Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2009-11-16SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/16/2009 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 7:00 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Greg Brockbank, Councilmember Damon Connolly, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: Barbara Heller, Vice -Mayor Conference with Labor Negotiators— Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Negotiators: Jim Schutz, Leslie Loomis, Cindy Mosser, Rob Epstein, Ken Nordhoff Employee Organization(s): San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Assn. Western Council of Engineers San Rafael Firefighters' Assn. Local 1 - Confidential San Rafael Police Mid -Management Assn. SEN Miscellaneous & Supervisory San Rafael Police Association SEIU Child Care Unit Unrepresented Management Unrepresented Mid -Management Elected City Clerk and Elected Part -Time City Attorney City Attorney, Robert Epstein announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:14 PM Plastics: - File 9-1 Stuart Moodv, Rethinking Plastics Campaign and Green Sangha, stated that it had been a pleasure over the past years to attend Council meetings and applaud each step the City Council had taken toward "greening." The City's partnership with Kraemer Winslow's collective on Integrated Pest Management and Sustainable San Rafael on climate protection had been inspiring. Mr. Moody noted it was a pleasure to work with Cory Bytof, Volunteer Coordinator, who among many services to the City, leads the campaign to rid San Rafael of litter. Noting that he had previously spoken on plastics with the Council as well as with Bob Brown, Community Development Director, Mr. Moody reported that Thursday, December 17, 2009 would be "Bring Your Own Bag Day" and expressed gratitude to Mayor Boro for issuing a proclamation on its behalf. Eco -Moms Alliance, Green Sangha and Teens Turning Green would be working with the County of Marin to use "Bring Your Own Bag Day" as a kick-off for a deeper look at plastics and the passage of strategic bans to begin stemming the tide of pollution. Mr. Moody stated that Green Sangha's goal was to have ordinances across Marin County banning wasteful packaging by Earth Day, 2010, and they would speak with Councilmembers in every town and city, as well as Whole Foods, Mollie Stones, Safeway and other markets who are interested and supportive. Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda -related materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. American Sign Language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3198 (TDD) or (415) 485- 3064 (voice) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. CC 11-16-09 Relative to food serviceware, he stated that Mr. Brown had researched business owners' concerns which centered on increased cost of environmentally -preferable packaging. In order to allay these fears, he explained that the acting head of the Chamber of Commerce recommended a public awareness campaign to build customer acceptance and expectation of no more plastic. He noted that Councilmember Barbara Heller had recommended a business outreach program to motivate store and restaurant owners in support of this change. Mr. Moody stated that Green Sangha had considerable experience in both education and outreach and stood ready to work with the City on a coordinated effort. Sustainable San Rafael had worked on zero waste and Styrofoam education, as well. He added that, together, they would like to offer a public workshop sponsored by the City Council, followed by the City Council agendizing plastics in the form of two separate bans: one on retail check-out bags of all sorts, the other on plastic food packaging serviceware. Tania Levv, Acting Recycling Program Manager with the City of Berkeley and resident of Santa Venetia, stated that Berkeley began their polystyrene take-out ordinance in 1989 and therefore, had a lot of experience with its impacts. Noting that the public awareness of the issue at that time was similar to what it is currently, Ms. Levy reported that at that time the issue was the blowing agents in the expanded polystyrene harming the Ozone layer, which was Orange County's motivation for passing a similar ordinance. Since there were no clear plastic "clamshells" embedded at the time, she stated that consumers shifted to paper and created solutions to the problems cited at that time. She displayed examples of a paper-based coffee sleeve, a high-end paper take-out container and a paper food container from Whole Foods. Stating that suppliers, such as Sysco, were not carrying alternatives to polystyrene at the time, Ms. Levy noted that it was now routine to provide purveyors with a list of substitutes for these products. Regarding the unification of policy for chain businesses, she stated that it was not an issue since the Jamba Juice store in Berkeley uses paper products to serve their beverages, while the store in Oakland uses polystyrene. Although she stated she did not have statistics on litter, Ms. Levy mentioned that, having spoken with long-time employees in Berkeley's Streets Department, they claimed polystyrene litter effectively disappeared from downtown litter cans and storm drains as a result of their ordinance. Ms. Levy believed that it would only take a small amount of customers to question the use of polystyrene and she hoped a similar ordinance would work in San Rafael. Devi Peri, Education Coordinator for Marin Recycling and resident of Fairfax, reported that Fairfax had banned plastic bags and Styrofoam for quite some time. She had learned a lot about the issue from working at Marin Recycling Center as well as being a member of Green Sangha's Rethinking Plastics Campaign and felt that the plastics industry had led consumers to believe that many of their products were recyclable, with which she disagreed. Reading from "Californians Against Waste," published in the Pacific Sun in 1993, Ms. Peri quoted: "The plastics industry and its trade association has decided to put more money and effort into promoting plastics with their'Plastics Make It Possible' ads than recovering the materials for recycling. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has stated that at the same time the plastics industry put $56 million into promoting their recycling of plastics and the perception that it is recyclable, they were only spending $2 million on trying to find the money for research and technology." She believed therefore, that it was a lot about public perception and not about reality. Ms. Peri stated that through her experience at the Recycling Center and through the years of experimenting with collecting various plastics, in particular plastic bags, they had discovered the process did not work. Noting that currently only about 3% of plastic bags was being down cycled (made into plastic lumber), Ms. Peri felt that recycling plastic bags was not the solution. She believed that a ban on polystyrene would be avidly supported by Marin Sanitary Service if it were to be considered in San Rafael, and quoted Joe Garbarino: "If you're making money manufacturing a product that cannot be reused or recycled, then you shouldn't be making that product." Regarding litter, Ms. Peri quoted: "The City of Santa Monica has estimated that beach clean-up costs for all plastic is about $541,000 for their 2.8 miles of beach — approximately $200,000 per mile." She believed that if this number were to be extrapolated along all the miles of California coastline, it would be an estimated $259 million. She noted that litter was not a "people problem" rather a problem inherent with any lightweight material, such as plastic bags and Styrofoam. Kav Karchevski, San Rafael, urging the City Council to ban plastic bags and Styrofoam, stated that Styrofoam was a #6 plastic with a lot of detrimental health effects. Reading a letter from Amelia Spilger, Marketing Director for the Marin Farmers' Market, Ms. Karchevski quoted: "On behalf of Marin Farmers' Markets and Marin Agricultural Institute, I'm writing to encourage the City Council of the City of San Rafael to continue the important work towards a plastic bag reduction ordinance. In 2007, we estimated that customers at our Sunday Marin Civic Center Farmers' Market took home 1,000,000 plastic bags a year. We believe these numbers have decreased, as many more shoppers remember to bring their own bags, including smaller bags, to weigh and carry home individual items. This progress is thanks to a growing collective consciousness and to our joint educational efforts with Green Sangha at the market. An informed and empowered consumer base is pivotal to a successful and smooth transition. In May, 2009, our Fairfax Farmers' Market opened for the season and took the lead as our first plastic bag -free Farmers' Market. Though Fairfax's bag -reduction ordinance did not apply specifically to the Farmers' Market, our Board of Directors chose to be in accordance. As sharing farmers said, 8 out of 10 of Fairfax residents voting for the ordinance eased their fears of the subtle but significant change CC 11-16-09 to their business model. Instead of plastics, farmers offered paper and compostable bags, cloth product bags were available for sale and many loyal customers brought their own bags. The success of the Fairfax Farmers' Markets will inform a similar transition at our other markets. A public ordinance would be extremely helpful in galvanizing broad community awareness. We look forward to the December 17`" `Bring Your Own Bag Day' and to the continued campaign toward a plastic bag -free market, city and county." Jerry Belletto, Sustainable San Rafael, stated that they had worked closely with the City in developing the Climate Change Action Plan. He indicated that Section C-05 sets San Rafael the goal of being a leader in reduction in carbon and pointed out that Fairfax, Mill Valley, Sausalito and the County of Marin had already enacted the steps the City Council was being requested to consider. He stated that Section LF -11 of the Climate Change Action Plan committed the City to working towards zero waste and Section LF -17 specifically addresses plastic bags. Traffic Lights near Northgate I Measure G: - File 9-1 Mr. Taranto wished good luck to Councilmember Miller on his retirement and expressed congratulations to Councilmember Heller on her reelection and to Marc Levine on being elected to the City Council. He also expressed appreciation toward Esther Beirne, City Clerk, specifically for printing out extra agendas for tonight's meeting, and for ensuring the public had enough information. Referring to traffic lights in Terra Linda, Mr. Taranto expressed dissatisfaction with the Public Works department and stated that the intersection near the Northgate Mall had far too long a wait. He suggested that the lights be timed better or install a three-way light system at the intersection (Freitas Parkway and Del Presidio). Regarding Ballot Measure G, he stated that he did not support it; he expressed interest in working on it in order to have a definite site, a definite plan on how the building will look, adding that it was hard to support Measure G when residents were having financial problems. Mr. Taranto believed that the ban on plastic bags was working very well in San Francisco and felt that San Rafael should have a similar ordinance. Gerstle Park Traffic Improvements: - File 9-1 Stacev Laumann, Board Member of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, read from a letter recently written to the City Council: "The Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association would like to thank the City of San Rafael for successfully implementing an important local improvement in our neighborhood. The block of D Street between First and Second Streets has been changed to two-way traffic, allowing the flow of eastbound traffic to more directly access arterial routes. Most of the vehicles descending D Street now use this route, alleviating the impacts of regional traffic on First Street. We haven't noticed any increase in cut -through traffic in other areas of the neighborhood, which was forecasted as a potential side effect of the change. The additional Stop Sign at First Street and C Street has also been very successful in bringing safety to that intersection. Previously, the unusual partial right-of-way pattern caused confusion to drivers, but the all -way stop improvement has significantly increased vehicle control at the intersection. Both of these changes have noticeably improved the flow and safety of pedestrian and vehicle traffic in our neighborhood. We applaud your staff for working with our community to find a solution that works well. Particularly, we would like to thank Nader Mansourian and his colleagues for analyzing many, as in maybe 18, traffic schemes to find the one that was most effective and appropriate for these intersections. We also would like to applaud Ken Nordhoff for his consistent communication with our Traffic Committee and his ability to mediate the process. Gerstle Park residents value the walkable character of our neighborhood. With these implemented traffic changes, the City has made an important enhancement