HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1994-09-19SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1994, AT 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
David J. Zappetini, Councilmember
Absent: None
Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager
Gary Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Boro announced in Open Session that the City Council would be going into Closed
Session to discuss the following Closed Session items:
1. CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation (Government Code Section
54956.9b(2))
■ Case name: O'Toole v. City of San Rafael, et al., Marin County Superior
Case No. 152420.
b. Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code §54957.6)
Negotiators: Suzanne Golt/Daryl Chandler
Employee Organizations:
■ San Rafael Police Association
■ San Rafael Firefighters' Association
The City Council then met in Closed Session in Conference Room 201 to discuss the above-
mentioned items.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1994, AT 8:00 PM
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the recommended
action on the following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted.
September 6, 1994 (CC)
3. Resolution Authorizing Contract with KLD Item continued to meeting of
Associates for Transfer Computer Simulation 10/3/94 at request of staff.
for Design of Freitas Interchange Improvements
(PW) - File 11-15 x 9-3-40
4. Resolution of Appreciation to San Rafael Rotary RESOLUTION NO. 9204 - RESOLUTION OF
for Installation of Entry Sign on Hetherton APPRECIATION TO SAN RAFAEL ROTARY
Street (PW) - File 102 x 11-5 CLUB FOR PREPARATION, CONSTRUCTION
AND INSTALLATION OF AN ENTRY SIGN
WELCOMING PEOPLE TO THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL
5. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Lease Agree- RESOLUTION NO. 9205 - AUTHORIZING
ment with Marin Poetry Center for Use of RENEWAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
Falkirk Cultural Center (Cult. Affs) -MARIN POETRY CENTER FOR USE OF
File 4-10-205 x 9-3-84 FALKIRK CULTURAL CENTER, Eighteen Month
Lease, Commencing 1/1/94 and
terminating on 6/30/95
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 2
6. Monthly Investment Report (Fin) - File 8-18 Accepted report.
8-9
7. Resolutions of Appreciation for Members of RESOLUTION NO. 9206 - RESOLUTION OF
St Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Committee (Pl) APPRECIATION TO SUE BEITTEL, MEMBER
File 102 x 9-2-45 OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9207 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO BONNIE BROWN, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9208 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO ROBERT CHIN, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9209 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO SAM COGSWELL, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9210 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO DOUG COLBERT, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9211 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO HOWARD COUNCIL,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 9212 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO THERESA COX, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 9213 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO DON DICKENSON,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9214 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO JEFFREY EHLENBACH,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9215 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO MICHAEL MAROVICH,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9216 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO MARY MURTAGH, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9217 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO GEORGE ROCKRISE,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9218 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO JOHN ROJAS, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9219 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO BARBARA SALZMAN,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9220 - RESOLUTION OF
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
2
Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
APPRECIATION TO IRV SCHWARTZ, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE SILVEIRA GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 9221 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO RENEE SILVEIRA,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9222 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO JIM STARK, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9223 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO JOHN STARKWEATHER,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9224 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO AILENE TAYLOR,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9225 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO JAY TILLOTSON,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 9226 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO PATRICK WEBB, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
8. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1667 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES No. 1667.
OF PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 ESTABLISHED BY CHARTER
ORDINANCE NO. 659 SO AS TO INCLUDE 729 FOURTH
STREET, THE SOUTH EASTERLY CORNER OF LINCOLN
AVENUE AND FOURTH STREET, APN #11-275-01 (RA)
File 6-4
9. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Annual RESOLUTION NO. 9227 - RESOLUTION
Certificate of Compliance for McInnis Park AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF ANNUAL
Apartments for BMR Rental Agreement (RA) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR
- File 229 X 5-1-290 McINNIS PARK APARTMENTS FOR BMR
RENTAL AGREEMENT. (For interval
commencing with 8/92 and ending
12/31/93; partnership complied with
terms of Development Agreement).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
10.PRESENTATION OF CANAL AREA INSPECTION PROGRAM CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO BACO REALTY
CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER OF 330 CANAL STREET (P1) - File 10-2 x 9-3-17 x 13-1
Mayor Boro made presentation to Allen Orowitz, representing BACO Realty.
11.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SAN RAFAEL ROTARY FOR INSTALLATION OF
ENTRY SIGN ON HETHERTON STREET (PW) - File 102 x 125
Mayor Boro made presentation to Lou Bartolini, Klif Knoles and Mario Ghilotti, San Rafael
Rotary Club members.
PUBLIC HEARING
12.PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION MAP AMENDMENT TO ENLARGE THE BUILDING ENVELOPES FOR THE
OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION AT THE END OF GREENWOOD AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CA, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 12-320-06 AND 12-320-07 (LOTS 18A AND 19A); PAUL J. FELTON, OWNER & REPRESENTA-
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 4
TIVE (Pl) - File 5-1-244
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened.
Planning Director Robert Pendoley reported that a number of years ago the Oakwood
Subdivision was approved. It pre -dates the Hillside Design Guidelines. Among the
conditions on Unit 2 was the requirement for building envelopes. Recently, the
developer applied to the Planning Commission to enlarge the building envelopes on two
of the lots in Unit 2 so that it would be possible to comply with the Hillside Design
Guidelines (HDG). Staff did an analysis to determine whether it was necessary and
found that it is. There is no room to comply with the HDG unless the building
envelopes are improved. The Planning Commission added a number of conditions to the
Tentative Map, with particular emphasis on protecting the existing trees. He noted
this is not a license to remove trees. Trees can only be removed on this property
after the owner has secured a Design Review permit.
Councilmember Cohen referred to Exhibit A, which contains the findings and conditions of
approval. He noted that since we are enlarging the building envelopes to allow for
consistency with the HDG, that condition of approval requires a Design Review permit
before trees can be removed. Mr. Pendoley replied that is correct.
Councilmember Thayer stated that one of the complaints with this project many years ago
had to do with the monitoring of the conditions of approval. She asked how will that
be monitored? Mr. Pendoley replied there were problems on the earlier phases of the
project, which was developed by a different person. He added that since we have had
a clear understanding of the project we have not had any significant monitoring
problems with it in the past couple of years. He noted that the neighborhood has
been a help in that regard, and staff feels secure about it.
Councilmember Thayer added that she is aware that there will be a couple of trees which
will be removed in this project, and the HDG require replacement of trees such as
those at a 3:1 ratio. She asked would they be 15 -gallon or 18 -gallon? Mr. Pendoley
replied they are 15 -gallon, and she is correct that the replacement ratio is 3:1.
Councilmember Heller inquired if any of the neighbors, or neighborhood association, talked
to staff about this issue. Mr. Pendoley responded that neighborhood groups did come
by to see what the application was about, and they had no objection at the Commission
hearing. Councilmember Heller asked had they looked at the site, and Mr. Pendoley
replied that they did; they went over it in the office.
There being no public input, the Public Hearing was closed.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution
approving the Subdivision Map amendment for Oakwood Subdivision Unit 2, for Lots 18A
and 19A, with the findings as presented by staff in Exhibit A.
RESOLUTION NO. 9228 - APPROVING A SUBDIVISION MAP AMENDMENT (OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION
UNIT #2; LOTS 18A AND 19A) 594-6, 162 AND 166 GREENWOOD
AVENUE, AP #12-320-06 AND 07
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
OLD BUSINESS
Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
13.RESOLUTION APPROVING RENEWAL OF CONTRACT WITH BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION (BRC)
(FORMERLY CMSI) TO PROVIDE A COMPUTER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER (CM) - FILE
4-3-117
City Manager Nicolai explained this item is a renewal of the contract with Business
Records Corporation (BRC), formerly CMSI. As mentioned in the staff report, over ten
years ago staff had evaluated various options for providing automated computer infor-
mation systems for the City. We went out for proposals, and contracted with CMSI for
computer management services. They functioned as our Data Processing Department, and
have worked successfully with the City of San Rafael for the last ten years. Their
contract renewal came up just about the time we were preparing the budget. Ms.
Nicolai noted that several questions came up during the budget process, in each
departmental review as well as in the Central Services Department, where that
contract rests financially. The Council at that time referred the issue to the
newly -created Budget Oversight Committee for some input back to the City Council as
to how this system fits together. In July, staff took this issue to the Budget
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 5
Oversight Committee, and they created a sub -committee so they could pursue this
matter with diligence. The sub -committee, along with some staff people from Fair
Isaac, spent a considerable amount of time and raised some very interesting issues
which have been included for the Council's information.
Ms. Nicolai added that after this process was completed, staff met with BRC, and the
recommendation before the Council tonight is that we renew the contract with them for
two years, and that we then also pursue getting a consultant on board, hopefully
donated services, to do a long-term review and plan for the City, at which time the
Council would then take a look at what the scope of services would be in the future.
She stated the sub -committee felt that BRC would have a major role in whatever their
services are during the two years. However, for now, until we are able to do that
study, that we renew the contract for two years and then pursue finding a consultant.
Ms. Nicolai complimented both the Budget Oversight Committee for the work they put into
it, as well as the representatives from BRC, who put work in as well, and were very
willing to work with the City on dealing with the issues which came out of the Budget
Oversight Committee. She then introduced Dennis Dyer from the Budget Over -sight
Committee, to present their report to the Council and answer any questions.
Dennis Dyer stated that, as mentioned by Ms. Nicolai, the Budget Oversight Committee met
several times with BRC since June 14th, when the Council first asked the Commit -tee
to look into this issue. They brought in two technical people from Fair Isaac,
Dennis Pasadis and Athan Pasadis, who helped tremendously in looking at the technical
aspects of the contract.
Mr. Dyer reported that the Committee concluded that since 1984, CMSI, which is now known
as Business Records Corporation (BRC), has provided very good service to the City.
He stated his report is positive, and they feel this is a terrific opportunity to
take a step back and develop a long-term look at the City's computer needs. He noted
the last time a long-term strategic plan was done was April of 1992, so this appears
to be the right time to do it.
Councilmember Zappetini asked if Mr. Dyer feels the fees being charged are high, low, or
in the ballpark? Mr. Dyer responded they seem to be, but it is very difficult to
assess that issue. He noted the Hughes-Heiss Report tried to do that, and stated he
feels that their fees are in the ballpark.
Councilmember Zappetini asked if Mr. Dyer thinks the system we are using now can expand
and can our system combine with the communications highway which is coming in? Mr.
Dyer responded those are questions which the Committee thinks can best be answered by
taking a long-term and a short-term look. He noted that part of this process, he
feels, is looking at the short-term opportunities as well. The Committee's
recommendation is to sign a two-year contract with BRC. During that period of time
you would look at the long-term, overall five-year plan, but you would also look at
the short-term opportunities. He stated that if you get the right person in there,
who is technically qualified, he could answer those kinds of questions and take the
opportunities to get the City to where it wants to be.
Councilmember Heller thanked the entire Committee, noting they have put in many hours,
including the technical help from Fair Isaac.
Mr. Dyer stated he feels the Budget Oversight Committee has been part of the solu-tion,
rather than part of the problem, and he hopes to continue that way.
Gerald DeKerchove stated he would like to endorse the Committee's report. He explained
that on the cost side, they analyzed it from a technical side, including the labor
costs and the cost of equipment. He stated that conceptually, the technical aspects
are developing at a fast pace today, and keeping the City's options open in the long
run is very important. Meanwhile, you need to keep your operation running.
Mayor Boro thanked the Committee, noting this is their first effort in working on a
specific area for the City, and stated their work is very much appreciated. He added
that he does not think any of the present Council were on the Council ten years ago
when this approach was approved, and we should give credit to those people who took
this approach, to contract out both the hardware and the software developments for
the City, rather than having the City be burned with that liability over the long
term, so we can keep current and take advantage of the new technology as time goes
on. He noted there are two actions to be taken by the Council.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to sign the contract with BRC for computer management
services.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 9229 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF A CONTRACT WITH BUSINESS
RECORDS CORPORATION (BRC) (FORMERLY CMSI) TO PROVIDE A
COMPUTER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CENTER. (2 -yr. agreement,
commencing 9/20/94 and continuing through 9/21/96).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to direct staff to work
with the Budget Oversight Committee to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for study of
computer system needs for the City of San Rafael for the next five years.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
14.INTRODUCTION OF ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSAL (P1) -
File 10-2 x 9-2-45 x 102
a. Presentation of Resolutions of Appreciation to Committee Members
Mayor Boro stated he will give a few introductory remarks to describe the process
we will be following tonight. He will then acknowledge the work of the Committee,
and then have the staff report.
Mayor Boro stated that the work of the Committee has been long and hard over
almost the past three years. He noted that he had the opportunity for about a
year and a half to attend most of the meetings of the Committee and was impressed
with the attendance, with almost everyone showing up for every meeting or sending
a substitute from the organization they represented; also, they really got into
the issue and tried to come up with a resolution that they collectively felt was
best for the future of the City of San Rafael. Mayor Boro explained that after
he presents the Certificates of Commendation, the Planning Director will give a
specific overview of how we will proceed tonight. Jean Hasser, Principal Planner,
will talk about the options which are before the Council this evening. We will
then hear from the Committee, and they will give their majority report for about
20 minutes. We will then hear from the minority report for about the same period
of time. Then, if any other Committee members wish to speak, they will have a
minute or two to make their comments known to the Council. Also, there are two
groups which have a strong interest in this process. One is the Citizens Advocate
for Preservation of St. Vincent's, known as "CAPS". They will address the Council
for about 15 minutes, and then the Citizens for the Common Good will address the
Council for the same period of time. At that point, others who are either in
favor of the concept, or have opposition to it may speak for about 1 or 2
minutes. Mayor Boro stressed that this meeting is the beginning of the process,
and we will be having many more meetings, so there will be many opportunities to
speak. He noted there is a signup sheet in the lobby, and anyone interested in
this process may sign up, and we will make sure that each time a meeting is held
on this project, they will be notified.
Mayor Boro again thanked all of the Committee members for the wonderful job, and
the time and effort they put into this volunteer effort, and stated that all of
the Councilmembers are most appreciative.
Mayor Boro then made the presentation of Resolutions of Appreciation to 21
members of the St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Committee. Several Committee
members could not be present, and their Resolutions are to be sent to them. He
stated that with so many Committee members present tonight, it demonstrates his
remarks about their dedication and attendance. He asked the audience to give
them a round of applause.
Mayor Boro then asked Planning Director Pendoley for an overview of tonight's
meeting.
Mr. Pendoley explained that the purpose of this hearing tonight is two -fold. The
first purpose is for the Council to receive the plan and recommendation from the
St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Committee. The second purpose is for the Council
to discuss, and to begin to decide the next step in considering this recommenda-
tion and the property. He emphasized that this staff report has been written to
assist the Council to discuss this process. Staff has not provided an exhaustive
examination of the plan, but rather have presented a set of options we hope will
help the Council to discuss how we are going to proceed, and how will we begin to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
6
Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
examine the Plan or, will we begin to examine the Plan.
Mr. Pendoley explained that the staff presentation will be in several parts. First, he
will speak very briefly to some of the principles in the Plan and the process
which got us to this point this evening. Next, Jean Hasser, who did the vast
majority of the staff work on this plan, will describe some options which staff
thinks are available to the Council at this time. Next, as Mayor Boro has
indicated, Committee members representing the majority point of view will make a
presentation, and they will be followed by Committee members representing the
minority point of view who will present their vision for the property, as well as
their points of disagreement with the majority recommendation. Mr. Pendoley
stated that at the conclusion of those presentations, he would like to make a
couple of summary remarks and attempt to answer any questions. The Council may
also want to hear very briefly from others on the Committee who have thoughts to
offer. He suggested that when the hearing is opened, the Mayor advise repre-
sentatives from CAPS to speak, and they could be followed by Citizens for the
Common Good. After that, there should be time for others to speak.
