Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-06-15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 6, 1998 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION: Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: Daniel Burns v. City of San Rafael Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Nos. SF 401755, SF 404464 City Attorney Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:15 PM None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, June 30, 1997, Regular Meeting of Monday, May 18, 1998, and Special and Regular Meetings of Monday, June 1, 1998 (CC) 4. Resolution Accepting Proposal from Book Publishing RESOLUTION NO. 10225 - Company for Supplement Service to the Municipal RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL Code for Three Years (7/1/98 to 6/30/2001) (CC) FROM BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY - File 1-5-1 FOR SUPPLEMENT SERVICE TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THREE YEARS (7/1/98 TO 6/30/2001). 5. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael Approved staff (CM) - File 9-1 recommendations: AB 270 (Torlakson), Local Agency Formation Commission, OPPOSE; AB 2525, (Bustamante), Vehicles: Pick-up Trucks; Commercial Vehicle Registration and Weight Fees; Exemption, OPPOSE; SB 2005 (Kopp), Permit Streamlining Act, OPPOSE; HR 1054 (Cox), HR 3529 (Chabot), & S 442 (Wyden), Internet Tax Freedom Legislation, OPPOSE. 6. Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Contract RESOLUTION NO. 10226 - SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 2 from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2001 for RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance with RENEWAL OF EXCESS WORKERS' United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company through COMPENSATION INSURANCE WITH Johnson & Higgins (CM) - File 9-6-1 x 7-1-31 UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY FROM JULY 1, 1998 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2001. 7. Resolution Proclaiming June 26, 1998 Bicycle RESOLUTION NO. 10227 - Celebration Day (CM) - File 104 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING JUNE 26, 1998 AS BICYCLE CELEBRATION DAY. 8. Resolution Authorizing Approval of Final Map RESOLUTION NO. 10228 - Entitled "Map of Northview" (PW) RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP - File 5-1-335 ENTITLED "MAP OF NORTHVIEW", SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA. 9. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract to RESOLUTION NO. 10229 - James E. Thompson General Contractor for "B" RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF Street Recreation Center Toilet Rooms ADA CONTRACT FOR "B" STREE T (Americans with Disabilities Act) Remodel RECREATION CENTER ADA TOILET - File 4-1-494 ROOMS REMODEL TO JAMES E. THOMPSON GENERAL CONTRACTOR, IN THE AMOUNT OF $93,315.00 (only bidder). 10. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement for RESOLUTION NO. 10230 - Vista Marin; Scettrini Drive; AP No. 180-124- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 02; Vista Marin LLC, Owner; David Schemel, EXECUTION OF A BELOW MARKET Representative (CD) - File 229 x 5-1-332 RATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND VISTA MARIN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RE: VISTA MARIN. 11. Resolution Approving Contract Amendment with RESOLUTION NO. 10231 - Nichols•Berman for Preparation of an RESOLUTION APPROVING A Environmental Impact Report for the Dominican CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH College Master Plan (CD) - File 4-3-318 x 10-2 NICHOLS•BERMAN FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOMINICAN COLLEGE MASTER PLAN. 13. Renewal of Contract for Security Services with RESOLUTION NO. 10232 - Bright Star Security, Inc. for Third and "A" RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Streets Parking Structure (RA) - File 4-3-282 MAYOR TO EXTEND THE EXISTING AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY SERVICES AT THE THIRD & "A" STREETS PARKING STRUCTURE WITH BRIGHT STAR SECURITY, INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $38,000 (through June 30, 1999). SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 3 14. Request for Street Closures in Connection with Approved staff recommendation. San Rafael Criterium (Bicycle Race) on Sunday, The following streets will be July 12, 1998 from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM (RA) closed from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM - File 11-19 x 119.1 on Sunday, July 12, 1998: Fourth Street from Court Street to "E" Street; Fifth Avenue from Court Street to "E" Street; "A" Street from the parking entrance to Fifth Avenue; "B" Street from Third Street to Mission Avenue; "C" Street from Third Street to Mission Avenue; "D" Street from Third Street to Fifth Avenue. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller (from minutes of 5/18/98 only, due to absence from meeting) Phillips (from minutes of 6/1/98 only, due to absence from meetings). The following items were removed from the Agenda for further discussion: 3. CALL FOR APPLICATIONS TO FILL THREE, THREE-YEAR TERMS ON THE BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, DUE TO EXPIRATION OF ONE-YEAR TERMS OF ALBERT BARR, GERALD DeKERCHOVE AND CHARLES STUCKEY (CC) - File 9-2-48 Councilmember Heller noted the staff report stated Gerald DeKerchove and Charles Stuckey had indicated they would reapply for membership on the Budget Oversight Committee. However, neither of them will be reapplying. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report. Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications to fill three, three-year terms on the Budget Oversight Committee, due to expiration of one-year terms of Albert Barr, Gerald DeKerchove, and Charles Stuckey, with applications due by deadline of Tuesday, July 7, 1998 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209; b) Set date for interviews of applicants at special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, July 20, 1998, commencing at 6:00 PM, to fill three, three-year terms to end of July, 2001. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS None 12. CONSIDERATION OF FEE WAIVER FOR TERRA LINDA SHOPPING CENTER SIGN PROGRAM (CD) - File 125 x 10-2 Councilmember Phillips stated he had been lobbied by business owners in this shopping center concerning improvement of the area, and he wholeheartedly approved of the concept. However, in reading the staff report regarding the waiver, he noted the inference was that the fees would be used for improvement of the shopping center, and he asked if the $1,500 application fee had, in other similar situations, been waived? Planning Manager Sheila Delimont reported the City has, in the past, waived fees for affordable housing projects and some non-profits, but noted this was a different situation, explaining the applicant did not need the sign program. She stated the City had suggested to them that it would be to the benefit of the community at large to put together such a program, and while they were agreeing to do this, they were balking at paying the fee. Therefore, the City felt waiving the fee would be one way of providing an incentive for them to come forth with the application, as well as beautifying the shopping center. Councilmember Miller stated the shopping center certainly needed improvement, noting as long as staff was convinced this was a better way to go, he would be in favor of the waiver. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 4 Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to waive the $1,500 application fee for the Terra Linda Shopping Center sign program. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 15. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF USE PERMIT 98-4 FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF MARCH 10, 1998 RE: MERIDIAN SPORTS CLUB, A PROPOSED HEALTH CLUB AT 1299 FOURTH STREET; APN 01-255-27; JACK KRYSTAL/DIVERSIFIED EQUITY HOLDINGS AND CHUCK GRIEVE/MERIDIAN SPORTS CLUB, APPELLANTS; DIVERSIFIED EQUITY HOLDINGS, OWNER; CHARLES GRIEVE, APPLICANT - File 10-5 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Senior Planner Dean Parsons reported this item was an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Meridian Sports Club, located in a 5,000 square foot tenant space on the ground floor of the building located at 1299 Fourth Street. Mr. Parsons stated the Planning Commission had approved the Use Permit request; however, the applicant subsequently appealed the approval, based on two conditions. The first was Condition of Approval #6, which relates to the removal of window tinting on the Fourth Street frontage of the building. Mr. Parsons stated the Planning Commission felt it was important to provide a friendly pedestrian atmosphere on Fourth Street, consistent with General Plan policies, as well as Downtown Vision policies. He pointed out the tinting blocks all visibility within the tenant space. Mr. Parsons stated the applicant was also appealing Condition #8, concerning Traffic Mitigation Fees in the amount of $12,224 to pay for increased PM Peak traffic trips. Mr. Parsons reported that after the applicant submitted the Use Permit for the gym, staff requested they provide a Traffic Report to analyze the increased trips and parking needs for the gym, and the applicant hired DKS Traffic Consultants to complete that report. Based on this study, and review by City staff, a total of sixteen additional trips were expected to be generated by this new use, resulting in a Traffic Mitigation Fee of just slightly over $12,000. However, after appeal of the Use Permit, the applicant requested they be allowed to conduct a second traffic study, to look at revised traffic counts. Mr. Parsons stated they completed the traffic study, looking at the actual use of Meridian Health Club, and also made comparisons with the use at the Nautilaus gym on Fourth Street. He reported the results of that study indicated there would be thirteen PM Peak trips, four trips more than the previous office use, which had nine trips associated with the PM Peak. Mr. Parsons stated staff had reviewed the traffic study, and the City's Traffic Engineer had looked at it very closely and agreed with the results. Therefore, staff was recommending a new Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $3,056, based on four additional trips. However, staff was still recommending that the window tinting be removed on the Fourth Street frontage. Mayor Boro invited the applicant to address the Council. Chuck Grieve, Meridian Sports Club, stated he agreed with the revised Traffic Mitigation Fees, which he believed were reasonable, and reported he had also informed staff he would not object to removing the window tinting. Jack Krystal, landlord of the building at 1299 Fourth Street, noted San Rafael looked toward bringing people to the Downtown, and this operation was the type that would bring people Downtown. He stated it had been a great disappointment to discover that after such hard work to bring this business to the Downtown, they were going to be hit with several thousand dollars for a fee that was never anticipated. Mr. Krystal pointed out there had been a health club in this same building approximately twelve years ago, which had remained in operation for fifteen years, so this was not a new use for this building. Referring to the window tinting, which he described as a mylar coating, Mr. Krystal stated he objected to the requirement that he remove the tinting, explaining tinting was not just aesthetic, it was an energy saving feature. Mr. Krystal presented photographs of the building, one dating to 1860, and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 5 reported early City Council meetings had once taken place on this site. He pointed out the upstairs windows had been small, and all had shutters to protect the upstairs from the sun, which has been a problem with this building for years. Mr. Krystal pointed out the downstairs had been recessed and surrounded by a deck, in order to protect it from the sun. Mr. Krystal stated there was mylar on every one of the windows of this building, up to the fifth story, including the particular window from which staff was recommending the mylar coating be removed. Mr. Krystal stated the windows were single-paned glass, and he had to be careful as to the amount of utilities used, so the cost did not have to be passed on to the tenants. He pointed out that you can see through the mylar after 5:00 or 6:00, depending on whether it is day light or night light, and noted the clients and visitors to the Meridian Health Club were not very interested in displaying themselves so they could be seen from the window. Mr. Krystal pointed out there were a couple of very large planter boxes in front of these windows on Fourth Street, and also reported Meridian Health Club would be doing some very nice planting and maintaining of flowers and plants. He believed this would make a much more inviting element in front of the windows than having the mylar removed on that particular portion of the glass, increasing the waste of energy coming through the single-paned glass, creating a problem with the heat, and a problem with reflection. Mayor Boro asked for clarification, asking if the recommendation was only to remove the mylar on the first floor, for the health club, and not for the rest of the building? Mr. Parsons stated that was correct. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro noted it appeared there was at least partial agreement on both of the issues before the Council. He stated, historically, the charging of traffic mitigation fees was consistent with prior practices we have had in the City, noting this had been evaluated and appeared to be realistic and reasonable. Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding the Downtown Vision called for all the storefronts to be friendly and have an appealing look, and he pointed out there was already a gym Downtown where people could watch other people exercise. Councilmember Miller stated the basic thrust of the Vision had always been to make this a very friendly and open area, so the buildings were not cut- off, and there were no black holes along the line. He noted that had been a very strong desire of the community as it developed its own Vision. He pointed this had been an essential feature for the other health club located on Fourth Street, noting the same argument had come up at that time, and the Planning Commission had agreed the requirement went along with the views of the Vision. Mr. Miller stated he had walked past the building during the past three or four days, and looked at the other buildings in the area, noting there were mylar type coverings on practically all of the buildings; however, none were as dark as the mylar on this particular building, which does create a very dark, black view. Mr. Miller acknowledged Mr. Krystal's concerns regarding energy savings, but in terms of the whole building, he felt the amount of energy loss from this one particular area would not be such that it would be burdensome in the application of the Ordinance. Councilmember Phillips stated he, too, would support the staff report for the reasons cited by Councilmember Miller. He felt it was self-evident the City needed to maintain traffic mitigation, as we already know there are problems and issues with regard to traffic in the Downtown, and he did not believe the City could let any opportunity slip by, which they would be doing if they voted counter to staff's recommendation. Mr. Phillips stated he was not sure how people felt about watching other people exercise, noting he had been a little reluctant with regard to the location of the other gym. However, he noted it did add some energy to the Downtown, and he was in favor of that. Councilmember Heller noted the staff report suggested light blinds or another type of window treatment might be used, which could be lowered if the light were very bright, but which would still give the appearance of an open, inviting building, rather than the very black windows that are there. She stated she also supported the traffic mitigation fees in the reduced amount. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 6 Councilmember Cohen asked if it was staff's recommendation that the mylar coating be removed, not only from along Fourth Street, but also along the "C" Street frontage? Mr. Parsons stated it was only along Fourth Street. Mr. Cohen believed, in terms of energy issues, there was really less of an impact there, as the window was north facing; therefore, he did not understand how the mylar would act as insulation to keep heat in, noting that while it does reflect sunlight, which would keep the heat down, there was no direct sunlight from the north facing windows on Fourth Street. He felt this was a reasonable condition, and he supported existing policies about keeping a pedestrian orientation and openness along Fourth Street, which was one of the reasons the City did not permit Office Uses, because we want a sense of activity to add to the sense of energy and pedestrian orientation all along Fourth Street. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt a Resolution partially granting the appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval, and to reduce the project's traffic mitigation fee, and uphold the Condition of Approval relating to the removal of the window film. RESOLUTION NO. 10233 - RESOLUTION PARTIALLY UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MARCH 10, 1998 APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT UP 98-4 TO OPERATE A HEALTH CLUB/GYM FOR MERIDIAN SPORTS CLUB LOCATED AT 1299 FOURTH STREET (APN 011-255-27). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. PUBLIC HEARING - PARK STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - DECLARATION OF CLOSING, ABANDONING AND VACATING A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM RUNNING THROUGH THE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PARK STREET FROM JEWELL STREET AT MISSION AVENUE (PW) - File 12-9 x 9-3-48 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio reported the purpose of this public hearing was to accept testimony on the City's intent to close, abandon, and vacate a storm drainage system, and any easements, prescriptive or otherwise, which run through the properties located on the east side of Park Street, from Jewell Street to Mission Avenue. Mr. Naclerio stated on May 18, 1998, Council had adopted a Resolution declaring the City's intent to close, abandon, and vacate the storm drain and any easements, and all affected property owners were sent a copy of this Resolution. He reported staff had determined that construction of the Park Street Drainage System, which was completed in April of this year, eliminated the need for any public drainage to run through the residential properties on the east side of Park Street. He noted staff had also "field reviewed" the drainage system, and verified that no street drainage goes into the easement, and only private drainage now enters. Mr. Naclerio reported that any outstanding claims against the City for damage sustained by a private party due to previous winter storms would not be affected by this action, and staff recommended Council adopt the Resolution. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution ordering the abandonment of subject storm drain system. RESOLUTION NO. 10234 - RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CLOSING, ABANDONING, AND VACATING OF A CERTAIN DRAINAGE SYSTEM ON THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PARK STREET BETWEEN JEWELL STREET AND MISSION AVENUE AS SPECIFIED ON THE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAPS OF MARIN COUNTY. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None NEW BUSINESS: 17. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING A JOINT PLANNING PROCESS FOR ST. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 7 VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA PROPERTIES (CD) - File 4-13-103 x 9-2-45 x 10-2 Mayor Boro invited County Planning Director Mark Reisenfeld to join staff for discussion of this item. Community Development Director Bob Brown reported in 1995 the Council adopted the St. Vincent's/Silveira Committee's report, and indicated the policies for these properties would be included in the update of the City's General Plan. He stated staff had begun that General Plan update process, and simultaneously held discussions with the County regarding a joint planning process for these critical properties. He stated before Council was a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and County for a joint planning process for St. Vincent's/ Silveira. By way of clarification, he pointed out the MOU had not been signed by Mayor Boro, noting Council's decision would be made after hearing the issue this evening. Mr. Brown noted, in terms of the City's General Plan update, this focused planning effort would feed into the larger General Plan update for San Rafael, which would occur on a parallel path to our Citywide effort. Mr. Brown stated the MOU would establish a fourteen member advisory Task Force, and the object of the Task Force would be to reach consensus on mutually consistent General Plan amendment recommendations, to both the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Brown stated that based on fairly recent court decisions, joint approval of such policy changes between two governmental agencies could not be assured or committed to, which was why the MOU refers to this only as an objective. Mr. Brown stated the Task Force would be composed of fourteen members, and appointments for all but the two property owner representatives would be made jointly by the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, with nominees solicited from environmental organizations, housing advocacy groups, neighborhood associations, business groups, the League of Women Voters, and the public at large. Mr. Brown reported applications would be sought in late June/early July, with appointments by the Board of Supervisors anticipated on July 14th, and by the Council on July 20th. The timeframe for the work of the Task Force would be limited to six months, and to assure the Task Force operates as efficiently as possible, the Mayor and Board President John Kress would act as Co-chairs, in an ex-officio, non-voting capacity. Assuming the Task Force begins meeting in September, their recommendations would then be submitted in February. Mr. Brown stated staffing of the Task Force would be done jointly by City and County staff, and the process would likely utilize a facilitator. Mr. Brown stated the Task Force would be guided by eight Coordination Policies, which were consistent with the Council's General Plan policies, and the direction in Resolution 9395, which Council adopted in 1995. He explained the Coordination Policies laid out general goals the recommendations should satisfy, but did not attempt to quantify the density or intensity of development. However, both the 1990 General Plan policy for these properties, and the Council's 1995 Resolution, indicated the development parameters existing now in the General Plan were expected to be reduced, through the General Plan update process. He stated the eight Coordination Policies included the following: 1) Protection of environmental and archeological resources, including historic baylands, all areas east of the railroad tracks, wetlands, habitat areas, and Pacheco Ridge; 2) a reasonable economic return to the property owners; 3) clustered Mixed-Use development on the St. Vincent's site, including affordable housing, a pedestrian and transit orientation, and retention of the historic structures; 4) development of the Silveira Ranch, with possible residential, office, recreation and agriculture, including affordable housing and re-use of the Honor Farm site; 5) provision of low and moderate income housing to improve our jobs/housing balance, and also meet the City's Fair Share for Housing allocation; 6) retention of Bay views and the St. Vincent's chapel; 7) provision for transportation solutions, noting that McInnis Parkway will not be extended beyond St. Vincent's Drive; 8) a reasonable fiscal return to the City for our cost of services. Mr. Brown reported that since circulation of the draft MOU there have been numerous suggestions for revision to Coordination Policy 4.7, which deals with the extension of McInnis Parkway. He reported the County correctly clarified that regional access issues should refer to Highway 101, not the extension of McInnis Parkway as a parallel route to by-pass the freeway, and noted it was really Silveira Parkway that would be extended north from Smith Ranch Road, but would not extend beyond St. Vincent's Drive. Mr. Brown addressed the question asked by many about this proposed process, "Why is this process more likely to result in a consensus plan than SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 8 previous efforts?" Mr. Brown believed there were a number of reasons. First and foremost was the fact the County would be an active player in this process, and the City and County would share expressed goals and resources. In addition, the Task Force meetings would be co-chaired by Mayor Boro and the County's Board President, which would add structure, and provide clarity and direction for the Task Force. It would also be a smaller Task Force and have a limited time-scope. Mr. Brown noted there was also an expressed anticipation of a reduction in the development potential from the 1990 General Plan, and the 1994 Citizens' Committee recommendations, upon which the Council's 1995 Resolution was based. Finally, there was also a potential for financial resources, through the Transportation Sales Tax, to preserve portions of the site, although as Mayor Boro has frequently stated, the Task Force recommendations need to make sense for the properties, with or without outside funding sources. County Planning Director Mark Reisenfeld stated the Countywide Plan adopted in 1994 had developed interim use policies for the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties, which anticipated a future coordination with the City, noting he could not think of a better way to engage in a cooperative effort than the one being proposed. Mr. Reisenfeld stated these properties had been the subject of much debate, for at least twenty-five years, beginning with the Countywide Plan. More recent policy determinations, including the Countywide Plan, as well as the Citizens' Committee effort and City Council Resolution, have contributed significantly to an ultimate solution. However, he believed it was true, at this juncture, that the joint effort between the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin seemed to hold the most promise for a solution that could be embraced by all parties. Mr. Reisenfeld stated the property offered significant opportunities for preservation and environmental resources, as well as providing significant housing and community serving uses, which could benefit San Rafael, and Marin County as a whole. Mr. Reisenfeld stated the County looked forward to working with City staff and the City Council, and the as yet to be appointed Task Force. He reported tomorrow morning, subject to Council's determination of this particular matter, the County Board of Supervisors would be taking up this matter, and actively considering Council's action, as now being proposed or amended. He noted it was expected that shortly thereafter, assuming both the City Council and the Board had taken action, they would embark on the process of soliciting applications for the committee, and move forward toward the Task Force beginning. Board of Supervisors' President John Kress stated he was extremely pleased in seeing this come forward and, hopefully, be adopted by the City Council and then by the County Board of Supervisors tomorrow morning. He believed it outlined an extremely promising process, whereby the City and the County could coordinate their efforts toward updating their General Plans. For the skeptics in the community who believed this was nothing new, and was merely a repeat of past efforts, he stated he believed this really did represent a fresh departure, noting it should yield a very meaningful result, whereby all the diverse interests of environmental protection, socially beneficial land use, and fairness to the property owners, could all be accommodated. Supervisor Kress urged Council to adopt the MOU, and stated he looked forward to the Board of Supervisors adopting it tomorrow. Supervisor Steve Kinsey reported he, like Supervisor Kress, urged Council to take advantage of this opportunity for the City and the County to move forward on this, noting this was perhaps the most important piece of remaining land that lies within the sphere (of influence) of San Rafael, and certainly had a tremendous Countywide interest for everyone. Supervisor Kinsey believed this process set up an opportunity for a truly outstanding project to emerge, for those who might choose to pursue development, and for significant and complete protection of the remarkable baylands, and the associated upland areas adjacent to that. He encouraged Council to listen closely to the concerns that are raised before them this evening, to consider modifications as they see fit in responding to those, but to keep intact the concept the County has worked on very diligently with Council to this point in time. Councilmember Cohen stated he really felt this was an exciting opportunity, noting they had talked for years about taking a regional approach to land use planning, and he felt this was what they were embarking upon here. He noted he could not recall another major development where the town or city in question had embarked on a joint process with the County. He pointed out we have been going back and forth for years with the Countywide Plan, the City adopting its General Plan, and the County adopting interim zoning. He noted this was a unique approach, two agencies working together and jointly appointing the Task Force to try to balance the various interests, and was a tremendous opportunity. Mr. Cohen believed the issues that faced SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 9 the Task Force were still quite challenging, and striking what everyone would see as finding a balance between those different interests was going to be a Herculean task. However, Mr. Cohen felt this was our best opportunity to do it and, hopefully, really build consensus about development of these properties, in a way that preserves the land, protects the rights of the property owners, and maximizes the benefit to our community as a whole. Mayor Boro pointed out the City was in the process of updating its General Plan and, therefore, needed to address this issue. Further, he truly believed the community of San Rafael, and the greater community of Marin County, was looking for closure on this site. He felt people were looking for answers to such questions as, "What is the ultimate use for this site, how will it be developed, and to what level?" He stated he, Councilmember Cohen, Supervisors Kress and Supervisor Kinsey had talked about this, and he truly believed a consensus process could work. Mayor Boro reported he, Councilmember Cohen, and the City's Planning Department staff would be attending the County Board of Supervisors' meeting tomorrow morning, to make sure the community understands this is a joint effort between the City and the County. On the other hand, Mayor Boro believed they had articulated in the document itself, from Section 4.1 on, the concerns they have, collectively, as far as the protection of the environment and the protection of the fairness to the property owners, and also as far as meeting the goals of our community for workforce housing, which we also see happening on this site. Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address the Council. Father David Gazorso, representing St. Vincent's, stated they hoped the Task Force would be open to sharing the vision of working with young people, and that they would also listen and share with St. Vincent's their goals and visions on how they could care for the children and youth in the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin. Father Gazorso stated 143 years ago St. Vincent's was here as an orphanage, in the wilderness. Noting times had truly changed, he reported that in 1998 the need for an orphanage was no longer there, although the needs of the children in our community, and the needs of the children in our society, were becoming more and more pressing. He stated they began the process at St. Vincent's because of the concern about our children and our future, and he hoped the committee, which the City and County jointly put together, would join them in planning our future, and the future of our youth here. Father Gazorso stated that in looking over the number of different stipulations on the committee, he hoped the committee would be open to looking at all possibilities. He noted they had a large track of land, and he hoped and prayed the committee would look at the entire track of land, and the possibilities for a youth village for caring for our kids, including the eastern portion, which has been designated as a "danger zone". He stated there was potential there for recreational and educational moments for the kids of our community, and he asked that the committee truly look at those possibilities. Father Gazorso also asked that the committee be open to the task, noting he had been very pleased to see that Mayor Boro had not yet signed the MOU. He noted there would be other pressures to narrow the focus to almost stop this whole process, and he strongly encouraged the Council to look at all the possibilities, and direct the committee to look at all the possibilities. He stated we have great potential to create a vision for children, which he did not believe we would ever have again in this City. He noted we could all be a part of this, if we could all be open, and were willing to look and compromise. Paraphrasing John 3-16 Father Gazorso stated, "God so loved the world, that he did not send a committee", noting they strongly favored the Committee's work, but they were also concerned. Marge Macris, stated she was representing people from the environmental groups who have been working on the Transportation Measure and associated Land Use Measures being considered, noting she was also a member of the Transportation Steering Committee, as one of the two environmental representatives. Ms. Macris stressed the environmental organizations had not yet taken a position on these particular recommendations. Ms. Macris thanked the Council and the Board of Supervisors for taking a City/County approach to planning these important lands, stating this was something the environmental groups had been very interested in having started, and they hoped it would really work this time, noting they were optimistic it would. Ms. Macris reported they did have some recommendations for modifications of the MOU. She stated there had been a reference from Community Development SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 10 Director Brown about the intent that this process would lead to a reduction in the total amount of development allowed in the City's General Plan, and while they acknowledged Council could not mandate what the Committee arrives at, the City was giving them direction, and they felt that as long as there was an implicit understanding that this was one of the intents of the process, it would be a good idea to include in Section 4, the Coordination Policies, that one of the intents was a significant reduction in the total development potential of the property, stating that where the General Plan would now allow 2,100 Residential units, and 361,000 square feet of Office and Commercial, one of the intents would be that there would be a reduction in that total potential build-out, and that the amount of coverage of the land where development would be allowed would be reduced. She noted they were suggesting approximately 10% of the land, and that there be no rail station developed on the properties. She stated this was of major concern for the environmental organizations, and while the current Calthorpe Transportation Plan, and the Marin County Measure that would be on the ballot in November, did not include a rail station, she noted this was a major issue and a "red flag" for potential opponents of the Transportation Measure. Ms. Macris noted another point they made in Section 3 concerned the process. She stated they felt it would be a good idea for the City and the County to commit themselves to completing the General Plan process, once the Committee completes its work, which would mean the City and County would undertake whatever environmental review was necessary to amend their plans, with the City and County using their authority to complete the General Plan revision process, and adopt the Committee's recommendations in their General Plans, rather than waiting for a development application to come forward, because that might take awhile. Ms. Macris stated they were optimistic, and pleased the City and County were undertaking this. She noted the environmental groups had been following the Transportation Ballot Measure very closely, and were extremely concerned about making sure they had protection of the baylands, which otherwise might be subject to inappropriate development, particularly if the Transportation Ballot Measure was approved. She stated it was for that reason they were pushing for strong land use controls over the lands along the Bay, noting they felt the process the City and County had set in motion was a very good first step. However, in order to provide the assurances to the environmental organizations, to enable them to approve the ballot measure and sign on to the campaign, it would be necessary to provide clear assurance that the efforts the City and County were undertaking now to plan for St. Vincent's/Silveira would, in fact, be different, and that this was a new effort that would address their concerns, and provide assurances that the baylands would be protected. Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated she, too, was pleased the City and County were working together to come up with a process that was agreeable to both entities, noting the Chamber was also pleased with the very strong inclusion of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. She stated they felt the densities which the original St. Vincent's/Silveira Committee came up with, a range of 7 to 32 units per acre, was essential to maintain, because only with those kinds of density ranges would we be able to achieve the affordability level we desire. She stated that as the City was about to enter into a new process, it would be premature to prejudice the process by picking an arbitrary figure of 10% for development, noting this would mean the taking of 90% of the property. She stated one of the main points the Council had talked about was fairness to the property owners, and they were pleased to see this included as part of the MOU; however, she did not feel the taking of 90% of the property would be considered as fair. Ms. Giambastiani stated she had been a member of the Transportation Steering Committee, and the rationale for including $55 million in the plan was to buy-down, not zone-down, the development potential for the property. She felt perhaps the MOU should contain language referencing the Sales Tax revenue slated to be used for land acquisition, and have the committee evaluate the potential use of that money to buy-down the development rights. Ms. Giambastiani stated the taking away of the rail station sounded like a request from General Motors, not a group espousing environmental protection, noting this was a sure signal to increase single-occupant vehicle use. She pointed out most environmental groups believed rail was an environmentally superior alternative, and the whole premise of the Transportation Plan was to give people alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle and keeping people from getting onto Highway 101 in their cars. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 11 Donna Bjorn, President of the League of Women Voters, reported the League of Women Voters of Marin County had played an active role on both the St. Vincent's/Silveira Committee and the Transportation Steering Committee, and in both cases, involved their membership by providing regular reports, followed by open discussion, and noted the League had continually supported the work of those committees. Ms. Bjorn stated that even with the short timeframe, they were able to review the current Memorandum of Understanding with their total Board of Directors on Friday, June 12th, making the following comments: First, the League applauded the joint effort of the City and the County, and looked forward to them working together as partners; however, because of the past public process, the League believed there were competent studies that should be used as a starting point for the Advisory Task Force. Second, they felt the housing statements were strong, and were what they had been looking for at this location. Additionally, the items listed under Section 4.1, Protection of Environmental and Archeological Resources, also had the support of the League. Third, the League felt there was a weakness in the Memorandum of Understanding in that there is no linkage to the up to $55 million that might be spent to buy-down development on those properties. She stated if the Transportation Measure passes in November, they saw the Task Force redefining the building envelope, and recommending a self-sufficient housing neighborhood, with significant housing opportunities for people who work in the area. Ms. Bjorn thanked Council for including the League of Women Voters as a member of the Advisory Task Force, stating their participation in this effort, and in working for the transportation proposal, was at the top of their agenda for the coming year, and was approved by their membership at their annual meeting. Frances Nunez, representing the Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association and the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, stated she was very encouraged to hear the reference to McInnis Parkway was going to be eliminated, noting if that was an indication of the responsiveness, it sounded very favorable. She felt all language suggesting any extension of McInnis Parkway should be completely eliminated from both the San Rafael and Marin County General Plans when the General Plan amendments come up, because it seemed this was a totally obsolete issue. She stated she hoped the recommendation that came out of the Vision would be implemented, and incorporated into the General Plan. Ms. Nunez thanked her fellow community members for attending this meeting, noting they would continue to watch those things that impact their community. Ms. Nunez stated she had heard the intent for significant reduction, which had been the first thing she looked for in the Memorandum of Understanding, and also for the intent to reduce the total percentage of property that would be developed. She stated she was not an environmentalist, she was only a citizen of Marin; however, she and most of her neighbors and co- workers felt 2,100 homes were too much. She stated people were looking for assurances from the environmental community, and hoped the environmentalists' concerns would be seriously considered. Ms. Nunez stated if this process was going to begin in July and go for six months, and the Ballot Measure was coming up in November, she felt something had to happen, and some measures would have to be taken before November. Bob Holmes, Marin Association of Realtors, reported the Association had been a participant on the prior St. Vincent's/Silveira Committee, which went on for a number of years, and he had also served on the twenty-four member Transportation Steering Committee. He stated the Association commended the Council for considering the adoption of the MOU as presented in the staff report, noting they believed it to be a great step forward by both the City and the County to establish the groundwork for a cooperative effort by both entities to address both the possibilities and the constraints of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties. The Association felt the make-up of the Advisory Task Force appeared well thought out, and urged Council to make no changes in its composition. Mr. Holmes stated the Association particularly applauded the courage and determination of the Council to address workforce housing issues, and to actually move forward in providing this housing. He stated the in-fill in the Downtown area had been exemplary, but did not fill all of the necessary workforce housing needs. He noted the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties provided excellent, if not the only, remaining sites for this much needed housing in San Rafael. Mr. Holmes stated Marin County could be justly proud of the open space it has managed to preserve, but a balance was still needed to provide living space for Marinites, and future Marinites. He noted the recreational SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 12 corridor in West Marin, and the agricultural corridor in the center of the County, were designed intentionally to preclude overdevelopment, while the City-centered corridor was designed intentionally for any major development, a fact which forced the major north/south transportation to remain along Highway 101. Mr. Holmes reported that by including major development in the center and western portions of Marin, land and housing costs forced real estate prices to rise drastically, and that was why those interested in purchasing reasonably priced housing have been forced further north into Sonoma County, and eastward into Solano County and the East Bay. The Association believed the MOU began a process to partially reverse this out-of-County commute for affordable workforce housing, and the issues outlined in the MOU provided a framework to meet the environmental concerns, workforce housing concerns, and most importantly to the Association, since they are dedicated to preserving private property rights, the concerns of the property owners. Mr. Holmes stated he trusted the environmental community would not throw down the gauntlet and demand unreasonable changes in the MOU, or else not support the Transportation Tax Measure, noting they had $55 million to gain by supporting the Tax Measure and this process, and much to lose by throwing up roadblocks. Mr. Holmes stated the Association urged Council to endorse this MOU as presented in the staff report, and move forward positively for the future of these properties, and for all concerned. Leonard Rubin, resident of Smith Ranch Homes, believed the Memorandum of Understanding drafted between the two governing bodies was a well-crafted document. He stated he did not disagree with most of what was contained in the MOU, except Paragraph 2.1, the Makeup of the Task Force. Mr. Rubin felt there had been an egregious error of omission to the membership, noting Smith Ranch Homes was the only adjacent developed piece of property to Silveira Ranch, and there were 300 people living at Smith Ranch Homes. Mr. Rubin pointed out when there is an application