to the safety and character of Gerstle Park, so we thank you." CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: CONSENT CALENDAR: ALL MATTERS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE TO BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION, UNLESS SEPARATE ACTION IS REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ITEM: 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of November 2, 2009 (CC) RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTION: Approved as submitted. CC 11-16-09 El Appointment of Don Magdanz, Jane Middleton and Sara Sonnet to Three -Year Terms on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee, with Terms to Expire the end of November, 2012 (CC) — File 9-2-55 Resolution of Appreciation to Councilmember Cyr Miller, Retiring after 13 Years of Service on the San Rafael City Council (CC) — File 102 x 9-1 Resolutions of Appreciation for the Members of the Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan Advisory Committee (CD) — File 102 x 4-3-494 Approved staff recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 12860 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO COUNCILMEMBER CYR MILLER, RETIRING AFTER 13 YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 12861 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BRUCE ABBOTT, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12862 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DON BLAYNEY, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12863 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JEANNETTE BROERING, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12864 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MAIRE DURAN, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12865 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JOANNE GORDON, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12866 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RUSSELL HAMEL, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12867 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ANNE LAIRD-BLANTON, MEMBER— CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12868 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MARIBETH LANG, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12869 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RICHARD LOCKMAN, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12870 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CYR MILLER, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12871 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DON CC 11-16-09 Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending October, 2009 (Fin) — File 8-18 x 8-9 MAGDANZ, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12872 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SUE McCULLOUGH, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12873 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CATHERINE ORMAN, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12874 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CAROL PATTERSON, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12875 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO FERNANDO QUEZADA, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12876 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO STEVEN RAGGHIANTI, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12877 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JACQUELINE DEANE SCHMIDT, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12878 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DR. MICHAEL WATENPAUGH, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 12879 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CRAIG THOMAS YATES, MEMBER — CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Accepted report. Resolution of Appreciation to Randy Chu, Network Support RESOLUTION NO. 12880 Technician, Employee of the Quarter Ending September, 2009 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO (MS) — File 102 x 9-3-87 IT RANDY CHU, NETWORK SUPPORT TECHNICIAN, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER, 2009 Resolutions of Appreciation for Five Volunteers in Policing (PD) — File 102 x 9-3-30 RESOLUTION NO. 12881 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GILDA GOLDEN, VOLUNTEER — POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 12882 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO IRV GOLDEN, VOLUNTEER — POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 12883 CC 11-16-09 Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding Contract for Corporate Center Storm Water Pump Station Renovation to Bartley Pump, Inc. in the Amount of $150,262 (Bid Opening Held on October 20, 2009) (PW) — File 4-1-612 10. Resolution Approving the Issuance and Sale of Not to Exceed $16,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2009 (Redevelopment IV) (RA) — File 4-16-7 x R5 11. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consent to Collateral Assignment of Development Agreement from Northgate Mall Associates to U.S. Bank (CA) — File 10-2(1) RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JOHN McGINNIS, VOLUNTEER — POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 12884 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BERNADETTE PAYNE, VOLUNTEER — POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 12885 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BRUCE PAYNE, VOLUNTEER — POLICE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 12886 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR CORPORATE CENTER STORM WATER PUMP STATION RENOVATION PROJECT, PROJECT #11131, TO BARTLEY PUMP INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,262.00 RESOLUTION NO. 12887 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $16,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2009 (REDEVELOPMENT IV) RESOLUTION NO. 12888 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSENT TO COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM NORTHGATE MALL ASSOCIATES TO U.S. BANK 12. Resolution in Support of an Initiative to Protect Local Funding RESOLUTION NO. 12889 for Public Safety, Emergency Response, Road Improvements RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN and Public Transit (CM) — File 116 x 9-1 INITIATIVE TO PROTECT LOCAL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, EMERGENCY RESPONSE, ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND PUBLIC TRANSIT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Miller & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 13. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RANDY CHU, NETWORK SUPPORT TECHNICIAN, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER, 2009 (MS) — File 102 x 9-3-87 Mayor Boro stated that each quarter, employees of the City select an Employee of the Quarter, who receives an award of $100 and a gold star. At the end of the year, one of the four Employees of the Quarter would be selected Employee of the Year, and would receive a $500 award. Mayor Boro presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Randv Chu. Stating that Mr. Chu was a critical member of the City's Information Technology team, Mayor Boro added that Mr. Chu leads the department's efforts in providing maintenance support for over 400 computers and more than 80 network printers. CC 11-16-09 Mayor Boro noted the resolution addressed how Randy encourages teamwork by sharing new technical solutions with others on the I.T. Team, training others with less experience in a patient and supportive manner and helping set the mood by turning on music when needed. His continued enthusiasm is also evident in his willingness to volunteer his own personal time to help out with events, like this year's Employee Appreciation Luncheon, the annual Bocce tournament and City Hall's Halloween potluck. Randy was always willing to go the extra mile to make sure that users were not intimidated by technology, and that their requests are handled as quickly as possible. On behalf of the City Council and City employees, Mayor Boro congratulated Mr. Chu on his achievement. Gus Bush, Information Technology Manager, thanked Mayor Boro and the City Council for taking the time to recognize Mr. Chu tonight. On behalf of the I.T. Department, Mr. Bush thanked Mr. Chu for all of the things he does to make the department look good with all its customers and for spending extra time ensuring that everything was done correctly, setting a good example for the department. Thanking Mayor Boro and Councilmembers, Mr. Chu stated it was a pleasure to work for the City and despite the hard work, he appreciated bringing some fun to his job and helping others. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: 14. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE CANALFRONT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN AND CANALFRONT DESIGN GUIDELINES (CD) — FILE 280 x 4-3-494 Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, stated that this evening the work of the Canalfront Advisory Committee was being recognized. They would share with the City Council a vision they had generated working with the community of what San Rafael's Canalfront could be like in the future. She stated that this was a direct program out of General Plan 2020 adopted in 2004. It had its roots in an implementing program to prepare a vision for the Canalfront and specifically to look at ways to bring the public to the waterfront. Recognizing some of the grant funders, Ms. Jackson stated this would not have been possible without seed money from ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), the Bay Trail Grant (Maureen Gaffney) and a community- based transportation planning grant from Caltrans (Robert Tally). In addition, several consultants had assisted with the project, not least Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey. In addition to working on the project and supporting the work of the committee, there was an in-house advisory team, consisting of representatives from the different departments who provided feedback every few months. Ms. Jackson stated that the Canalfront Advisory Committee began meeting in the summer of 2008; each member was invited to participate in the community outreach program and to help develop of the vision. Committee Co -Chair, Jackie Schmidt, Montecito Neighborhood, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and long- time civic leader in San Rafael, stated that the concept of having a vision plan for the Canal had been formally in the City's planning process since 1988, adding that it was in the General Plan of 2000, as well as the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan of 2002. Having worked on the General Plan of 2020, Ms. Schmidt mentioned that a lot of thought was put into the fact that basically the Canal waterfront was a community -wide asset and resource and other cities with similar waterfronts that had been beautified. During the planning process for the Canal neighborhood's Transportation Plan, Ms. Schmidt stated that there was a desire within the neighborhood for more access to the waterfront and a means to cross the Canal. Believing the Canal was an underutilized resource, she felt it had the potential to be beautiful and accessible for pedestrians. Using PowerPoint, Ms. Schmidt identified a photograph of the Canalfront Advisory Committee which was appointed by the City Council and consisted of neighbors, property owners, residents, members of the boating community, business owners, members of the City's Boards & Commissions, bicycle advocates, a member of the Canal Alliance. Holding meetings at least once a month, and sometimes more frequently, for a year and a half, she indicated there was a lot of community involvement and outreach, including focus groups. She noted they also held two community workshops which were well attended and included residents from the Canal neighborhood; Spanish translators were present. Subsequent to agreeing on the draft plan this summer eighteen different presentations to different groups throughout San Rafael were held. In these presentations polls were taken on what attendees thought about the major ideas in the Draft Canal Plan, and 80% of the major ideas in the Draft plan received more than two-thirds positive response, and none of the ideas received less than 55% positive response. Ms. Schmidt indicated they had the statistics to back up these findings. Ms. Schmidt noted that there was much discussion and hard dialogue, and while not everyone agreed about everything, the plan being presented to the Council was approved unanimously at the committee's last meeting. 