Mr. Pendoley commented on principles. He explained that the Draft General Plan
Amendment which is before the Council this evening is a recommendation of the
Advisory Committee, and not a staff recommendation. In fact, there are some
elements of the plan which staff thinks could be changed or should be refined.
Nevertheless, staff endorses the fundamental principles of the Plan. We think
they represent principles that planners and environmentalists are advocating as
the leading edge of environmental protection and housing opportunity in America
today. He stated that, in particular, the Plan reflects the Ahwahnee principles,
first introduced at a 1991 conference in Yosemite Park. The Ahwahnee principles
provide a vision for planning which draws on the best from the past and the
present, to create more compact, mixed-use developments, and more walkable,
transit friendly neighborhoods. He stated these principles are being adopted by
groups and agencies all over the country today. Mr. Pendoley noted that some of
the Ahwahnee principles in this plan include: 1) All planning should be done in
the form of complete and integrated communities; 2) Communities' size should be
designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy
walking distance of each other; 3) The community should contain a diversity of
housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age
groups to live within its boundaries; and 4) The community should have a center
focus which combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses. He
stated he thinks it is a remarkable attainment that these principles should
emerge out of the Committee. The Committee was not driven to these by staff;
they very much rose from the Committee's identification of community and site
needs and opportunities.
Mr. Pendoley commented on the process, stating that it can be best characterized
as being thorough and open. Committee members were unstinting in their commitment
to providing maximum opportunities for others to participate. They did this in a
variety of structured and unstructured ways throughout the process. They were
very thorough in their examination of issues. They closely questioned, evaluated,
and challenged all of the consultants and staff reports which were delivered for
their consideration. They made every effort to maximize consensus and agreement,
to minimize disagreement, and to attempt to learn from each other. Mr. Pendoley
stated that in thinking back on the three -plus years of the process, he thinks of
a bus tour they took of the site, when he heard such a range of comments from
individuals as they drove around and looked at the property, and thought about
how some of those points of view had changed by the end of the process. He
stated that people on this Committee were just about uniformly open minded. From
a staff point of view, the process was excellent, and he thinks the excellence
goes to the fine principles which were generated and have been incorporated
herein.
Mr. Pendoley added that Jean Hasser will give a short outline of five of the
options staff thinks are available to the Council. They are not the only
options, but we hope to give the Council a starting point for the discussion.
Mayor Boro stated that before Ms. Hasser gives her presentation, the City
Attorney has a statement to make.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that he received word today, and has
advised Councilmember Zappetini, that the FPPC (Fair Political Practices
Commission), at the request in writing from the City Attorney's Office made to
them last February, have determined that Mr. Zappetini has no conflict of
interest in participating in any decision that this body may make with regard to
an amendment to the San Rafael General Plan as it respects a change in land use
designation for the St. Vincent's/Silveira property. He stated he advised Mr.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 8
Zappetini that he had received that information today, and a formal written
communication from the FPPC is expected in his office tomorrow in final form, but
he wanted to make that announcement since, with the Councilmembers' full know-
ledge and consent and participation, we have endeavored to obtain this opinion
since our first communication to the FPPC office on February 10th.
Principal Planner Jean Hasser posed five possible ways the Council can proceed
with the Committee's recommendations, and these are discussed in more detail on
pages 10 through 14 of the staff report. She noted that at the conclusion, the
Council could take the standard approach of sending the General Plan Amendment
recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Commission would have an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared on the project. They would then
review the EIR and the project and eventually send their recommendations to the
Council for final action. She noted the difficulty with this approach is the
cost of the EIR. The Committee's work outline assumed they would eventually come
up with consensus recommendations for the future of St. Vincent's and Silveira,
and that the EIR would then be relatively noncontroversial. Regrettably, this is
not the case. The EIRs on controversial projects are notorious for being expen-
sive and time consuming. Given the debate on this proposed amendment, EIR costs
could easily run much more than $100,000. Funds will need to be budgeted, or
otherwise provided to complete the EIR.
Ms. Hasser explained a second option, which would be to have the Council modify
the Committee's Plan proposal before referring it back to the Planning Commis-
sion. The primary advantage to this approach would be to early on address some
of the concerns related to the Committee's proposal. Depending on the outcome of
the Council's recommended changes, the proposal and EIR review may or may not be
any less controversial. Ms. Hasser pointed out that this does not change the
fact that additional funds would still need to be budgeted for an EIR.
Ms. Hasser stated that a third option, which is identified as "D" in the staff
report, would be to prepare a joint EIR on the proposal with the County. She
explained that the County right now has only a temporary land use designation for
this site, and has been waiting for this joint City/County Committee process to
finish. This approach would continue the joint process, given Countywide interest
in the site. A joint EIR may improve coordination on City and County issues and
perspectives, and may be more likely to result in a land use proposal which can
be agreed upon by both the City and County. This approach would also lend itself
to sharing EIR costs.
A fourth option is to have the City stop this process, and have the County start
a fourth, new planning process for the site. This would leave the City's exist-
ing General Plan in place. Ms. Hasser pointed out that over the past 12 years,
this site has been the focus of three major City and County planning studies and
a Citywide initiative. We would expect, given the history of this site and other
major sites in Marin, that land use recommendations here may always be controver-
sial. A better approach than stopping would be to bring this latest effort to
completion through review of environmental alternatives. EIRs must analyze dif-
ferent land use alternatives, and staff fully expects an alternative consistent
with the minority recommendations to be proposed and included in the EIR. The
information then exists, particularly when it is supplemented by environmental
information, to make informed decisions.
Ms. Hasser explained that the last approach is for Council to adopt a Resolution
to amend the St. Vincent's/Silveira portion of the General Plan in about 2 years
when the City's overall plan is revised. The primary advantages to this approach
are: 1) The City avoids EIR costs at this time; and 2) They would not just put
the Plan recommendations on the shelf. She noted that the Council would, through
Resolution, describe the St. Vincent's/Silveira project they want to evaluate
when the Plan is updated. The Resolution should also provide direction on other
actions they want to see happen in the meantime, such as completion - one way or
another - of efforts to purchase the site for open space. Adopting a Resolution
would not change current City Plan policy. It would, however, provide future
direction to staff regarding the expected Plan Amendment proposal, and interim
activities.
Mr. Pendoley announced that next on the agenda is a presentation which represents
the majority point of view of the Advisory Committee, and the presenters will be
Jeff Ehlenbach, Sue Beittel, Bonnie Brown and Pat Webb.
Bonnie Brown stated she would be giving a presentation and slide show from the
majority viewpoint, and next will be the presentation and slide show from the
minority viewpoint. She stated that the St. Vincent's/Silveira site is important
to Marin County because of its visual beauty, its environmental features, its
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
E3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 9
potential for meeting housing needs, and its impacts on Highway 101. She illus-
trated her remarks with the slides, describing the St. Vincent's school complex
which is significant and beautiful, and is currently in use. She noted that the
southern portion of the site is an operating dairy operation owned by the
Silveira family since the early 1900's. A freeway interchange, Marinwood, and
three local San Rafael streets, provide direct access to the properties. She
explained that the site is bisected by a railroad line, planned as a future
transitway, and showed pictures of the oak -studded hillsides and pasture lands,
and oat hay fields east of the railroad on diked lands. She noted there are
small seasonal wetlands and drainageways on both properties - Miller Creek, and a
salt marsh owned by St. Vincent's - along the edge of the Bay. She pointed out
the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District property, lying east of the main site,
with hay fields used for waste water irrigation, and four reclaimed water ponds
heavily used by migratory birds.
Ms. Brown noted that the properties are located in Marin County's City -centered
corridor, on the eastern portion of Marin County, and since 1973 the County's
planning policies have contemplated urban development in this eastern corridor.
The 1982 County General Plan described the site as a study area having major jobs
and housing potential, and in the mid -1980's the County studied what they should
consider on St. Vincent's/Silveira. After four years of study, their plan was
not adopted because, by 1986, Marin County jobs growth had exceeded expectations
and highway conditions had worsened. The City of San Rafael then looked at St.
Vincent's/Silveira land use as part of its 1988 General Plan update. The site is
in the City's planning area, and City and County policies both call for annexa-
tion of any urban development there. Various alternatives were considered for
development of the area, and the City decided it was important to maximize
housing opportunities for the community.
Ms. Brown reported that in 1988 the City adopted a housing alternative for the
site, allowing up to 2,100 units of homes with some commercial and office uses.
The General Plan called for establishment of an Advisory Committee, to further
study the site. In 1990, a citizens initiative to zone the site agricultural was
narrowly defeated by San Rafael voters, and the Council decided the time had come
to provide new, more detailed, site recommendations. In March, 1991, the Council
appointed a joint City/County, 25 -member, St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Commit-
tee, representing City and County neighborhoods, and Countywide environmental,
housing and business organizations, the League of Women Voters, the property
owners, the City and the County. The Committee was to study site opportunities
and constraints in detail, and then come up with recommendations for the future
of the property. They were to stay within the development limits established by
the City's General Plan. They could modify uses and development potential down-
ward, based on what they found. The Committee considered all of the opportunities
and constraints, including the site views from 101, the historic St. Vincent's
buildings, and the Miwok sites. They reviewed service needs and agricultural
resources, and looked at possible roadway alternatives. Consultants' studies
analyzed the site habitat areas, including wetlands. They decided upon a nation-
wide land use competition, in order to identify a wide range of ideas and alter-
natives for the future of the site. This would not be a design competition for a
community, but focus on use of the land, open to creative ideas. The competitors
were given a wide range of alternatives, both the majority and minority views.
Environmental goals were included, as well as development and transportation
goals. There were 77 competition entries received, showing a wide range of
alternatives, from agricultural uses to compact communities, which were exhibited
at the St. Vincent's School auditorium in April of last year and were visited by
more than 1,000 persons, of which 260 filled out comment sheets showing their
ideas for the future of the site. Opinions were very diverse. In April, the
entries were judged by a professional jury and the two first place winners
provided compact, varied, mixed-use communities around St. Vincent's School, with
the remainder of the site left open. She noted that a combined Honorable Mention,
for combined agricultural sustainability went to four groups. However, the jury
noted they had not paid attention to the site's existing natural systems any
better than many of the development schemes, or made a persuasive case for the
economic possibilities of agriculture.
Ms. Brown reported that following the competition process, the Committee spent
several months putting together their recommendations, using the consensus
process, with a facilitator. Ultimately, the draft proposal was supported by a
majority of members. The minority did not agree with most recommendations, and
offered a different alternative, which is included as an appendix to the Plan.
The minority view is that there is no development potential for the Silveira
property, while St. Vincent's has limited, undefined potential in the area of the
existing historic buildings. The minority vision would seek funding for acquisi-
tion of the Silveira Ranch, but if acquisition cannot be accomplished they
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
X
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 10
recommend transfer of any undefined development rights from Silveira to St.
Vincent's, and new planning by the County instead of the City. She noted that
the Committee's recommendations, by contrast, propose a small, old-style commu-
nity, centered around the St. Vincent's School complex and transit. The St.
Vincent's complex would be reused as a village center. Housing would be varied,
with a strong emphasis on entry level housing for our children, moderate income
housing for our work force, and senior housing for older citizens. Over all of
the site there would be up to 2,100 units, of which 20% would be restricted in
perpetuity to low and moderate income households. Ms. Brown noted that San
Rafael has been a leader throughout the County in providing affordable housing.
They have required 10% affordable housing in projects, and the property owners
have agreed to twice that amount on this land. She explained that pedestrian
design means organizing development as distinct neighborhoods, with most housing
located within easy walking distance of bus stops. It means there will be
connecting streets and pedestrian and bicycle paths leading directly to the
village center, with local retail shops, public plazas, and other community focal
points. They want to preserve as much open space as possible, and to do that,
they clustered development and kept 71% of the site open. Also, they wanted to
avoid sensitive habitat areas identified in the habitat analysis. She showed
slides of the Pacheco Ridge area to the north of the site, and the Oak woodlands,
which will be preserved in their natural state and will be an important community
separator between San Rafael and Novato. She showed the Miller Creek corridor,
and stated it will be preserved and enhanced as a habitat area, with a 100 -foot
buffer on each side. The buffer area would be planted with additional natural
vegetation and permit some interconnecting paths. All tidal wetlands will be
preserved in their natural state. Other drainage ways and seasonal wetlands will
be protected and enhanced. New drainage ways will be expected to increase storm
water capacity. The environmental design recommendations would keep major drain-
ageways open, and be an asset to the community. While not identified as sensitive
habitat, portions of the site's grasslands and most of the existing agricultural
fields east of the rail line would be retained. Landscaped edge treatments would
be provided between open and developed areas. Wildlife corridors between habitat
types are also proposed. There is a recommendation to create a community view
area leaving from 105 to 120 acres in size to remain open for views across the
site and out to the Bay. This would be a mixed-use community which would be a
model of how to build sensitive to the environmental concerns. The clustered
residential community would be supportive of transit. A pedestrian and transit -
oriented design, like in our older neighborhoods, is described in the Design
Policies. The proposal is similar to the Gerstle Park area of San Rafael, but
with much less density. Ms. Brown pointed out that the Gerstle Park density is
9.6 per acre; by comparison, the Committee recommends a density of 6.9 units per
acre, with 2,100 homes, a school, a park, minor local serving retail, and up to
350,000 sq. ft. of office -type uses which is the same as 3-1/2 of the AutoDesk
buildings on Civic Center Drive. Finally, a Committee goal has been to minimize
101 impact, and this was done through mixed land uses which provide local employ-
ment opportunities and daily service needs on site, through transit -oriented
design and an emphasis on senior housing, smaller units, and also provision of a
new local road connection to the south to permit local trips.
Ms. Brown stated that, in summary, it is a plan to preserve sensitive habitat
areas and leave major portions of the site undeveloped while providing for a
well-designed mixed use neighborhood, with St. Vincent's magnificent buildings at
its center. She noted that this presentation has been the majority viewpoint of
the Committee, from those who did want to move the plan on to the City Council,
and have the process continue through the City.
Jeffrey Ehlenbach, the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce representative on the
Committee, stated this is a great opportunity. He noted they had looked at the
"no development" alternative during the Committee's deliberations, and some
members had the opportunity to discuss that alternative further with Supervisor
Roumiguiere in August. For 20 years, development has been anticipated on this
land. The cost to acquire the land, which is necessary for the "no development"
alternative, is too expensive. Even if someone can find the money, $40 million
for the Silveira Ranch and the same or more for St. Vincent's, is over $80
million, for 350 acres in the City -centered corridor. He explained that the
Draft Plan preserves over 870 acres of land, almost twice the size of the
Silveira Ranch, at no additional cost to the taxpayers. He stated we cannot
afford to jeopardize the Marin County Preservation Plan. $80 million would buy a
lot of development rights in West Marin.