for development on a private piece of land in a developed neighborhood, the adjoining neighbors are noticed and consulted on what the development should be. He noted he was not stating that nothing should be done with the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties; however, he did believe Smith Ranch Homes should be a member of the Task Force, so they can provide their input, and also understand what the other members of the Task Force are suggesting, before they make their recommendations to the City Council. Chuck Daniels, lifelong citizen of San Rafael, stated his personal interest in St. Vincent's/Silveira ran back several years to a time when he coached basketball at this site. He noted that over the years, retaining his interest in St. Vincent's/ Silveira, he became a member of the Board of Trustees, and now served as Vice President of the Board of Trustees of CYO (Catholic Youth Organization), of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. He reported CYO and St. Vincent's cared not just for a few children, but for thousands of children at risk, and in order to continue their work, they would like to see that the proper thing is done with part of the property, noting they wished to continue the work they have done for the past 143 years. Referring to the issue of rail stations, he recalled the days when there used to be some very beautiful railway stations all over the County, and noted there were people who have said that if we only had the railroad back, it would solve a lot of our transportation problems; therefore, he stated he would like to see more railroad stations, not less. He reported the Board of Trustees pledged their support to Council's work, and the work of the Board of Supervisors, and would help out in any way they could. Gordon Feller, long-time San Rafael resident, noted he walks the grounds of St. Vincent's every day, because he works as a volunteer with one of the tenants currently using part of this space, Marin Dance Theater. He clarified he was not speaking on behalf of the Board of the Dance Theater, or any other organization, although he does work closely with the Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association. Mr. Feller stated that over the past two years he had spoken with most of the participants in this process, and many of the children using the site, both the Marin Dance Theater children, and children who are part of the St. Vincent program, and he had also read the document. He stated there were a lot of upset and concerned environmentalists who were likely to utilize the legal process to prevent development from taking place, and there were also many voices in the Miwok community, and the extended Miwok family, who were concerned about development on the site, but were not being heard and were not actively involved, or invited to be involved. However, he noted his greatest concern, above and beyond the potential alienation of the various participants who needed to be included, was that we were not benefiting SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 13 from "zero-based" thinking. He explained this meant that almost all of the participants were starting with assumptions, especially the Development community and the current owners. He stated the current assumptions were largely that there would be development, there would be a deal, and the development would be substantial. Mr. Feller stated, based on the language in the MOU, there did not seem to be any assumption of a radically different alternative use scenario, and he felt it would be a mistake not to have language in the MOU which mandated that the Committee look at radically different designs, and radically different uses, noting this would enable the inclusion of a lot of other voices, Miwok voices, cultural voices, and environmental voices, in the discussion. Mr. Feller stated his fear was that the way it had been designed, and the self-congratulatory tone of the discussion tonight, led him to believe it was essentially a done deal, or that at least those who were going to be drafting the MOU believed it was a done deal. Mr. Feller stated those people would be unpleasantly surprised by how much legal wrangling, and other types of wrangling, would prevent anything from happening. He stated he knew what St. Vincent's wanted, what the kids needed, what the cultural needs were in Marin, and what the environmentalists were concerned about. Betty Padgett, representing Ecumenical Housing, stated housing advocates were glad to join in this consensus effort, noting they did not represent development, buildings, or units, but people with faces, people they meet and work with every day. She stated she had the joy of visiting three of San Rafael's largest businesses for employee Brown Bag lunches in the past week and a half, and wished the Council could have been there to celebrate the City's substantial efforts in workforce housing, and to remember the faces of the people and their stories, as she believed that was what we were really talking about. Ms. Padgett stated St. Vincent's had been an affordable housing site for a long time, and this gave us an opportunity to bring that together in a way that has community consensus, and remembers these people and their needs, as well. Ms. Padgett stated it had been important in the Transportation Steering Committee that the affordable housing people were the ones who could represent the needs of the elderly, the disabled, and the people who cannot afford two cars, sometimes not even one, for whom the Transportation Measure was crucial in their lives, and not just something extra that might take a few cars off Highway 101. She hoped the Land Use planning would go in a complimentary way, but in no way hold hostage the important Transportation Measure, because we did need to take into consideration those in our County who do not have incomes to afford the homes, apartments, and cars the rest of us count on. Wendy Kellen, staff member for the North Bay Environmental Institute, reported she had also served on the Transportation Steering Committee, stating it had been the intention of her organization since the beginning of their involvement, to participate in a coalition building effort, in order to reach consensus between the two counties, and among the various interests within the two counties. She stated we also had an opportunity to resolve two very pressing issues in our County, which have been plaguing us for two decades; one was the Transportation Measure that would, hopefully go before the voters in November. She noted there was a Transportation Plan which had received broad-based support, and the inclusion of this particular MOU as part of the process would help build and strengthen that coalition. However, the most important was the resolution of the St. Vincent's/ Silveira property. She hoped that by using a consensus process, we could resolve this without significant lawsuits undermining our efforts here today. Ms. Kellen felt the MOU, as it stands, could be strengthened, by giving more explicit direction to the Committee, reiterating this was not to be the same work that was done before, it was to add to, strengthen, and perhaps correct some of the efforts that have already gone before. She believed it was appropriate to include language stating that this Committee was going to look at reduction of the overall density now in San Rafael's General Plan, noting she felt that was the primary purpose for the Committee to be meeting in the first place and, therefore, it was important to include that language in the Memorandum of Understanding. She stated it was also important to include that the Committee would be re-evaluating the building envelopes and development opportunity areas, to see if there were also reduction possibilities there. She stated she agreed we should include the valuation of the Sales Tax dollars as part of this Memorandum, noting that was another reason why this was coming up now, because we have a new opportunity, and we can take a fresh look at these properties. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 14 Ms. Kellen noted we had a Herculean goal, which was to balance the needs of the environment, and the concerns of the communities that surround these properties, and at the same time provide for important social needs, such as St. Vincent's School for Boys, and the crying need for housing that is affordable for the people who work in this County. Ms. Kellen stated if an applicant did not step forward at the end of this process, one who could shoulder the responsibilities of the Environmental Impact Report that would go along with changes to the General Plan, then as part of the General Plan Update, the City should include the General Plan Amendments, noting there should be some assurances in the Memorandum of Understanding that this would take place should there not be an applicant present at that time. Frank Nelson stated for the past year he has been a member of a group of environmental representatives who have been meeting with County and City officials regarding the Transportation and Land Use Measure. He reported one of the spin-off's of that experience has been that he has developed a new respect for people such as the Councilmembers, who try to solve problems in the community. Mr. Nelson asked those in the audience who were members of the Marin Conservation League and the Sierra Club to raise their hands, and a large number of the audience responded by raising their hands. Mr. Nelson stated some environmentalists wanted to be assured these lands would be adequately protected before they would support the Tax Measure, noting this question of support for the Tax Measure would come before the MCL (Marin Conservation League) Board and the Sierra Club Marin group Executive Committee in July. Mr. Nelson stated he, too, was certainly encouraged by the new approach of City/County cooperation, noting that for those who have been involved with this issue over the years, this was a major event, pointing out they have advocated for years that these lands were so special, environmentally, historically, and for their views and environmental resources, that they did indeed have deep community and Countywide values, and should be planned for from a Countywide perspective. However, he believed the problem with that new direction, although very positive, was that it was not completed, by which he meant that any committee formed under this new direction had to follow directives. He noted this was essentially the main concern they were bringing before the Council this evening, the issue of those directives, noting the directives were intended to clarify the new planning process, and to show there were new directions, and it was not a re-run of the process that resulted in 2,100 homes. He believed it really came down to that issue. He stated without those additions, the environmentalists who were attempting to make the case to the environmental organizations, who are toying with the idea of accepting rail and backing the Tax Measure, would have no case to make, because the guidelines and directives would be the same old directives that existed for the prior process. However, on the brighter side, with those additions, the composition of the Committee, and the joint City/County planning approach, they felt they had a good case to make to MCL and the Sierra Club, so when they state their position in July on the Tax Measure, it will be a positive position. Karen Nygrin stated she had heard comments that the $55 million had been given for the environmental community; however, she hoped it would be clarified that this money was not for the environmental community, the $55 million was given for the Marin County community, noting all the people within the County would benefit from the opportunity to have that money, and be able to purchase environmental properties, so we can preserve some very unique areas that are very important to all the community. Ms. Nygrin stated 95% of the wetlands in Marin County have disappeared, and reported Senator Barbara Boxer had come to the Baylands Committee over a year ago and stated she would not give away one more inch of wetlands in Marin County. Ms. Nygrin stated we were talking about our children, and future generations, and about what was happening to our Bay, our waters, and our lands, noting we could not afford to lose one more bit of our precious lands. Therefore, she asked Council to carefully consider the environmental suggestions presented by Marge Macris for the Memorandum of Understanding, stating she sincerely appreciated San Rafael's moving forward in trying to reach a consensus. Juliette Anthony stated she was an environmentalist, reporting she purchased a home in Marinwood two years ago, but when she moved here she could not afford earthquake insurance. She noted she was very interested in geology, and reported the place where she walks on the Silveira Ranch was unsafe land. She stated that to take low to moderate income people, and build houses for them in a flood plain, which used to be ocean floor, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 15 was asking for grave trouble in the future, should there be an earthquake. She wondered, if homes were built for people who do not have a great deal of money, and they cannot afford earthquake insurance, who would pay when they lose everything? She noted there has been some history in the County of not paying attention to the geologists, and she urged the City and the County to pay attention to them. Roger Alanias, resident and past Chairman of the Flood Control District in Santa Venetia, stated as development closes the last 10% of the Bay environment, we lose more than views, we lose an environmental habitat, which we have not always seen, but always benefited from, noting we would lose the birds and animals we see every day that make living in Marin so enjoyable. He stated the commuters and travelers on the highway need a respite from the tilt-up warehouses posing as office buildings. He pointed out that greenbelts, with their open vistas across green fields running to the Bay and mountains in the distance were precious, and should not be changed to make this area like other metropolitan cities where the highways become a continuous strip mall, delineated only by wrecking yards and dumps. Pointing out how the County keeps losing the views, Mr. Alanias cited Towne and Country Village in Mill Valley; Corte Madera's The Village and The Town Center, one on each side of the highway; followed by Greenbrae's Cost Plus; Terra Linda Mall; and the development that has slipped across the freeway to the frontage road off Smith Ranch Road. He stated dollars spent on development, and dollars given to low-cost housing, would not make a better environment, nor would dollars given to extend unwanted roads. He asked Council and the County to please let people have the space they need to continue to enjoy this beautiful City, and this magnificent County. He stated people did not want more development, they only wanted to keep and maintain the extraordinary environment they now have. Alex Foreman, resident of Gerstle Park and member of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, stated he was also a member of the Marin Chapter of the Sierra Club, noting he was speaking from that perspective. He stated he was one of the members of the environmental community who believed this process, which started with the Marin Countywide Transportation Plan, offered a solution, and a way to end the skirmishes and wars that have been going on for many years in this County, with the endless lawsuits and the ballot referendum; however, there were many of them who did not think it was possible, and that the only way was to keep this fight going. He stated the ones who wanted to keep this consensus process going