7 CC 11-16-09 Committee Co -Chair Maite Duran, Community Organizing Coordinator for Canal Alliance, indicated she was present to discuss the vision. As earlier mentioned, the Committee, represented by many communities, had been meeting for eighteen months and had generated a vision -- not only the vision of the members, rather the many people represented by the committee members. As the representative of the Canal Alliance she had the opportunity to meet with numerous people -- residents of the Canal, youth, children, families, all of whom were very supportive of the Canal Conceptual Plan, due to its being a "hidden treasure" that many people do not get to enjoy. She felt that with the vision it would be enjoyable, not only to the residents but all of the other representatives in the community, as well as visitors from outside the City. Ms. Duran stated that in the vision the Canalfront Paseo was a welcoming and inviting place for all the communities in the City. It was a destination for families, cyclists, joggers, walkers, seniors, children and youth to be outdoors, near the water, enjoying activities such as board games, art, a place to read, exercise or simply rest. Manuela Kina., Landscape Architect with Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey, stated it was a pleasure to present the result of the long, hard work, involving so many people over the past year and a half. She believed the Canalfront plan was a vision for the waterfront and the City of San Rafael had a tremendous opportunity. She commented that there were very few cities in the Bay Area with an urban waterfront, where the Bay actually meets the waterfront. She stated that those cities which such a waterfront were reinventing themselves and rethinking how to make their waterfront areas more of a community amenity. Using Petaluma as an example, she felt that the waterfront there had changed very much in the last ten years and had become a public amenity, bringing out the best in the waterfront and usable by everyone. She stated that the plan was looking to maximize the opportunities for people to see and have access to the water. She added that the Canal was one of the primary open spaces in the City — almost a park to "breathe air and life into the City." Ms. King stated that the following questions were raised when they began the project: How do you get to the Canal? What does it look like when you get there? Where can you see it from? She believed that many people driving on Highway 101 were not even aware of the Canal as only masts of the boats were visible. She stated that one very special aspect of the City was the diversity and eclectic character along the Canal, which she felt should be preserved as part of the charm of the City, and which the plan honors and respects and seeks to preserve. In addition, looking for a way to promote pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety throughout the area, Ms. King stated that it was extremely congested and difficult for people to move from the Canal neighborhood around to Montecito. They had to travel on Francisco Boulevard East, which had a narrow and dangerous sidewalk, making it difficult for families with strollers and children to navigate around the Canal. Having looked at the plan with a holistic view and how the Canal could better integrate with the community and urban fabric, Ms. King explained that the plan was a long-term vision — plan it now and as things changed over time, the guidelines would be in place to help guide that future development. She reiterated that it was a long-term plan with very few things implementable immediately; however, those immediately implementable could become a catalyst for reinvigoration of the waterfront, and for people to recognize, understand and appreciate the Canal. Ms. King listed the plan's four key components: 1) Understanding the Bay Trail and where the Bay Trail moves from east to west, then back east again around on the north side; 2) To look at access points on the Canal — where one could actually get to the water; 3) To look at crossings — how to move from one side of the Canal to the other in a safe way; and 4) To prepare design guidelines for any new development along the Canal. Using an aerial view map Ms. King identified a few pieces of City -owned property in the proposed area: Pickleweed Park, located behind the Pickleweed Community Center; Yacht Club Drive and Beach Park near the Seafood Peddler. She explained that the City owned the area around Seafood Peddler, together with a parking lot in the back of one of the car dealerships adjacent to the water. She noted the San Rafael Yacht Club also sits on that parcel. Ms. King identified a small parcel at the end of Canal Street, together with additional small parcels at the end of Mill Street and the end of Front Street. She noted these were the only pieces of City -owned land currently existing along the Canalfront. Explaining the proposal, Ms. King stated that the Bay Trail would connect up at the east side of the Pickleweed Community Center. The proposal was to find a way to improve Canal Street for bicyclists and pedestrians. Commenting that the solution was unclear currently, she reported that as part of the plan further studies were CC 11-16-09 recommended to make Canal Street better for bicyclists and pedestrians. She noted that there could be a combination of solutions that ultimately would result in how that happens, i.e., intersection bump -outs, widening sidewalks or a study of other parking opportunities. Ms. King indicated that the answer would not be known until a further study was carried out. Regarding the Bay Trail, Ms. King pointed out on the map how it follows along Canal Street before turning down Harbor Street and crosses at Francisco Boulevard East before coming back in up Yacht Club Drive and through the San Rafael Yacht Club. She indicated there was a small gap in the Bay Trail currently between Grand Avenue on the back side of the San Rafael Yacht Club, and believed it beneficial to have a walkway through the area, in order for the Bay Trail to be completed around the waterfront. She stated that a new crossing was proposed at Grand Avenue; however, it was uncertain whether it would be a widening of the existing bridge to include a wider pedestrian access area, or whether it could be an additional bridge parallel to Grand Avenue, so that pedestrians and bicyclists could cross at that point. Ms. King identified the ways one could proceed from behind the Montecito shopping center: • Westbound - using an existing walkway located behind Starbucks and the former AT&T store, which would require pedestrians and bicyclists to go up to Second Street in order to connect to the walkway, and then cross under the freeway to connect to the Transit Center • To the east, behind Montecito shopping center — part of the plan was to explore making improvements to the pedestrian access. She indicated there could be a way of putting a walkway over the embankment. • Bay Trail would continue up Grand Avenue and connect to Second and Third Street to go around to the west toward the Transit Center. Ms. King stated the other proposal was to make some improvements to Beach Park, and creating some waterfront amenities. As part of that it was recommended to evaluate Yacht Club Drive with the addition of trees, widening sidewalks and providing better access down Yacht Club Drive to the Beach Park and San Rafael Yacht Club. She also showed images via PowerPoint of what the southside of the Canal might look like. Returning to the Bay Trail along Canal Street, Ms. King indicated that the plan currently proposed further study to make it safer and more pedestrian -friendly. It also proposed as a very long-term study, that a study be carried out for how additional waterfront walkway could be developed on the water side of Canal Street. Noting that this was not something that could be done now or even in the immediate future, she stated that it would have to be done more as a design guideline; therefore, should a property be redeveloped, the existing easement along the waterfront would have to be retained as an open space. She indicated that sometime in the future there could be a connected walkway along the waterside; however, this plan proposed that it be studied further to understand the implications. With regard to connections across the Canal, specifically the Grand Avenue bridge, Ms. King explained that walking north -south along Grand Avenue the walkway was about 4 -feet with heavy vehicular traffic, which could be very dangerous. She noted however, that it was one of the primary ways for pedestrians to connect from the Canal neighborhood to the high school; therefore, receiving a lot of pedestrian traffic. Ms. King stated that the Grand Avenue bridge would be located parallel to Grand Avenue and would need to be studied as to exactly how far away the proposed new crossing was for bicyclists and pedestrians. Two other areas were recommended for studying crossing - the end of Canal Street, crossing over toward the Bay Street area. She explained that Francisco Boulevard East had a narrow sidewalk and heavy vehicular traffic, and should there be a way of obtaining a crossing somewhere in the area, it could keep pedestrians from having to cross onto Francisco Boulevard East from the Canal. In the future another walkway on the back side would be beneficial. She emphasized that any crossing would need to be navigable and could not impede boat traffic in any way. The other area recommended for studying crossing was from the end of Canal Street going north to the walkway that would be developed along the waterfront. Stating that the land was not currently public land, Ms. King reiterated that it was an area for further study, as all the issues needed to be researched. Ms. King reported that the area from the east to the west underneath the freeway was the other area which was difficult and a barrier to smooth access. She explained this was to the existing Transit Center, noting the SMART Train was proposing a station in the area. She noted a lot of east -west pedestrian traffic on the narrow sidewalk, Second and Third Streets were busy and there was no safe way to get a bicycle through. She believed the area had a psychological perception of being dark and not necessarily the safest place to walk. Therefore, the idea was to evaluate a really great art program that could bring some light underneath the freeway, providing color and improving the area to make it feel safer. In addition, she noted that there was a chain-link fence that inhibits CC 11-16-09 people's vision of the area under the freeway, which created more of a barrier and sense of un -safety Ms. King displayed images via PowerPoint of other cities and their models for improving area underneath their freeways to make them feel safer. Don Blavnev, Canalfront Advisory Committee, quoted Dutch landscape architect Saco DeBoer: "Though beauty may be destroyed very easily, it hardly ever slips into a plan without somebody's effort." Mr. Blayney stated that Saco DeBoer was born in the Netherlands in 1883 and passed away in 1974, having spent most of his life in Denver, Colorado. He stated that DeBoer co-authored the Denver First Zoning Codes, designed the Botanical Gardens in Denver as well as the Red Rock Amphitheater, which Mr. Blayney felt were very impressive. DeBoer was a visionary and put in the effort to make things beautiful. Stating that the Canalfront Plan was also a big effort, Mr. Blayney mentioned that the committee had spent a year and a half debating different aspects of the plan, though he felt that perhaps the "Plan" should be referred to as a "Vision," adding that he believed it was a "vision of what can be, what could be." Not always agreeing, Mr. Blayney stated there were different viewpoints and different issues addressed. The public was invited in which resulted in another series of viewpoints and discussion points; however, the Committee was able to come together and generate the plan/vision with the help of several people. Mr. Blayney stated that the committee was requested to write design guidelines and as a landscape architect, he had written many design guidelines; however, it was one issue to have a project on paper. This project was somewhat more difficult in that it was a vision which would not happen in the near future and he expressed the hope that his children would be able to experience it. Mr. Blayney stated that these were broad -brush guidelines for landscape architects, civil engineers, planners, etc., to have a guide should the opportunity arise, and when the opportunity came about they would have something to guide them through the process. He added that the committee had discussed the water's edge, building, mass, character, articulation of planes, lighting, landscaping, as well as Canal Street, because not only was the canalfront an opportunity but Canal Street was another opportunity. He stated that until he joined the committee he had not realized how close the water was; albeit it could not be seen. He believed these guidelines would allow for windowing through the building masses to create more waterfront visibility and public access to the water. He stated that all these broad -brush ideas were put into the plan to guide an architect in what could be and hopefully would be some day. Despite the committee's disagreements and different viewpoints Mr. Blayney stated they all agreed on the opportunity with the Canal waterfront and tried to slip that beauty into the design. Bob Brown, Community Development Director, stated that since so many came into the process rather late and he had heard many inaccurate understandings