Mr. Ehlenbach noted that the Committee which was formed in March, 1991, was
comprised of representatives of government, environment, housing, business,
neighborhoods and property owners. He described the Committee's process in the
interim, including their studies and deliberations, and the Design Competition.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 11
He noted the results were available for public review for a month, and there was
a community workshop with the designers. In 1993 and 1994, they debated,
discussed and created the Draft Plan, which is a delicate balance of numerous
differing interests, and has been possible only because of the willingness of the
Committee members to listen, to learn, and to put self-interest and selfishness
aside, and to balance their interests with the interests of others. He noted one
goal of the City Council was a Draft Plan which would have substantial and
diverse community input, and this one does. It reflects the Committee's compre-
hensive study of all of the challenges and opportunities, and was created only by
listening to all of the ideas presented. They developed a trust in each other
based on knowledge and understanding, not on hidden agendas and selfish, precon-
ceived notions. Mr. Ehlenbach stated that the complaints about the process have
arisen only after it became clear that a balance of interests would be the result
of a comprehensive study by a broad-based Countywide group. He stated that
nothing new will come from another Countywide study; but any balanced, broadbased
committee representing government, environment, business, housing and neighbor-
hood groups will come to similar conclusions. He stated it is time for the
process to continue at the Planning Commission. He added that the Council, the
City, the citizens, the County, and our community, have an opportunity to create
something of value, and asked the Council to please let the process continue.
Patrick Webb, who served on the Committee as a representative of the Park and
Recreation Commission, spoke of the operating philosophy which emerged from the
committee which prepared the draft proposal which is before the Council tonight.
He stated that this was a growth process for many Committee members. They
realized they would have a reality -based goal - what type of community would we
be leaving for the future? He stated they tried to be generous - with their time,
and interest, and in producing their recommendations. They tried to incorporate
the needs of all the citizens, and also care for the environment, recognize the
rights of the property owners, and prepare a feasible outline for everyone to
use. He noted that the Committee never dealt in fantasies, but in hope, with
practical considerations for the future. He stated he hopes that tonight the
Council will take steps to allow the Committee's work to go forward, and not to
let it just lie fallow and become another report on the shelf in the Planning
Department. He noted the Council has been presented with options for movement,
and he is sure there are many more options. He urged that we get to work on
these sites which hold so much promise for everyone, and let the work continue.
Sue Beittel, representative of the League of Women Voters on the Committee,
stated she will highlight some of the features of the Draft Plan. She first
called the Council's attention to the two maps, one being the newest version and
the other the one they worked with. She noted the site, adjacent to Highway 101,
is large, more than 1,200 acres, intercepted by the north/south rail right-of-
way. The Committee explored the development potential between Highway 101 and
the rail right-of-way. The planning process started with consideration of the
environment and conservation, with recognized experts providing reliable informa-
tion as the constraints were identified. All aspects of the City General Plan
and the County General Plan were taken into consideration in developing the Draft
Plan, including recognition of the importance to the community of the Indian
middens, the view corridor, the seasonal wetlands, Miller Creek, and appropriate
buffer zones. The Draft Plan recommends preserving more than 70% of the total
acreage in open areas, and developing a new, compact neighborhood on the remain-
ing portion. This new neighborhood would integrate entry-level housing for
people who work at jobs in North San Rafael, some of which would be created on
the site; housing for older residents, perhaps like the 350 units at The Redwoods
in Mill Valley, and modest rental housing for young people or those working in
service industries. Mrs. Beittel explained that the Plan envisions applying the
General Plan principles of mixed use, co -housing, live/work, and land leasing.
The Plan supports preserving and renovating, where possible, the historical
buildings as a village center. The new neighborhood would be designed to
encourage walking, cycling and use of public transit, and discourage single
occupancy car use. The vision is for smaller houses on smaller lots for smaller
families close to employment, child care, schools, community -serving retail,
recreation and transit. Mrs. Beittel stated that their work with the property
owners, as they went through a three-year educational experience together,
convinces the Committee members that it is possible to fulfill the promises of
this Draft Plan. She stated the Council's help and support are needed to work
out the next step.
Don Dickinson, a Committee member in the minority group, thanked the City Council
for the opportunity to present what is a very divergent view about the process.
He stated there was criticism early on that the minority was not being given an
opportunity, and that certainly is not the case with the City Council, and he
feels they have a position which is very important for the Council to understand
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 12
as we go through this process. Mr. Dickinson then showed slides to describe their
position, and noted that anyone who travels Highway 101 between San Rafael and
Novato enjoys the grazing cows and pastoral scenes on the St. Vincent's and
Silveira properties. He stated the plan the Council has just heard described by
the four members of the majority threatens the future of these magnificent lands.
He pointed out that a major goal of the Committee was to reach consensus on a
plan for the future use of the Silveira and St. Vincent's properties. It was a
long, somewhat frustrating three-year process for those who were in the minority.
In the end, the Committee failed to achieve the goal of reaching consensus and,
in fact, the divergent positions are probably more polarized today than they were
four years ago. Mr. Dickinson stated that the majority of the Committee as they
entered the process criticized the composition which was heavily weighted in
favor of property owners and development interests. He noted that the majority
have just described their vision for these lands; that vision includes transform-
ing these properties into a new San Rafael neighborhood. This neighborhood would
be created by having 2,100 homes, condominiums and apartments, and as they
describe, 60% more housing units than the entire Gerstle Park neighborhood, plus
up to 1 million square feet of office and commercial space, down into the middle
of these beautiful agricultural lands. Mr. Dickinson stated that the plan which
the majority of the Committee has recommended to the Council is only a slightly
refined version of the Land Use Plan contained in the 1988 General Plan. He
noted it is important that the Council understand that their vision involves
vastly increasing the development potential of the properties. For example, the
maximum number of residential units allowed on the Silveira Ranch portion of the
property would be increased from 172, which is allowed by the existing County
zoning, up to 1,021 housing units. In addition, a quarter million square feet of
office space would extend south from the entrance to St. Vincent's along the
freeway frontage of the two properties. Mr. Dickinson stated that the majority
of the Committee probably honestly believe that they have developed a good plan.
He stated he has a lot of respect for the Committee; spending three years
working with the people who entered the process with very divergent positions
gives him that kind of respect. In addition, as has been recently reported on
the editor-ial page of the Marin Independent Journal, the Marin Association of
Realtors, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Marin Property Owners Association, and
the new committee, Citizens for the Common Good (which has the same address,
telephone and FAX numbers as the Chamber of Commerce), all feel that the San
Rafael plan-ning process and the result should be commended. He stated that a
minority on the Committee, and based on the presentations he has made regarding
the Committee plans, a majority of the Marin citizens clearly do not share this
opinion. As stated in the minority recommendations, the single page paper
labeled, "Alterna-tive Vision", the minority group strongly believes that these
properties are totally inappropriate for the recommended urban development plan
which would fill the heart of the properties with condos, apartments and office
buildings. Because of their Countywide significance, the planning for these
unincorporated proper -ties should not be left to the City of San Rafael.
Instead, the ultimate uses should be determined through a Countywide planning
process. Mr. Dickinson pointed out that this approach is mandated by the
Countywide and regional significance of the on-site resources and the major
impact and development of these properties will have along the Highway 101
corridor, extending far beyond the San Rafael city limits.
Mr. Dickinson stated it is important to note that tonight many of the speakers
will not be from the San Rafael area. He noted that two of the three co-chairs
of the Citizens for the Common Good do not live in San Rafael.
Mr. Dickinson stated that any plan for these properties should really focus on
the maximum preservation and enhancement of the natural resource, agricultural,
scenic and historic values of the area, rather than designing the details of a
new community, as the Committee spent much of its time discussing. He stated
that the recommendation of the majority is inconsistent with the constraints
analysis, which demonstrated that there are virtually no environmentally accep-
table areas for development on the Silveira property, and St. Vincent's has only
modest redevelopment potential in the area of the existing buildings and an area
just to the north of them. If not acquired, any development potential on the
Silveira property should be transferred to this area. He stated these properties
are not just another piece of undeveloped land. They are irreplaceable resources
which contain a wide range of important habitats, including tidal wetlands along
the shores of San Pablo Bay, grasslands, vernal pools, and other seasonal
wetlands on the Silveira property. There are Oak woodlands and Miller Creek, a
largely undisturbed fresh and brackish stream. He stated these habitats are
vital links on the Pacific flyway, and provide foraging and nesting habitats for
waterfowl, shorebirds, eagles and other raptors, and should be preserved as more
than just token islands surrounded by urban development as would be the case with
the majority plan. Other important values, such as the Miwok Indian resources,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 13
historically significant buildings such as the chapel, and prominent agricultural
lands, should be preserved in their historic context rather than being surrounded
by urban development and a sea of rooftops. He noted that under the Committee's
recommendation, the top of the chapel would be visible, but there would be
hundreds of relatively high density units in the foreground of that picture. He
added that this property provides rare and welcome vistas of the last major
remnant of early Marin, early California along the largely urbanized Highway 101
corridor, as well as an important community separator between Novato and San
Rafael. These should be preserved for future generations.
Mr. Dickinson stated it is important to note that the Committee, during the deli-
berations, by a 12-6 vote, voted that the community view area should not remain
permanently open. He noted that in addition, there was a letter in the packets
from the American Institute of Architects (AIA), which described the visual
impacts of the majority plan, and he quoted, "Framed by office development along
the freeway, the view corridor is significantly compromised. Residential
development south of Miller Creek (almost 800 units) also intrudes into this
resource. Development within eyesight of the freeway north of Miller Creek in
this area of the north valley also compromises the goal of maintaining Pacheco
Ridge community separator identified in both the City and County General Plans".
He quoted further, "The net effect will be a dramatic extension of the visual
pattern of sprawl along Highway 101".
Mr. Dickinson stated that any plan for the future of these properties should
eliminate the need for extensive new infrastructure such as major road construc-
tion, extension of the sewage treatment plant, and engineering solutions, in
order to make a large portion of the area proposed for development developable,
and remove it from the flood plain. He noted that the Committee majority plan
also requires a widening of the Marinwood Interchange. An appropriate plan
should also minimize traffic impacts on both local streets and Highway 101,
rather than - as the Committee majority has often done - ignore or trivialize the
significant current concerns raised by a majority of the citizens. The plan
would add 4,000 to 6,000 cars a day to the most congested portion of Highway 101,
the area which the Congestion Management Plan described as operating at Level of
Service (LOS) F.
Mr. Dickinson pointed out that since the majority plan has been presented to the
public this Spring, significant opposition to the type of urban development which
is proposed, and support for a Countywide planning effort to determine the future
of these magnificent properties, has been expressed. He stated that during the
three years of Committee meetings, the minority members repeatedly warned the
majority that they were out of touch with the desires of the majority of the
citizens, but they chose to ignore it. He strongly urged that the Council select
Option 3 as outlined in the staff report, which is the process option which most
closely corresponds with the recommendation of the Committee minority. He stated
that, as much as some of the proponents of this Plan may want to see this proper-
ty transformed into a new urban neighborhood, with thousands of additional cars,
it clearly is not going to happen. The citizen voters clearly have a different
vision for this property, and they will not allow it to happen. He added that,
while considerable staff and Committee member time, and over $100,000 have
already gone into the current San Rafael planning process, the City Council is
now at an important decision point. The Committee did not produce a consensus
recommendation as they had hoped. We all spent a lot of time and energy trying
to, but we did not succeed. Because of the strong public controversy, to
continue to pursue the current Plan will clearly consume extensive additional
staff time and would require major expenditures of the City's limited resources.
This property is clearly of Countywide significance, as will be apparent from
the comments tonight.
Mr. Dickinson stated it is not too late to do the right thing regarding the
future of these properties. He recommended the City Council thank the Committee
for their efforts - as they have just done - set the urban development plan
aside, transfer the valuable information which the Committee has generated to the
County, and join in a Countywide planning effort to determine the future of these
very special properties. He concluded by stating, as Elizabeth Terwilliger
previously remarked about these properties, "Once these precious lands are gone,
they are gone forever".
Mayor Boro asked if there were any others who wished to speak on the minority
report. Mr. Dickinson stated he chose to present the entire minority position.
Mayor Boro noted that a number of Committee members are present, and asked if any
of them wished to speak, either for the majority or minority, and keep their
remarks to 1 or 2 minutes due to the length of the process ahead.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 14
Michael Marovich, General Director of the CYO/St. Vincent's, stated they are
owners of the land and, on behalf of the CYO Board of Trustees, the St. Vincent's
Advisory Board, the Women's Auxiliary, The Depot, and the many other volunteers,
as well as the staff who support their work, he thanked the City Council for
initiating a community process which they had frankly entered into with a high
degree of trepidation. He noted they have owned their land endowment and carried
out their mission of service to children and youths for 139 years. Marin County
and San Rafael have literally grown up around them. He stated they understand
they do not hold their land endowment in a vacuum, but rather in the context of a
broader community which has a range of environmental, economic, social and
cultural values which should be reflected in any future development of our City -
centered corridor lands. That, he believes, was the charge of the St. Vincent's/
Silveira Advisory Committee. He noted that the 20+ individuals and the excellent
Planning staff of Bob Pendoley, Jean Hasser with the support of Linda Jackson,
made democracy in action come alive. He stated that from a very diverse set of
initial visions, the majority of the Committee grew together to a common vision
for the future of these lands, and those of the Silveira family. That was not
shared by all, but was shared by a strong majority and validated by a very inno-
vative land use design competition, and a group of distinguished design profes-
sionals who judged the competition and, in his opinion, affirmed the wisdom of
the final recommendations of the Committee. Mr. Marovich said he looks forward
to the continuing evolution and generation of this process, and encouraged the
Council to judiciously guide this excellent work product to the next step in the
process, and to invest the literally millions of dollars of community and profes-
sional input wisely, for the benefit of the City of San Rafael. He again thanked
the Council for enabling the St. Vincent's/Silveira process to happen, and for
the terrific and patient staffing effort, and to each and every member of the
Committee who put an incredible investment of time over these past three years,
which they made in order to create a very special opportunity for San Rafael and
Marin County, regarding the future of their lands.
Sam Cogswell, who represented Captain's Cove Homeowners Association on the
Advisory Committee, thanked the City Council, Committee members, and especially
the Planning Department, for the work which was done over the last three years.
He noted there is no government job which adequately pays for the dedication that
they showed. He explained his activities regarding Captain's Cove, and stated he
strove to give impartial information throughout the process, writing over a dozen
local newsletter articles covering housing opportunities and environmental con-
cerns, among others. Residents attended and commented on the design competition
and, after all the public meetings were concluded, a phone poll was conducted.
Sixteen percent of the residents responded, and over 62% favored the minority
alternative. Over 91% wished to significantly protect this land in parks and
open space. He stated he deeply respects the Committee members, the Silveira
family, and the CYO. They are all dedicated, wonderful people, and it was a
privilege to work with every one of them. He stated he feels confident that a
win/win solution and agreement can be evaluated and will evolve over time for
this property.
