OF TWO PARKING for the Purchase of Two (2) Parking Enforcement ENFORCEMENT VEHICLES FROM Vehicles from Municipal Maintenance Equipment MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE Company in the Amount of $56,440.00 (MS) – EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN AN File 4-2-343 x 9-3-87 AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $56,440.00 RESOLUTION NO. 12134 – 9. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding RESOLUTION AWARDING THE the Purchase Order for One Radar/LED Solar PURCHASE OF ONE (1) RADAR/LED Message Display Trailer to National Signal, Inc., SOLAR MESSAGE DISPLAY in the Amount of $19,485.81 (Bid Opening Held TRAILER FROM NATIONAL SIGNAL, on Tuesday, October 10, 2006) (PD) – INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,485.81 File 4-2-344 x 9-3-30 (Lowest responsible bidder) RESOLUTION NO. 12135 – 10. Resolution Authorizing Street Closures for the thth RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 27 Annual Parade of Lights and 17 Annual TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY Winter Wonderland and Snow on Friday, TH STREETS FOR THE 27 ANNUAL November 24 and Saturday, November 25, 2006 PARADE OF LIGHTS AND WINTER (RA) – File 11-19 WONDERLAND ON NOVEMBER 24 AND NOVEMBER 25, 2006 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen (from minutes of Regular meeting of 10/02/06 only, due to absence from meeting) SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 4 The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Patrick Murphy and Gary Ford: RESOLUTION ENDORSING MEASURE R, AND THE SONOMA MARIN AREA RAIL 5. TRANSIT (SMART) PROJECT, TO RESTORE PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ON THE HISTORIC NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND TO ESTABLISH A 70-MILE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CLOVERDALE AND LARKSPUR (CM) – FILE 245 X 9-1 x 117 Patrick Murphy stated that as a neighborhood leader and member of the community he strongly urged the Mayor Boro and Councilmembers to bring forth a forum to allow the community to discuss the impacts of this project on San Rafael. Indicating they had a lot of comments on both sides, he stated the City Council had yet to hear their concerns regarding the issue, and reiterated that a forum be conducted in the immediate future to allow the City Council to hear comments from both sides. Gary Ford, Marin United Taxpayers Association, concurring with Patrick Murphy stated this topic was so complex that to have a one page resolution did not do it justice and he therefore, urged the City Council to have a hearing. Regarding the economic impact of SMART (Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit) on San Rafael, Mr. Ford stated there were more than 3,233 parcels of real property consisting of commercial, industrial and residential, which abut on a two-mile radius the entire length of the train as it enters City property and goes on the other side of the hill. He indicated that they were very worried about the financial and economic consequences of the impact of SMART. Under California law, he noted that all sellers of real property must disclose to any purchasers any condition, hazardous or otherwise, which affects the quiet enjoyment of that said property. Mr. Ford stated that the City of San Rafael relies on not less than 24.2% of its annual budget from property taxes and there would be a cataclysmic event when the fair market value of all those properties dropped because of the impact of SMART rail. Mr. Ford requested that the City Council give consideration to the noise, soot, pollution and traffic congestion, e.g. the traffic congestion every morning and evening at Third and Union Streets as the residents of Point San Pedro communities drove into the City to their respective places of employment. This traffic congestion would be compounded by 20% because of the effect of a diesel train moving at less than five miles per hour across eleven intersections in San Rafael. Commenting that this congestion would double when the traffic backed up past San Rafael High School, he questioned what the effect would be on the fair market value of the homes in East San Rafael and whether residential and commercial real estate brokers would steer potential purchasers away from those communities to other cities. Mr. Ford stated they believed these to be major economic issues that had to be discussed by the City Council and a one-page resolution endorsing SMART did not do the job. Therefore, he respectfully requested that the City Council convene a public forum on the issue. Mike Arnold requested that the City Council hold an open forum where citizens could hear the arguments pro and con for Measure ‘R’. They were not requesting that the Council oppose the measure, rather hear from citizens and what they had learned about the measure as forums had taken place around the City. Pointing out a statistic from SMART’s own poll, Mr. Arnold stated that in looking at the responses to the basic question - “Will you favor the sales tax increase?” – one of the things the pollster put in the responses was: Intensity of Response: Strongly Favor – Weakly Favor – Strongly Oppose – Weakly Oppose Also broken down by City. On the key issue after hearing the arguments for and against the rail, the result was: 43% Strongly in favor in San Rafael; 16% Favor it somewhat; Mr. Arnold stated that pollsters who pay attention to ballot measures would state that ballot measures, typically those that weakly favor something, subsequent to hearing the arguments through the course of the campaign (this poll was taken in March), typically vote “NO”. Therefore, he suggested that it was not even clear whether San Rafael would have a majority voting for Measure ‘R’ and he believed it would be in the City’s interest to hold an open forum and hear from citizens who cared about this measure. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 5 Secondly, with regard to the resolution, having paid attention to every detail about this project, Mr. Arnold stated he was unaware of any economic study that had occurred citing any economic benefits. Perhaps the town had produced some which he was unaware of; however, where it stated “WHEREAS the economic and environmental benefits of the SMART project would benefit residents of this town and the region generally” he was unaware of any such analysis. Susan Ristow, Novato, stated that the democracy she observed taking place in the Council Chamber earlier this evening was truly heartwarming and belied having an item that would impact the community so greatly and was so controversial that at $1.4 billion was the largest local publicly funded project, on the Consent Calendar. She noted this was totally at odds with what she had witnessed earlier this evening. Based on Council’s reaction to constituents, she requested that they keep that in mind and take the next logical step and give constituents a chance to respond on a publicly noticed agenda item to something that would so impact them. Ms. Ristow noted that Larkspur had a publicly noticed agenda item and voted against the project. Novato had a publicly noticed agenda item, chose to hold a public forum with presentations pro and against with public testimony, and decided not to take any action. She stated the main point was that in Marin, the three cities that would clearly be the most impacted were Novato, San Rafael and Larkspur. Ms. Ristow stated that Novato and Larkspur allowed their constituents the direct opportunity to address their elected representatives and she believed San Rafael constituents deserved no less. As Vice-President of Marin Audubon and responding to the resolution which cited environmental impacts and benefits, Ms. Ristow stated that 30-acres of wetland would be lost as a direct result of this project, and in San Rafael, the Gallinas Creek, home to the largest North Bay population of California Clapper Rail, a federally endangered species, would be the most affected. Noting all had a duty to protect resources, Ms. Ristow stated that San Rafael and all of Marin liked to think of themselves and act in such a way that was most beneficial to the environment. She requested everyone be mindful that a sales tax was in fact, the most regressive, and in this particular case, Golden Gate Transit, which does help those needing help the most, was working, needed support and this project could harm it. Dennis Brown strongly requested that the City Council have an open hearing on this highly controversial issue of SMART. He stated the City was facing a further tax increase with a most questionable benefit. He noted there was an inadequate alternative study and an inadequate detailed financial plan and he requested