with regard to what the Canalfront Plan entails, he would attempt to clear up some of these misconceptions: • The Canalfront Plan was a very long-term vision. Many of the capital items were very costly and funding would be sought over very many years — a generational timeframe. • The City would not be able to fund these capital improvements; instead they would have to be realized through Federal and State grant funding opportunities, just as the City currently seeks federal funds from different sources for maintenance dredging in the Canal. • The plan is not a "land -grab" and would not entail confiscating private property; rather it would largely be accomplished through incremental redevelopment of Canalfront properties, similar to the project at 171-181 Third Street, again over many years. He added that the City's Zoning Code had a 25 -foot setback requirement from the Canalfront on private property for decades. This plan acknowledges that and provides specificity about how the City would utilize the 25 -foot setback area to create and improve a continuous public walkway over many years through redevelopment activities. • Any projected improvements over or across the Canal waterway would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Mr. Brown stated they had been abundantly clear that maintaining navigability was their primary objective; therefore, nothing would be done that would impact navigability. Regarding future procedure, Mr. Brown stated that the new design guidelines would be used with applicants, staff and for decision -makers, incrementally as new redevelopment opportunities arose. Key provisions would be incorporated into the upcoming General Plan update. Lastly, the plan would be used to seek grant funding, as without a plan, the City would not qualify for grants; this plan would afford that ability. Matt Butler, San Rafael Yacht Harbor, stated he had been opposed to the Canalfront Plan from the beginning, and 10 CC 11-16-09 had stated this at the many meetings he attended; albeit this was not stated in the meeting minutes because he was omitted. Explaining that the business and property owners in attendance were asking for some respect, Mr. Butler stated that they wanted to remove the 25 -foot wide "land -grab" from the Plan. He concurred with Mr. Brown's comment that there was already a zoning ordinance which prohibits building from 25' of the water; however, that 25 -feet still belonged to the property owner or developer. He believed the plan would take control of that property by turning it into a walkway, and this distinction needed to be made. Mr. Butler stated that, should the City not honor property rights because it was the "right thing to do," the U.S. Constitution should be the motivator. He stated that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had a clause on taking which states: "No branch of government, be it City, County or State, can seize your property without fair and just compensation", and the 14th Amendment due process — "Before you take the public's property for any project, you have to notify them." Mr. Butler stated that no property or business owners negatively affected or who would be affected by the plan had been notified. One public notice was sent out at the beginning to the effect that there would be meetings about a Canalfront dream vision plan; however, it did not state that people's property would be taken. Should the "land -grab" be removed from the plan Mr. Butler believed that the majority would support it; however, the U.S. Constitution backed them up on this. Mr. Butler stated he signed up to be on the committee, as did many other business and property owners directly located on the Canal, not those near the canal, but those who would lose their property and would be put out of business by this; however, none were selected. Several people were invited to join the committee, while people who applied and would be directly affected were excluded. Mr. Butler stated democracy meant that everyone was invited to the table and had a say; however, excluding people was not a democracy. Indicating that at the beginning he was perhaps naive about not being selected for the committee, Mr. Butler stated he attended the first meeting and stated his opposition to the plan, as bridges and walkways were not a good idea; however, his comments were not recorded in the meeting notes. Reporting on the first meeting, Mr. Butler stated City staff told the committee members that this was their dream, plan, vision and City and to go out, dream big, do what they wanted to see happen for the City and "we are here to help you." At the June, 2009, meeting, committee members voted 9:1 that there would be no new bridges in the plan. The Grand Avenue bridge could be widened; however, other than that there would be no new bridges. Subsequent to that vote, Mr. Butler stated that City staff initiated three other votes in an attempt to include the bridges in the plan; however, they were voted down on the first and second votes. The third vote asked the question: "can we have bridges in an element of this plan that we present in the summer outreach program to get a little more public input" and this was the only element the committee could obtain consensus on. Mr. Butler stated that City staff used the third vote as support for bridges and began correspondence with the Coast Guard to study three bridges over the canal. He commented that he would call the letter Mr. Brown wrote to the Coast Guard a "complete fabrication and a distortion." He believed that was not what the will of the committee members indicated and was in direct contradiction to what the committee members wanted. Regarding the meeting of October 8, 2009 — final meeting — Mr. Butler stated that the Coast Guard gave a long presentation on the history of bridges in the United States. They went back 200 years explaining how railroads used to block off streams to steamboat companies and outlined case after case where cities, counties and states were not permitted to plug up federal waterways. However, the meeting notes did not include this, rather included the question and answer period. He believed the bulk of the meeting would have been instructive with regard to floating walkways, which could not be placed in the canal because they would restrict the navigable waterway. The Coast Guard made clear that from bank to bank they wanted the canal clear with nothing in the waterway; however, this was not reflected in the meeting minutes, which he believed to be "distorted and half-truths at best." Having contacted the Coast Guard regarding the last committee meeting, Mr. Butler stated he had transcripts from a phone conversation from David Sulouff, U.S. Coast Guard, where Mr. Sulouff confirmed that he had to correct the draft meeting minutes heavily, that there were misunderstandings and that the minutes were not very good. Stating that he felt the plan was City staff's "tar baby," Mr. Butler stated that earlier someone cited 70% of people liking one aspect or 90% liking another, based on surveys; however, those surveys were based on their multiple choice questionnaires, which he referred to "all the wrong answers and none of the right questions." He believed it to be a rigged format where one was basically asked "which color bridge do you like and where would you like to see it located?" He noted that there were a limited number of questions and limited number of responses, yet that was deemed to be public input. Mr. Butler stated that not one question on the multiple-choice questionnaires mentioned private property, marine businesses, the cost, etc. Having heard City staff's rosy version, Mr. Butler believed that as a citizen and business owner he would be severely impacted a troubling aspect of the situation was that the City had a list of higher priority items which needed to be attended to, yet this issue was before the City Council. He urged the Council not to adopt the plan until those who had been excluded, ignored or omitted from the process had been treated like members of a democracy. 11 CC 11-16-09 Mayor Boro clarified for the audience that at the conclusion of testimony, staff would respond to questions raised by Mr. Butler: the taking of property, the discrepancy regarding bridges, and the minutes of the September 8, 2009 meeting. Louis Tenwinkle, 50 Tiburon Street, stated he was concerned; however, subsequent to the presentation this evening he was less worried. Believing the plan to be a waste of money, he indicated he would prefer to see the money go towards fixing City streets and sidewalks, since he often rides his bike in the same area and felt it could be made safer. Daniel Holm, Canal resident, stated he was under the impression it was a lot closer to being moved forward with; however, subsequent to the presentation he suggested including Mr. Butler to represent the land and business owners in the next stage of the project. Despite feeling that some of the plan's ideas were brilliant, Mr. Holm found a section of the proposal to interfere with businesses along the Canal. He hoped for assurance from the City Council that the plan would not be voted on tonight and suggested that the land and business owners' voices be included in the next stage of the plan. Mayor Boro clarified that the Council did not intend to adopt the plan tonight, despite what the newspaper may have reported. He stated the recommendation was that the City Council accept the Conceptual Plan. Having met with Mr. Butler and several others, Mayor Boro stated he had assured them that when future planning efforts were undertaken representatives from the Canal Property Owners who were not initially included would be included along with others, and the record would reflect this. Dorothy Veseckv, Canal resident, stated that renters do pay property taxes via their landlords, yet do not receive federal tax benefits, and requested that they not be referred to as "non -taxpaying people." From what she understood of the plan, Ms. Vesecky found both good and questionable aspects. She disliked the cavalier attitude "well gee, a landlord might just give us his building" because there was a lot of housing along Canal Street, a lot of extremely important and vital housing. Whatever was done, she believed it a big mistake to do anything that would lower the number of housing units in the neighborhood. She expressed the hope that in going forward the idea of maintaining the rental housing in the canal that exists currently would continue. She thanked the committee members for spending so much time on this project. Tom Wilson, Executive Director of Canal Alliance, believed that the vision of the plan was one of the most exciting things he had seen happen in the Canal. Commending the Planning staff, particularly Linda Jackson, and the Canalfront Advisory Committee for their hard work, he added that there had been many people whose input was considered in the Conceptual Design Plan. Mr. Wilson felt that the Canal was a beautiful and natural resource which belonged to everyone and would provide everyone access to the waterway. He thanked the staff and the committee and on his behalf and that of the Board of Directors at the Canal Alliance, he urged the City Council to adopt the plan. Stating he believed in development and beautification projects if they were practical, Kevin Duffie stated that in this particular project, he stood behind Mr. Butler 100%. Looking at the plan he saw grass, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. replacing buildings, apartments, boat docks, etc. Regarding the bridges, Mr. Duffie mentioned they would need to be approximately 85' high in order to accommodate boats passing underneath, and he suggested a ferry service to move people from one side of the canal to the other. With regard to a walkway or bicycle path, as an avid bicyclist, Mr. Duffie stated he was unsure whether there should be a path in the canal or going across a boat yard. With regard to the long-term timeline, Mr. Duffie stated they planned to have the boat yard operating ten years from now, adding that it was a good service not just for Marin, but for the Bay Area, since people came from all over the Bay Area to have their boats hauled out. San Rafael residents also used it. Mr. Duffie expressed concern over bicyclists passing through the yacht harbor with sanding and chemicals from people working on their boats. Also a path going through the Seafood Peddler did not sound too real. Mr. Duffie urged that all work together and have real meetings with real questions and real answers, as opposed to what he felt was a convoluted, multiple-choice questionnaire. Commenting that it was nice underneath the freeway, down Second Street up to China Beach, Mr. Duffie stated his thought was that should there be a bicycle path from the canal in that area it should go down Francisco Boulevard; therefore, widening Francisco Blvd. would be the idea. Jonathan Frieman stated he had been involved with Ted Posthuma on the possibility of building a bridge over the Canal and felt that the bridge would be the least of the City's worries. Getting to the other side was an eminent domain problem. Having looked through the staff report, Mr. Frieman noted there was no mention of possible sea level rise, which could affect the issue. 