Mr. Cogswell stated he wishes everyone could step back a moment, and appreciate
how strategically located and priceless this land is, in its natural state. He
noted that a fly -over recently from McNear's and the Peacock area to Bel Marin
Keys showed how a scarred but still surviving wetlands crescent still exists,
with some of the uplands not developed and still capable of supporting natural
wildlife. He stated that St. Vincent's/Silveira is a critical part of that
expanse and, from a bird's eye view, it all makes sense. He stated he knows that
housing and fairness in land deployment are important issues, but asked the
Council, Committee, and the public, to try to work together at sincerely trying
to fairly acquire the land and protect it as park and open space, with some other
non -developmental use. He added that by the nature of their Committee, even
though they were all looking to be environmentally sensitive, the Committee was
charged to identify development potential while defining constraints. He stated
that as a former Committee member, and an individual, he asked that we work in
the near and ongoing future to identify a different path, to fairly acquire and
protect this land and turn our housing needs attention authorizing an existing
development area. He stated that while procedure and protocol may be vague and
awkward, opening to wider County planning and Countywide input may be the best
place to start re-evaluation and funding potential. He asked the Council to
seriously consider Option 3 as an action path. He noted that many of the reasons
and thought processes by which they focused so heavily on interurban corridor
development have changed in the last 20 years. Over time, the land is far more
precious in its natural state than for its limited development potential for San
Rafael and Marin. If we develop this land for a couple of thousand homes and
additional office space, we will be viewed as having been penny wise and pound
foolish in the eyes of our children and grandchildren. He urged all concerned
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
14
Page 15
parties, groups, and residents, to put away
to fairly compensate and protect this land.
relief areas, and can find funding. It is
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
animosity and emotion and really try
He stated we can find other housing
not an impossible task.
John Rojas, who represented Mont Marin Homeowners Association on the Advisory
Committee, stated that when he first joined the Committee he thought of himself
as being a NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard), because his property is close to the St.
Vincent's/Silveira property, and driving past he felt it was a beautiful pastoral
area which he would like to keep in perpetuity. However, after serving on the
Committee for three years, and after looking at all of the constraints on the
property, and opening his eyes to the need for housing in this County, especially
for poor communities and the elderly people, he is totally convinced that the
work their Advisory Committee did was forthright, and certainly deserves a lot of
merit. He stated he does not agree with everything in the document, but he
believes that it is a beginning, and he feels that the City Council has an
obligation to look at it very carefully and go forth with the planning process.
Bonnie Brown, representing the North San Rafael Coalition of residents (NSRCR)
Steering Committee, acknowledged the quality of the planning process. She stated
that in general, the NSRCR supports the policies of the Advisory Committee's
plan, which demonstrate preservation of environmental resources and buffer zones,
while providing substantial amounts of affordable housing, and the exclusion of
McInnis Parkway as a major arterial to the north because of its negative impacts
on the environment and the surrounding communities. They felt that the improve-
ments to the interchanges, especially the Freitas Parkway Interchange, should be
done before development is completed. They requested serious consideration of
other recommendations they have made, including not giving full support to the
proposed plan until full protection in perpetuity of the designated open space
areas is given, including east of the railroad tracks and the view corridors
included in the plan. They also asked that consideration be given to decreasing
the size of the commercial area to perhaps 300,000 sq. ft., and decreasing the
residential development to up to 1,800 units, while maintaining affordable
housing. She stated that generally the Coalition felt that the process was
comprehensive, responsible, and open-minded, and congratulates the City.
Ms. Brown, speaking as an individual, stated she wanted to be on the Committee
because she loves this land, and wanted to preserve as much open space as
possible and to promote as much agriculture as possible. She is also opposed to
commercial development along the freeway, except in one limited area. She stated
she asked the environmental representatives on the Advisory Committee to submit a
plan at the time of the land use competition, and was very disappointed because
they said they do not do that, and there is no organization which does. Then,
through CAPS (Citizen Advocates for Preservation of St. Vincent's), they claimed
that the process was not good. She stated they had an opportunity, with the
national land use competition, where a nationally recognized environmental group
could come in to show a plan which, if you wanted transfer of development rights,
showed the amount and where the trade-offs would be. She stated that the minority
viewpoint is a "non -plan", and does not address funding. She stated that the
minority response to the majority viewpoint is, in her opinion, basically
misogynistic. It says we cannot learn from our past mistakes. It also says that
people cannot mix with nature and environment, and we cannot build beautiful
homes. She stated she believes that we can. She wants to make changes to the
Plan and wants to see it go forward. She stated it will take a great amount of
courage for the Council to stand up for what they feel is right, but she knows
they can do that.
Irving Schwartz stated he was appointed to the Advisory Committee as one of the
two representatives of the Silveira family. He stated that as a result of the
three-year study, he feels the Committee gained a considerable amount of knowl-
edge and information from one another, from City staff and other agency staff,
the consultants, the competitors and judges, and from the public regarding the
constraints and opportunities on the St. Vincent's and Silveira sites. While he
had some preconceived ideas as to how the property should be developed, he found
his positions on many issues were modified following three years of information
gathering and discussion with other Committee members. He stated that, although
he does not feel the Plan provides for the best overall scenario for the Silveira
ranch's interest, he does find that the Plan, as presented to the Council, is a
reasonable compromise, taking into account the diversity of views of the
Committee members. He believes that this completed first step was necessary in
developing a plan for these properties. He stated he hopes the Council will con-
tinue to take a leadership role, while involving the public and also the County
of Marin, in completing in a timely manner the process of amending the General
Plan as it relates to the development of the St. Vincent's and Silveira proper-
ties. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to work on this challenging and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 16
exciting project.
Dr. John Starkweather, appointed to the Advisory Committee as a representative of
the San Rafael Planning Commission, stated he was active with the process in the
early portion, but it became evident that he should be careful about entering
into any votes. He stated he carefully watched the Advisory Committee process,
and along the way organized his collected documents, which now measure over 15
inches of shelf space. Because of the possibility that the Planning Commission
would need to react to the Committee's results, he did not participate in votes
on the Committee. He added that the staff correctly warns about the possible
costs of proceeding with a controversial EIR as though the Committee majority
recommendation were a proposed project.
Dr. Starkweather commented on the options before the Council, stating that the
area is in the City's sphere of influence, but not currently in the City. The
General Plan element is therefore a set of potential guidelines which would
become effective when there is a proposal for actual development and the related
annexation. He explained that an EIR process most often occurs when a developer
advances a specific proposal, and the City then expects the developer to pay for
the EIR expenses. In the present instance, there is no known developer with a
proposal. Furthermore, while the Committee and staff gathered much information
which would be helpful to an EIR, it did not carry out an economic analysis, so
the likelihood of the Committee's majority recommendations being attractive to a
developer can only be guessed at. Dr. Starkweather added that he believes the
Council should identify clear advantages to the City before it has the City
assume further large costs which are usually paid by the developer of a proposed
project. He noted that these thoughts fit best with the staff's fifth option,
which is to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the General Plan to the extent
appropriate and at the time of making other amendments, and to describe coordina-
tion activities with other agencies in the meantime.
Renee Silveira addressed the Council, stating her family has always taken their
land ownership very seriously, not only in terms of their rights, but also in
terms of the responsibilities which go along with it. She stated that in the
past, prior to the community process, they felt somewhat isolated. Although most
people in the community knew where the Silveira Ranch was, they had only superfi-
cial knowledge about the property and sometimes had misinformation. She noted
that the family, being consumed with the day-to-day activities of running the
family business, their outreach had been limited. The Committee process allowed
a diverse group of people to study their property, to go beyond the superficial
and to get to the facts. This required a tremendous amount of diligence, and her
family is appreciative of that effort. The Committee and City staff devoted them-
selves in a way which makes the family feel they are not alone in taking their
property seriously. Ms. Silveira stated they are grateful for the outreach
opportunity, to have people come to know them and better understand their view-
point. The family also learned a great deal about the different perspectives
concerning their property. It was important for them to listen, and they did, as
responsible land owners. They used their expanded consciousness to help them
move forward with this planning process, and it is most important that it
continue.
Aileen Taylor, who represented San Rafael Housing Corporation on this Committee,
stated she is very enthused about the plan which they have developed which she
feels is very innovative and very exciting. She pointed out it would provide
mixed housing and entry level housing for young families who, since we do not
have enough housing, go to Petaluma or Santa Rosa and then get on 101 and drive
through our community. Therefore, there is a traffic impact by not building
housing. She stated the need for such housing has been well documented in the
Housing Element of the General Plan. Ms. Taylor stated she was amazed at the
number of entries in the contest, and noted they proved that we can have this
many units and still preserve the best elements of the natural part of the land.
In addition, it also allows us to preserve and restore the best parts of the
historically important St. Vincent's complex. She stated they held their meetings
there, and she has come to love this complex, and the Committee appreciates their
hospitality throughout the last three years. She noted that the Committee members
worked well together and listened to one another with respect, and the staff
worked long and hard. However, late last Spring, a myth was circulated that
suddenly there were the environmentalists against the others, and she stated her
group also feels they are environmentalists who care about the land. This Plan
preserves 71% of the total in green space. She stated she hopes the Council has
confidence in the Committee they appointed, and that the Plan will be given a
fair hearing, which she is sure it will be.
Mayor Boro noted that some in the audience were not here when the meeting started
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
Q.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 17
and talked about the process, and he asked the Planning Director to capsulize
what will happen next and how we will play out the rest of the hearing.
Planning Director Pendoley stated that our emphasis tonight has been two -fold,
first to give an introduction to the Plan with special attention to the point of
view of the majority and minority members of the Committee. The other purpose is
to begin a discussion of process, what direction would you like to go, and in
what forum would you like to further consider the future of this property? Mr.
Pendoley stated that, from the staff's point of view, the process has been very
thorough, very open, and did an excellent job of identifying and studying issues
on the property. The principles which were developed and incorporated into the
Plan were excellent; however, that is not to say there is not room for change and
refinement in this. He stated that at this time we would like to stop, and answer
any questions from the Council, and suggested that when the Council opens the
meeting for participation by the rest of the audience it would be appropriate to
invite a representative of CAPS to speak, and from Citizens for the Common Good.
He stated that between those two groups we would probably cover most of the
audience, but others may wish to speak as well.
The City Council had no questions of staff at this time. Mayor Boro called for a
representative of the Citizens Advocates for Preservation of St. Vincent's
(CAPS), followed by the Citizens for Common Good, with each group taking about 15
minutes.
Frank Nelson, a member of CAPS, stated that when he spoke with Mayor Boro the
other day he mentioned we should advise our folks not to be ready to speak, that
primarily the focus was going to be on the process the Council would follow,
after reception of the Plan. He stated he would like to be certain that the
Council got some exposure to the people concerned about the urban village plan,
and some exposure to the range and complexity of the substantive issues. He
stated that CAPS believes that the Council cannot make an informed choice of the
next process step unless the Council has a thorough understanding of the Plan.
However, given the time constraints, we can only begin to scratch the surface of
this very complex Plan with a very complex environment.
Mr. Nelson stated that, first of all, CAPS asks the Council to reject the think-
ing which says that because the Advisory Committee worked hard, we are all some-
how automatically obligated to accept the urban village plan. He stated that
CAPS also asked the Council to reject the thinking which says that because the
lands are in the City -centered corridor, we are somehow locked in forever to
accepting an urban development on these lands. He stated it is CAPS' view that
hard-working committees have been known to make wrong decisions, and also that
times have changed since the City -centered corridor concept was introduced. In
1973, for example, Highway 101 was not at Level F gridlock. Also, our knowledge
of the importance of wetlands has increased since 1973. However, the urban
village plan virtually ignores the traffic issue and it does not, in CAPS'
opinion, adequately respond to our increased knowledge of the environment and the
wetlands which has been accumulated since 1973. He stated that in CAPS' opinion
the urban village plan is dominated by the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce,
and those priorities are housing and expansion of office space. He added it has
been pointed out that the letters to the Council from both the Committee for the
Common Good and the Chamber of Commerce use the same address, telephone and FAX
numbers. He stated they are one and the same, the Chamber and the Common Good.
Mr. Nelson then commented on the five step process options which are listed on
pages 10 through 14 of the Planning Department report. He stated that, following
that, there are two people from CAPS who would like to address the Council, if
possible.
Mr. Nelson first addressed Option A, on page 10 of the staff report, which
recommends that the urban plan be sent out for an EIR. He noted that, as Dr.
Starkweather mentioned, there is a difference between a General Plan environmen-
tal report and a project environmental report. He noted that would be very
expensive, the public response to this plan has not been favorable, the City has
serious budget problems and is pulling back on their Police protection in neigh-
borhoods. He stated he understands there is no money in the City coffers to pay
for the very expensive EIR for a project of this scope and magnitude. He stated
that financial and political realities suggest that Option A is not a viable
option.
With regard to Option B, on page 11 of the staff report, Mr. Nelson noted it
suggests that the urban plan be modified and then sent out for an EIR. He stated
the fundamental question the Council has to ask is, do you really want to, and do
you really believe that you can fix this Plan? He stated that CAPS believes this
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 18
Plan has a fundamental and fatal flaw, which is that the plan is not based on a
Countywide consensus as to how these very special and treasured lands should be
used. He stated that no amount of tinkering with the Plan can fix that
fundamental flaw.
Regarding Option D, Mr. Nelson noted it asks the County to share the costs of the
EIR. CAPS believes this option does not require any comment because, obviously,
the County will not put its fingerprints on this white elephant.
Mr. Nelson then discussed Option E, stating it seems like the author is trying to
figure out a way to make the opposition disappear. He stated it suggests that the
City Council direct that the Plan sort of float for two years, and during the
floating period the opposition will be given the opportunity to arrange a pur-
chase of the land and, if they do not succeed with that purchase, maybe the oppo-
sition will have to accept development of the land and quietly go away. However,
one thing those of us interested in preserving those magnificent lands learned
from Supervisor Roumiguiere's efforts to purchase the development rights on the
Silveira Ranch, it is virtually impossible to place a value on land which does
not have a designated use. Therefore, how can you arrange a plan to purchase
this land when you cannot determine its value? He stated this option is an empty
one. Furthermore, CAPS doubts that the County would wait two years for this
option to be put in place. Finally, the opposition to this urban plan is not
going to go away; in fact, it will be stronger and will be better informed in two
years.
Mr. Nelson stated that the opposition and CAPS say, let's get on with the
planning process which is based on a Countywide approach to lands which are of
Countywide importance, and this brings us finally to Option C, which is to allow
a Countywide planning process to take over the planning for these lands. He
stated that CAPS endorses Option C.
Mr. Nelson stated that, unfortunately, there is no simple argument to persuade
this Council to give up its planning authority over these lands. However, CAPS
believes that the decision by this Council to let go, will come with time. He
stated that during the Council's deliberations, CAPS believe they will conclude,
after studying all of the constraints, that the urban village plan is "unfix-
able". It may be an excellent plan, and have porches where people can sit and
watch their neighbors walk down the cobblestone streets and go to work, but it is
not a plan which belongs on these lands. He added that CAPS believes that the
financial and political realities will nudge the Councilmembers toward a "Yes"
vote on Option C. But finally, and more importantly, it is CAPS' hope that the
Council's desire to do the right thing for all of the people of Marin County will
convince them to vote Yes on Option C.