that the details be provided. Should funds run out, Mr. Brown questioned what the plan would be, and he commented that citizens were operating with a gross lack of unbiased information. Basia Crane, Marin United Taxpayers Association (MUTA), stated that MUTA also supported having an open forum. She indicated that MUTA analyzed the EIR and the information contained therein hardly supported this train. She noted that the real beneficiary of the project would not be San Rafael, rather Sonoma, the developers, the construction industry, rail engineers and rail car designers and manufacturers. Noting this rail project had a very negative effect on San Rafael, Ms. Crane stated there would be increased congestion at most intersections, no parking lot for train passengers at the downtown San Rafael Station, Whistlestop would lose its parking lot to the train station, Andersen Drive, at West Francisco Boulevard, would be realigned to accommodate the train; therefore, Office Depot, Ceramic Tile Design and adjacent shopping center would lose a substantial portion of their parking lots. Ms. Crane stated the train would cost too much and far from easing congestion, it appeared to ensure that congestion would worsen in San Rafael. Ms. Crane stated that MUTA did not want the public to be saddled with sales tax and for the next twenty years did not wish to be saddled with taxes for dubious use at vastly understated costs and the project would probably require a further tax in the future to bail it out should it fail. She stated they trusted the San Rafael City Council had the wisdom to vote “NO.” Nina Lilienthal-Murphy, President, Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, stated they would appreciate an open forum to discuss the rail before taking a stand. She believed the rail would not relieve any congestion, as had been proven by the EIR, and the Level of Service on E Street was already almost at gridlock. She noted $1.4 billion would be spent over the next twenty years for a nineteenth century train while living in the twenty-first century, and with San Rafael probably one of the most knowledgeable communities in all of the United States. Questioning what would happen should the train get stuck in the wetlands or break down, Ms. Murphy stated these issues needed to be discussed prior to taking a stand. She commented that as far as they were concerned there was no complete plan. As with the First and C Streets intersection, Ms. Murphy stated that the safety of children SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 6 crossing the railroad track to Coleman School needed to be considered, and she noted that every month someone is killed in such situations. Together with safety, Ms. Murphy stated the noise that was making medical history in Marin County needed to be curtailed and she commented that the train would divide the City in half, i.e., the right and wrong sides of the track. She noted that the development of 2,200 new living units at the fourteen stations, averaging approximately two cars per home, would produce another 60,000 cars; therefore, the subject needed to be discussed in a public forum. Roger Roberts, Marin Conservation League and San Rafael resident, stated they had taken a position in opposition to SMART and believed it appropriate that there be a publicly noticed open hearing prior to making a decision. To do so on a Consent Calendar basis was unfair and unworthy of the City. Mayor Boro clarified that the item was now off the Consent Calendar and the City Council was hearing public input. Tymber Cavasian, stating she was appalled to find a matter of this magnitude on the Consent Calendar and even pulled, believed this to be an inappropriate way to give a thoughtful process to the topic. While Mayor Boro had sat in several meetings hearing public testimony in his capacity as a SMART Board Member, she stated that this Council had yet to hear constituents as elected Councilmembers for San Rafael. Ms. Cavasian urged each Councilmember to refrain from taking a position on Measure ‘R’ until at least entertaining the testimony of constituents with reasonable time allotted to examine and discuss the substantial ramifications to San Rafael. Noting information was needed, Ms. Cavasian stated that as she was signing up to speak this evening a gentleman remarked to her how great he believed the train would be because his family wished to ride it north on the weekends. Responding to him that this sounded terrific, she informed him there was no weekend service. She stated people needed the opportunity to address the City Council, learn the facts and make a legitimate decision. Ms. Cavasian stated there were numerous problems with the rail plan as proposed, particularly with regard to San Rafael. She indicated she was worried about overarching social concerns with perpetuating the commuter model, which was in direct conflict with the philosophy and goals of encouraging affordable housing so people could live where they work. Noting the City Council was working very hard at this, she believed it a conflict to support something that would promote more commuting with people living north. Based on EIR findings, Ms. Cavasian stated that the cost benefit of the rail system made no financial sense and federal funding was unlikely given the poor stats for this project as it stands, which left taxpayers in a horrible position should SMART get its foot in the door before a well penned plan was in place. Ms. Cavasian stated that one simple answer to an annoying problem such as this was to ensure Marin and Sonoma added approximately 600,000 people along with major commercial development to house major employers and this train should work fine; however, indicating she had more faith than that in the City Council, she urged them not to take a position on the matter until it could be discussed in a public forum. Jim Schmidt stated he echoed many of this evening’s comments in that it was difficult to understand the Council had appropriately addressed the significance and basis for the resolution. He was not aware the City Manager had issued a report, whether any quantitative analysis had been carried out or whether the City Council could substantiate that this was a worthwhile investment on behalf of the City of San Rafael. Mr. Schmidt stated that should this happen, the City would be faced with a significant investment question for Andersen Drive. The City was obligated to either create a grade separation or realign the road under the prior arrangements of improving Andersen Drive. Noting no parking was provided in San Rafael in connection with the SMART train, he stated the passage of trains would block streets, east/west flow, and there had not been an adequate definition of clarity that it would work adequately under those conditions. Mr. Schmidt pointed out that the Marin County Transit District carries fifteen times more Marin residents than the SMART train would and there was a funding problem in maintaining the County Transit District beyond the five-year horizon; therefore, he questioned why $1.4 billion was being spent, $198 million of Marin County tax monies, when it was not nearly as effective as the Marin County Transit District and funding would be needed for that in the near future. Mr. Schmidt also pointed out that the pure operating cost of this SMART project would be over $20 per passenger. It would be three times more costly than the average of all other transit operators in the entire Bay Area and it would be the worst area operating performance of the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 7 entire Bay Area, which was not something that deserved a ready resolution on the part of the City Council. Indicating that the SMART Board had published data in the sample ballot for the November election containing a table with eleven numbers, seven of which were absolutely wrong and did not agree with the City’s engineers consulting work, Mr. Schmidt stated the estimated revenue was over inflated by 50%, and should the SMART staff and Board be unable to produce credible information, he questioned why a resolution was being passed supporting it. Hugo Landecker stated he saw SMART as a nineteenth century fix for a twenty-first century problem. Of those he had talked to concerning SMART, many of whom had ridden on trains in Japan and Europe, etc., he heard over and over “Well, if I want to go to Novato from San Rafael, I just hop on a train, do my business and be back in a couple of hours on the train.” Mr. Landecker clarified this was not that type of system as this train was primarily designed and oriented towards the commuter. He believed that a rail system should be done correctly; however, SMART was not the right way as it was a one-rail