12 CC 11-16-09 Mr. Frieman reported that a couple of years ago when he took this issue to Stanford University to speak with students in the mechanical engineering department, they indicated that this was an easy problem in that any number of different kinds of crossings could be made to meet any number of different kinds of problems. Lisa Georae, one of the founders of Helmut's Marine Service on Canal Street, thanked Councilmembers Brockbank and Connolly for previously hearing her concerns. Ms. George brought copies of committee and City meeting notes which backed up Mr. Butler's statements. With regard to the meeting of April 9, 2009 held by Manuela King, the question asked was raised: "When will the property owners be contacted about the bridge ideas?" The answer was "during the summer outreach." Referring to a copy of the summer outreach summary, she noted it was stated that over 268 had been spoken to and 18 presentations were attended during the summer of 2009. As Mr. Butler stated and as she could prove with the City's own paperwork, none of the property or business owners who would be most affected by the plan were ever informed, neither through a meeting, outreach nor in writing. Referring to Mr. Butler's comments on democracy, she felt that this was a huge flaw and was unfair and her property, Mr. Butler's and Anthony Cavallo's from Hi -Tide would be the three most affected by the plan. Regarding the meeting of June 10, 2009, for which she had copies of the minutes, Ms. George stated there was an issue about who voted for or against the bridge and the issue was raised at several subsequent meetings. She quoted from the notes: "Russ Hamel asked for a vote on keeping only the Grand Avenue bridge option on the draft plan" and that vote reached a consensus of 9:1; the other vote regarding the north -south bridge or the east -west bridge reached no consensus. Ms. George stated that in a letter to Mayor Boro she addressed those problems and received a response from Mr. Brown; however, she was unsure from which side the misunderstanding came. She read from Mr. Brown's letter: "At the June 10th meeting, the committee members voted 9:1 in favor of the bridges." Ms. George stated they did not have anything against the beautification of the Canal, as quite to the contrary it would enlighten their businesses. They were very interested in participating and would do anything they could to help; however, they needed answers before the City Council either accepted or adopted the plan. She indicated they needed to know how much property the City required from them, how this property would be obtained, and how the City saw the access from the street down to the waterway, should it ever be built. She believed that building the Paseo would negatively affect boating in the Canal, because it would take so much of the waterway away that it would be almost impossible to dredge it and to use the canal. She felt the plan would close Hi -Tide Boats, Helmut's Marine Services (with ten employees) and Mr. Butler's business. The walkway would be 1/3 into her parts department. Ms. George requested that the City Council not just look at the pretty picture being presented, which sounded beautiful and was a wonderful dream; however, such a dream could not be painted without affording them at least the courtesy and respect of answering questions on what would be done with their properties. She indicated that the excuse of it being ten or twenty years down the road was not a good answer and she urged the City Council not to accept or adopt the plan this evening, rather check into the true facts and provide real answers. Erica Avala, Canal Youth Concilio, supported the Canalfront Plan. She stated that she and members of the Concilio had spoken with many residents about the plan and all were in support. She believed it would be helpful for many reasons, including making it easier for Canal residents to get to Montecito Center. It would also help future high school students get to school faster and it would provide a welcoming place for youth to convene, benefitting everyone. She stated the Concillio was trying to make the canal a better place and this plan would help. Lvnn Mason, President of the Montecito Area Residents Association, commended the City and committee members for providing a design which covered the entire area. Stating that the Canal was very different in its early years, she noted that in the 1900s, the Canal reached into the City as far as C Street, and residents enjoyed both indoor and outdoor swimming where the freeway now crosses the Canal. The pool closed in 1929; however, in 1937 an attempt was made to place a bathing beach on the north side of the Canal near San Rafael High School Nothing was done and consequently there was no park in the Montecito area and no room left to create one. She believed that beautifying the area along the Canal would give residents a pleasant place to stroll and sit. Ms. Mason reported that in the following years without a masterplan, buildings appeared randomly and by 1969 one writer commented that the area was incredibly ugly and something should be done. Although businessmen and the Chamber of Commerce suggested improvements, there was only weak support from property owners; therefore, nothing was done. She stated that in 1974, community organizations wanted to give the Canal a facelift; however, absent a plan, nothing was done. She stated it appeared that everyone, including the builders of the Montecito Shopping Center turned their backs on the Canal and what might have been a walkway became an alley for delivery and garbage bins. Ms. Mason stated that this plan would help the City prioritize the most immediate needs, such as improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists on the Grand Avenue bridge, and finding ways to fund dredging in order to keep the Canal navigable. She concluded that without the plan, residents might still be complaining about the ugly canal 75 13 CC 11-16-09 years from now. Brad MacClennan, Yacht Harbor tenant, felt it was a good idea to improve the Canalfront area; however, there were some parts of the plan he believed were a waste of money. He expressed concern that the plan would have an impact on live river otters as well as egrets. The sidewalks were bad with the impact of pollution from the freeway. He suggested that the City construct a tunnel using open space land which could be accessible for the handicapped, pedestrians and bicyclists. Regarding safety problems that a suggested tunnel might add, he stated that perhaps both ends of the tunnel could be locked up on each side at a certain time. Having lived on his boat for ten years, John Harvin stated he was a Coast Guard veteran who had dreamed of living on his boat and felt the plan was myopic. It addressed how it would improve the Canal and preserve the navigability of the waterways; however, services that certain business owners provided would be excluded. Noting land lovers liked to look at boats, he stated it took a lot more investment — time, love and energy — to keep that boat floating and properly maintained. He stated that a nautical history would be jeopardized if Mr. Butler's business were to close down, and believed that the proposed improvements were driving woodworkers and others who worked on boats out of the Canal area. Regarding amenities, Steve Enzer, Canal resident, clarified that there were several amenities already on the Canal which he considered unique in Marin, such as the boatyard at San Rafael Yacht Harbor, Country Club Bowl bowling alley, Mi Tierra supermarket and low-income rental housing. He stated that he had never been notified of the summer outreach and had not seen anything about it in the Marin Independent Journal; therefore, had not had a chance for input. He thanked Mr. Butler for taking the lead and supported his efforts, noting that Mr. Butler was not just a business owner; rather he anchored an industry at the boatyard. Commenting on the financial state of the country, he suggested a possible solution would be to have an exception for the industry already located in the area, due to the jobs and low-income housing center there, which he did not see room for in the vision. Mary Anne Owens, Canal Street, stated she had grave concerns with the plan and urged the City Council not to approve it this evening. She expressed concern about the legal issues, the minutes from the committee meetings and their possible omissions and lack of transparency, which could leave the City open to litigation in the future regarding the opportunity for everyone to be heard. Commenting that she would love to see the Canal thrive and be a destination, Ms. Owens believed that the Canal area currently was seen as undesirable, noting the police substation was removed. Regarding Beach Park, she believed that the City had removed the park of its picnic tables and bushes in order to discourage the homeless from residing there, adding that she did not understand who the plan would benefit, or whether it was only for certain people who came to the Canal. Mentioning that she walks the Bay Trail often, she commented on the refuse and waste she encounters there and believed it was unfortunate. Stating she supported a "face lift" for the area, Ms. Owens indicated that the infrastructure needed to be built, local businesses should be supported and funding sought to improve the Canal business community in order to create jobs. She urged the City Council to hold off on accepting the plan, stating that it would need fine tuning first. Richard Mercer, San Rafael Yacht Harbor, stated that the Yacht Harbor was one of the few places in the Bay Area where a boat owner could work on his own boat. Commenting that beauty was in the eye of the beholder, he stated he loved to visit Cape Cod which was attractive for its color, boatyards, fishing boats and real waterfront; however, what too often happened was that the real waterfront was taken out to make it beautiful, leaving nothing. Stating that she had attended some of the Canalfront Advisory Committee's meetings, Marina Palma, Canal resident, expressed thanks that the committee had decided to beautify her neighborhood. Acknowledging that the Plan would most likely not be completed in her lifetime, she felt hopeful that her grandchildren would be able to enjoy the vision for the Canal. Dwavne Hunn, consultant for Canalways Property adjacent to Home Depot, stated that since the 1920s, the Canal had been dredged over 20 times, each time being suction pumped and put on land somewhere around the City, beneficially reused as the long-term management study mandated. He added that recently, the Canal had been clamshell dredged and dumped either up the Delta or at Canalways and he believed the City needed a less expensive way, rather than raising $6.5 million from the federal government, and suction pumping rather than clamshell dredging cost about half as much. Should the City suction pump the San Rafael Canal and put it at Canalways to reinforce the levees, and in the uplands area, it would benefit the plan in the event that a bridge required an 8 -foot' vertical draft. He added that the property owners on the Canal would not have to hire private contractors to dredge and with a suction pump situation set up they would not have to pay as much clamshell dredging as they would with suction pumping, and at the same time benefitting Shoreline Park. He hoped the City Council would take his suggestions into consideration. Janise Harmon, Canal resident and member of the San Rafael Yacht Club, stated that she represented the 14 CC 11-16-09 property owners at 460, 440 and 430 Canal Street, and for the last ten years she had been president of the Canal Area Property and Business Owners Association. Having attended several of the planning meetings she indicated she did not want to see the plan adopted tonight, as she felt it was flawed at this point. Should the City take 25' off of all three properties, half of the rental properties and all of the docks would be lost. They were at the narrowest part of the canal, which was difficult to navigate currently, noting the boat parade could hardly make it around the corner. She agreed that initially the infrastructure of the Canal needed to be taken to task. Regarding an article in the Pacific Sun, Linda Sutton, employee of Helmut's Marine Service, remarked that she read there would not be any new bridges. In the mix of the talk there would be discussions about bridges being built which had created concern among business owners and boaters, according to Linda Jackson, San Rafael Planner who had guided the Canalfront process. She quoted: "Some businesses and boat owners remain concerned that this plan is going to result in taking of land for a public walkway along their property and there's concern that a bridge would block boat traffic. The last concern should have been put to rest when the Coast Guard said Federal law ensures that the City cannot build any structures that block water access." Stating that it was still in the plan, Ms. Sutton