John Walters, Chairman of Conservation of the Marin Chapter of the California
Native Plant Society, mentioned concerns regarding the urban village plan,
stating that a vernal pool of several acres exists on the Silveira property, and
additional acreage of seasonal wetlands adjoins this vernal pool. He stated this
pool existed before the levees were built and the railway was constructed. The
existence of this pool is confirmed by the Nichols and Rice report which is based
upon 25 surveys by the U.S. Geological Survey made in the years 1850 to 1897. He
explained the report was entitled, "A Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of
Marshland in San Francisco Bay, California". He stated that within the vernal
pool on the Silveira property, just north of the McInnis Park Apartments, Lopes
Buttercup is found. It is of limited distribution in California and needs
protection and monitoring to insure its preservation. The buttercup was found in
a one -day survey in 1992, and he believes that an intensive survey of the vernal
pool and the adjoining seasonal wetlands is warranted, to ascertain whether there
are sensitive or special status plants present. He noted there are also vernal
pools found on the St. Vincent's property. He told of his experience as manager
of a vernal pool in Lake County, and stated that vernal pools, even those which
have been grazed by livestock for extended periods, are likely to include sensi-
tive and special status plants. He noted that this summer, plants of Hemezonia
Congesta were found on the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties. He stated this is
a white flower which is quite rare in Marin County. Also, one of our most beau-
tiful trees, the Valley Oak, is found on both properties. It is now of limited
distribution and is declining in occurrence, especially in Marin County. He
stated that the tidal marshes, the vernal pools and the seasonal wetlands are
visited by migratory waterfowl during the Winter months. Miller Creek has its
own riparian corridor, with native Buckeye, Live Oak, and other native trees.
The wooded hillsides at St. Vincent's contain many native trees, with the
accompanying flora and fauna. He stated that the St. Vincent's/Silveira proper-
ties provide an integration of native flora, fauna and cultural resources of
prehistoric people. The St. Vincent's/Silveira village plan has not placed
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 19
adequate developmental constraints on these plans to safeguard the natural
resources which he has listed, nor have there been site-specific surveys to
locate and to identify the resources he has enumerated. Mr. Walters stated that
before any development is approved, he urged the Council to consider the fragmen-
tation which will occur on such a diverse area, which would lose forever the
totality of its richness and beauty. He stated that the Marin Native Plant
Society endorses Option C in regard to these properties.
Sheila Molineux of Bel Marin Keyes, stated she is an advocate of Countywide plan-
ning. She acknowledged and applauded the significant effort of the Committee,
stating that such a process should be encouraged regionally and locally. She
noted it is time to look at the environmental issues from a Countywide perspec-
tive, and strongly recommended the Council sending this issue to the County. She
stated that too many projects are being reviewed separately, without regard to
the cumulative impacts on the area such as traffic, etc. She gave the Hamilton
Air Force Base issue as an example. She stated she supports Option C, and
supports County review.
Patsy White, president of the League of Women Voters as well as Co-chairman of
the Citizens for the Common Good, read a statement from the League of Women
Voters. She stated that the League of Women Voters (LWV) strongly supports the
General Plan Amendment proposal from the St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory
Committee as presented tonight. The LWV commends the Committee for its exemplary
process during the past three years, including the use of professionals, whose
expertise was tapped to identify constraints and provide a range of land use
alternatives, the design competition, eliciting numerous plans to meet environ-
mental objectives and community development needs; and the public involvement at
all levels of the process. This was effectively done and resulted in a thought-
ful, innovative and creative plan for the properties. The LWV also commended the
report for its balanced approach, recognizing site resource conservation and
other environmental concerns with community needs, such as the need for housing
and affordable housing, local employment, consideration of the property owners'
needs for economic return, and its concern regarding traffic design within the
property and the creation of a transit oriented neighborhood. The LWV feel that
the vision of the Committee is one which is much needed in the North San Rafael
area, stressing a new, compact neighborhood providing opportunities for families
and senior citizens, while preserving open space and historical buildings and
reducing traffic impacts. The statement concluded by urging the Council to
accept the report and proceed with the process of an EIR and send it on to the
Planning Commission.
Mayor Boro asked if there is any further input from Citizens for the Common Good.
Betty Paget stated that the Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) commends the
San Rafael City Council and the staff for enabling a participatory community
process to propose these plans for the St. Vincent's and Silveira lands. She
urged that the process continue. She spoke of the possibility for affordable
housing on the sites, noting the need is well established in both the City's and
the County's general plans. She noted that infill sites downtown offer very
limited opportunities to meet even a portion of the need for homes for those who
make less than the median income for Marin County. While infill is one important
dimension, it is not the exclusive option for affordable housing. She noted that
Hamilton Air Force Base (HAFB) will be the site of some affordable housing, but
the Marin Group Plan, with final development agreements already in place,
includes only 70 units of senior affordable housing. She explained that reduced
densities and numbers of units left the plan without any other BMR housing. The
Navy housing, now in community planning process, hopefully will be sustaining the
affordable housing which is based there, but no new additional units are possi-
ble. Ms. Paget stated that to maintain the Countywide Plan commitment to protect
the rural inland and coastal zones, some housing along 101 is needed. Secondly,
is it possible? She stated that utilities are already stubbed in. Clustered
homes with good design and planning can create attractive quality, affordable
housing which will cover their share of infrastructure costs. She noted the same
subsidies will be available for such housing as were used to make possible
Centertown in downtown San Rafael, Edgewater Place in Larkspur, or other afford-
able complexes around the County. Thirdly, what will happen if we do not? She
stated that all of us will be impacted in our quality of life. We should provide
housing to reduce the job/housing imbalance, which creates the traffic and poor
air quality which we face, reduces the quality of our schools and public safety
and drives up parcel taxes, etc., to cover minimum public services. Ms. Paget
stated that EAH believes that entry homes, in a balanced sustainable plan, is
possible for our children and grandchildren, and the many senior citizens who
need homes.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
W1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 20
Joe Walsh, Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee of the San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce, stated that the Board of Directors asked him to report to the Council
their wholehearted and enthusiastic support for the draft plan presented tonight.
He added that they were proud to participate in the effort to support this Plan,
and noted that while they did lend their telephone to the Citizens for the Common
Good, as well as their address and their FAX machine, only a handful of the 50
members of the Citizens for the Common Good are members of the Chamber of
Commerce.
Mr. Walsh pointed out that Planning Director Pendoley was quoted in the News
Pointer recently when asked about affordable housing. He stated, "It is a matter
of being responsible. It is an ethical question of whether you plan for afford-
able housing - are we in the business of including people or planning for their
exclusion?" Mr. Walsh stated that is what this is all about. He stated he wants
to urge the Council to do this because it is the right thing. He gave several
reasons to back up his recommendation. He stated that everybody is theoretically
in favor of affordable housing, but there is always a reason why it cannot be
done here and now. He gave some of the business community's reasons for the
"here and now" at St. Vincent's/Silveira. One is that the average salary made by
working people in Marin is $25,000 per year. The income which is required to
qualify for a medium priced home in Marin is $100,000 per year. He noted that
the Chamber did a survey of emergency and essential services personnel in Marin
County, and while the results are not all yet in, there are a few statistics. Of
the 80 Police and Firefighters responding, 27 live in Marin; 34 in Sonoma County;
5 in Contra Costa County, 2 in Solano County; 1 in Napa; 1 in Santa Cruz, and 1
in Sacramento. Ten did not say where they lived. Of the 181 total who replied
to the question, Do you have a disaster backup plan? 106 said No, or they did
not know, and 112 replied to another question saying they would live in Marin if
it was affordable. Mr. Walsh reported that the Chamber also did a survey of San
Rafael's core businesses, with 80 businesses responding. When asked to rank the
most important factors in the success of their business, the top four factors
were: 1) Cost of space, 64%; 2) Labor availability, 60%; 3) Cost of housing,
59%; and 4) Labor costs, 58%.
Mr. Walsh concluded by stating that Marin County and San Rafael desperately need
a well-planned mixed use development like St. Vincent's/Silveira, and he would
like this County to be the people who give it to them.
Margaret Azevedo, speaking for Citizens for the Common Good, stated she will
brief her written statement. She noted that we have heard for most of this
evening, that these properties must be saved, and we ask ourselves, "Saved from
what, and for what?" The Environment? She stated that every environmental
feature is protected, and do not tell me that wetlands cannot be preserved in
built-up areas because the Coastal Conservancy - on which she sits - does this
regularly. Traffic? What this proposal will produce on 101 at peak hours, is at
most 500 cars, a 4% increase in what exists now. That is the relevant figure,
not that "bogeyman" figure of thousands which we have been hearing. Views? In
years to come, when this brouhaha has been forgotten, people will drive by and
will be able to look through and see the Bay, and see more green than houses
because the houses will be set back. They will say, "Wasn't it nice of the City
to save this much green space?" Countywide Plan: Ms. Azevedo stated she was
there, 20 years ago, when they drew up the first Countywide Plan, and it is still
valid. What the Plan said was very clear, and said to keep development out of
the agricultural and recreational lands. It also said to put the development in
the City -centered corridor. What this proposal offers to San Rafael and to our
County is every bit as valuable as agriculture and open space.
Mayor Boro noted the hearing has gone on for two hours, and we have heard from
the minority group, opponents of the Plan and diverse citizens' groups both
applauding and opposing it. He asked the people who still wish to speak to limit
their remarks to about one minute due to the lateness of the hour.
Kate Torrey, a ninth grader at Terra Linda High School, stated she has lived in
Marin for 11 years and has followed this Plan through the 8th grade and now into
the 9th grade. She stated St. Vincent's site has been very special to her and
her friends. They have always gone to the St. Vincent's Pumpkin Patch at
Halloween and, even though it may sound silly, that is what the land means to
them. While they were there, they have seen the wildlife and they do not under-
stand how a community could disturb all the wonderful things which are around it.
She stated her little cousins are now enjoying and experiencing the Pumpkin
Patch and everything else this land has to offer. Low cost housing is important,
but she disagrees with the location. She noted this site is special to many in
the neighboring communities. She loves the land, and hopes the Council will
listen to the younger generation who do not want this Plan. She noted that
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 21
people want to preserve it for their children, and asked that the Council please
not think of developing the land.
Norma Fragoso, a Fairfax resident, expressed her concerns about the proposed
development. She stated she works in the field of community development and is
appalled by the proposed scheme of developing this last remaining preserve. She
stated she is an advocate for preservation, and does not see a land use competi-
tion as the highest and best method of making a determination. She requested
that the Council consider the minority viewpoint of the citizens and continue the
joint planning process with the County.
Joe McBride of 116 Blackstone Drive, Marinwood, stated he works in San Francisco
and sometimes takes the bus rather than driving to the City. On September 6th at
9AM, the traffic was stopped on 101. The next day at 6:15 AM it was the same
situation. With the potential development of Hamilton (HAFB), Bel Marin Keyes
and Blackpoint, the situation will be even worse. He noted that the Plan
addresses the traffic during PM peak trips only, and recommended they survey the
traffic in the morning commute hours.
Mayor Boro stated he would like to give everyone who wishes an opportunity to
speak, but noted the Council will not be deciding tonight on design elements, but
on what the next steps are. He asked that speakers address that issue.
Harry Winters, a long-time resident of San Rafael, stated he has participated in
many City committees, and his comments are because of his commitment to good
government in the City. He explained that the Committee makeup is of 6 neighbor-
hood representatives and 13 representatives of organizations such as the Sierra
Club, Chamber of Commerce, Audobon Society, Association of Realtors, and such
organizations. He stated that the real constituency of this City Council, those
designated and empowered by our laws to vote for the Council as their representa-
tives, appear to be outnumbered by about 2 to 1 on this Committee. He stated
these Committee majority organizations are indeed elements of the local commu-
nity, but the Council is not elected to represent them. Their special interests
deserve to be considered, but only as petitioners to the Council for their
consideration as Council representatives of the resident voters. He stated the
Council's consideration should only consider whether this proposal is in the
interest and benefit of those who elect them. It may be that the Committee
recommendations are in the interest of the real constituents who, however, seem
to be a minor voice on this Committee. He stated it would have been much more
comfortable if the Committee had been a majority - say 51% - representing the San
Rafael resident voter rather than organizations who do not have a legal right to
vote for them.
Mario Ghilotti stated he was born and raised in San Rafael and is in business in
San Rafael. He stated he saw Terra Linda, Mont Marin and Glenwood developed, but
he has never seen so much time and effort go into a Plan, and he wishes to
personally commend the City Council and the Committee who did such an outstanding
job. He noted that 20 or 30 years ago, the majority of his employees lived in
San Rafael. Today, 99.9 live outside the County which helps make the gridlock.
He stated he is sure he speaks for all of the businessmen and all of the offices
in San Rafael. He stated we need a place for young people to live. He noted
that we in San Rafael never got involved in Novato's plans, nor Mill Valley's.
We are San Rafael residents and this is a San Rafael problem, it is within our
sphere of influence, and it is up to the City Council to make the decision. He
stated he does not think the County should come and tell us what we in San Rafael
need and should have for our citizens. He urged the Council to accept the Plan
and go ahead and take the next step.
Marge Kathrein, a Lucas Valley resident, noted that this plan purports to
preserve wetlands, and on paper there are some wetland areas which appear to be
saved. In fact, these wetlands are not being saved; these areas will not be
sufficient to act as an actual habitat for wild birds and wildlife. They will be
too isolated. They will be surrounded by concrete, by buildings and by many
people and by the neighborhood predators, namely dogs and cats. She stated there
will not be the variety of migrating and shore birds and other wildlife which
currently exist there. She urged that the Council refer this to the County,
since it is a controversial plan and has Countywide significance.
Nancy Helmer, from Fairfax, handed out maps to the Council and referred to the
view corridor map contained in the Committee report. She noted that a signifi-
cant portion of the view corridor to the Bay which is described in the text of
the report has been omitted on the map. She stated that the view of the Bay is
twice as wide as shown, and this portion of the view must be added to the map and
evaluated in more detail, as has already been done with the narrower view. She
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 22
added it appears that this part of the view corridor may have been purposely
omitted to avoid a conflict in what eventually appears in the development plan.
She noted that some of the highest density zoning is directly in the path of this
view. She stated the plan in general is overscaled and chooses to ignore the
many constraints placed upon it. Because of these and many other concerns, she
stated she supports the minority report and urged the Council to take Option C,
and refer this to the County.
Alfred Robinson introduced himself as a Roman Catholic Missionary of charity with
Mother Theresa. He stated the Advisory Committee has labored long on this report,
in their service to government and the people. He noted that the Committee states
that 71% of the lands will remain open. However, if we confine our scrutiny to
the lands west of the railroad, the actual development space, we find that only
44% of the St. Vincent's/Silveira lands will remain undeveloped and that at
minimum 66% is scheduled for development. He stated that a majority of the Marin
specific groups consulted have profound reservations in regard to the current,
with only 6 supporting the plan, 3 supporting the plan only with major reserva-
tions, and 8 fully support the minority position. He noted that the opinions of
St. Vincent's/CYO, the Silveira family and the Marin Realtors Association have
been excluded, as their views are not entirely unbiased by virtue of self-
interest. He stated that the minority view has gained a pluralistic, in not a
majority, stance and stature. He stated that in the days to come, the minority
group shall prevail.
Art Reichert, a San Rafael resident, stated he supports the CAPS position and
would like to see this done on a Countywide planning level. He stated it is time
to take into account the delicate balance between building out along the 101
corridor, and the precious resources which remain in the San Pablo Conservation
Zone. He stated this plan does not appear to be sensitive to the site itself,
nor to adjacent lands. He added these properties are a critical component, and
must be preserved to function as such. He stated he cannot picture three office
buildings on that land, the size of the one being built behind Embassy Suites,
and he hopes the Council cannot either.
Priscilla Bull read a letter from the Marin Conservation League (MCL) outlining
their concerns that important community values will be lost if the lands of St.