system. He stated that perhaps the thinking should be more forward looking in terms of what it would take to make a rail system work; however, this was not the system. Mr. Landecker stated he supported an open forum. Lori Schifrin stated it was her understanding that had this not been brought to the City Council’s attention this evening, the project would have been endorsed. She stated she was under the impression that the San Rafael City Council represented the City and citizens of San Rafael; however, she felt mistaken as no one had solicited the opinions of herself or her neighbors about SMART before deciding to endorse the project. Questioning what purpose it served her as a San Rafael resident, Ms. Schifrin stated that as currently budgeted she would have no place to park her car because there was no parking lot, and she could not ride the train on weekends because there would be no service on weekends. The train would not take her to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal to take a ferry to San Francisco unless she wished to walk the quarter mile. Her living space would be filled with noise pollution as the train would have to blow its horn, which was at least 110 decibels, before going through each intersection. She noted that the downtown traffic on at least Mission and Fifth Avenues and Fourth, Third and Second Streets would have to be interrupted for the train to pass and questioned how making these intersections worse than they already are could be justified. Ms. Schifrin stated that as an asthmatic, diesel was her enemy and she did not understand why San Rafael should be polluted with diesel. Also, she questioned what would prevent children from running in front of the train. David Schonbrunn stated he was a member of the League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, Sonoma County Conservation Action, Marin Bike Coalition, Friends of SMART and TRANSDEF (Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund) each of which had endorsed Measure ‘R’. Thanking the City Council for showing the clarity of leadership, he commented that they had just heard from almost the entire membership of Marin Citizens Against Everything. He noted that this issue was controversial, just to them, while to everyone else in the County, it was completely obvious there should be a train on the publicly owned right-of-way and that it should have been done twenty years ago. Noting the opponents had nothing to offer in the way of a workable plan for the future, Mr. Schonbrunn stated he had listened carefully to their arguments, most of which were out and out specious, and were intended to jerk emotions and provide false facts. For example, with regard to the impact on traffic in downtown San Rafael, he noted the EIR was very clear that the impacts were extremely minor. Noting all the streets had red lights, he stated the train would pass through the east/west streets on the red signal phase; therefore, there were no impacts. Mr. Schonbrunn stated it was rather disingenuous to call for a forum since the opponents had not learned anything from all the previous fora. With regard to the impact on property values, Mr. Schonbrunn stated studies had consistently shown that property values went up near a train station. Mr. Schonbrunn stated he indicated to a store manager at Larkspur Landing Shopping Center today that the Larkspur City Council was opposed to SMART because too many people would patronize the shopping center. He commented this demonstrated how some City Councils had a very upside down view of their goals and they did not want a lot of people at the shopping center. John Grubb spoke as a San Rafael resident and representative of the Transportation Alliance, a group of bikers, environmentalists, seniors and other community leaders supporting SMART. A father also, he indicated he was very interested in the future and planned to live in San Rafael for the remainder of his life. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 8 Mr. Grubb stated he worked for the Bay Area Council which conducts an annual poll of 600 residents, the first open-ended question of which is “What is the biggest problem facing the region?” He reported that this past year, 33% of Bay Area residents indicated it was traffic. In Marin and Sonoma, the figure was 53%, and nothing else was even close. He stated something needed to be done about traffic and SMART would remove 1.4 million car trips annually from Highway 101. It was an environmentally responsible action to take, it would remove 124,000 lbs. of greenhouse gas and pollution from the air daily and emissions would be cleaner than Golden Gate Transit busses, which run on diesel. Mr. Grubb believed it important for residents of San Rafael to be aware that this would increase property values. Eight examples were cited in the EIR, and San Rafael could expect an increase of 7% in property values the first year of operation of the train. Noting the average home value in Marin was approximately $900,000, he stated this was a $63,000 increase to everyone owning a home within a half-mile of the SMART train. Noting many forums were held, Mr. Grubb stated the Marin Independent Journal had covered this up and down from every different angle and residents needed to know where the City Council stood on the issue. He, therefore, requested that they take a position this evening. Michael Hartnett stated that the biggest problem in San Rafael was traffic. Noting SMART would end up costing $1.4 billion over the next twenty years, he stated this should not be taken lightly and he requested that the City Council consider the economic health of the City with this train. He stated traffic would get worse and he was not aware of anyone’s property values increasing subsequent to being surrounded by noise and diesel smoke. He believed San Rafael would suffer significant economic damages from lower property tax revenue, lower business tax revenue and fewer jobs and as this was a suburban train it would not be serving any large employers. Being a lifetime member of the Sierra Club, Dr. Hartnett stated he really cared about this issue. He requested the City Council not rush, but think it over, and with regard to the wrong side of the track, he worried that both sides of the track would be the wrong side should the measure pass as it would affect both sides in an equally adverse way. Aleze Laielen stated she had lived in Marin County since she was ten and had some nostalgia about trains, having in the past been used to taking a nine-hour train ride to Eureka to visit her grandmother. She had attended three presentations by well-informed people about transportation, including one by a Mr. O’Toole who gave a wonderful slide presentation, and having purchased the CD of this presentation she stated she would be happy to loan it to the City Council. Ms. Laielen stated she hoped the City Council would choose either not to take a position on the issue or vote against it. She commented that she could hear the fireworks from the Civic Center at her residence on July 4th and would be hearing the train whistles throughout the day. Noise pollution was a big factor, together with congestion in downtown, and she was angry about the misrepresentation by SMART on their flyers, as the train would be diesel and would not look as nice as depicted. Ms. Laielen also noted that should there be a problem on the track, all passengers would have to drive. Commenting that she did not trust those who used $90,000 of perhaps public money to generate the flyer, she noted the public was being requested to trust them with $1.4 billion. She noted that College of Marin was a great example of a bond that was passed; more money was being requested and having spent $9 million, she stated they had not done anything. For San Rafael and its residents who really cared about the environment, Ms. Laielen urged the City Council to either not take a position or vote against the measure. Hayden Ongaro, Orion Partners, a commercial real estate company in Marin County, stated he had been doing real estate for twenty years and was also with the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce. Countering some of the issues with regard to what real estate people might discuss on values in Marin, he reported that his business was to work with businesses wishing to locate in Marin. When he started in 1986 he stated a company might end up based on where the CEO lived and it was quite a coincidence that someone living in Larkspur wanted their company in Larkspur and in Ross, perhaps near their home in Ross. Because of traffic, Mr. Ongaro stated things had changed dramatically, and he saw San Rafael suffering because of this. He indicated that he works with companies wishing