urged the Council not to adopt the plan, as it was not supposed to include new bridges. She commented that Ms. Jackson had stated the City would not aggressively act through eminent domain; therefore, she did not understand whether eminent domain would be later rather than now. Ms. Sutton noted the Canalfront plan called for working with the community to identify, understand potential issues with redevelopment. In other words as redevelopment projects presented themselves the City, community and property owners could consider options that include a paseo along the canal. She therefore, requested that the plan not be accepted until the language was clarified. Stating that he rides his bicycle into town about twice a day, Steve Sharpe, resident of San Rafael Yacht Harbor, felt the most important issue in the plan was safety, particularly on sidewalks. Noting it was a straight shot from Burger King to the Grand Avenue bridge, Mr. Sharpe felt it would not be difficult to install something. Don Mvrtle believed it was an admirable idea to improve the Canal, but felt the staff report missed an opportunity to provide pedestrian and bicycle access on the west side of the highway, noting there were all types of access to the Canal from this area. Additionally, Mr. Myrtle felt that there was an opportunity behind the Montecito Shopping Center in the form of a floating dock. The City Planning Department could not tell him what the dock's permitted use was. Assuming the Corps of Engineers issued a permit for access for the shopping center it was fenced in, and while there could be food stalls and everything else associated with the shopping center, it was not happening. He stated that before the buildings were torn down the situation should be evaluated and perhaps a landscape architect was not the person to do that. Regarding the San Rafael Yacht Harbor, Mr. Myrtle stated that besides the access and affordability the self-service boat yard provided, it also had some unique features. The salinity in the water was such that it preserved the wooden vessels very well prohibiting ship worms. There were some rare boats from the 1920s and 1930s that were kept there by collectors, and it was an excellent place to protect historic vessels. He stated that the San Rafael Yacht Harbor housed a sport fishing boat formerly owned by Stan Laurel, as well as a Stevens Motor Yacht from the 1920s, which was featured on the cover of Wooden Boat magazine. Commenting on the number of access points to the canal, Mr. Myrtle stated there was a launch ramp at Pier 15, although he was not sure if the City owned it. He expressed concern on the aspect of eminent domain and suggested the plan should not be accepted as it was ill-timed and a noble idea which had not been thought through. Huqo Landecker, 40 year boater on the canal, stated he was a boating advocate and would like to see the idea of boating promoted to get more yachts to visit San Rafael, particularly in the area of the San Rafael Yacht Club, as it was a wonderful place to come despite limited access due to the lack of public docks. San Rafael Yacht Club was leased on public property, but was a private club with private facilities. Mr. Landecker felt that it was a great possibility for a City asset, though he did not advocate its elimination. Mr. Landecker stated one of his primary complaints concerning the Canal was that boaters, particularly first -timers coming through the Canal, were terrified of running aground, as so many did. He identified on a map navigation aids and noted that boats coming into the entrance channel which had a dredge width of 50' and was approximately 2 miles long, lined up on these navigation aids. Identifying Marin Yacht Club, he stated they put their large boats in there once in a while which block the rear navigation aid, obstructing the view of boaters in the entrance channel. He identified another so low down to the water blocked by the boats in front and this needed to be changed. Mr. Landecker identified houses on the map at Sea Way and Summit Avenue, stating that the first thing boaters see when they enter the Canal was "Private Canal." He stated there was no such thing as a private canal in the 15 CC 11-16-09 San Francisco Bay system. Proceeding up the canal and making the turn, it was natural to go the shortest distance, i.e., a straight line; however, there was a mud bank — a buoy would be a simple fix. Proceeding up the canal he noted a dock protruded and boats had trouble navigating through the area. He indicated he would like to see a public dock in the area of the San Rafael Yacht Club, giving easy access to the downtown area for visiting boats. Mr. Landecker felt that the City of Petaluma got it right some years ago and it was time for changes in San Rafael in that regard. Bruce Austin, San Rafael Yacht Club, inquired as to who the cake in the lobby was congratulating. Mayor Boro stated that the cake was to congratulate the Canalfront Advisory Committee on their completion of their work. Noting he and his family had used the Canal for years, Mr. Austin recalled a sandy beach being on the site where the Montecito Shopping Center was now located. Believing the plan was done hastily, he felt that $160,000 would be better spent towards schools. Frank Carrera, Carrera Marble at 39 Bay Street, stated he had been there for 22 years and employed 14 people. Inquiring as to the outreach program, he commented that he was at his business every day between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and had never received any notification regarding the plan. He believed it was not complete. Unidentified speaker stated that a good job had been done for the City of San Rafael with many good visions — widening of the freeway, downtown and some redevelopment projects. He stated that a good vision is something complete and ultimately doable. He suggested that the Council not consider the plan for vote tonight, on the grounds that he felt it incomplete, not enough homework had been done nor questions answered. He inquired that the City address specifically the following three issues prior to voting: 1) Exactly how the walkway would be built -an excellent job had been done when the freeway was widened to let all the homeowners know, on both sides of the freeway. Everyone could comment on the impact and ultimately a good decision was made with everyone pleased with the outcome. 2) Land Survey overlay — again as with the freeway, provide everyone with an opportunity to see where the impacts were. 3) Sending notices — once the work was done, hearings could be held to see whose properties were impacted. He noted that Caltrans plans were much more detailed so that people could see the specific impacts on each person's property. Stating his family had owned property on the Canal for several years, he noted that many people had not received notification and were not aware of the plan. He urged the City Council to table the item until the issues were addressed — building behind the buildings, because according to the Coast Guard it was not possible to build into the canal; therefore, if this were accurate some of these projects could never be completed. He expressed concern that the plan would fund a partial vision, resulting in pieces of a walkway that would end up being a "walkway to nowhere." Stating he was a boat owner on the canal, Paul Benson stated that yesterday two hours before low tide, his boat churned mud all the way down. Believing the number one concern with the canal was its dredging, Mr. Benson felt that otherwise the canal could become another Bahia in Novato which was silted in with boats and weeds or Port Sonoma Marina. He stated that once that happened, it became a wetlands and it was not possible to dredge such a habitat. Regarding the bridge, he felt that it would be a more realistic idea to ferry pedestrians and bicyclists across the Canal, rather than building a tunnel or bridge, adding that it would also be cheaper and could be done in several different locations. Commenting on the Canalfront Paseo, Mr. Benson believed it would block all access to the docks, boats and the water, as well as being built extensively on or in front of private property. He believed the plan was long-term and not very viable. It would also cover and narrow the width of the canal, which would cover the natural light to the waterway and there were limits on the amount of covering that could be done. Narrowing the canal would be a detriment to a dredge barge or tugboat, and this needed to be considered when determining encroachment over the waterway. Mr. Benson believed the plan should either be rejected as flawed and full of errors or if accepted, the recommendations contained therein need not be followed in the future. Craiq Wilson commended the plan for its effort to beautify the Canal, but mentioned that in other cities, such as Newport Beach, the walkways were built around the existing businesses. The flavor of the waterway was already there and not what it was painted to be; therefore, he requested that the plan not be adopted this evening because 16 CC 11-16-09 any plan or public record that was altered or omitted was not right. Maureen Gaffnev, San Francisco Bay Trail Project, stated that the Bay Trail was a planned 500 -mile pathway around the entire San Francisco Bay, running through all 47 cities and 9 counties. It was approximately 60% complete with over 300 miles of trail in place. She indicated that the Bay Trail Project had contributed $20,000 towards the completion of the Canalfront Conceptual Plan, as they were interested in finding an alignment that would connect the Shoreline Path which ends at Pickleweed Park to Pt. San Pedro Road. She complimented staff and consultants for providing public outreach and added that those involved with the Bay Trail Project were pleased with the results of the Conceptual Plan. She stated the Bay Trail Project acknowledged that some elements of the plan would be short-term projects which could be achieved relatively easily, while other aspects of the plan would be mid to long-term and somewhat speculative. Ms. Gaffney stated that in the short-term category and of great importance to the Bay Trail project were bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the Grand Avenue bridge. The Canal neighborhood was the most densely -populated in Marin County and the City was currently working through a separate process to plan, design and construct a bike and pedestrian facility along East Francisco Boulevard, which she believed would vastly improve safety and circulation leading up to the Grand Avenue bridge. With a larger than average share of trips from this community being made by foot of bike, expanding the width of the bridge to safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians would vastly improve safety in the area and dovetail nicely with the aforementioned improvements in the works on East Francisco Boulevard. Ms. Gaffney stated that improvements to Beach Park, art and under freeway lighting were also of interest to the Bay Trail Project, as was the mid-term prospect of class II bicycle lanes on Canal Street in concert with an expanded sidewalk. Regarding long-term plans for second and third Canal crossings were major undertakings with commensurately large price tags; however, they nonetheless, had an important place in the vision as the Canal Neighborhood had been voicing a strong desire for such a crossing for several years. Ms. Gaffney stated that the Bay Trail Project would soon be accepting grant applications from towns and jurisdictions for planning and construction project that would further their goal and she encouraged the City to prepare a grant application to make improvements to the Grand Avenue bridge. She expressed thanks to the City Council for their support of the Bay Trail Project. Commenting on how City staff had treated him at a meeting, Anthonv Cavallo, Hi -Tide, stated that his property identified on a map was referred to as a park. After clarifying that 620 Canal Street was his property, Mr. Cavallo reported that he was told to go to the back of the room to complete a questionnaire; however, he declined to do so. Having again inquired as to why his property was being referred to as a park, he was again invited to complete a questionnaire. Barry Taranto stated his comments were based on the fact that, should he be writing an article on this issue, he would ask questions of Planning staff and those involved with the project. He believed it would have been better had planning staff outlined the steps involved in making this plan happen. He suggested that an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) was necessary, which was where he believed a lot of the issues would be addressed. Some of the issues addressed this evening could be premature because of the fact that they could be answered in further steps down the line. Regarding Mr. Butler, Mr. Taranto inquired as to why he was excluded from being on the committee and believed his input should have been included as someone representing that part of the community should have been in attendance. Commenting on the discrepancies in the committee's notes and minutes, Mr. Taranto believed that City staff and committee members should address the issue. Mr. Taranto noted that no one from the Spanish-speaking community, except for Canal Alliance, was present to represent them. He questioned whether the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee had looked at the plan, as feedback needed to be received from them and also from the Design Review Board. Mr. Taranto believed that more walking trails were needed. Noting the comment that there was a 25 -foot buffer between the properties, he inquired as to why and how some of the businesses and building were in that buffer. Larry Stanlev, employee at 619 Canal Street, agreed with the comment about the Terra Linda traffic and that plastic bags should be banned. Commenting on the security of people's livelihoods, Mr. Stanley believed that a walkway would negatively affect that. Stating that people from the Delta and up and down the Coast brought their boats to San Rafael to be serviced, he expressed concern that this would be taken away. Further, even should this plan be implemented, he inquired as to who would pay for the upkeep. 