needed to hear there was some movement and some hope, and that was why they presented their recommendations to Council. Mr. Foreman acknowledged there were a lot of other people who felt that if Council gave in to these recommendations, and accepted them, they were giving in to the environmentalists, treating them like special people, noting there had been a lot written about this in the press. He stated they were not special people, but they did have a special concern, noting the constituency they represented did not vote, they did not walk precincts, and they could not contribute to campaigns, because they were ecosystems, animals, birds, rivers, and creeks. He stated someone had to represent them, and they tried to do the best they could. Mr. Foreman did not feel the specific recommendations threatened the property owners, the housing advocates, or the people who wanted to help children, all of which were things he would like to do and support himself. He believed if the MOU stated it looked toward less development than previously, that would only be what they all were stating they wanted anyway; however, he stated they needed to hear that explicitly, because there needed to be trust for this process to work. Mr. Foreman noted the part about reducing the land area to approximately 10% was important, because previous plans would have developed 30%, and many people in the environmental community believed that was too much. Mr. Foreman did not believe that telling the group to work toward 10% represented a 90% taking, as was stated earlier, noting it was not a "taking" to simply tell someone they cannot build a shopping mall or a housing development on the land, as there were a lot of other uses for the land that would be profitable and environmentally sustainable. He stated they were not taking away anyone's land, they were only asking that the uses be controlled in a way that is best for the future of the whole County, and the whole Country. Referring to the argument about the rail station, Mr. Foreman stated if people thought rail stations were necessarily going to work for the environment, they should drive over to Contra Costa County. He pointed out that when they built BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), they did not include Land Use controls, and now they had sprawl and highways that were clogged. He noted that was why this transportation plan, and the consensus of the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 16 Council and Marge Macris, was so miraculous, because we finally had a transportation plan which included land use controls. He stated they wanted that process to continue, and were looking for words and actions, so things that have been stated privately, off the record, would be on the record, and they can go back to their groups and tell them, "Yes, this is a new game, and we can be part of it". Georgiana McCarty, 22 year resident of San Rafael and member of the recent Caltrans Advisory Committee, stated several months ago she participated in a lengthy telephone opinion research poll of San Rafael residents. She reported she was questioned about her attitude toward development of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties, noting there were several questions specifically related to the amount and kind of development she would find acceptable on the property, the kind and number of housing units, market rate housing, rental apartment units, and what kind of commercial uses she would find acceptable. She noted prior to the telephone call, she had also received a form letter from a San Rafael consulting firm, asking her to put together a focus group among her neighbors and friends, and meet with other focus groups at Kaiser Hospital. She reported the focus groups were to discuss matters of interest and concern in their respective neighborhoods, and beyond. Ms. McCarty stated she did not participate in this activity, in light of the subsequent telephone survey, which she had participated in. Ms. McCarty stated her reasons for mentioning this experience were several: 1) Was Council aware of the survey and focus groups; 2) Did the City finance the survey; 3) If the City did not, does it know who did; and 4) If Council was aware of the survey, does it know why the results have not been made public? David Schonbrunn, resident of Mill Valley, asked for clarification of the language in the MOU regarding the make-up of the Task Force. He noted it referred to neighborhoods and the community at large, and he felt it would be useful, if the intention was San Rafael neighborhoods, to include language specifying San Rafael neighborhoods, and if residents of the County other than San Rafael residents were to be included, it would be helpful to clarify that. Dick Sadler, resident of San Rafael for almost thirty years, stated he liked the previous statement, "God so loved the world, that he did not send a committee". He believed the results of this Committee were ugly, noting the public was becoming increasingly concerned about tax measures that were reported to be something they were not. He questioned whether this was really a transit measure, suggesting Council look at the totals. He did not believe this was a transit measure, pointing out $145 million of the $300 million was directed toward transit, while the rest was directed toward all other kinds of things that were thrown in for consensus, because that was the only way they could do it. He stated they did arrive at a consensus, but asked if that made it right? He stated he did not believe it did. Mr. Sadler stated there were two primary needs within the County, to resolve the Highway 101 gridlock, and figure out some way so a vast majority of our residents could live in the County in which they work. He noted the City's Firefighters did not live here, nor did our Police Officers or teachers, and in many cases, our own children did not live here. Mr. Sadler noted a previous speaker stated we did not need development, and he pointed out that was exactly what we had accomplished during the past twenty years, noting we have had the least development of any of the major counties within the State of California. Mr. Sadler stated we needed housing, and he would be surprised if this Measure coming up in November passed, because it did not address these two major issues. He stated it takes lots and lots of tax dollars for transit to succeed, noting there was not a transit operation in the Country that was supported by the fare box, rather it was supported by other tax revenue. In addition, it was supported by riders, and patronage, and he pointed out we may not have sufficient density within Marin County to make transit work. Mr. Sadler did not believe it made sense to eliminate transit opportunities in this area of development, noting there was a rail track going right through it, yet he was hearing proposals to eliminate the rail station. He felt that was absolutely absurd, stating people supported transit, through taxes and patronage. He recalled reading General Plans that stated we should not try to put homes up on the hills, because the infrastructure was so expensive, rather we should put the concentration of homes on the flatlands, near the core corridor, Highway 101, which was precisely what was now being proposed. Therefore, Mr. Sadler recommended the number of units be increased, not decreased. He stated it could well be that if we had more housing in the County, there would not be so much congestion on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 17 Highway 101 from people in Petaluma trying to get down to their work in Marin County. Mayme Hubert stated it seemed that the recreation, agricultural, and residential/ developmental corridors were actually established in a General Plan that pre-dated an understanding of the importance of the baylands. She noted there now was a new awareness that our baylands are part of the entire drainage, and this was not necessarily understood when the original corridor layout was decided upon. Ms. Hubert felt that since San Rafael was going to be doing a new General Plan, the baylands corridor would have more emphasis and more play, and she hoped some of the ultimate decisions about the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties could be taken in conjunction with development of the new General Plan, which she understood would be worked on within the next year and a half, noting no one had mentioned that the bayland corridor was insufficiently understood when it was mapped out as "developable". Sam Cogswell, resident of the Captain's Cove/Smith Ranch area of San Rafael, stated he had heard a lot of good testimony from the community during this meeting, which he believed Council would consider carefully. He stated he was questioning Item 4.7 regarding McInnis Parkway, asking for clarification on Council's position on that statement. He stated he would like to see it truncated, striking that portion which reads, "...beyond St. Vincent Drive", and reading instead, "...provision for local, regional and emergency access, recognizing that McInnis Parkway will not be extended". Mr. Cogswell stated this was in the interest of both Captain's Cove and Contempo Marin residents, who have spoken out repeatedly regarding their concerns about additional traffic in that area. Merritt Robinson reported he had been working within Marin County to preserve open space since the inception of the Open Space District twenty- five years ago. He stated he saw the eastern shoreline of San Francisco Bay as something very important to preserve, noting we were just beginning to realize the importance of it with regard to nature, and he believed that was where part of the $55 million could go. In addition, he stated he was very concerned with the increase in population, and what that does for transportation, noting this has shown that it is often easier to turn land into open space than to provide for the transportation of people going to and from those properties. Douglas Maloney, Attorney with Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, stated one of the dichotomies, which he believed to be so apparent and sad, was that everyone was stating we have the environmentalists, and the fact that there were three environmentalists and two property owners on the Task Force; however, he asked who was to say Mr. Silveira was not an environmentalist, and who was to say his family, who has preserved this property for over 100 years, far more than all the environmentalists in the Council Chamber had ever done, were not environmentalists? Mr. Maloney pointed out Mr. Silveira was the one who had kept the land, noting he had turned down tens of millions of dollars in development proposals for this property, and he still goes out and works the land and grazes cows, which is not easy work. Mr. Maloney stated the debate gives Mr. Silveira and his family absolutely no recognition at all for what they have done. Mr. Maloney stated the second issue referred to one of the MOU's objectives, which states, "We want to be fair to the property owner". He stated Mr. Silveira has heard this for many years, but noted the question was, what does fairness consist of? Mr. Maloney stated it consisted of two things; the first was that Mr. Silveira has a Constitutional right to a reasonable economic use of his property, noting that was not merely fairness, that was the law. He stated the second thing was that Mr. Silveira has the right to Due Process, noting he has the right, if his property is going to be Master Planned or zoned, to come to a hearing, to present evidence, to rebut evidence, and to ask members of the City Council to make a fair and unbiased decision based on what they hear at the pubic hearing, not based on some committee, of which he gets one vote out of fourteen. Mr. Maloney noted it had already been reported in the newspaper that Mr. Nelson had stated he would make certain every one of the other thirteen people shared his view. Mr. Maloney stated Marge Macris and Mr. Nelson had both made it perfectly clear for Council that the price of their support in this election was that Council adopt their measures, specifically including a pre-determination that the density in the existing plan should be reduced. He asked, "Just taking that issue alone, how could Council, based on an hour and a half or two hours of hearings, make an advanced determination, with no evidence, no testimony, no staff reports, and make the determination to tell the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 18 Committee that Council was going to reduce the density?" Mr. Maloney stated that was totally arbitrary and capricious, noting this process, if it was legal at all, was barely legal, and once Council started dictating in advance what it wanted the Task Force Committee to produce, without a hearing and without any Due Process, then the City was certainly violating Mr. Silveira's rights, and acting in an arbitrary and capricious way. Mr. Maloney stated the 10% was really a lot less than that, noting one thing staff had ignored was the fact the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District was going to condemn 87 acres of the property. He asked how Council could set out to plan this, or create a Task Force to do something about this property, and absolutely ignore the existence of this condemnation? He noted if Council considered the 87 acres the Sanitary District wanted to take, subtracted that from the existing property, and reduced that by 10%, then Mr. Silveira would be able to develop a grand total of approximately 25 acres, and even then, if Mr. Silveira were to come in with plans to develop 25 acres, there would likely be people who would say 25 acres was the maximum allowed, and he should develop only five or six acres. Mr. Maloney stated according to their desires, Mr. Silveira, in essence, would only get to develop 7% of his property, which just happened to be the percentage of his vote on the Committee. However, Mr. Maloney stated if Council were to do that, they would be contaminating the Committee process, because they would be telling the Committee they could do anything they wanted, give their advice, work together and build a consensus, but not bring in a proposal that allowed for more than 10% maximum development of the land. Mr. Maloney asked if that was a fair way to set up a Committee, or a fair way to treat Mr. Silveira and his family? He stated he did not believe it was. Mr. Maloney stated Council should try to get the Las Gallinas Sanitary District off this track, reporting they had been fighting them, endlessly, for more than three years. He noted they had the bizarre belief they could buy this property for $5,000 per acre, pointing out agricultural land in West Marin sells for $20,000 per acre. He stated they were going to precipitate a major lawsuit, and as he believed City Attorney Ragghianti would verify, if the City were to begin planning and zoning land that was the subject of a condemnation case, the City would get into all kinds of thickets, and it would not help anyone. He stated it would interfere with the City's planning, because the Sanitary District had a strange idea of creating a buffer zone, but they did not know what the City, or anyone else, wanted to do there. Therefore, Mr. Maloney asked how the City could act on this, or talk about this, without at least asking staff to discuss the impact of the condemnation, and what the City was going to tell the Committee about the condemnation. He stated he did not understand how the City could go ahead and blithely ignore the fact that some other public agency was on a quixotic desire to condemn one-fourth of the property the City wanted to plan. Mr. Maloney noted he had a number of proposed amendments to the MOU. He stated the fundamental issue, which everyone needed to recognize, was that it was