to locate in Novato now because they could save their employees about 40 minutes in commute time from Novato to San Rafael. Therefore, should the economic impact of the train be analyzed, he requested that the economic impact of not having public transportation also be analyzed, as he believed there was a huge economic impact with increased traffic and San Rafael losing good businesses because of being unable to attract employees residing in the northern parts where housing was more affordable. Robert Dobrin stated he believed there should be a duly noticed public hearing and forum on a subject as massive as the SMART resolution. As Mr. Arnold remarked, should 50% or fewer of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 9 the residents of San Rafael vote for SMART then the City Council’s endorsement would not be a reflection of the City of San Rafael, and this should be taken into consideration before endorsing something of this magnitude. On behalf of John Perulos he submitted a video depicting the Clapper Rail foraging and using the area right in front of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Trestle and the Airport Sports Facility, and he urged the City Council to watch the 40-minute video. He noted that the Clapper Rail was a federally endangered bird. Paul Finkle, President and CEO of two firms in San Rafael and also the Chair of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce this year, explained that the Chamber has a process of looking at both sides of every issue of significance through its governmental affairs committee. Both sides of Measure ‘R’ were heard and they withheld their position for quite some time until they saw the final economics, such as they are. Traffic being the number one issue for San Rafael Chamber members and businesses in San Rafael for at least the last ten years, Mr. Finkle stated that the number two issue in their survey of numbers was the difficulty of acquiring talent and getting employees to work in San Rafael. He noted this was a huge issue for businesses in San Rafael and a strong economy and the vitality of the economy was critical to the future success of San Rafael. Noting the need to entice workers to San Rafael, he stated it was becoming more difficult every day. Affordable housing being a major concern of the San Rafael Chamber also, Mr. Finkle stated the ability to obtain affordable housing in sufficient numbers was not realistic. He noted there was no other realistic alternative to SMART, which was probably one of the most compelling issues as far as the Chamber members were concerned. He believed there would be nothing on the books, Caltrans or otherwise, for probably ten to fifteen years. Mr. Finkle stated that if the opportunity was not taken to do something with SMART, there would not be another. Mr. Finkle stated that the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce very much favored the City Council’s endorsement of Measure ‘R’ and hoped they would vote on the issue this evening. Joy Dahlgren, member Marin Bicycle Coalition and Sierra Club, stated she was very much against the train and against the kind of misrepresentation taking place regarding traffic conditions in that there was not an alternative. She explained that the alternative was already under construction on Highway 101 – the GAP Closure through San Rafael - which would have a huge impact on traffic because it would reduce the bottleneck that extends back to Novato, and to spend $1.4 billion before the difference this would make was evident, appeared foolish to her. Indicating it was untrue that there was no alternative, Ms. Dahlgren stated that very few of the trips made were made by transit. Most were made by car and SMART would not make any difference in traffic, and their EIR demonstrated that the Level of Service everywhere on Highway 101 would be the same with or without SMART, as it would carry so few people. She noted that in Marin County those on the train would represent approximately only 1% of those on the highway. Ms. Dahlgren explained that when she worked in San Rafael she would ride her bicycle on occasion and found it tough going up over Puerto Suello Hill. Should the train be built she believed it would not be possible to take a bicycle through the tunnel; it had been her dream that there be a bicycle road and with all the bicycle interest in Marin and the recent infusion of a little money, she believed there could be a very fine bicycle system for those who live and work in Marin. Noting that the tax in San Rafael was 8.25%, Ms. Dahlgren stated that on a $43 purchase today, her bill was $47; therefore, she believed there was limited taxing ability and it behooved the City to consider other things they might wish to fund with sales taxes. Elena Belsky, Director, Watershed Preservation Network, addressing process, noted this item was originally on the Consent Calendar, was pulled by public request and Council had heard comments and testimony related to the resolution. She requested clarification that this was not a substitute for having a public hearing because the public was not noticed. Ms. Belsky stated the item needed to be placed on the agenda again as an informational item or forum and the public noticed. Ms. Belsky recalled a similar issue two weeks ago with the Marin Municipal Water District and reported that Gerard Huffman, Co-Chair of the pro SMART campaign, had placed a resolution on the agenda. Having discussed with the Directors that regardless of what was taking place within the Board, the appearance of this being pushed by one person to the public and constituents could be problematic. She stated the Marin Municipal Water District Board actually backed off the language because they were uncomfortable with that aspect of it. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 10 Ms. Belsky stated that with Mayor Boro being the President of the SMART Board, simply putting the item on the Consent Calendar without a public hearing was problematic because for how it looked to the public. Therefore, she urged the City Council to notice and schedule a public hearing prior to making a decision. Addressing City Attorney Ragghianti, Mayor Boro requested clarification on whether the fact that the item was shown on the Consent Calendar constituted a public notice. Mr. Ragghianti stated that although this was a public notice it was not the other type of public notice sometimes required in connection with other matters by the Government Code. It was certainly public notice that it was being considered. He clarified that it was the discretion of the Chair and members of the City Council to consent or not to a request that a matter be taken off the Consent Calendar. That matter was agreed to and the Chair permitted public testimony to be taken. He explained this was not a public hearing in the formal sense that public hearings are conducted when ordinances are adopted or developmental applications or environmental impact reports are considered. Mr. Ragghianti stated that certainly the public had been provided an opportunity to comment in large numbers and while it was not a public hearing, there was no legal obligation to have a public hearing, it was purely within the discretion of the Chair and members of the City Council. Councilmember Cohen remarked it was unfortunate that one of the speakers chose, before hearing from the City Council, to complain about people not being willing to listen. Regarding the process, Councilmember Cohen stated this item was publicly noticed. Agendas are publicly posted and the fact that it was put on the Consent Calendar obviously did not prevent quite a number of interested members of the public from addressing the City Council and no effort was made to prevent anyone from doing so. He believed the entire City Council had listened carefully for almost an hour to testimony on the issue. Also regarding the points made concerning process, particularly the one suggesting that because the possibility existed that 51% of the voters in San Rafael could vote against it the City Council should not take a position, Councilmember Cohen stated he routinely reads in the newspapers criticism of politicians who govern as follows: “Which way do my people go, I must follow them because I’m their leader.” Councilmember Cohen believed that the City Council in this case was considering expressing an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Addressing Mrs. Murphy, Councilmember Cohen stated he would appreciate her consideration in listening to what he had to say and there was no reason to be disrespectful of one another, even while disagreeing. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not believe it was his duty to wait and see what the public thought and then express an opinion. He did not think that was what he was elected for and it was never how he operated. He stated it could well be that a majority of citizens of San Rafael or a majority of voters in Marin County disagreed should the City Council take a position in support of this; however, this would be determined in just over three weeks. Regardless of what happened this evening, the San Rafael City Council had exactly five votes on the matter. He believed under consideration this evening was whether or not the City Council, as a body, would express an opinion on the SMART proposal. The public would clearly have their say in twenty two days. Councilmember Cohen stated it should not be a surprise if expressing an opinion was being discussed this evening that the City Council would be considering taking a position in support of SMART. He indicated this was long-standing public policy of the City of San Rafael and it had been expressed clearly, most recently in General Plan 2020, and each time it had been considered since then. Obviously, Measure ’R’ was not on the ballot; however, he noted it was a long stated policy of the City of San Rafael, including in the General Plan, which was subject to so much public discussion that the City was criticized for spending too much time on it, that the City took a public position in favor of reuse of the publicly owned right-of-way for a rail system. As to his personal opinion and how he would consider voting on the resolution, Councilmember Cohen stated that first and foremost, this was an environmental issue. It was non environmental in the sense of not having any change because change was bad or there was an immediate impact in San Rafael, rather he believed it was necessary to take the bigger picture which was the need to begin to provide more alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. He commented “We are killing our planet and therefore, killing ourselves” and to be environmentalists it was necessary to take the bigger picture and look at the inter- connectedness of things. Finding ways to convince people to use an alternative to the most SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 11 convenient thing ever invented, the automobile, was a real challenge and was not easy; however, it was necessary to try. Noting an interesting point this evening that supporting commute alternatives ran counter to the policy of supporting affordable housing and trying to have people live where they work, Councilmember Cohen stated that while it was an interesting point, it was not one he had heard before this evening. He noted that a lot of the arguments against SMART he had heard in other places; however, this was not one of them and he believed it worthy of comment. Councilmember Cohen stated the fact of the matter was that neither one of these things would be the entire solution to the problem. It was not possible to generate so efficient a commuting process as to state that everyone who worked in San Rafael could commute, while only the rich resided there. Nor very clearly, could sufficient affordable housing possibly be built for everyone who wanted to live in San Rafael to do so. He believed it necessary to continue to try to build affordable housing where and when possible; however, it also should be recognized that the vast majority of those working in San Rafael were never going to be able to afford to live in San Rafael. Therefore, to condemn them to another twenty years of grinding down Highway 101, hours at a time, he believed did them a disservice and was irresponsible on the part of the City Council. Councilmember Cohen stated that attempting to provide alternatives was what was necessary. Indicating he took a different conclusion from the comments concerning First and C Streets earlier this evening, Councilmember Cohen stated the same thing had been done there for thirty years in the belief that something would change, similarly, the same thing had been done with Highway 101 for thirty years thinking something would change, and he believed it was time to take a different approach. While SMART was not perfect, Councilmember Cohen, paraphrasing a favorite quote about democracy stated, “It might be the worst alternative we’ve got, except for all the others.” Reiterating that SMART was not perfect, he believed there was a unique opportunity, given ownership of the railroad right-of-way, together with the other benefit that it would provide a bike way. Given all of the evidence the City Council had considered over the years, Councilmember Cohen stated he would be voting in favor of SMART and therefore, would vote in favor of the resolution presented this evening. Approaching the subject through the environment, Councilmember Miller stated global warming was the greatest threat to existence on this planet, caused by CO2s. In looking at this as the major threat, he was aware of the positive asset that could be used to reduce that carbon dioxide. He stated SMART would replace approximately 5,000 daily automobile trips and to him that contribution, albeit small, was great and everything to be done had to march towards the objective of facing this terror. Councilmember Miller stated that whether or not SMART was the optimum solution to him was irrelevant, rather it was the one and only real world proposal available and he would vote for it because he did not believe the City Council could afford to reject it. Councilmember Heller stated it had been interesting listening this evening She knew most of those present and had heard most of the points previously, albeit some were new, and she appreciated the diversity of views. Noting the voters would decide the outcome, not whether the five Councilmembers indicated they would vote for or against the measure, Councilmember Heller stated the public forum was November 7, 2006. Councilmember Heller stated SMART would improve transit and one of the things she had learned through her years on the City Council was that nothing would completely make it perfect for everyone. Everyone was on the highway and everything added to it was a good thing. She noted SMART would provide a 70-mile bicycle and pedestrian pathway, which she believed was very much needed and wanted in the community, and she believed it was also another alternative. Councilmember Heller believed employee recruitment was necessary which was very difficult in Marin County. Also, noting environmental groups did not agree, she stated she did not understand why in one county one group believed it to be a good idea while in the other, the same group stated it was not a good idea, and she would like to have this clarified at some point. Although it was a complex issue, Councilmember Heller stated she would vote in favor of the resolution. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 12 Noting some interesting points were raised this evening, Councilmember Phillips stated he appreciated the thought of an open forum, and with hindsight, he believed that perhaps that might have been a better tact. There were a lot of issues he was familiar with; however, perhaps he could have benefited from an open discussion. Councilmember Phillips stated he had attended the Federation of Neighborhoods debate and read some about the issue in an attempt to come to grips with his own personal vote. He believed the fact that the City Council took a position was significant – it was not just one vote. He noted Novato was being criticized to some degree by some parties for not taking a position so that at least the community could take into consideration Councilmember views, which he hoped were respected regardless of the side taken. Indicating there were some valid concerns, Councilmember Phillips noted noise to be one of these, together with the cost of operations. He had given some thought to the fact that there were a number of other issues the City Council might have to go to the public with for support, specifically, the facilities and how to accommodate needed facilities for police and fire. More than likely he believed it would be necessary to go to the voters to request additional support there; therefore, he was concerned about going to the well too many times for certainly needed issues affecting communities. While he believed this to be one of those well deserving issues, Councilmember Phillips stated it was necessary to be cognizant of the fact that it was possible to return only so many times, no matter how necessary the funds were for a particular improvement within the community. Having expressed those concerns, Councilmember Phillips commented that discussions appeared to have been forever ongoing concerning Highway 101 and what to do with it, and while this might not be a perfect solution, at least