17 CC 11-16-09 Don Blavnev attempted to speak; however, Mayor Boro reminded him he already had addressed the City Council. Ed Richardson inquired as to why the Canal could not be cleaned up without adopting such a plan, noting there were many sunken boats and broken-down docks along the Canal. He suggested that the City spend money to clean up the Canal. John Orteqa stated that the Canal area was built for 4,000 people; however, approximately 10,000 — 13,000 resided there. The plan would generate incredibly more traffic and his concern was for those people living in such a densely populated neighborhood. He believed the vision was a fantasy of how all could live together and not get in each other's way, obey the laws, etc. He commended the City Council for their wonderful work in the Canal, in particular with the Pickleweed Park and Library, and expressed appreciation to Councilmember Miller for delivering messages to the City Council. Seeing this as a development phase operation, Mr. Ortega stated that no one had thought about how the residents of the area would survive or how they could be involved in the process, instead of having others speak for them. He hoped that the committees would be put together involving Canal residents as they should be represented. He believed the real issue was traffic. Mike Dwver, San Rafael, believed that all across the country, people were concerned about the way government conducted itself. He believed there was a lot of malfeasance and once one of these public issues started going, it could take on a life of their own. He also felt there was no real situation that the public have an egress everywhere along the bay. City Attorney Rob Epstein concurred with Mr. Butler that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution contains a takings clause and he noted that a similar law exists in the California Constitution at Article I, Section 19. Mr. Epstein quoted from the resolution before the City Council this evening for adoption: "....that the City Council does hereby accept the Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan and Canalfront Design Guidelines and that it be further resolved that the City Council direct the Community Development Department to consider the plan in making amendments to General Plan 2020" — something that had not occurred as of yet, and "that it be further resolved that the City Council directs the Community Development Department to make the guidelines available to applicants for a Design Review Permit as an advisory document." Mr. Epstein explained that eminent domain was a process by which government identifies land that it is interested in taking under the Fifth Amendment wherein it must pay just compensation. The property is appraised with offers going back and forth. On occasion the issue ends up in litigation. Mr. Epstein cited as a recent example of eminent domain the Brookdale area where the state identified property that it required to widen the freeway. He explained that was eminent domain, whereas this is not. Mr. Epstein stated the question presented would be whether a regulatory taking, also known as inverse condemnation, would be caused by the action proposed for Council consideration this evening. He explained this was when government enacts a regulation or law that effectively takes property by denying an owner economic use of his or her property. In this instance, there was no regulation occurring that could constitute inverse condemnation and indeed, no regulation would be created by the City Council's act in accepting the Design Plan and Guidelines. He also noted that, should there ever be a General Plan amendment that incorporated any aspect of the proposed guidelines and conceptual plan, San Rafael's General Plan 2020 Land Use Policy 2 (a) contains a "savings clause" such that when any application is presented to the City for consideration for any development, should there be a concern that the application of any aspect of the General Plan would at that time constitute a taking or inverse condemnation, this Land Use Policy specifically instructs that the City Council may not then implement the policy. Mr. Brown stated he believed the major misunderstanding and concern about eminent domain was how this walkway would be created and even though a plan showed a walkway, he indicated that this was a very long-term future. The expectation was that the City would not install a path by tearing down existing buildings. He stated that this would happen very incrementally as properties redeveloped over many years. Using the example of 171/181 Third Street, he explained that the walkway behind that building was created when the building was constructed when the property was developed. It was not projecting into the canal and hopefully, it would eventually connect as more development or redevelopment occurred adjacent to it. Another example on a larger scale was Shoreline Park. Mr. Brown explained that the pathway was created incrementally as individual properties developed along it. It was not created by the City by one action and construction project and taking of property and he emphasized that this would not happen in this situation. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Butler raised other questions including the issue of looking at two other canal crossings and 18 CC 11-16-09 believing it important to note that a crossing was not necessarily a bridge, he inquired whether this was a fair statement. Ms. Jackson stated this was exactly the conclusion reached by the committee at their last meeting. They discussed whether to show bridges on the map, have bridges in the documents, and not being able to agree on the use of that word, decided to use the word "crossings" because they felt there should be further study for the feasibility of whether a tunnel could be a better option, or a small ferry, and this was reflected in the final documents. Mayor Boro believed the bridge was excluded because per the Coast Guard, it would have to be 85 -feet tall. Ms. Jackson reported that the committee recommended studying the bridge, ferry and a tunnel options. Noting a clearance of 85 -feet over the canal would be required, she explained that it could be an operable bridge; however, it would have to be able to open 24/7. She commented that it could be left open for twelve hours per day and operated the remaining twelve, noting an operable bridge would not have to be as tall as 85 -feet. Regardless of the option, Ms. Jackson noted it would be expensive and that the feasibility study would also be expensive. Mayor Boro stated that in retrospect it could have been clearer, had the crossing been more specific in the report, i.e., tunnel or ferry, etc. He noted an operable bridge could be a long-term project; however, he believed it to be impractical. Regarding the issue of the meeting notes and accuracy, Ms. Jackson explained that there was insufficient staff to take verbatim minutes; therefore, for each meeting she prepared notes. Drafts of these notes were shared in- house prior to being approved by the committee at the following meeting. She noted that the meeting notes under discussion were approved unanimously by the committee members with no amendments or comment from the public. When the meeting minutes or notes were presented for approval, Mayor Boro inquired whether copies were made available for the public and whether the public could comment on their accuracy. Ms. Jackson stated that the minutes were distributed with the packet and copies of each of the draft minutes were available at every meeting. She noted Mr. Butler was present at the meeting in question and did not comment. Regarding the action of the committee at the June, 2009 meeting, Mr. Brown explained he was an observer, not a participant, at this meeting. The committee took an initial vote to exclude bridges or crossings other than Grand Avenue; however, a member of the committee raised the fact that that decision was not reflective of a great deal of public input at the public open house. Therefore, the suggestion was made, again by committee members, that the committee consider for the purposes of sharing options with the public over the summer, that the additional crossing locations be put in as options, again to seek public input, and the committee voted again on that. Mr. Brown noted Councilmember Miller was present at that meeting. Ms. Jackson further explained that in between those votes a lot of discussion took place by the committee about including one bridge or the other and those two went down also. The final vote that carried the evening was to show the crossing locations for discussion during the summer presentations. Mr. Brown repeated that staff did not direct that discussion; rather it was a discussion by committee members. Mr. Brown invited Ms. Jackson to comment on the meeting notes of the October 8th meeting regarding the Coast Guard and their presentation. Ms. Jackson reported that she sent the Coast Guard a draft of the meeting notes and received some edits and clarifications, which were included in the minutes. Mr. Brown invited Ms. Jackson to comment on the composition and applications for the committee. Ms. Jackson reported that staff issued the call for applications approximately eighteen months ago. 38 applicants were considered by a sub -committee of Mayor Boro and Councilmember Miller who recommended 14 for appointment. The evaluation contained some criteria developed with the Pickleweed Advisory Committee and staff to obtain a balanced representation of the different interests in the communities. She noted the applicants included property owners, business owners, boaters, residents and civic leaders in the community. In hindsight, she believed the recreational boaters did not necessarily represent the interests of the maritime business or property owners. She stated that the property owner representative for Montecito Shopping Center was on the committee; however, this was a retail property owner and not a maritime property owner. Ms. Jackson stated that the recreational boaters on the committee worked very hard to let the boating community know about the meetings. 