not good government for a special interest group, whether it was the environmentalists or the people for Peace and Freedom, to be able to come to a public agency and state that if the City "shafts" the property owner for them, then they will support the Measure in the election. He noted it was doubly unfair because they stuck it on San Rafael, and it was a County Measure. Mr. Maloney apologized for the strong feelings, but pointed out they were nothing compared to what the Silveira's felt, noting this property should be a source of happiness, solace, and contentment to them at this stage in their lives, but instead, it was nothing but misery, travail, and constant panic, headlines, letters, and new studies. He stated he really wished that rather than just talk about fairness, that the Council would extend itself and try to be fair to the property owners, noting they really deserved it. Jack Krystal stated it had been noted that politics was the art of compromise, but he pointed out no one wanted to compromise. He believed Council should seriously consider the premise of equity, noting that continues to be brought out time and again in the discussions. He suggested considering equity for the land owners as though we were in their position, noting we all had to send a message, together with this Memorandum of Understanding, that things would be brought out, discussed, debated, and kept in the open, with all candor, so there is no underlying suspicion that deals may be made behind the scenes. Mr. Krystal stated his other concern was the $55 million that would be raised as a result of this Transportation Measure, which may or may not be voted upon. However, as taxpayers and residents, he stated there were many priorities which, over time, they have been very much concerned about. He SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 19 pointed out we had a major fire hazard throughout the County, and no monies were being planned for that much greater issue. There was also the problem of maintaining the very major amount of open space the taxpayers' money would be paying for. He asked how that would be maintained and paid for? He stated it was not a matter of simply, "Let's buy it", and it was not just simply that we had to protect the bayland, rather we all had to act and think in a humanitarian way, including the owners. Mr. Krystal urged Council to make those items part of the Memorandum of Understanding, so if this goes ahead in the spirit and manner in which it should, then we proceed; however, if it does not, then he believed we needed to pull out and carry on with an honorable way of doing things. Sharon Fox, resident of San Rafael, noted she grew up in the Sun Valley area, and had seen a lot of changes in San Rafael. Ms. Fox reported she has known Renee Silveira since she was approximately six years old, and has always been impressed by her kindness, noting her heart went out to Mrs. Silveira and her family. Referring to CYO, Ms. Fox stated she also understood the importance of the work being done at St. Vincent's, and saw many sides at work in this issue, noting that as a citizen, and as just a human being, she felt sadness that perhaps we were not hearing each other. She pointed out that here in Marin County we lived amongst the most incredible visionaries, amazing people with amazing vision, who have made a lot of money. We also have this incredibly beautiful piece of property, and while she acknowledged the housing needs, she asked if there was an openness for the Task Force to perhaps consider something that might be above and beyond what has already been looked at, perhaps even the addition of a business campus that included high-tech industry, so CYO could ultimately have a more high-cash crop from its "inheritance", and the same with the Silveira's. Ms. Fox stated she, too, would be concerned about all the housing units, even though she wanted to see housing; however, more than anything, she wanted to see a real vision, and believed everyone here was capable of creating that. Mayor Boro announced there would be a short recess. Mayor Boro reconvened the meeting. Mayor Boro referred to a document Council received which contained the items outlined by Marge Macris earlier, noting the document had appeared in the newspaper today. He noted Council had also a received a letter from Mr. Maloney. He asked the Councilmembers to respond to these two documents, and then to the questions that had been raised by members of the audience. Mayor Boro stated the first item was a request for a significant reduction in the total development potential of 2,100 residential units and 361,000 square feet of office/commercial space identified in the current General Plan. Mayor Boro reported he had staff provide him with a copy of the City's 1990 General Plan Amendment, which was made when the City adopted the Work Plan for the St. Vincent's/Silveira Committee. He noted it discussed coming up with a specific plan for St. Vincent's/ Silveira, went through the history of the property, and stated the upper limits of planned development within the Mixed Uses were 2,100 homes, 100,000 square feet of Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, and 261,000 square feet of Office. He stated that was in the General Plan in 1990, and was still in the General Plan. However, he reported the City amended the General Plan at the time the direction was given to the Committee, noting this was done through a public hearing process. The direction to the Committee stated, "The Committee may recommend designations which modify the mix, and revise this total potential downward"; therefore, through the General Plan, the City was already on record, and it was still a policy of the City that we have suggested the zoning for this particular parcel be considered less that it is today. Councilmember Cohen stated that in addition to the written document Council received from Marge Macris, there had been several comments about the linkage between this issue and the Sales Tax Measure, and the possible consideration of the application of some or all of the $55 million to these properties, and the impact that might have on development potential. He believed it was a fair point to address that issue, as well, in the MOU. Mr. Cohen stated he agreed with several of the speakers, noting what Council was being asked for was a statement on the record of what has been a pretty consistent policy of the City of San Rafael for the last seven or eight years. He noted when the Committee was appointed, and when the Committee came back after failing to reach consensus, the Council, both in 1990 and again in 1995, made a clear statement that they were looking SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 20 toward a reduction in the density, from the 2,100 units and the 360,000 square feet of Commercial space in the current General Plan. He stated that while Council had made those statements, they never made them directly; however, he believed that was the intent, noting he believed it had originally been in the charge to the Committee in 1990. He felt it was appropriate for Council to agree to that request, and state it in this charge. Mr. Cohen noted he had some concern about the proposal in terms of the reduction in area, stating he felt it was important that Council not go so far in giving direction to the Committee that they tell the Committee what they want the report to say. He believed Council would be guilty of doing that if they were to state the total area should be 10% instead of 30%, and he did not feel that was appropriate. He stated he did, however, believe there was a linkage between the development areas, or development envelopes, and the amount of development called for in the plan and the Committee's work, the range of density, and the mix of housing types. Mr. Cohen stated he hoped we would continue to have that, noting if the density were reduced, then the area of coverage would be reduced commensurately, and he felt Council could make a statement to that affect, as well. Referring to the issue of the rail station, he stated it was ironic that in the name of environmental concerns, Council was being asked not to promote rail and mass transit at this location. However, he stated he did understand what this issue represented, and the concerns it created among people. Referring to Mr. Sadler's earlier comments, he agreed it was ridership that made transit work, and that point was what engendered the fear that a transit station here would drive increasing densities. Mr. Cohen noted that point had also been recognized by the work of the Transportation Committee, which put together the Sales Tax Measure, and he believed Council should go along with that. He pointed out it was not in the Calthorpe Plan, it was not proposed to be funded in the ballot measure, and as much as he thought it was ironic, he believed Council should stay with that public policy position, and include it in the MOU, as well. Mayor Boro reported that when this issue came up before the Calthorpe Study Group, and eventually with the committee we had here, it was reaffirmed. He noted there were rail stops in Novato and at the Civic Center, and the plan that will be on the ballot will not have a rail stop at this site. Therefore, he believed this request was consistent with what is currently out there. Addressing the issue of the processing of the General Plan Amendment and the Environmental Review, Councilmember Cohen stated he had a real concern, not with the intent, as it was described, but with the language that was presented, because it states the City should commit to completing the General Plan Amendments, including the Environmental Review, without waiting for an independent development application. Mr. Cohen stated if the Council were to adopt this language, it would essentially require that the work and results of the Committee, even if it achieved consensus, would be processed three times; it would require the City to do a General Plan Amendment and Environmental Review, it would require the County to do a General Plan Amendment and Environmental Review, and it would require the City to do analysis of a project application and an Environmental Review of that application, independent of the General Plan Amendment and its Environmental Review. Therefore, there would be six separate processes we would have to go through as an outcome of this Committee's work. He acknowledged it may be that this is how it will play out; however, he believed there was also an opportunity here, and just as they discussed the opportunity to build consensus and reach agreement, not just by the City, but as a larger community about what everyone wants to see on this property, he also believed there was an opportunity to come up with a vision of what could work out there, and what the land owners and perspective developers would find workable. He noted that should they find that to be the case, and wish to submit an application that is consistent with the Committee's recommendation, at about the time the Committee completes its work we will be presented with the opportunity to have the developer pay those costs and process this one time, to put it all together, do a General Plan Amendment as part of the General Plan application, and do all the Environmental Review as part of that process. Mr. Cohen stated he did not want to preclude that possibility, noting it would not be good policy, and would be a waste of public funds to state at the outset that the City was going to preclude that possibility. On the other hand, he stated he understood the concern that if the City were to say we do not want to pay the bill, then this Committee's work product, even if it is successful, might languish for years, and the issue would really go unresolved. Mr. Cohen believed this needed to be addressed. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 21 Councilmember Cohen noted the City has begun, and is under an obligation to update its General Plan; therefore, we would need to address this, because we could not update our General Plan and ignore what has happened over the past ten years on these properties. He believed there was modification of the language that would allow the opportunity for a prospective developer to submit an application, but failing that, would commit the City and County to then proceed with a General Plan Amendment, and if that opportunity was not acted upon, then they would need to go ahead, independently, and do their General Plan Amendment and await development applications at some future time. Councilmember Cohen stated this issue had been discussed with staff, as well as the issue of tying-in an analysis of the potential impact of the $55 million in Sales Tax Revenue, and he suggested, as a starting point for discussion, that Community Development Director Brown review some of the language that was drafted regarding these specific points. Community Development Director Brown reviewed the modification to the wording that had been suggested by the Sierra Club Marin group and the Marin Conservation League. He pointed out the first two items addressed the issue of the intended reduction in the development potential, in terms of density and non-residential intensity of the site, and the commensurate significant reduction in the amount of the site that would end up being developed. He stated staff believed these were consistent with prior direction of the Council, as a result of the 1994 Task Force report. Mayor Boro stated the second recommendation did not specify a number, other than to state less than 30%, noting it would be driven based on what happens in the first recommendation. Mr. Brown stated that was correct, noting it would be premature to specify a specific number for the Committee at this time. Referring to item 4.11, Mr. Brown stated this indicated the rail station would not be developed on the property. Referring to item 4.12, he explained this item discussed the idea that the Committee would, in its normal course, go about creating a proposed development plan for the property. He noted that during the course of their discussions, the ballot measure would be decided, and if it appeared that funds would be available, the Committee would need to recognize that; however, the Committee would not have, at that point, the knowledge of what proportion of those funds would be devoted to the site, and we would not want them to get into trying to determine what various land values are for these properties. He suggested that if it appears that outside funding is a possibility, the Committee would prioritize, based on that plan, what additional areas of the site could, and should, be preserved, if there are funds available to do so. Councilmember Cohen stated there were a couple of potential uses for that money, and it was not just necessarily preservation, noting there were also possibilities to reduce overall density, but still ensure the provision of workforce housing. He stated he would be particularly interested in that, pointing out Supervisor Kinsey had also expressed the same feeling, and that was why the language addressed modification or purchase through use of available outside financial resources. Mayor Boro, noting he had spoken with people representing the environmental community, as well as the property owners, stated we have the transportation issue, and at the same time, he believed this Committee would be looking for some closure and resolution as to the future of this site. Therefore, he believed that what we come up with will be a two- tiered plan; if there are additional monies to apply to the site, we will have certain levels of development, which will impact item 4.10. On the other hand, if the measure does not pass and the money is not available, we will have agreement as to what development can, or should, proceed, and still meet our other goals. He stated if the money becomes available, obviously it will be applied for and applied to this site, but if it fails, we still should have some resolution as to what should happen on the site, so the property owners and the community know, going forward, what is going to happen to the site. Community Development Director Brown referred to the issue of the process question discussed by Mr. Cohen. Mr. Brown stated this suggested the City and the County would pursue General Plan Amendments, but also allow an opportunity for the property owner representatives to put forth applications that would be consistent with the Task Force proposals, and those could be processed in that manner. He did, however, point out that the City Attorney had not had much of an opportunity to review this, noting he had some concerns about the issue concerning the County and the City pre-committing to take any joint actions. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he did have some concern regarding the language referred to by Mr. Brown. He stated his concern, which he has expressed before, had to do with the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 22 use of the word "commitment", particularly in view of the Alameda County/Hayward case, in which it was clear there were warnings given about jurisdictions combining to enact amendments to their respective General Plans, with respect to property located within each of their jurisdictions. Mr. Ragghianti suggested this language not be included in the Memorandum of Understanding, stating it was clear the MOU already clearly indicated that after the Task Force Committee completed its work, it would go back, after a joint meeting conducted with each of the agencies, to their respective bodies for the purpose of enacting General Plan Amendments. However, from a strictly legal standpoint, the use of this language bothered him, in view of the Alameda County/Hayward case, and he reiterated he had not seen it until he came to this meeting. Mayor Boro directed Mr. Ragghianti's attention to the second sentence, which basically states that at the conclusion of this process, if the Task Force has agreement, and the property owners decide to come forward with an application, that they may do so at that point. Mr. Ragghianti stated they could do that anyway, and this was a different point than that expressed in the first sentence, which he believed could be fixed by the additional language which was just discussed. Mr. Ragghianti stated, with regard to that, he wanted to observe that at the completion of the Task Force's work, an applicant could make an application, and if he or she wished to make it consistent with the results of the Task Force they may do so, but they did not need this document, or this language, to indicate they have that right. Mr. Brown suggested the first sentence could be modified to state, "The City and County commit to completing their independent General Plan Amendments", noting that might address the legal concern about the two bodies doing joint decision making. Mr. Cohen stated if it was the word "commit", which Mr. Ragghianti specifically mentioned, that could be modified to merely state the facts, which are that both the City and the County intend to independently complete their General Plan Amendments. Mr. Cohen stated the facts of the matter were that the City must update its General Plan, and the Countywide Plan has interim zoning, pending the City's General Plan process; therefore, both the City and the County have already stated, as a matter of public policy, that they intend to modify their respective plans. He noted all we would be stating here is that we intend to do that. He asked if that would ease some of Mr. Ragghianti's concerns? Mr. Cohen acknowledged that this was a re-stating, but noted he also understood the valid concerns for wanting to express it within the body of the document, in something like this fashion. Mr. Ragghianti stated the language suggested by Mr. Brown would assist in addressing his concerns. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Brown to clarify the suggested language. Mr. Brown suggested the following, "The City and County intend to complete their independent General Plan Amendments, including the Environmental Review of the Plan Amendments. However, this would not preclude a project sponsor from applying for a development application consistent with the Task Force recommendations, as endorsed by the City Council and Board of Supervisors. If no application is forthcoming, the City and County will proceed with respective General Plan Amendments". Councilmember Heller referred to Coordination Policy 4.12, asking if Council was asking for, at some point during the next few months during the study period, that the environmental community develop a plan of what they would like to spend this money on? Mr. Cohen stated they were not, explaining that if the Transportation Measure should pass, the decision about how the money is to be allocated rests with the Board of Supervisors, specifically in this case, the $55 million and its allocation to various properties throughout the County. He explained that was their decision, and it would not be appropriate for the Committee to make those judgments. Mr. Cohen noted what had been discussed, and also addressed by several of the previous speakers, was that there should be some acknowledgement within the document that the potential for availability of money exists, and it might be possible to further buy-down development rights, or take a different approach to achieving workforce housing, through use of a portion of that money. Mr. Cohen pointed out, as stated by Community Development Director Brown, that since the Committee, even if the money is available, is not necessarily going to know what the Board of Supervisors is ultimately going to decide about how much money they might be willing to allocate to St. Vincent's/Silveira, the City is suggesting we charge the Committee with prioritizing within the development, and recommend which areas would be appropriate for purchase, buy-down, or whatever vehicles they might recommend. Then, depending on how much of the $55 million the Board of Supervisors choose to allocate, assuming it is available, that would dictate how far down the list of priorities they would get. County Planning Director Reisenfeld referred to Coordination Policy 4.12, noting that in order to be consistent with the Advisory Measure already adopted by the Board of Supervisors, which was a more generic statement of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 23 intent with respect to the allocation of the $55 million, he would suggest Council consider amending the wording slightly, to state, "Prioritization of portions of the Development Plan appropriate for amendment or modification, by using available outside financial resources". Mr. Reisenfeld stated this would be a broader statement, and would not specifically state "modification" or "purchase", but would basically state that in some way or other the Plan should be considered for priorities for modification or amendment, if money is available. He stated there could be a variety of possibilities, including, but not limited to, purchase. Mayor Boro asked if there was consensus among the Council on these recommendations, and the suggestions that they be included as part of the Resolution? The Councilmembers indicated they were in agreement with the recommendations. Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti to respond to Mr. Maloney's letter, and the questions he had raised. Mr. Ragghianti stated Mr. Maloney's letter included many of the issues he had raised three years ago on behalf of his client. Mr. Ragghianti stated there were no matters which Mr. Maloney recited in his letter which led him to believe there would be any cataclysmic legal event that would occur if Council chose to adopt this Memorandum of Understanding, although he acknowledged Mr. Maloney made some good points, just as he had several years ago. Referring to the action of the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, Mr. Ragghianti stated he knew of no case, Federal or State, which indicated that when one is not the Condemnor, one has legal responsibility for what may occur, particularly when the events taking place are not participated in by the City, nor, perhaps, were we even aware that they were going on. Mr. Ragghianti stated some of the other points raised by Mr. Maloney were worthy of note, and he suggested Mr. Brown might go through them in connection with his request that the MOU be amended to include certain items. Mr. Ragghianti stated he had already discussed these with Mr. Brown, and from a strictly legal standpoint, he reiterated that the document was explicit in its recitals that this was a non-binding document, and that the agencies would exercise their independent judgment with respect to the recommendations that are brought back, and that the policies listed and contained in it are to serve as guidelines for the Committee. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out this was essentially the same document, with different language and for different purposes, that came before Council in 1995. Community Development Director Brown referred to each of Mr. Maloney's specific requests. The first suggested there be recognition that the property has been retained in its undeveloped state for more than a century. Mr. Brown stated he had no doubt the Task Force would be given a great deal of information about the history of these properties, as part of the course of their work. The second recommendation indicated that the minimum vote for consensus should be at least ten to fourteen members. Mr. Brown reported the City's preference would be to allow the Task Force to establish their consensus building and voting provisions at their first meeting. The third recommendation was the recognition that the property owners have a Constitutional right for the economic use of their properties. Mr. Brown reported that was a given in the law, and that was why there was a Coordination Policy concerning the reasonable economic use of the properties, which is based on Federal law. The fourth suggestion addresses the issue of just compensation or off-setting land use entitlements, discussed in Coordination Policy 4.6. Mr. Brown reported, once again, staff believed that was a given, that if there were going to be retentions, there needed to be commensurate provisions for development elsewhere on the properties, or the purchase, as discussed earlier this evening. The fifth recommendation was adding the words "to the project" to Coordination Policy 4.8, which would read, "Development that provides for a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing community services to the project". Mr. Brown stated staff would have no difficulty with this request, noting community services, and the cost to the City in providing those, were to provide for residents or owners in the project area. The sixth recommendation concerned the amendment of Paragraph 5, Notification, to read, "Reasonable, advance notice shall be given to the other party (meaning the County or the City) and the property owner". Mr. Brown did not believe staff would have any objection to including this change, noting the City would, of course, notify the property owners. He pointed out the City might want to broaden that, as well, to state, "....the public and the property owners". He reported staff had not yet established a mailing list, but would be preparing one early in the process. The seventh suggestion was an addition to Paragraph 8, to read, "All documents in the possession of the Task Force, including drafts, shall be public records, fully available for inspection and copying in accordance with the law". Mr. Brown reported this was a provision of the Brown Act, and the Public Information Act; therefore, staff did not feel it was necessary to state SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 24 that in the MOU. The eighth recommendation stated the introduction at the end of the first paragraph should be amended to state, "In the adoption of the General Plan Amendments, the City and County shall exercise their independent judgment, under CEQA and applicable planning laws, and base any decision to amend the General Plans on the evidence properly received at the noticed public hearings". Mr. Brown specified the addition to this paragraph was the inclusion, "...base any decision to amend the General Plans based on evidence received at the noticed public hearings". He explained that this was also a requirement of the Brown Act; therefore, in staff's opinion, the reference to applicable planning laws seemed to cover that adequately. Mr. Maloney stated he was also requesting the City Council to ask the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District to desist in the condemnation of 87 acres, as discussed earlier. City Attorney Ragghianti stated, from a legal standpoint, there was no legal obligation for Council to do that. However, should Council desire to do so, as a body, it was entirely their prerogative. Community Development Director Brown referred to questions that had been raised during public comment, and addressed two comments he felt were basically asking the same question; the first was a request that the entire piece of land be considered for all the possibilities. Mr. Brown explained this was similar to considering a zero-based approach to the site, such as radically different design alternatives, and the second was the question of whether this was already a "done deal". Mr. Brown stated that if the desire was to come up with a consensus process in a relatively short timeframe, there was a need to provide some direction to the Committee, as discussed earlier, noting there had been a great deal of history, in terms of planning for the property. However, Mr. Brown also believed, since these were guidelines, and provided for a mix and range of uses, that there were opportunities for other community-serving uses, in addition to those listed in the Coordinating Policies. Therefore, he believed there were opportunities for other use ideas, provided some of the other goals of the City and the County were achieved in the process. Addressing the request to eliminate all language regarding the extension of McInnis Parkway from the General Plan, Mr. Brown reported that was a General Plan issue, and was not specific to the St. Vincent's/Silveira development. He noted, as reported earlier, staff was proposing to correct Coordinating Policy 4.7, pointing out the map indicated the location of McInnis Parkway, which terminates near the AutoDesk offices, and the location of the Silveira Parkway, which was intended, in both the previous work and in future Task Force work, to extend to provide access to the property from Smith Ranch Road. Therefore, the City would certainly address the extension of McInnis Parkway as part of the larger General Plan effort. Regarding the comment to incorporate a neighborhood representative from Smith Ranch Homes, due to their proximity, Mr. Brown reported staff had not wanted to specify any Neighborhood Associations, noting there would obviously be a number of Associations that would be interested. He stated there were two slots for Neighborhood Association representatives, as well as two "at large" members; therefore, staff believed there would be representation. Regarding the question of whether "the neighborhood" included the County as well as the City, Mr. Brown stated this had not been specified, but the supposition was that applications would be solicited from both Homeowner Associations in the incorporated limits of San Rafael, and the unincorporated area, as well. In response to the question of who would pay for homes built on