it was a step taken, if so voted upon, to address at least part of the problem with regard to Highway 101. He stated that it was not possible to continually complain about Highway 101 without doing something about it. Similar to Paul Finkle of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Councilmember Phillips stated he too was an employer in the City of San Rafael and was aware of how difficult it was to hire people in San Rafael. The reason for this, more than likely, was that in many cases people would not come from the south, rather they would commute to San Francisco or within their community. He was aware it was difficult to find people willing to commute from Novato and points north, it was much more than he anticipated and was a hindrance to employees. Regarding how this affected San Rafael, Councilmember Phillips believed it affected each and every person in the community regardless of what they did. Questioning who would maintain the schools as teachers, he commented that they would not remain in the community because they could not afford to, they would not continue to drive to San Rafael if they could live in Windsor and work in that school district or points north or south of Windsor. He stated it was similar with police and fire where the City was continually hassling with hiring critical public servants. To continue to do this would necessitate paying a lot more, which there did not appear to be an inclination to do because of inadequate funds, and he did not know what the alternative was unless action was taken to make it more convenient for those who had to make the trip and therefore, make the decision to work within the community or not. He noted this did not only apply to police and fire, rather every single service the public expected to receive. Councilmember Phillips stated he would like to come down on the side of the decision that would benefit all, which was to provide a better service to those within the community. Noting the City had done a lot with affordable housing, to be realistic, he did not believe the City could provide that much affordable housing because of the cost of land. He indicated that while that was part of the answer, and the City was pursuing it, it certainly was not the complete answer for the ongoing services the community would need. Believing there were strong arguments on both sides, Councilmember Phillips stated he appreciated the thoughts put forward this evening, all of which he had given a lot of consideration, as well as the other forums he attended, in trying to come to grips with his own decision-making in the process. On balance, he believed the community would be in a more favorable position with this alternative means of commuting and in a better position to receive and provide goods and services. With regard to the environment, as mentioned by Councilmember Heller, there appeared to be some division and he wished there had been some uniformity regarding the input being received from the key environmental groups because there was concern about them. Councilmember Phillips stated there was strong support for the train and Measure ‘R’ and he too, would be voting in favor. He hoped it was a clear statement from the San Rafael City Council that they were taking this position after drawing a hard decision with regard to the alternatives that some people in attendance had pointed out, which he truly respected. He believed the City Council needed to make a clear statement; he suspected they would and looked forward to it. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 13 Indicating that a lot of his thoughts had been voiced, Mayor Boro commented that to make the statement that the City Council had not considered the train publicly was to be out of touch with the San Rafael City Council. Public Hearings were held on General Plan 2020 where the train was called out as a policy, a hearing was held on the Environmental Impact Report, comments were submitted with regard to the concerns on traffic in the downtown; therefore, this Council was very well informed about the train and the issues concerning it. He stated he found it interesting that there always was a well orchestrated thread and unfortunately, the concert master had just walked out of the room. Noting the thread this evening was that the City Council should hold a forum, Mayor Boro stated that this started out for him approximately eleven months ago when the thread was that the EIR should be withdrawn and re-circulated because it was flawed; however, should that have happened it would not have been on the November ballot. The EIR hearings were held, it was stated the EIR was inadequate and would fail; however, it was interesting to note that both the EIR and the Expenditure Plan, which was part of the EIR, were not challenged. No one filed a lawsuit nor challenged the EIR as to its adequacy and this told him something. With regard to San Rafael, Mayor Boro stated the City would be greatly impacted by the train going through downtown. Having studied it, he noted there was an issue with Andersen Drive. The SMART people believed there was a way to approach that without building an overpass and this would have to be dealt with. It was a commitment made by the City and hopefully, there would be a way to do it without an overcrossing. Mayor Boro believed that people in the community of San Rafael and Marin County were looking for something to be done. With regard to bus service, he stated that the GAP Closure between Petaluma and Novato, according to the latest schedule from Caltrans, would not be complete until 2020, which was fourteen years from now. He indicated he would provide Mr. Arnold with a copy of the schedule if he had not seen it, as it was public record. Should this be similar to Highway 101 in San Rafael, which was supposed to have been done approximately seven years ago, the time period could extend to 2025; therefore, to expect busses through that area would not be practical for at least fourteen years. With regard to the issue of the impact on property values, Mayor Boro noted the big train on the peninsula. It was a big noisy train that blew its whistle and smoked and went through Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Atherton, etc. The home values of these communities on the peninsula, which were equal to or superior to those in Marin, had not been diminished; therefore, threatening that home values would drop because of a train he believed to be disingenuous. Mayor Boro stated the bottom line for him was that SMART did own the public right-of-way. It was acquired over twenty-five years ago – people had foresight – and went all the way from Marin County to Willits. There would be growth in Sonoma County and like it or not, San Rafael grew by 50,000 every day with people coming to work, a lot of whom came from the north. He noted employers were having trouble attracting people. Kaiser and Marin General Hospitals and local practices were having trouble attracting doctors because doctors were refusing to work in Marin County because houses were too costly and the traffic too much of a problem. He stated that teachers, police officers, firefighters, those who wait at tables, etc. all had to commute as most could not afford to live in Marin; therefore, to continue the quality of life, he believed the train would work and would be successful. Mayor Boro stated he understood the League of Women Voters had a forum recently which was attended by a representative from Ace Train, the Altamont Express, which started out with three trains daily and now runs eight. Having ridden and observed that train he explained it takes passengers from Stockton to Santa Clara County where they get on a bus to their places of work. At night he had seen two hundred passengers get off the busses and get on the train to return to Stockton. Mayor Boro stated that trains were not a new science, they are used and work all over the world, providing an alternative means of transportation, and whether it be bus, train, ferry, etc., he believed getting people out of their cars and helping to alleviate the gridlock was important. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 12136 – RESOLUTION ENDORSING MEASURE R, AND THE SONOMA MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT (SMART) PROJECT, TO RESTORE PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ON THE HISTORIC NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND TO ESTABLISH A 70 MILE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CLOVERDALE AND LARKSPUR AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 14 Due to a family obligation, Councilmember Cohen excused himself and left the Council Chambers. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: NEW BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE 11. AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH LAMPHIER-GREGORY TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PROPOSED “RECREATIONAL FACILITY AT THE SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT” PROJECT (397- 400 SMITH RANCH ROAD) FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $124,288 (CD) – FILE 4-3-460 x 9-3-85 Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 26, 2006. Most of the speakers at this hearing spoke in support of various aspects of the draft scope of work and virtually all of the suggestions made by members of the public had been incorporated into the revised scope of work. Mr. Brown stated that the major change in the scope was that a protocol level survey for the presence of the California Clapper Rail would now be done by the sub-consultants, Monk & Associates. He indicated this would require several site visits by the staff of Monk & Associates, who had staff certified in conducting the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Survey Protocols for Clapper Rail. This had to occur between January and April; therefore, for that reason, the EIR would be somewhat delayed and because of the requirements of this Protocol Survey, it was now anticipated that a draft EIR would be available for the public in May of 2007. Councilmember Heller noted that two Planning Commissioners abstained and while she understood Mr. Paul’s reasons, she inquired as to Mr. Kirchmann’s. Mr. Brown explained that Mr. Kirchmann was a part-time soccer referee and receives some of his income, albeit minimal, from this; therefore, he believed it to be a conflict of interest. Roger Roberts, Marin Conservation League, on his own behalf and that of Jean Starkweather, stated that in reading the proposed scope of work and the steps associated with the work to be done by Lamphier-Gregory, he had a question of staff. He quoted from page 9, “Traffic and Circulation using traffic analysis, updated studies to be provided by the project applicant and reviewed and analyzed by the City Traffic Engineer. Lamphier-Gregory would prepare a Traffic and Circulation section…” and inquired why the City was accepting analysis and updated studies of the project applicant and not an independent analysis. He stated it appeared to him that an independent analysis was deserved. Mr. Brown explained that the only piece of data that the traffic engineer has an applicant provide in San Rafael, which was unique among cities, was that they only provide information on the amount of traffic they expect the project to generate, and this was an unusual facility. He stated that the change the project proponent requested the City to look at from the Initial Study and Initial Traffic Study work done by Mr. Mansourian was allowing the soccer portion of the facility to be open from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. They originally had not proposed that, rather they would be closed for that portion of the facility for those hours; however, now that an EIR was being done, they would like to see the results of that analysis as an alternative. Mr. Brown stated the actual traffic study would be done by Mr. Mansourian and his staff as was City practice. Only a small amount of data would be coming from the applicant, and Mr. Mansourian always reviewed that data for its general accuracy. Robert Dobrin referred the City Council to the Clapper Rail video submitted earlier this evening which he indicated had relevance to this project also. Mary Feller, Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association and Friends of Gallinas Creek, stated she remained concerned about events that transpired which the City Council might or might not be aware of. Ms. Feller indicated that the Lamphier-Gregory proposal stated they would: “…address deficiencies identified in the circulation of the Initial Study.” However, the original proposal actually read: “The report will attempt to counter negative responses to the circulated Initial Study pertinent to wetlands, California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mice. Letters that would appropriately be prepared included responses to Marin Audubon, Sierra Club, Friends of Gallinas Creek, Kristina Ton, Stuart Segal, Marin Conservation League and Save the Bay.” Ms. Feller stated that one City Planning Commissioner characterized this original language as “An unfortunate choice of words. The consultant said it was merely boiler plate.” She commented that it was troubling to hear such language from the consultant and it would be a SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 15 breach of public trust, perhaps, if the Community Development Department directed the consultant to confirm the findings of their own negative declaration, rather than objectively analyzing the conditions at the site. Nevertheless, Ms. Feller stated that Mr. Brown did tell the Marin Independent Journal in June, that the “City is requesting the more extensive report as a hedge against future legal challenges to the controversial project.” She noted the article stated that San Rafael officials did not expect the EIR to reveal new information on the project and Mr. Brown went on to state: “Ultimately the City is acting to make this project more legally defensible.” Ms. Feller stated her deep concern was that she believed the intent of an EIR process was to objectively analyze the conditions at the site and she was appealing to the City Council to ensure the impartiality of the studies upon which these important decisions would be made. She noted that even if competitive bidding was not required for the EIR, because it was being paid for by the developer, they would like the EIR contract to be put out to bid to other vendors and to let the public have a voice in how the consultant was directed to prepare the proposal because this one appeared to have been somewhat tainted from the start. Mr. Brown stated there was nothing in the California Environmental Quality Act that required public participation in the hiring of a consultant, which was the reason for doing a public scoping meeting, which was done before the Planning Commission, and as mentioned to the City Council, all of the issues raised by the public regarding the draft scope had been expanded upon in the revised scope. Mr. Brown clarified for Mayor Boro that this was all independent analysis. They would review the background reports that were used in the initial study, there would be some additional reports on airport safety, hydrology, Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Lamphier- Gregory had an impeccable reputation, as did Monk & Associates. He believed most present who heard the biologist from Monk & Associates speak were highly impressed with him. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 12137 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH LAMPHIER-GREGORY FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RECREATIONAL FACILITY AT THE SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT PROJECT (Term of Agreement: From October 16, 2006 to October 16, 2007, for an amount not to exceed $124,288) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT PROJECTIONS 2007 (ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA 12. GOVERNMENTS) (P06-016) (CD) – FILE 111 x 13-16 x 9-3-85 Principal Planner Linda Jackson stated that the Staff Report outlined the issue on the Draft Projections for housing and jobs growth in San Rafael through the year 2025. As background, Ms. Jackson stated that ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) puts out these draft projections every couple of years and they are adopted. Ms. Jackson stated that they were important to San Rafael at this point because the jobs projection and housing, particularly the jobs projection, was an important critical part of the formula that ABAG uses in determining San Rafael’s regional housing need – the affordable housing San Rafael has to plan for. She indicated that the next planning period was 2009 through 2014; therefore, these draft projections would be used in that formula that splits up the regional housing need for the Bay Area to all the local jurisdictions. Explaining two of the methodologies being evaluated currently, Ms. Jackson stated that both take jobs growth into account; therefore, the amount of jobs projected by ABAG for San Rafael was critical. With a slide presentation, Ms. Jackson explained that the projections actually went out to 2035 and showed a really substantial increase in jobs in San Rafael; however, they did not reflect what was included in General Plan 2020, adopted only two years ago. ABAG stated they were supposed to reflect local policy; however, in reality, these projections reflected ABAG’s visioning process which was conducted in 2000. She stated the intent of that visioning process was that there should be growth redirected from the agricultural areas of the Central Valley back to the Bay Area; however, during the General Plan process the community spent a lot of time talking about the need to have a jobs/housing balance and that there should be sufficient housing in San Rafael to meet the City’s jobs. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 16 Referring to page 2 of the Staff Report, Ms. Jackson directed attention to a table depicting the projected jobs growth in San Rafael in the General Plan and the projected jobs growth provided by ABAG in their Draft 2007 Projections, and noted a substantial difference. Recalling that jobs growth did translate to square-footage and buildings, Ms. Jackson stated that when a building was redeveloped, typically it involved taking down an existing building and replacing it, and the increments of increase were quite small compared to the total building. Ms. Jackson reported that page 7 of the Staff Report included comments submitted to ABAG concerning three particular areas in San Rafael where ABAG believed there would be quite a bit of development: East San Rafael; Montecito Commercial Area and San Rafael Hill. She stated the notes in the table to ABAG indicated this was not realistic; however, ABAG had not brought down jobs growth in response to staff comments. Ms. Jackson stated there were notes on page 3 of the Staff Report concerning comments staff would like to include in the letter to be submitted by the end of this week and she invited Council comment and observation. Mayor Boro clarified with Ms. Jackson the bottom line was that ABAG was overstating San Rafael’s job growth based on their projections rather than General Plan 2020, which in turn would overstate the City’s need for affordable housing. Indicating that presumably they did not pick the number out of a hat, Councilmember Phillips inquired how they generated this data. Mr. Brown explained that as pointed out by Ms. Jackson, a few years ago, ABAG started departing from just basing their growth projections on each local General Plan. Instead, two years ago they did what they call Livability Footprint. They brought folks together in each county who were interested in spending a couple of weekends planning for their community and in that process, in Marin, most of the participants basically concluded that new job growth and significant housing production should be in San Rafael, as opposed to elsewhere in the County. ABAG took that back and it essentially became their Livability Footprint for Marin County and each county was done similarly. Mr. Brown reported that San Rafael objected at that time, noting particularly that East San Rafael, as evidenced in the recent PSP process, had virtually no traffic capacity; therefore, staff basically commented that it was unrealistic, but ABAG’s response was that they went through a community process and they would stick with this. Mr. Brown reported that these projections were no longer based upon local General Plans which analyze trends, constraints and make these projections, and he noted ABAG was on a different track. Councilmember Heller stated she sat through the farce for one entire day and was furious at the end. There were tables with groups of genuinely interested people. Each table had one person assigned who had incorrect maps, was out of the County, did not know anything about the County and each table was requested to indicate where they would like to see growth in the next ten years, or whatever the question. She noted San Rafael or Novato were mentioned most of the time because of being the largest cities. Councilmember Heller stated she found the system flawed and ABAG had refused to look at or change it at all. Mr. Brown stated that because of that ABAG was now going to be negotiating with each local community because that plan did not get implemented; therefore, negotiations would take place with each municipality. Mr. Brown stated he believed those negotiations should precede the process of making their housing projections; however, time wise, this was not going to happen. He believed it critical to submit the comments to ascertain whether from a higher authority, ABAG could be convinced to reconsider the numbers. David Schonbrunn stated he wanted to take responsibility for what ABAG was doing right now. As an advocate, he had been requesting MTC, commencing in 1994, to be looking at a different way of planning the region, in particular, so as to enable transit oriented development. He stated that in the 2005 Regional Transportation Plan, his organization did an alternative regional transportation plan in which they actually moved population around on the map to be near train and bus stations. He stated there were obvious incompatibilities between local plans and regional plans that came from the top down, which was inherent in the process, and this was the reason ABAG now had the process entitled “Focusing our Vision” just described by Mr. Brown, in which there was a lot more talk between ABAG and the local jurisdiction about how to come closer together. Mr. Schonbrunn stated this was inherent in the process of trying to think regionally and have future growth be in transit oriented development; therefore, there was a natural iterative process with back and forth. The reality was that until a community was essentially challenged by a regional vision to think about, if accepting more growth, how it would be structured, where it SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 17 could go, what it would like and how would it work, these questions would not have been posed if all that was happening in San Rafael was the local General Plan. Mr. Schonbrunn stated this was a useful process, it was bringing the region to a better place and the alternative Regional Transportation Plan showed that it actually performed better if instead of having people sprawled over the landscape, they were more concentrated in the downtowns. Noting there were benefits for the City, he stated it was a dynamic process. Not having seen the comment letter, Mr. Schonbrunn urged the City Council to work with them in good faith as this was actually heading in a good direction. Mayor Boro stated the bottom line was the impact on the City with respect to housing goals and if General Plan 2020, after the many years of process, had reached a conclusion as to what San Rafael’s job growth would be, he believed ABAG needed to respect that. He appreciated what Mr. Schonbrunn was attempting to do with TOD (Transit Oriented Development), the City tried to do what it could, and one of the things the letter pointed out was that San Rafael was a th leader in Smart Growth planning, ranked by the Greenbelt Alliance as 9 out of 101 cities in having Smart Growth policies and programs. Mayor Boro stated San Rafael’s concern was that ABAG used the wrong projection for jobs and then have San Rafael attempt to build houses that a) there was no place for them to go; and b) the jobs driving them would not be available. He stated this needed to be worked out with ABAG so that they understood this. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded to approve sending a comment letter to ABAG on the Draft Projections 2007. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: 13. None. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 14. None Vaughn Stratford – Former San Rafael Library Director: - File 9-3-61 x 7-4 Mayor Boro reported having been advised today that Vaughn Stratford, former City Library Director, passed away on Saturday, October 14, 2006 after a long illness. Noting Vaughn was the City’s Librarian from August of 1981 until his retirement in August, 2004, Mayor Boro indicated that Vaughn was a very vibrant and enthusiastic library professional who led all of Marin County Public Libraries into the computer age by advocating for the information on MARINet, the consortium of pubic libraries in Marin, and continually improving library services in San Rafael. Mayor Boro stated all who knew him knew Vaughn to be a true gentleman with a very kind soul and a great sense of humor. He had been missed and everyone was very sorry to see him go. Adjourning the City Council Meeting in Vaughn Stratford’s memory, Mayor Boro requested that the City Manager direct all City facilities to fly the flag at half mast for the remainder of this week in his honor. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:10 p.m. ___________________________ JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2006 ___________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/16/2006 Page 17