19 CC 11-16-09 She noted that several people who spoke this evening attended the Focus Group in October and were there directly as a result of the recreational boaters, working on outreach. Similarly, over the summer with the loop -outs, she noted that one committee member in particular had several maritime representatives, who were present this evening, attend a presentation to hear about the draft plan. Ms. Jackson commended the committee members on their work to involve the broader boating community while recognizing that in moving forward and evaluating specific properties and areas, property owners to be affected would be intentionally and specifically involved. Mayor Boro clarified that when he met with Mr. Butler several weeks ago, he indicated to him that it was unfortunate he was telling him this at the end of the process and did not come to see him at the beginning to explain that the community he (Mr. Butler) represented was not on the committee, because he (Mayor Boro) would have ensured this was taken care of. He reiterated the subject was not raised with him until he met with Mr. Butler recently — sixteen months into the process. Mayor Boro reiterated what he stated at the beginning of this evening's meeting that he committed to Mr. Butler and those he represented that if and when the process started again, he would make it a point to ensure that those Mr. Butler represented were included in any future work. He commented that he could not go back and reconstruct what happened. Mr. Brown noted that Mr. Butler did sit in as a member of the committee for Russ Hamel on at least two occasions. Regarding the walkway, its specific impacts and the lack of an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), Mr. Brown explained that an engineering study of the walkway was not involved or intended. This would be in the subsequent phase of work, again, if funded. With regard to the comparison to Caltrans, he stated that the City was at the point today that Caltrans was regarding the freeway widening twenty years ago — it was a concept — that level of detail was not available at this point. On eventually getting to the point of having an engineer design, an EIR would be carried out, sea level rise would be considered and as stated previously, there was no contemplation about closing businesses, rather the process would be very incremental. Mayor Boro clarified that the City Attorney stated that the City would not use eminent domain in anything being done. With regard to questions raised concerning whether the Bicycle Coalition and the Design Review Board reviewed the plan, Mr. Brown reported affirmatively. He explained that the Bicycle Coalition was very involved in the process. Ms. Jackson reported that there had been two loop -outs with both groups in this process. Regarding the existing buildings in the 25 -foot setback, Mr. Brown reported that these were built many years ago prior to the setback regulation being in place. Mr. Brown clarified that there was no expectation the City would be purchasing any property. If at some point in time that property owner chose to redevelop, at that time the City would look at a design that would incorporate some level of public access — perhaps on the waterfront, perhaps not — it would depend on the type of business and how it would be redeveloped; however, there was not intention to deal in any way with existing properties and take setbacks, remove portions of buildings, etc. As stated previously, Mr. Brown indicated this was a plan for many, many years, decades, etc. "Properties do redevelop in those time frames — there are a lot of older buildings in the area that sooner or later would redevelop, and at that point in time we have a plan," should the property owner so choose. Mayor Boro stated it was very clear to him, as he had indicated to Mr. Butler and his group when he met with them, that San Rafael had never used eminent domain since he had been on the City Council. This plan did not contemplate using eminent domain, rather the only time any of these things would happen would be if the property sold and the buyer/seller was willing to do something. The City would talk to the property owner; however, they would not be forced to do anything. Councilmember Connolly expressed thanks to the public for their attendance this evening. He believed it was democracy providing an opportunity to hear from the community in a robust discussion. He thanked the citizens who stepped forward to serve on the committee to generate this vision, and also staff, for their hard work. Councilmember Connolly stated that when he ran for City Council for the first time a couple of years ago one of the issues he raised was the fact that within citizens' midst in the City of San Rafael was a jewel — something he viewed as an asset for which ways should be found to use in a better manner — the Canal. He indicated that his vision was far from harming existing business in the area, rather supporting those businesses in enhancing the 20 CC 11-16-09 overall area for all residents in San Rafael Sharing the vision of an area where residents had increased opportunities to use walkways, to bike in the area, Councilmember Connolly stated he was also very interested in the idea of a crossing. He was aware there would be issues of feasibility and cost and he heard a range of options that could happen well into the future that did warrant further study. In the more short-term, he believed something needed to be done about Grand Avenue and was happy to see that short-term goal in the plan. Walkways where feasible — Councilmember Connolly stated the idea would be to find ways of drawing more people to the area to support business and perhaps even some new forms of business on the waterfront. He also was very mindful of the concerns, not only of how it would affect existing business, but also the surrounding Canal neighborhood. Satisfied that this would not constitute a taking, Councilmember Connolly stated he viewed it as a vision that would not be implemented immediately but that contained some good ideas, ideas that probably would never see the light of day or if they did, it would involve a lot more community input and study going forward. Councilmember Brockbank also thanked staff, committee members and especially the public for attending this evening. He stated there certainly was nothing inappropriate about a neighborhood or community wanting to have a more specific plan. San Rafael had dozens of neighborhoods that would love to have a community plan and clamored for it regularly; however, there was only so many that could be done and so much staff available. The Canal was one of the larger neighborhoods by population and it certainly seemed like an appropriate one with such a unique asset like the Canal; therefore, there was nothing wrong in concept with developing a plan which to the best of the City's ability reflected the wishes of the majority of the community. Indicating he trusted the staff and the selection process for the committee, Councilmember Brockbank stated he trusted the members of the committee chosen. They came up with a unanimous approval of the plan. Realizing not everyone would like it, he questioned some of the inflammatory rhetoric used this evening because of mistaken impressions and information about the project being a land grab and not being democracy, etc. He believed phrases such as these were used to stir up a few dozen letters to the City Council, which, had these people read the staff report, they might not have signed, or decided that the process was not so bad after all. Believing there would not be any land grabs, Councilmember Brockbank stated he did not wish to see any business driven out of business. Referring to the comment "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" he inquired as to whose eyes. He believed that, should the public be polled, the vast majority would probably want to see the changes reflected unanimously by the committee that approved the plan because as was stated by numerous people this evening, it was more appropriate. Councilmember Brockbank rejected the false dilemma that one had to choose between existing maritime businesses such as sanding and painting boats and a walkway. He believed both could be realized and he would fight for both; he did not wish to see any walkway that drove the painting and varnishing of boats out of business. As for the meeting minutes and false choices of a multi -choice questionnaire, Councilmember Brockbank believed way too much emphasis was placed on any committee exclusions or conspiracy theories by the City. Councilmember Brockbank reported that he had attended some of the meetings as an observer (he noted anyone could have gone to the meetings), went on the tour, read a lot of the drafts and met with some residents a few weeks ago. While the City Council was happy to listen to all, he believed the time to ask a lot of the specific questions raised this evening would have been at any one of the meetings. Staff members could have been called or meetings arranged. He trusted that the process delivered an appropriate committee and from his experience serving on boards and committees, he was aware that often a stranger would walk in off the street and make a point that was completely compelling and persuasive without having to be a member of the committee. Councilmember Brockbank believed that the action this evening was accepting a plan which was duly adopted by a duly appointed committee that in retrospect might have had a member of the maritime community; however, he did not believe it would have changed the result. There remained plenty of opportunity for future input and, unless the plan was fatally flawed, which he did not believe, he was prepared to accept it. Noting comments on the value of the boating industry, jobs and work, which he supported, Mayor Boro stated that when the application was filed with the federal government for dredging money — half of which had been received with indications that the survey work would begin next spring and dredging under way next year — one of the issues the City informed Congress about was the fact that there was a lot of industry on the waterway, not just recreational boating. Recreational boating would not have sold the dredging on its own, rather it was a combination of recreational boating, but in particular the amount of money raised and generated from the boat shops along the waterway. Mayor Boro stated he and the City valued it and certainly did not want to see it go away. He offered to 21 CC 11-16-09 share the letters sent to the two Senators and Congresswoman. Councilmember Miller joined his colleagues in thanking everyone. Speakers had been heard loud and clear, staff had been heard loud and clear and all had been respected loud and clear. He indicated he was taking all of this into his consideration of the issue. He stated: "We have here a vision looking out into the future of what might be good and nice and wholesome and helpful and beautifying and improving what we have. It was a look into the future and none of us has a full crystal ball to do this. But we do have what we know and what we see and what we feel and what we understand now in which we can have a platform and that's exactly what we have. We have a vision that was brought together by a committee of interested, thoughtful, very, very dedicated citizens and residents - stakeholders of the City — who want to see that this city goes further so it is better for everybody. For you and for them, for everybody. That's what we have here." Councilmember Miller noted that the Design Guidelines were not mandates, rather directions to set conditioned thinking, conditioned by the situation as it appeared, grew and developed. What was being accepted this evening was exactly that — a vision generated and formed by a committee that gave directions for people as they gathered together and started to see how to begin to do something to put the canal itself, the canal neighborhood and businesses all in a better and more flourishing situation, a situation to make all live, work and play together. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 12890 — RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE CANALFRONT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN AND CANALFRONT DESIGN GUIDELINES AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Miller & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 15. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO MEMBERS OF THE CANALFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CD) — FILE 102 x 4-3-494 Mayor Boro thanked the Canalfront Advisory Committee for the great work they had done on the Canalfront Advisory Plan. It was a great vision, despite there being a lot of work to do, and he hoped those present this evening would understand that this was just the beginning; nothing was cast in concrete; however, there were some good ideas for the future so that a canal could be attained for all to enjoy. Mayor Boro thanked Linda Jackson for putting together resolutions of appreciation for each member, addressing what individual members contributed to the committee. Mayor Boro presented Resolutions of Appreciation to: Don Blayney, Jeannette M. Broering, Maite Duran, Russell Hamel, Richard M. Lockman, Sue McCullough, Cyr Miller, Fernando Quezada and Jacqueline Deane Schmidt. Bruce Abbott, Joanne Gordon, Anne Laird -Blanton, Maribeth Lang, Don Magdanz, Catherine Orman, Carol Patterson, Steven Ragghianti, Dr. Michael Watenpaugh and Craig Thomas Yates were unable to attend. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 16. None. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: (including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense) 17. Retirinq Councilmember Miller: - File 9-1 Retiring Councilmember Miller: "I want to thank you so very much for working with me and working together in such a way that we work always for the community. That is a thrill and that is a part of life that I treasure the most." He presented books to Mayor Boro (The Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin), Councilmember Brockbank (Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro), Councilmember Connolly (John Adams by David McCullough), City Attorney Epstein (Making Civil Rights Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1936-1961 by Mark Tushnet), City Manager Nordhoff (Beauty: The Invisible Embrace by John O'Donohue) and City Clerk Beirne (Sacred Spaces: Stations on a Celtic Way by 22 CC 11-16-09 Margaret Silf). Though Vice -Mayor Heller was absent, he stated he would present her with Madam Secretary, an autobiography by Madeleine Albright. Noting there would be an event for Councilmember Miller on December 4, 2009, Mayor Boro stated that he had been a great colleague and wonderful friend for the past 13 years and would be missed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:25 p.m. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2009 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 23 CC 11-16-09