St. Vincent's/ Silveira when they are destroyed in an earthquake, Mr. Brown noted soils studies had been done for the previous Advisory Committee, and those would be utilized in this process. In addition, whatever plan results from this, the General Plan Amendments would have to deal with an Environmental Impact Report, which will update those studies and go into greater detail. Therefore, staff was convinced that seismic affects, and such things as fill issues, would be quite carefully analyzed. Concerning the question of whether the City was aware of the Transit Tax survey, who funded the survey, and whether it was public, Mr. Brown stated it was not a City of San Rafael survey. County Planning Director Reisenfeld stated that given the types of questions Ms. McCarty was citing, those questions were not part of the survey the County undertook for the Transportation Steering Committee. He noted they had two surveys, one in September and October of last year, and one in January of this year, and neither of those surveys dealt with development issues. Therefore, he SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 25 presumed there was another party polling the public with respect to those particular questions. Addressing the question of whether the Council was aware of community focus groups, he stated these may have been the focus groups conducted as part of the Community Policing effort. Referring to the importance of the bayland corridor in the San Rafael General Plan, Mr. Brown stated, the importance of wetlands is addressed in both the City's General Plan and the County's General Plan, as well as in the Coordinating Policies for the Task Force, where there is a very strong statement. Mayor Boro stated rather than Council reacting at this time to Mr. Maloney's last question, Council would be more than willing to ask both the City and County to address the issue with the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, and asked Mr. Maloney to provide them with a little more background information about this issue. He stated in light of what they were undertaking, he would be more than willing to pursue this, and hoped the County would, as well. Mayor Boro stated he believed they had gone through all the issues that had been raised during the public testimony, noting additions had been made to Coordination Policies 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12, and a new item 2.6 had been recommended. Councilmember Heller noted she would like the Committee to also look at schools, noting there had been no reference to schools in the document, and she believed it was "community enhancing" to look to the needs of our school children. Mayor Boro stated the City would make certain that this would be part of the work program. Councilmember Cohen noted Council had been asked to take a zero-based approached, going back and revisiting the entire issue, with no assumptions whatsoever, and was also urged by Father Dave to consider the entire parcel, and all the possibilities, including the eastern portion. However, Mr. Cohen believed Council needed to give some focus and direction, and in response to the comment regarding the need for a vision, he stated the City had spent three years studying these properties. He reported they had conducted a national contest in which they asked people to submit their vision of what could be done in master planning these sites, noting they had received some very interesting and intriguing ideas of different approaches, and the community got the opportunity to look at those. He stated what they came back to was something similar to the description they have been talking about, a mix of environmental protection and development opportunities, and fairness to the property owners in terms of reasonable economic use of their property. Mr. Cohen stated there were a lot of wonderful opportunities if we, as a community, owned this land, and could do with it whatever we wished. He acknowledged that if we wanted to raise the money and buy it all, we could take the time to fully explore those possibilities. However, it was his belief the community was not prepared to tax themselves to the extent necessary to buy the entirety of both of these parcels. Mr. Cohen felt some important issues had been raised which needed further exploration, perhaps not as a part of the Task Force Committee's work, but certainly as the City goes forward with its General Plan review. He stated one was the notion of the importance of baylands, and noted he felt the Council had been fairly clear about that in the past. He believed, as part of the City's General Plan, that the City had to recognize the importance of the bayfront corridor, and he felt it was possible to do that in a way that was consistent with an approach to the development potential here. He reported he had stated to the representatives of St. Vincent's, and to Father Dave, that in general, he was not at all sympathetic to development east of the railroad tracks. He recognized there was currently some agricultural use, and the potential for some recreational use east of the railroad tracks; therefore, to the extent that development could be considered to include uses like that, he was willing to soften his stand. However, he believed it had been a consistent policy of the City that building east of the railroad tracks was not something we would want to see, and he was not inclined to change that view, with the sole exception of the Honor Farm on the Silveira property, which he did feel had development potential. Mr. Cohen believed the City needed to set some parameters, and to recognize the environmental values that had been discussed, and the strong concerns of the environmental community. He felt the City had come a long way toward meeting the requests to give those representatives of the environmental community something to work with, noting he hoped that was recognized, and that the City had gone far enough SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 26 that they felt they could go back to their organizations and talk about the real possibility that exists for consensus on land use. Mr. Cohen stated the point was made that it was significant that we have an opportunity to address not only transportation, but land use, in coordination, noting he felt that was the only way we were ever going to get ourselves "outside the box" we have gotten ourselves into on this issue. He stated we had to see these issues in relation to one another, and he believed we had put ourselves in a position where we could do that, and where we could all take the opportunity to do so. Councilmember Cohen stated they had spent a lot of time dwelling on the importance of the environment, which he strongly believed in, but noted he wished to conclude by making a couple of comments regarding the importance of housing. He reported that when he was on the Planning Commission in 1988, when they wrote the City's current General Plan, one of the concepts they discussed was the jobs/housing balance, and when they looked at that and analyzed the development in the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin in the prior ten years of 1978 to 1988, they found the City had done an outstanding job in the area of job creation, but a lousy job of housing production. He reported they recognized this as a problem, and as having severe potential impact on Highway 101, and our transportation network in general, because we continue to create jobs here, many of which do not pay salaries which enable the workers to live here; we force the workers onto Highway 101, or onto the bridge, and we create the transportation problem we are now going to spend tax dollars to solve. Mr. Cohen reported they did a number of things in that General Plan to try to address the imbalance, but unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, one by one those housing opportunities have fallen by the wayside, and he felt we were cutting into another one with this process. Mr. Cohen stated he supported what Council was doing, and the statement they were making, that they expected the outcome to be a significant reduction in the number of housing units; however, he wanted people to recognize that this comes at a cost. He noted there had been a lot of discussion in the community about the notions of sustainability and economic vitality, without constant overdevelopment, pointing out part of the way to do that was to provide for the whole community. He stated we could not just provide jobs here and expect that the people will live somewhere else, commute here, and then leave, noting we really had to seize on the concept of workforce housing, and take seriously the notion of providing housing for the workers we expect to have work here. He hoped that as the Committee works on this, they will take that notion as seriously as they do the notion of environmental protection. Mayor Boro believed this document reflected the fact that this was a three- pronged approach; the environment, the rights of the property owners, and meeting the City's goals to provide workforce housing. Mayor Boro stated the City wanted to achieve those three goals with this process, and hoped they could come up with a process to allow them all to happen. He stated the City truly believed this effort would launch that, and hoped the entire community of Marin would support this effort. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin, as presented in the staff report and modified this evening. RESOLUTION NO. 10235 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE COUNTY OF MARIN TO WORK COOPERATIVELY ON A PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN AND THE MARIN COUNTYWIDE PLAN (as modified). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None County Planning Director Reisenfeld announced the County Board of Supervisors meeting, which had incorrectly been reported as beginning at 10:00 AM tomorrow morning was, in fact, actually scheduled to begin at 9:00 AM. Councilmember Heller asked the City and County Planning staff to explain the process for interested parties wishing to receive applications for the Task Force Committee. Mr. Reisenfeld reported that assuming the Board of Supervisors acts affirmatively at their meeting, staff would be meeting on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 26 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 27 Wednesday and Thursday, and would prepare the form that would be sent out to those on City and County mailing lists, soliciting applications from individuals, and those nominated from the groups identified in the MOU. He reported a specific deadline for receiving those applications had been set as July 1st. In addition to the information provided in the staff report to Council, he noted the information being presented to the Board of Supervisors indicated there would be a suggested review of the applications by a sub-committee, with recommendations to be made to both the Board of Supervisors and the City Council, so the appointments could occur on July 14th and 20th, respectively. Mayor Boro announced there would be a brief recess. Mayor Boro reconvened the meeting. 18. NEW MILLENNIUM PARTY - DECEMBER 31, 1999 (RA) - File 104 x (SRRA) R-140 #8 x R-393 x R-394 Mayor Boro stated he and Events Coordinator Brigitte Moran had discussed planning a New Year's Eve party in Downtown San Rafael on December 31, 1999, and they were now before Council with a proposal that the City consider sponsoring a millennium party. He explained the staff report referred to the finishing touches on the Downtown Plaza, and noted he believed something that would make the Plaza very special, and something that had been thought about, although not very realistically for the near future, was a water feature. He stated his thought was that the City would raise enough money that we could have a permanent water feature, giving recognition to those people who purchased the tickets to come to the party, with a typical wall with people's names on it. He noted people would have a place to go on New Year's Eve, 1999, they would participate in the building of a project that would have some benefit to the community, and they would be recognized for it. Events Coordinator Brigitte Moran noted there was a change in the way this event had been listed, noting rather than being the new millennium, the party would actually be the last year in this millennium. Ms. Moran reported this would be a black-tie event for 2,500 to 5,000 people, based upon how we could make it work in the Downtown. She explained staff was asking to put $50,000 on deposit, which would be refunded through the event, noting the party would be a fund raiser for the City and the water feature for the Plaza. She stated the tickets would be approximately $100, and possibly vary in price up to $300, for which the participants would get more entertainment, being allowed to go into different tents. She reported they were looking for big name entertainment, so people would stay in Marin County, and have a place to go in San Rafael. Councilmember Heller asked if they were looking at only Downtown San Rafael for the event? Ms. Moran explained they were looking at working with Albert Park, up "A" Street to Fourth Street. Ms. Heller asked if the price seemed to be fairly firm? Ms. Moran stated it would depend on the price of the entertainment, noting she had gotten quotes of up to $300,000 for one night. Mayor Boro stated he had requested that ticket prices begin at $100 per person, and then if there is a way, we could scale the prices if people want to make a choice of doing other things they can. Ms. Moran stated she would return to Council with a lot more information, once everyone submits their bids. Councilmember Cohen noted the City had a policy of doing business locally, wherever we can, noting that in the area of entertainment, we were blessed with a lot of outstanding local entertainers, and he felt it would be great if we could incorporate that. Councilmember Cohen asked where the $50,000 would be coming from? City Manager Gould stated, with Council's concurrence, they would use Redevelopment Administration funds to front the money for the Millennium Party, and then recoup those funds through ticket sales. Councilmember Cohen moved and Council Miller seconded, to approve the organization of the Millennium Party, and identify a source for the $50,000 to be used for deposits. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 27 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 28 MONTHLY REPORTS: 19. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - File 9-3-11 (Verbal) City Manger Gould introduced Lydia Romero, newly appointed Assistant to the City Manager, who will begin work for the City next Monday (6/22/98). He stated she brings a lot of skill, energy, and expertise to the job, and will be a tremendous asset to our organization. 20. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: MCCMC LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT - File 113 x 9-1 (Verbal) Councilmember Heller reported the Legislative Committee of the MCCMC met this morning, noting they were very concerned about the State Budget, and the Vehicle License Fee take-away, which the Governor is beginning to make sound like he is seriously considering. She reported they would be trying to get all of the different cities and towns in this County to go up to Sacramento and lobby, on an individual basis. She noted San Rafael would again be going up, and asked that one or two of the Councilmembers cooperate and make the trip. She noted they would take as many Police Officers as they could, and also Librarians, business owners, and various people from within the community. She stated she would be looking for volunteers to join in this effort. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/15/98 Page 28