Vincent's/Silveira are developed according to the majority committee report. She
pointed out their value as a community separator between San Rafael and Novato,
the view corridor from Highway 101 to the Bay, views of the historic St.
Vincent's church, soils classified as farmlands of local importance, and a wide
range of important habitats with relationships to each other; Miller Creek and
its riparian habitat, season and tidal wetlands, vernal pools, grasslands and Oak
woodlands.
The letter stressed the importance of agriculture and noted that San Rafael does
not have a zoning classification for agricultural lands. Regarding the view cor-
ridor, MCL stated that additional effort should be made to retain the beautiful
Silveira lands in open uses, either through public purchase or with a possible
transfer of development rights to the St. Vincent's property. The letter pointed
out that Marinwood, directly across the highway, is connected to the St.
Vincent's property by a highway overpass, and that Marinwood is in County juris-
diction and not San Rafael; and the adjacent Daphne property is also to be devel-
oped in the County. Future development at St. Vincent's would reasonably be
connected with Marinwood as it is now. The letter urged that the information
gathered by the Advisory Committee during the last three years be forwarded to
the County for further planning.
Larry Fahn spoke, representing the Sierra Club in the absence of Barbara Salzman
who is on an extended vacation, and was a hard-working member of the Advisory
Committee. He noted there are 5,200 members of the Sierra Club in Marin County,
and he is Vice -chair of the Executive Committee of the Marin Group, and also on
the State Executive Committee. He stated that after hearing extensive presenta-
tions from both sides, the Marin group of the Sierra Club Executive Committee on
June 1st voted unanimously to support the minority position with respect to St.
Vincent's/Silveira lands. The vote was 9/0. They are now urging the Council to
adopt Option C. They applaud the Committee for the many hours of hard work, as
well as the CAPS group, whom they also support.
Mr. Fahn stated there has been talk about the balance in this plan, but in the
Committee selection there was tremendous imbalance. He noted that there are four
major environmental organizations in the County - the Sierra Club, Audobon
Society, Marin Conservation League and the Environmental Forum - and there are
literally dozens of others, and mentioned a few. He noted they represent over
20,000 members in the County, and they have two representatives on the 25 -member
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 23
Committee, whereas the development proponents - the Association of Architects,
the Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, four representatives of the land-
owners themselves including two paid consultants, and the housing advocates, have
9 members, and the rest was a sprinkling of the homeowners' associations and
others. He stated there was an imbalance from the start, and he feels the tide
is turning to show that.
Mr. Fahn stated this plan will cause a loss of the tidal wetlands, seasonal wet-
lands, diked baylands, existing sloughs, historic sloughs, habitat, etc. He
stated he has a list of 154 species of birds alone, which were observed on the
St. Vincent's/Silveira properties, in 1988. Two of them, the Peregrin Falcon and
the Clapper Rail, are endangered, and a third is listed as threatened. He stated
there are other mammals, amphibians and other wildlife on these lands, and Miller
Creek and these wetlands cannot be protected by 100 -ft. buffers as claimed by the
proponent of the plan. He noted that a 100 ft. buffer was tried in Petaluma, and
did not work since the wildlife do not go there anymore. He noted that over 90%
of the wetlands around the Bay are already lost, and these ecosystems have price-
less intrinsic and aesthetic values to the community and to the entire County.
Mr. Fahn stated that the Sierra Club believes that this plan, if implemented,
would have a devastating effect on our local regional bio -diversity, threatening
a lot of the species, the migratory bird flyover, and destroying precious wet-
lands in the sensitive wildlife areas, in addition to the traffic and pollution
which have been mentioned. He stated that the Sierra Club urges the adoption of
Option C, and urge the Council to take a leadership role in saving these precious
lands from this kind of intensive development. He asked that they be innovative
and creative, and find some other areas, especially infill areas in the City, to
meet the affordable housing needs. He asked that the Council work with the
Nature Conservancy and other similar organizations. He noted that the EIR for
the Buck Center has already cost over $800,000, and that was just for a few
buildings, and this would cost a lot more. He stated he feels that staff is
underestimating the cost.
Robert Duba, a CAPS member and 29 -year resident of Marinwood, urged the Council
to adopt Option C. He stated that after studying the geotechnical aspects in the
constraints analysis and other issues, he is convinced that this would be a
nightmare for a developer coming in with low cost housing. He noted that to
provide adequate flood control, the levees must be seismically strengthened and
raised 10.5 ft. above mean sea level; currently, the levees range from 6 to 10
ft. in height. They also must be widened and must be maintained in perpetuity.
He asked, does the developer do that, or do the taxpayers of San Rafael do that?
He stated that if the levees are not used for flood control, enormous amounts of
fill are going to be required. About one-fourth of the Silveira property is
below the 10 ft. contour level, and two-thirds of it is between 10 and 20 ft.
above sea level. He noted enormous amounts of fill would drive up developmental
costs. Regarding seismic considerations, Mr. Duba noted that studies showed that
the Bay mud did not extend to any great extent beyond the railroad tracks to the
west. However, they did show that the soils are primarily clay. He quoted from
the USGS report which stated that more detailed mapping of the soil types in
quake -prone regions could drastically lower the damage by encouraging people to
stop building on dangerous ground such as soft clay soil. He stated he believes
the cost of improving and maintaining the levees, the cost of the fill required
for flood control, and the cost of building on what might be seismically unsafe
soil, all mitigate against this project. He asked, why destroy what is now beau-
tiful open space, with a project subject to all of these costs and uncertainties.
Michael Cassidy, representing the Regency Estate Homeowners Association, noted
they were not part of the Advisory Committee, but they live directly across from
the property. They support the minority plan and oppose the majority plan. They
were also part of the petitioners, perhaps 100 of 2,100, who signed the petition
which was presented to the Committee and also to the City Council. He stated he
would like answers about the affordable housing, since he has heard figures like
$200 million to buy the land, and would like to know what it will cost to build
this project, and how many affordable units are we really looking at? He stated
it should be researched, and people given firm figures on just what it would
cost.
Kathy Lowrey, speaking for the Environmental Forum of Marin, stated that the
Council has a letter from the EFM, stating their minority position, but besides
the comments in their letter, they would like to specifically acknowledge the
Countywide importance of these very special lands and ask that it remain in
County jurisdiction.
Reed Kathrein of 1098 Idylberry Road in Lucas Valley, stated he has three points
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
23
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 24
he would like to make. The first is urban sprawl, the second is affordable
housing, and the third is the process. He stated he moved here from Illinois 6
years ago because of the traffic problems, and what the City is doing here is
creating another economic center that is going to create additional strains and
cause development in all directions which are capable for development in that
center. He stated this Council should be focusing and creating that center here
within San Rafael, and not up there where it will create a new strain on the
County and further sprawl north. The affordable housing should be infill, within
San Rafael. The second point is that affordable housing is a politically correct
term to which he is opposed because there is no such thing. He stated there is
market rate housing. He noted the City does not choose who is to live there, but
it will be the person who is willing to pay more for it so he can live in Marin
County. You will be attracting people from throughout the country, and this will
not create a place for the people whom the Council would want to live here. Mr.
Kaplan stated his third issue is the process, and that sometimes a Committee's
decision is not better, and sometimes progress is not better, and just because
the Committee has gotten this far it does not mean it should continue. He stated
the whole County should be involved in this process, and he supports Option C.
Vicky VanMeter of Lucas Valley, a biologist who has spent much time walking
around the property, stated it is a beautiful piece of land. She stated the
value of the property is the continuity of the habitat, which goes all the way
from the water up to the uplands, and if you put that dense a development in
there, you destroy the value of the upland. Also, she thinks it has Countywide
implications and supports letting the County decide on this. She added that, in
behalf of her husband who is president of the Marin Audobon Society which repre-
sents 2,400 members, she has a letter stating that the Marin Audobon Society does
support the minority position and opposes this development.
Nancy Bennett, a resident of San Anselmo for 29 years, stated that a huge project
of 2,100 residences generates more than 500 cars. For each adult there is
usually a car, including teenagers. Each car which goes out comes back, many of
them more than once a day. She stated that in a week, 46,000 car trips is not an
exaggeration, and 500 is a minimization. She stated that the scope of the impact
of 2,100 homes is even more than Countywide, and she suggests adopting Option C.
Elaine Domer -Reichert, a San Rafael resident, stated she has dreamed of elk and a
fox, who used to live in the St. Vincent's/Silveira area, and she believes she
should speak for them. She stated much of this plan is based upon the railway
transit system as the way to keep cars off the road, and as the railway exists
now, it is a single track. In order for that to work as a commute light-rail
system, which is a good idea, it will cost approximately $2 billion to widen the
railway access and put in a second track, as well as weld the current tracks so
they are quiet when the trains go on them. She stated she does not believe any
development should be considered on this property unless, and until, this $2
billion transit problem is in place, since that seems to be the heart and soul of
the urban transit village. She also would like to see the St. Vincent's build-
ings available as a place for spiritual retreats, since it is very hard to find
someplace in this area to be quiet and meditate in a beautiful environment since
they are all booked up. She stated that the addition of facilities of this sort
could generate quite a bit of revenue.
Francine Dickens, with the North Bay Council, applauded the City's leadership and
the St. Vincent's/Silveira Committee for their outstanding work they did in
developing the proposed plan. She stated we have heard a lot tonight about how
important it is to preserve this land so that our children can enjoy it. She
stated she would say that her children would rather live and work in Marin,
rather than have a piece of property alongside Highway 101 while driving 55 miles
per hour going to a different county because they cannot afford to live here. She
stated she enjoys the open space, but feels that what makes a county a desirable
place to live is a combination of things such as good schools and affordable
homes, good infrastructure and a nice environment. She stated the proposed plan
addresses the environmental as well as the economic needs. She noted that if
businesses are constantly being sent out of this County it takes away the jobs.
We should also realize that in the future, jobs will not be created in San
Francisco like they used to be. She stated that 82% of Sonoma people live and
work in Sonoma County, and we have 50% of the population of Marin who live and
work in Marin. This trend will continue to increase in the future, and we must
think about where those people will live if they work here. She encouraged the
Council to accept the Committee's report as well as continue with the process.
Anise Turina, a San Rafael resident since 1963, stated she has been very active
in the community in a number of organizations and is especially known as a
housing advocate for affordable housing. She stated some who have spoken this
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
24
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 25
evening about affordable housing and how it is not possible, should take a tour
of our Ecumenical Association housing projects so they can see the possibility of
housing. She noted there have been a number of people speaking for the environ-
ment. She stated she loves the hills and grass as much as anyone but does not
think this project will take away from the environment; 70% of it is being saved.
She noted we have heard a lot about the birds, but she has not heard talk about
people and where they will live. She noted there was not one here representing
the homeless or emergency housing, Ritter House or Marin Housing Center. She
stated we have so many people on Section 8 housing because they cannot afford
housing here. She stated she is for any place which can have housing, but people
say to put it somewhere else. She stated this is a perfect spot for it. Most of
the housing will be built so you cannot even see it from the highway. You will
see the Bay and the cows, and pastures from the highway. Most of the
construction will be hidden further away behind the trees. She asked the Council
to consider the majority plan. She noted she has been to many meetings where
people are objecting to housing, but after it is put up, you never hear a
complaint. It improves the neighborhood, and people have a place to live and
solve their problems.
Mayor Boro called for a 10 minute break before Council discussion.
The meeting reconvened, and Mayor Boro stated that the Council will discuss the
prime issue, which is to decide what are the next steps? He noted that accepting
the report does not mean we are approving the report. He stated the Planning
Director made that very clear at the outset. We are ending one phase of the
process, and talking about how we proceed, if we choose to proceed, during the
next phase. He stated the Council has the five recommendations before them. He
asked the Council whether they have any questions of the Planning staff at this
point.
Councilmember Zappetini noted that Option A reflects on the fact that there is a
substantial amount of money the City would have to come up with for the EIR. He
asked if there is a tally on how much money has been spent, such as staff time
and other expenditures? Mrs. Hasser responded that $69,500 is the original
budget that they had, and have spent all but $10,000 of it. That was funded by
the City, the County and St. Vincent's. The City funded $27,500 in cash, St.
Vincent's $25,000 and the County funded the remainder. She noted we also
received approximately $36,000 grant from the Marin Community Foundation to fund
the land use competition. Mrs. Hasser stated that all but about $10,000 of that
total is spent, and staff time has not been calculated, but it has been a three-
year process and it has probably taken about 75% of her time over much of that
period. The Planning Director and an Associate Planner have also spent time on
it.
Mr. Pendoley stated he could put a cash value on it for the Council and could
come back with it. Councilmember Zappetini noted that if we go to one of the
other steps, to where we combine with the County, then our staff will be repeat-
ing this whole process again, basically.
Mr. Pendoley stated that depends on what charge the Council gives staff, and also
what the County's interests are. He stated that if staff is asked to investigate
that further they can, and probably have sub -options under that. Councilmember
Zappetini inquired if staff would prefer not to work with the County and prefer
to do it in-house. Mr. Pendoley responded that they would very much like to work
with the County, but the most important element is really the direction which
comes from the City Council and the elected officials at the County. If there
were consensus between the Board of Supervisors and the Council that this was a
good stepping -off point and you are just looking for refinement, that would
affect the work program significantly. If, on the other hand, you were looking
for a joint effort in which we start over again, there would be another approach.
He stated that, beyond that, it is hard to generalize about drafting up detailed
scenarios for the Council. However, there is County -wide interest on this, and
it would help if there were a Countywide consensus.
Councilmember Zappetini pointed out that each alternative, even Option C, if it
went back to the County and it would work and everyone was happy, no matter which
plan we went through, it would still involve an EIR, and asked if that is
correct. Mr. Pendoley replied that is correct, ultimately there would need to be
an EIR.
Councilmember Cohen addressed the cost impact of the EIR. He stated that the
staff report, on page 11, refers to "additional consultant expenses could easily
run much more than $100,000". He noted that someone earlier this evening placed
value on the Buck Center EIR at $800,000. Mrs. Hasser stated it is $1.1 million
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
25
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 26
at this point. Councilmember Cohen asked if staff could give us a better esti-
mate or a valid range for an EIR, for either Option A or B? Mr. Pendoley stated
staff could bring that back to the Council. He added that probably the biggest
variable is going to be in the Response to Comments after a Draft EIR has been
prepared. He stated we have all been through EIRs where the major costs were
after the draft had been prepared and consultants and staff were responding to
comments. He offered to investigate that further for the Council.
Councilmember Cohen noted there was considerable support for Option C, but he
does not know if the County is any more prepared to fund an EIR out of their
operating budget than the City, and perhaps less. He asked are there other
sources for funds for this? Mr. Pendoley responded staff does not think there
are many funding options out there. He stated one possibility they are inves-
tigating is an NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) grant in conjunction with
U.C. Berkeley which would allow us to do a visual simulation, and that would be
input to that portion regarding visual impact. Beyond that, staff has not been
able to identify other sources to date. Mrs. Hasser stated Marin Community
Foundation has told staff several times that they do not fund EIRs. They
consider that a local government or private property owner responsibility.
Councilmember Cohen inquired if this EIR would supplant the EIR which would be
needed for a developer or property owner to get a Master Plan for the site and
begin a development application? Mr. Pendoley replied it would not. He
explained that at the time a Master Plan was proposed, you would be confronted
with more detail both as to development and potential impact, and those would
have to be analyzed again. He stated if you did an EIR tomorrow on the proposal
in front of the Council this evening, later on there would probably have to be a
follow-up EIR on it after the development proposal. Councilmember Cohen asked,
would that be similar scope, or would it be reduced in scope because of the work
done in the first EIR? Mr. Pendoley replied it would probably be broader in
scope, in that it would go into more depth. He gave as an example, the Council
would now be in a position to study in greater detail the soil impacts, because
they would have a much better idea of exactly where grading was to occur. The
law would require us to analyze that in much more detail than we would for a
General Plan proposal.
Councilmember Cohen then noted, with respect to Option E on page 14 of the staff
report, staff refers to the City being able to use time to continue to actively
coordinate with other Countywide agencies and the North Bay Management Plan, for
dealing with historic bayland areas. He asked, if we were to adopt this approach,
and adopt a Resolution of Intent, would that time - and coordination with other
agencies - allow for the provision of other studies, and might that provide the
necessary technical data, thereby reducing the potential cost of an EIR? Mr.
Pendoley replied that the answer is potentially Yes. He stated they can give a
more exact answer shortly. He noted there is a project going on now called the
North Bay Initiative, which involves State, Federal and regional regulatory
agencies such as BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission), and there is
the potential to use this property as a test case. If that occurred, the studies
would be done on environmental resources, and some mitigation measures would be
developed. He stated this data could be useful in an EIR, and would also probably
be policy input for the plan. He noted this is potential, because staff has not
yet seen the work program from BCDC but should receive it at any moment.
Councilmember Cohen noted, with regard to page 13 on Option E, in the discussion
of a Resolution of Intent, staff suggests it would be possible to prepare a
potentially revised project description, adopt that by Resolution, and that would
describe the General Plan Amendment. He surmised that such a Resolution of
Intent would not in itself be a project which would trigger a requirement for an
EIR. Mr. Pendoley agreed that is the assumption in this option. He noted staff
had discussed this at some length with the City Attorney and agrees that a
Resolution could be developed which would not be a CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) project.
Councilmember Heller asked, if and when an actual development proposal is re-
ceived on this site, would that give us an option at that point to do an economic
viability study of the proposal? Mr. Pendoley replied you could, but it usually
would not be part of an EIR because it is not an environmental impact, but he
would expect that on a project of this scale, the Council would be well within
their bounds to ask staff for an economic feasibility study.
Councilmember Thayer stated she has questions on Options A and B. She stated
that obviously there will be modifications to whatever goes before any kind of
planning body, such as the Planning Commission, and she is curious to know
whether it makes any sense to send something which will be modified along the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
W1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 27
way, to a Planning Commission, which is the planning process at this point in
time. In other words, what are you going to do an EIR on? It is like putting
the cart before the horse. Mr. Pendoley explained you could decide you were
going to use CEQA to the maximum advantage. For example, starting with the
project description the Committee has recommended, and then outlining a couple of
alternatives the Council would like to see explored in an EIR. Then, all of that
becomes the subject of the EIR. It gives you the advantage of not only knowing
the potential impacts of the single project, but also seeing it in comparison to
some alternatives. He stated you are able to answer many more questions that way,
and get a clearer perspective on your options.
Councilmember Thayer pointed out that if an EIR was done at this point in time,
assuming money was no option, would not that EIR be obsolete at such time that
those properties were developed? She is thinking of cumulative impacts, up and
down the 101 corridor, caused by other projects in conjunction with this. She
stated it is her understanding that nothing is going to happen on this site
anytime soon, and what concerns her about some of the options here is that they
could produce great costs now and have no viability for the future.
Mrs. Hasser responded that in 1988 the City did the General Plan EIR, which
evaluated impacts of policy at that time. Several of the projects which came in
between then and now did follow-up EIRs which were much more specific about
environmental impacts. She explained that as long as the plan remains in effect,
the City's policies toward the properties in the City are covered by that EIR.
If we adopt a General Plan Amendment, as long as it is in effect, those policies
pertain to those properties, and you would handle the question about changed
conditions through follow-up EIRs for master plans for particular projects.
Councilmember Thayer stated she also would like clarification of the City's
"sphere of influence" as mentioned in the staff report, and asked is that by
State law or is it just a policy agreed to by both the City and the County at a
point in time? Mr. Pendoley responded this is something which needs to be
elaborated on in a follow-up report. He stated the brief summary is that it is a
local policy which comes out of a State mandate. Cities such as ours are
required to have a sphere of influence within which we perspectively exercise
land use jurisdiction, and that has to be determined in concert with the County
through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). He stated he would be
happy to bring back a more detailed description of that whole process. Council -
member Thayer stated she would like to see it, because it is one of the least
understood aspects of this whole project, and why we have proceeded as a City the
way we have. She asked was any thought given to a joint planning effort by both
the County and the City? Mr. Pendoley responded that part of the Council's
concern was that the County be involved and the Board of Supervisors and County
staff served on the Committee. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to see
more County involvement.
Mayor Boro stated he would like some form of consensus on our next steps. He
stated it is too early to discuss the EIR. He stated the City needs to have a
role, and to just say we will pass this off and let it go to the County does not
make sense from the City's point of view, and it does not make sense from a
policy point of view as far as the Council is concerned. We formed this Commit-
tee because we said to the voters that if the previous measure was defeated, we
would come up with a more specific plan. We further gave the Committee the option
of down -zoning if they chose to, and they have come up with their recommenda-
tions. He stated it does not make sense to him to say we will take three years
of effort and throw it out, and start all over again. That would be a complete
waste, and completely contrary to the policy of this Council.
Mayor Boro noted there were comments about the County Planning. He stated he has
had the privilege of representing this Council on the Countywide Planning Agency
for the last couple of years, and this Council has always supported the concept
of Countywide Planning. He pointed out what has happened with Hamilton AFB, and
noted that he had felt an ownership in Hamilton because it was owned by the
people, yet the only action the Countywide Planning Agency had with Hamilton was
that after the City of Novato had adopted the plan they sent it to the Agency for
review. He stated he would rather have this plan proceed with some joint effort
between the City and County and have a review of it before anything was adopted
by the Countywide Planning Agency, so we truly could get the input in there. He
noted there is the role of the cities, and the role of the County. The Council
has a responsibility to the people who elect us, to oversee the land which is in
our jurisdiction. He also believes we have a responsibility to respect the
concerns of the people throughout this County. This City has to be part of that
solution.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
27
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 28
Mayor Boro stated that his suggestion is that both Options D and E have some good
thoughts and we need to explore them. He added that we need to talk about how
could we jointly work with the County? He stated that we could start talking
with our counterparts at the County, and then start having some dialogue. He
added this is not going to go away, and needs to be addressed. He noted people
spoke about leadership, but he does not see the Council in a leadership role. He
said we have to find some solution as to what will ultimately happen there. He
noted there were comments made about the time frame and the acquisition of this
land for purchase and, as he had previously stated, he has always been supportive
of the acquisition of open space if it is purchased. He also feels that he looks
at this particular site as one parcel, even though it is in two ownerships, and
if there were a way to purchase a very significant piece and somehow transfer
densities so we achieve some of our housing goals, he is willing to pursue that.
He noted we do not have any plans we are locked into, but he thinks these issues
truly need to be looked at, and he feels that by pursuing Options D and E,
ultimately that will give us some direction as we go forward. That would be his
recommendation to the Council, and he would urge that the Councilmembers think
about any questions they might have to pursue that.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was focused on questions regarding the cost of the
EIR, which we will need to pursue and get more information on before he would be
prepared to give up on Options A or B. Regarding Mayor Boro's comment on a
regional approach, he stated we do not have a system of regional government at
this point, although it has been discussed. He stated he would like to see Marin
County sitting down with Sonoma County to discuss such issues. In the meantime,
we have to address the issues within our jurisdiction. He noted he sat in on the
Countywide Planning Agency when they were discussing mutual review of each others
projects through the Countywide Planning. He noted that while they were having
this discussion, Novato City Council met and decided on Hamilton AFB without
having brought it to the Countywide Planning Agency. They have not set standards
for what would come up for review, but he and Mayor Boro committed to bringing
this project up to the Countywide Planning Agency for review prior to adoption,
so that we could respond to concerns about a regional approach. He stated we are
going to do that regardless of whatever process we take, at the appropriate time.
However, given the current structure of government, it falls within our respon-
sibility. He agrees that throwing out everything which has been done and sending
it off to the County is not leadership.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to hear more about D, and what the
nature of the joint City/County process might be. One question would be whether
it would be limited to processing the EIR, or whether or not there might be some
joint planning review. He asked staff to look into those issues.
Regarding adoption of a Resolution of Intent, and deferring action on the
General Plan Amendment for two years for the upcoming General Plan review,
Councilmember Cohen asked that if we were to adopt such a Resolution, and a
proposal came forward within the next two years, would we be able to use the work
which was done by the Committee at least as a guideline? He noted the gross
numbers are similar to those in the General Plan, and a lot of valuable work has
been done, and he would hate to see that lost, if something did come forward. Mr.
Pendoley replied you could not use it as a policy, based on Committee recommenda-
tions, since it has not been through CEQA, or appropriate hearings. It could be
used as a reference piece. He stated that this recommendation, and all of the
work that is behind it, has excellent information on environmental resources to
the extent that it represents constraints and opportunities. There is tremendous
value in mainly the planning ideas presented, so at the very least it would be
available as a reference. He noted that, in the meantime, the current General
Plan is valid.
Councilmember Cohen stated that before we can proceed very much further, there
have been questions raised tonight which will take time for staff to respond. In
addition to that, he would like to see some kind of comparison of what the
process would be under Option A, versus what it might look like under Option D.
He noted Mayor Boro talked about how we might proceed in conjunction with the
County, and he would like staff to come back with an outline of what that might
look like in terms of the steps we would have to go through as compared to doing
an internal procedure of referring it directly to the Planning Commission and
having an EIR. He stated he considers Options A and B as being essentially
similar in nature, so he would like to see that analyzed versus some sort of
joint City/County processing. He added he would like to see more detail on what
kind of information we might expect to have gathered in the next two years which
we do not have now, if we accept Option E. He would also like to see a timeline
on that, if we could prepare that, and how the processing would go if we hold it
for the General Plan revisions two years from now. He stated that if we see that
information, we might get a better sense of what steps we would have to go
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
28
Page 29
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
through, taking one of those three approaches.
Councilmember Thayer stated that the Committee did an excellent job and it did
represent a broad variety of opinions. It was not total consensus on each and
every element of the proposal. She stated that there is one issue which has come
from both the minority and majority, and that is the lack of an economic
feasibility report. She noted that if you send something through the EIR process
and do not even know if it is economically viable, or is it possible with the
density as specified in this proposal, to actually have affordable housing? She
stated another question is, is it economically viable to purchase parts of that
land on behalf of the community or a community bond? She stated this has con-
cerned her right along. She asked, can we preserve the environment, or can we
have affordable housing, or is neither viable? She stated we cannot just send
something through the environmental process if we do not know if it is going to
fly in the first place.
Mayor Boro responded, that is an excellent point. He asked staff, could they
describe to the Council how we would achieve housing goals through the EIR
process, or through the planning process? What kind of guarantees would there
be? How do you go ahead and set this up and achieve what you have set out to do?
The City should have some kind of guarantee that you will achieve what you have
set out to do. He stated that needs to be expanded.
Councilmember Thayer pointed out she does not know that there has ever been an
appraisal of this property. She noted there has been a great disparity in
peoples' estimation of value. This is why she is concerned about going forward
with a huge process, which may be mythical.
Councilmember Heller stated she agrees with most of what Mayor Boro has said.
She stated that a regional approach will be very necessary, and she considers the
City of San Rafael as really being the center of this particular region geograph-
ically. She stated she had discarded the first two options in her mind because
she could not see spending all of that money with no active development proposal,
and with a proposal coming in a few years and spending more of the taxpayers'
money. She stated if there is some way to do it for a nominal amount of money,
that would be beneficial. She stated she is focusing on the last two Options, D
and E, which she feels go together, and working with the County to gain consensus
on whatever plan evolves. She agrees it is almost impossible to put a value on
something which is just a "maybe". She stated she would ask staff to come back
with an expanded report on Options D and E.
Councilmember Zappetini stated he would like to see a financial breakdown of the
numbers. He asked if there is an RFP (Request for Proposal) on the property now,
and Mr. Pendoley responded, not that he knows of.
Mayor Boro stated that looking at Option D, where we talk about City and County
roles, he would like to see if it were possible to have joint hearings, at least
at the Planning Commission level. He stated the idea would be that they might
act separately, but have hearings together. He stated that if we are going to
talk about collaboration he would like to see us pursue that concept, and see if
it could be possible legally. It will have to happen collectively, and he would
like to know the best way to make that happen.
Councilmember Cohen stated he does not want to characterize his position as being
only in favor of Options A or B, but he does not think we should throw them out
since those are our normal procedures for reviewing proposed General Plan Amend-
ments. He stated he thinks it is worth taking a little time to further examine
the question of the cost of the EIR. If it is prohibitive, we do not need to
spend any more time talking about whether or not this is something we want do,
because we all know we do not have the money, but the cost of the EIR is some-
thing we are going to need to have to go any further with A, B or D. He stated
the County will not want to enter into this in any joint capacity unless they
know what their share of the bill is going to be. He noted that the second time
the EIR is done, the developer will pay for it, and not the taxpayers. He stated
the property owners may want to consider this issue of the EIR.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to refer this matter
back to staff, since there were many questions raised tonight which must be
answered before a reasonable decision can be made on how to proceed. Mayor Boro
recommended including in the motion the issues with Options A and B which should
be explored and expanded on, and also on Options D and E. Councilmember Cohen
agreed on having information on the cost implications of Options A and B, and
clearly to focus on Options D and E regarding joint work with the County.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 30
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro stated that on behalf of the City Council, he wished to thank those in the
audience who stayed through the entire proceedings.
15.MOU WITH MARINWOOD RE EXTENSION OF FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES (CM) - File 4-10-130 x 9-
3-31
City Manager Nicolai briefed the Council, stating that over a year and a half ago staff
had started working with the Marinwood CSD (Community Services District) on the
concept of the City being able to close Fire Station No. 3, which is not in the most
appropriate and efficient location, and expand on a 20 -year old relationship with
Marinwood Fire District providing fire protection services to the northern part of
San Rafael which they have for an extended period of time. She explained it would be
extended to the east side of Highway 101 and allow us to close Station No. 3. It
would also give us the opportunity to create a second Paramedic unit, which is part
of what we have been working on as well. She stated that tonight's proposal repre-
sents a combination of the negotiations with Marinwood and bringing this to fruition.
She noted the Council has been supplied copies tonight of some amendments to the
Joint Powers Agreement language which were sent out in the Council's packets. She
explained that Marinwood CSD acted on this last Friday night, and requested the
amendments to the language.
Ms. Nicolai commented on the changes, the first one being paragraph 4, on page 1,
regarding the Paramedic Unit being located north of Puerto Suello Hill. She stated
we do not have a problem with that, but the paragraph states it will be staffed by
two EMT -Paramedics. She noted staff has discussed with the Board that, while that is
our goal, until we are able to have some turnover and achieve 18 Paramedics on staff,
that will possibly on an interim basis be staffed by one EMT and one Paramedic. She
stated we do not want to be locked into saying at this moment that it would have to
be two Paramedics. She stated that with minor modifications and saying, "staffed by
two EMT/Paramedic units" and merely leaving in reference to the letter from Chief
Marcucci, staff feels that can be handled, and it is her understanding from Mr.
Howard Council that that would not be objectionable.
Ms. Nicolai reported that the other, more significant amendment, which was added since
Friday night, was the reference to insurance (page 4 of the JPA). There have not
actually been direct discussions between their attorneys and our attorneys, and Ms.
Nicolai stated that might be one of the problems in this language being inserted
since we had sent it out to the Council. She stated she does not believe we are in
conflict in concept with what the District wants to do, but feels the language does
not necessarily meet the needs of the different bodies. She added it would be her
recommendation that tonight the Council consider this Agreement, adopt it with the
modification on the front page, and if it is possible, to allow the flexibility for
the attorneys to work out the language on the insurance, that could be modified based
on approval by the City Attorney's Office subsequent to tonight. Then we could
hopefully get the language back to Marinwood and have it all worked out.
Councilmember Cohen asked, with regard to the second Paramedic unit, the JPA uses the word
"located" north of Puerto Suello Hill, and he believes Chief Marcucci's letter talks
about "stationing" the unit north of Puerto Suello Hill. He stated that is possibly
'splitting hairs', but it is conceivable that both Paramedic units could be north of
Puerto Suello Hill responding to emergencies, but it is also conceivable that both at
some point in time could be south of the Hill responding to emergencies. He stated
he feels the intent is clearly to "station" the Paramedics north of Puerto Suello
Hill, and that is not what the language on the JPA says. Ms. Nicolai stated
Councilmember Cohen's intent is so that everyone has a clear understanding that while
one might be housed in the south and one north, they can go anywhere in the District
when they get a call. Mr. Cohen agreed.
Councilmember Thayer stated it is her understanding that the problem with the insur-ance
clause is that we are a self-insured City, and it does not take that into account.
Ms. Nicolai responded she thinks we just need to have some conversation with their
insurance carrier. They have a different type of coverage, and we just have to get
the language worked out.
Mayor Boro noted the recommendation is that we proceed with the Agreement as sent to us,
with modifications to paragraph 4 on page 1, and the attorneys for the City and the
District will work out the issue of insurance. He asked if there is anyone in the
audience who wishes to address the Council.
Ron Marinoff, stated he is a member of the Marinwood Fire Commission, representing Upper
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
30
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 31
Lucas Valley, County Service Area #13, which contracts with Marinwood for fire
protection, and contracts through the County of Marin with San Rafael for Paramedic
Service. He stated it was the unanimous feeling of the Marinwood Fire Commission
that the language with regard to the staffing of the Paramedic Unit be put into the
recitals. He stated this was one of the key motivators for going ahead with this
Agreement, having a Paramedic Unit stationed north of Puerto Suello Hill. It was
their understanding that it would be staffed by two EMT -Paramedics such as the
current unit which is staffed downtown. He stated this was extremely important and,
in fact, the Marinwood CSD Board voted 4/1 for the Agreement which included this, for
a very specific reason. They felt it was important for them to have this service.
He stated that Marinwood and CSA 13 have in a way suffered since Paramedic service
was initiated in that the Paramedic Unit was stationed downtown, and it took much
longer to get to his area for life-threatening calls. He stated it is the general
feeling of the Fire Commission, that if they had a change in staffing and put on a
second unit, let that change of staffing be downtown and let us have the benefit of
the two EMT/Paramedics north of Puerto Suello Hill, because they have not had it for
20 years. He stated they will be experimenting with changes in the staffing level of
the Paramedics service. He recommended they experiment downtown, and not with San
Rafael residents north of Puerto Suello Hill, as well as Marinwood and Upper Lucas
Valley.
Ms. Nicolai noted staff has been negotiating with the Marinwood CSD Board, and not the
Fire Commission. She stated that just because the Paramedics are housed south of the
Hill, as a resident of Terra Linda she knows how much time they spend in Terra Linda
because one of the base hospitals, Kaiser is up there. She stated this is not an
experiment, and many other Paramedic services throughout the State have one EMT and
one Paramedic, and it is not uncommon. It is not a decision to give a lesser level
of service. She stated that the unit staffed with one EMT and one Paramedic could be
staffed at either location, and could be moved around. She stated that by changing
the language in this Agreement, it could be at either location. The reality is that
on an interim basis, until we have more Paramedics trained on staff and there is
turnover which allows us to hire more Paramedics, we cannot commit to constantly
staffing the two units with two Paramedics, unless we let other people off and hire
the two Paramedics. They are not going to do that, and have never discussed it, and
she would not recommend it. The units can rotate, and there is no commitment that
that unit be only north of the Hill.
Councilmember Thayer noted that we need another Paramedic Unit, and the most logical place
to put it is north of the Hill. She stated she has heard from Terra Linda and
Marinwood residents, and it has to do with the frequency of calls we have been
getting in the area of medical emergencies. She asked that with regard to the EMT/
Paramedic staffing, is it not our goal to fill it very soon, as soon as we can get
people trained, to get the two EMT/Paramedics? Ms. Nicolai responded that is
correct. Councilmember Thayer verified that in the interim they will be rotated.
Ms. Nicolai stated that is so, and it has never been an issue until it was brought up
tonight, and Chief Marcucci said we can make it rotational. Councilmember Thayer
suggested that might be a diplomatic way to revise that until we can get the people
trained in-house.
Irving Schwartz, a member of the Marinwood CSD, explained that at their meeting last
Friday, they discussed this issue, but had discussed it in more detail at the previ-
ous meeting. What was brought up was the fact that the Board felt that statistically,
ignoring the addition of the Paramedic Unit north of the Hill, the CSD may, by enter-
ing into a JPA like this, be lowering the level of service to the residents in their
District. By adding a Paramedic Unit north of the Hill, they felt they are not
lowering the level of service to our residents, but keeping the status quo. They
felt that the staffing of that unit is as important as the housing of the unit. He
stated that in listening to the discussion, staff has come up with a solution that
perhaps some wording changes can develop, and that is that the Paramedic Unit north
of the Hill is not staffed as second class citizens as compared to that south of the
Hill. He stated if they are rotated equally, with your intent to staff both units
equally as soon as possible, that would solve the problem, but the concern is that
the unit north of the Hill not be treated as a step -child, and get an increase in our
level of service of Paramedics, to offset what might be a diminution of our fire
service response in our own District because of our engine being out and about a
little more, helping the City out. He stated their goal is to help San Rafael,
provided they can get the quid pro quo.
Their being no further public input, Mayor Boro called for Council discussion.
Councilmember Cohen stated that there is no intent or any justification for the notion
that this Council would consider Marinwood or Lucas Valley as second class citizens
and treat them as such. He stated that is not the Council's intent. He added it is
his view that this is going to be a service enhancement for everyone concerned and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
31
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 32
that is why he has been pushing hard, along with the Mayor and Council, to get a
second Paramedic Unit because from what we see, both in talking with the City Manager
and the staff at Marinwood, the demand is increasing for medical emer-gencies. By
increasing Paramedic staff, even if it is one EMT and one Paramedic for the time
being, that will be an enhancement of service over having a couple of EMTs and a fire
engine responding to medical emergencies. He stated we will all be much better off
by having two Paramedic units serving the entire area. He stated he has no problem
with finding a way to address language that will please everyone. He added he feels
that the language proposed tonight is a little too constraining, and he does not know
if we need to redraft the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) this evening to do that,
but he would like to see it move forward. He stated that since the MOU references a
letter from Chief Marcucci, he wonders if there would be a way to address it through
that. He stated he would like to see the Council adopt the Resolution tonight and
keep this moving along, and then let it go back to staff to draft specific language.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that would be very simple to do. He stated that if
someone moves to approve the Agreement with the revisions which have been mentioned,
you can pass it with a transmittal to the other parties for their review and
approval, and propose to them the revised Agreement.
Mayor Boro clarified, would we put the wording about the staffing specifically in Section
4, and include the intention of what the City intends to do in the cover letter? Mr.
Ragghianti replied, he would suggest that it be incorporated into the paragraph now,
and have the Agreement revised so they can actually see what it says.
Councilmember Zappetini asked, do we have 14 Paramedics and need 4 more? Chief Marcucci
explained we have 11 right now and are recruiting for 1, and we have 2 in training,
which would give us 14. Our target is 18. Councilmember Zappetini asked what is the
time line on that, and Chief Marcucci replied that there is none. He explained we
would have to have people leave the organization and then, through attrition, hire
the extra 4. He stated that if people within the organization decide they want to go
to Paramedic School, we would get the 18 through that process. He stated that the
firefighters have the opportunity to do that. Councilmember Zappetini noted we would
have a problem if some of the Paramedics left, since we would not have the ability to
rotate. He stated the option has to be left open in case we do have a problem, and
not get tied into two Paramedics per unit, if somewhere down the road they decided to
leave. Mayor Boro noted that we share the rotation process through -out the entire
system.
Ms. Nicolai stated that the intent is to say that our goal is to have two Paramedics on
each of the units, and that on an interim basis we will rotate them. She stated she
will shorten the language as much as possible, and tomorrow she will get the City
Attorney's office to work out the insurance language, on which Mr. Ragghianti would
have final approval, and then it would be redrafted and sent to Marinwood.
Councilmember Cohen asked the City Attorney, could we legally act on that tonight, or
should we make the changes and bring it back? Mr. Ragghianti stated he does not
think the Council should act unless they have the specific language this evening. He
stated that if they knew how to modify paragraph 4, then he would suggest that they
do. Ms. Nicolai stated they could come back on October 3rd.
Councilmember Cohen stated he had a question of Mr. Council, because it was his
understanding that the CSD could not act on this for the next two weeks. Mr.
Schwartz responded that they can call a meeting anytime.
Mayor Boro noted that the Chief has a time line as well and asked what it is. Chief
Marcucci stated his time line was based on this document, so we would close down
Station 3 on October 15th and start the Paramedic Unit up on December 1st. Council -
member Cohen stated he does not think we have a choice, but he is disappointed that
we cannot finalize this tonight, but he feels it is in our best interests to send it
back to staff to get the draft of the Resolution in its final form so we can adopt it
with the language in front of us. He noted that the Council stated very clearly
tonight the issues which are to be resolved, and hopefully we can work this out. If
there are any questions we can sit down with Marinwood and get those issues clari-
fied, and have this document in its final form on October 3rd. He stated he feels
that is our best course of action. Chief Marcucci stated we could still meet the
time line of October 15th, that is not a problem.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to refer this back to staff
to finalize in accordance with our discussions tonight, to be brought back in two
weeks for final approval.
Councilmember Thayer stated she is delighted that finally Terra Linda and Marinwood are
going to get a Paramedic Unit. She has watched the number of calls go up
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
32
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 33
dramatically within the City, and this will be a boon to both San Rafael and the
outlying areas. She stated that whatever will facilitate passage of this Agreement
as quickly as possible, she is all for.
Mayor Boro stated he will vote against the motion because he feels that the intent of this
Council is understood, and he thinks that we could have passed it with what we have
agreed to and have it happen. If we bring it back it will carry on another two
weeks, but if that is the pleasure of the Council, that is fine.
Councilmember Cohen stated he agrees in spirit with Mayor Boro's comment, and asked the
City Attorney if there is a way that we can legally accomplish that and take action
tonight.
Mr. Ragghianti responded that there is. He stated you can only do it if you can tell us
what you want the Agreement to say. He stated that if someone made a motion and said
paragraph 4 should read in this fashion, you can revise the document and we will not
have an Agreement, of course, unless they accept it. Councilmember Cohen noted we
were also asked not to remove or revise the language pertaining to insurance. Mr.
Ragghianti responded that no one asked him what he thought. He stated it is very
simple. We do not have an insurance certificate to give the other party. We do not
have insurance; we are self-insured for the first half million dollars and then
excess coverage in a pool after that. In his opinion, Section 7 should be deleted
and the indemnification provisions which are contained in Section 8 should be left
in, adding to the indemnification provision the further inclusion of attorneys' fees.
He stated that covers the District, and it covers the City.
Mr. Schwartz asked Mr. Ragghianti if he had talked with Lexie McBride about this? Mr.
Ragghianti explained that his assistant, Gus Guinan, may have spoken to her. He
added he thinks she would understand, if we make certain that the District and the
City are each required to indemnify and pay any claims that would be made because of
injuries caused by the District or the City.
Mayor Boro asked, would this wording suffice: "Staffed by two EMT/Paramedics or one EMT
and one Paramedic, the staffing level to be rotated on a regular basis between the
two stations". The Council agreed on the wording.
Mr. Ragghianti stated he had passed suggested wording to Councilmember Cohen, and he is
not sure it covered everything, but it was an attempt to capture what the Council
said. It substitutes the word "station" for "location". In Section 8, it adds the
attorneys' fees, and Section 7 is deleted.
Mayor Boro noted we have a motion on the floor to bring this back in two weeks and have an
option of voting to get it through tonight. He asked what is the pleasure of the
Council?
Councilmember Heller stated that before the vote, she would like to know if we could add
language in there which says something about rotation, which would make everyone
comfortable. Mayor Boro read the proposed revision: "...the addition of a second
Paramedic Unit staffed by two EMT/Paramedics or by one EMT and one Paramedic. This
staffing level would be rotated on a regular basis between the two stations". The
language referring to the station north of Puerto Suello Hill will remain.
Councilmember Cohen withdrew his motion, and Councilmember Thayer withdrew her second.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the language to the
recitals in the revised JPA and delete Section 7, Liability Insurance, and make an
amendment to Section 8, Indemnity/Hold Harmless, and insert the words "including
attorneys' fees" after the words, "from any liability" in both clauses in Section 8,
and adopt the Resolution with those changes.
RESOLUTION NO. 9230 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE
MARINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FOR MUTUAL FIRE
PROTECTION SERVICES, (commencing thirty (30) days after its
execution by City and District), as amended.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NEW BUSINESS
16.DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 23 THROUGH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1994 IN LONG BEACH (CC) - File 9-11-1
X C)-1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
33
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94
Page 34
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to appoint Councilmember
Heller as Delegate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to appoint Mayor Boro as
Alternate.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
17.ABAG (ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS) PROPOSALS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REVISIONS -
VERBAL - File 111
Councilmember Heller informed the Council that our response should reach ABAG by Friday,
September 30th, if we have any recommendations. She stated she has read it through,
and all of the recommendations are actually changes to the State Constitu-tion, and
she recommends ratifying the recommended changes. She noted it will go to the
Constitution Revision Committee, who will act in July of next year.
City Manager Nicolai recommended the Council could ask ABAG for an extension of time, and
noted that some of the items are changes in Proposition 13. There is also one Brown
Act amendment.
After discussion, the Council agreed to wait until the Legislative Committee of the Marin
County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers has reviewed the document. Mayor Boro
recommended writing to Kelly Reid of MCCMC stating that as a result of the Council's
discussion, we would like an extension of time.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, that a letter be written
to Kelly Reid requesting an extension of time.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
OPEN SESSION
RE: CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
la.Conference with Legal Counsel - O'Toole v. City of San Rafael, et al.
Mayor Boro announced that no reportable action was taken.
lb. Conference with Labor Negotiators
Mayor Boro announced that no discussion was held.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 AM, September 20,
1994.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
1994
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/19/94 Page
34