No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2017-03-14 Agenda Packet  Sign adv  Pub 415  To a from Any rec Commu the me THE PL TO ME 11:00 P UNANI AGEND SUBDI DEPOS ADDIT Mem CAL PLED REC Appr PUB URG Anyo notify CON 1 PUB 2 DIRE COM ADJO Next M Comm n interpreters an vance. Copies of blic transportation 5/454-0964. allow individuals m wearing scented p cords relating to an unity Development eeting. LANNING COMMI EAN THAT NO AGE P.M. THE COMMI IMOUS VOTE OF DA ITEMS WITHIN IVISION. AN APPE SIT (FOR APPLICA TIONAL CHARGE F mbers of the p L TO ORDER DGE OF ALL ORDING OF roval or revisio LIC NOTIFIC GENT COMMU one with an ur y the Commu NSENT CALE 1. Minutes LIC HEARIN 2. 77 Locus action ap square-fo housing. Sisters o applicant AP17-00 Jensen ECTOR’S RE MMISSION CO OURNMENT Meeting: March 2 mission meeting o nd assistive listen f documents are n to City Hall is a s with environmen products. n agenda item, rece t Department, Third SSION WILL TAKE ENDA ITEM OR OT SSION MAY SUSP THE MEMBERS P N FIVE BUSINESS EAL LETTER SHAL ANTS) MADE PAY FOR REQUEST FO ublic may spe R LEGIANCE MEMBERS P on of order of CATION OF M UNICATION rgent commu nity Developm ENDAR , January 10 G st Avenue (L pproving Use oot “yellow h Use is prop of Third Orde t/owner; Chr 1 and AP17 PORT OMMUNICAT 28, 2017. I, Ann on the City of Sa SA T COUNCIL ning devices may available in acce available through ntal illness or mu eived by a majority d Floor, 1400 Fifth A E UP NO NEW BUS THER BUSINESS PEND THIS RULE RESENT.APPEAL DAYS (NORMALL LL BE FILED WITH YABLE TO THE CIT OR CONTINUATIO eak on Agend PRESENT AN f agenda item MEETING PR nication on a ment Director 0, 2017 Lourdes Con e Permit Am hallway” area posed for two er of St. Dom ristopher Do 7-002. Enviro TION ne Derrick, hereb an Rafael Agenda AN RAFAEL P REGU TUESDAY, Ma CHAMBERS, SAN RAF y be requested by essible formats u h Golden Gate Tr ultiple chemical s or more of the Age Avenue, and place SINESS AFTER 11 WILL BE DISCUSS TO DISCUSS AND RIGHTS: ANY PE LY 5:00 P.M. ON TH H THE CITY CLER TY OF SAN RAFAE ON OF AN APPEAL da items. ND ABSENT ms. OCEDURES topic not on t r in advance. nvent) – App mendment to a of the conv o years; APN minic Congre lan and Gar onmental Re by certify that on a Board. AGENDA PLANNING CO ULAR MEETIN arch 14, 2017, CITY HALL, 1 FAEL, CALIFO y calling 415/485 upon request. ransit, Line 20 or sensitivity to atten ency Board less tha d with other agend 1:00 P .M. AT REG SED OR ACTED U D/OR ACT UPON A ERSON MAY FILE HE FOLLOWING T RK, ALONG WITH A EL, AND SHALL SE L BY APPELLANT. the agenda m eals (2) of Z Lourdes Co vent facility t N: 015-111-2 egation of the ry Scholick, a eview: Categ Friday, March 10 OMMISSION G 7:00 P.M. 400 FIFTH AV RNIA 5-3085 (voice) or r 23. Paratransit nd the meeting/h an 72 hours before da-related materials GULARLY SCHEDU UPON AFTER THE ANY ADDITIONAL E AN APPEAL OF T TUESDAY) AND W AN APPEAL FEE O ET FORTH THE BA may address t Zoning Admi onvent to per to a single, r 23; PD (Plan e Most Holy appellants; C gorical Exem 0, 2017, I poste VENUE r 415/ 485-3198 t is available by c hearing, individua e the meeting, shall s on the table in fro ULED MEETINGS. E AGENDA ITEM U AGENDA ITEM(S) THE PLANNING CO WITHIN 10 CALEND OF $350 (FOR NON ASIS FOR APPEA the Commissi nistrator’s Ja rmit the conv residential u nned Develo y Name Supp Case Numbe mption Proje ed a notice of the (TDD) at least 7 calling Whistlesto als are requested l be available for in ont of the Council C THIS SHALL BE UNDER CONSIDER ) DEEMED APPRO OMMISSION'S AC DAR DAYS OF AN N-APPLICANTS) O L. THERE IS A $5 ion at this tim anuary 28, 2 version of th unit for transi opment) Dist port Charitab er(s): UP16- ect Planner: e March 14, 2017 72 hours in op Wheels at d to refrain spection in the Chamber prior to INTERPRETED RATION AT OPRIATE BY A CTION ON ACTION ON A OR A $4,476 50.00 me. Please 2017 he 1,995- itional trict; ble Trust, -057, Paul 7 Planning   IN THE CO       Regula       San Ra   For a com   CALL TO    Present: Absent: Also Pres   PLEDGE   RECORD   PUBLIC N   URGENT   CONSEN    1. Mi   Gerald Be follows:   AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT:     OUNCIL CHAM   ar Meeting  afael Plannin mplete video o O ORDER Larry P Jack R Barret Mark L Sarah Beren Gerald None sent: Raffi B Alan M OF ALLEGIA DING OF MEM NOTIFICATIO COMMUNIC T CALENDA inutes, Dece elletto moved Larry P Beren None : None None MBERS OF TH g Commissio of this meetin Paul Robertson t Schaefer Lubamersky Loughran ice Davidson d Belletto Boloyan, Plan Montes, Assis ANCE MBERS PRES ON OF MEET CATION AR mber 13, 201 and Jack Ro Paul, Jack Ro ice Davidson HE CITY OF SA n Minutes  ng, go to http ning Manage tant Planner SENT AND A TING PROCE 16 obertson seco obertson, Bar , Gerald Belle AN RAFAEL, Ja p://www.city er ABSENT DURES onded to appro rrett Schaefer etto anuary 10, 20 yofsanrafael. ove Minutes a r, Mark Lubam 017  .org/meeting as presented mersky, Sarah gs  . The vote is h Loughran,   s as     PUBLIC HEARING    2. 64 Oakmont Ave. – Request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit for the demolition of an existing single family home and construction of a new 6,498 sq. ft. single- family residence with a second dwelling unit on a hillside parcel; APN: 010-121-19; Single Family Residential (R1a-H) Zone; Curt Cline, Applicant; Ryan Ashley, Owner; Fairhills Neighborhood; Project File: ED16-057 & SDU16-008. Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Project Planner: Alan Montes   Staff Report   Larry Paul moved and Gerald Belletto seconded to adopt resolution approving project as presented. The vote is as follows:   AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky, Sarah Loughran, Berenice Davidson, Gerald Belletto NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None    3. 1833 &1835 Fourth St. (Shell Fueling Station) – Request of Zoning Determination to seek input from the Planning Commission whether the tear down and reconstruction of a legal nonconforming use (fueling station) in the West End Village (WEV) Zoning District can be allowed per the City’s legal non-conforming use provisions (SRMC 14.16.270). APN: 011- 231-24 & 25; West End Village (WEV) District; Muthana Ibrahim, applicant; A U Energy, LLC (Nick Goyal), Property Owner; File No: INF16-054. Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Project Planner: Alan Montes   Staff Report   Berenice Davidson moved and Barrett Schaefer seconded to approve project to allow the continuance of the legal nonconforming status of this project. The vote is as follows:   AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky, Sarah Loughran, Berenice Davidson, Gerald Belletto NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None    4. Annual Meeting of Planning Commission to include: a) election of officers; and b) review of Planning Commission “Rules and Procedures”.   Staff Report   Barrett Schaefer moved and Mark Lubamersky seconded to elect Commissioner Belletto as Chair of the Planning Commissioner. To vote is as follows:   AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky, Sarah Loughran, Berenice Davidson, Gerald Belletto NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None       Sarah Loughran moved and Jack Robertson seconded to Approve Motion to elect Berenice Davidson as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission. The vote is as follows: AYES: Larry Paul, Jack Robertson, Barrett Schaefer, Mark Lubamersky, Sarah Loughran, Berenice Davidson, Gerald Belletto NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None   DIRECTOR’S REPORT   COMMISSION COMMUNICATION       ___________________________________ ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III APPROVED THIS_____DAY____OF_______, 2017 _____________________________________ Mark Lubamersky, Chair                           SAN RAFA EL THE CITY WITH A MISSION Division Meeting Date: March 14 , 2017 Agenda Item: L Case Numbers: AP17 R Q01, AP17-002, UP16·057 Project Planner: Paul Jensen 415-485-506;4"l"" RE PORT T O PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 77 Locust Avenue (Lourd •• Convent) -Appeals (2) of Zon ing Administrator's January 28, 2017 action approving Use Permit Amendment to Lourdes Convent to permit the conversion of the 1,995-square-foot "yellow hallway" area of the convent facility to a single, residential unit for transitional housing . Use is proposed for two years; APN : 015-111-23; PO (Planned Development) District ; Sisters of Third Order of st. Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust , applicant/owner; Christopher DoJan and Gary Scholick , appellants; Case Number(s): UP16·057 , AP17-001 ane AP17·002 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Lourdes Convent, which is owned by the Sisters of Third Order of St. Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust (Dominican Sisters) is a 16,450-square-foot convent retirement center located at 77 Locust Avenue. The retirement center operates under Use Permit (UP79-18) approved by the City in 1979. The 2.1·acre property is located within the PO (Planned Development) District and is bordered by single-family residences (to the north , west and east and the Dom in ican S isters ' "Mother House ~ convent and res idence (to the south). A Use Pe rm it Amendment has been filed by the Dominican Sisters (UP16-057) to convert a 1,995-square -foot portion of the retirement center (referred to as the "yellow hallway" area) to a Single , residential unit for "transitional housing" (short-term residency). The single, residential unit would be made available to be shared by two single women and their children . The Use Permit Amendment request proposes that the transitional housing would be available for two years following occupancy and would "sunset" after two years. On January 4,2017, the City Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on the Use Permit Amendment application. The hearing was attended by approximately 50 people. Ma.ny questions and concerns were raised . Following public comment , the Zoning Administrator closed the public hear ing , reported that the questions and comments wou ld be rev iewed and addressed. and that a decision on the Use Permit Amendment W9uld be made on January 28, 2017 . On January 28.2017. the Zoning Administrator appr ov ed the Use Perm it with conditions. Th is action included a response to 17 questi ons and concerns raised in the public hearing and correspondence recei ved by the Community Development Department. Two separate appeals of the Zoning Administrator action were filed by neighboring residents, Christopher Dolan (AP17·001) and Gary Scholick (AP17-002). The appeals are accompanied by a number of appeal points (discussed below). With the exception of one appeal point (related to Use Permit Amendment Condition 7 regarding the two-year term of the permit), staff finds that there is no me rit to the other appeal points presented by the appellants . Therefore , it is recommended that both appeals be denied and the Zoning Administrator action be upheld. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution (Attachment 2) denying the appeals and upholding the Zoning Administrator's January 28,2017 conditional approval of Use Permit Amendment (UP16-057). PROPERTY FACTS I Address/Location: I 77 Locust Avenue I Parcel Number(s): 1015-111-23 I Properly Size: I 2.1 acres (90,000 sq. ft.) I Neighborhood: I Dominican Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existina Land-Use Project Site: Public/Quasi·Public PO (Planned Convent residence and Development) retirement center North: Laroe Lot Residential R-1a and 20 District Sin Ie-familY residential South: Public/Quasi·Public PD1857 District Convent residence East: Laroe Lot Residential R1a District Sinale-familv residential West: Larqe Lot Residential R1a District SinQle-family residential Site Description/Setting: The subject property consists of approximately 90,000 square feet (approximately 2.1 acres) of levelland located at 77 Locust Avenue (APN 015-111-23). The property is owned by the Sisters ofThird Order of St. Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust (Dominican Sisters) and is developed with a one-story, 16,450-square-foot convent retirement center (which includes congregate care unit) for up to 32 residences (retired nuns) and a chapel. The facility, which is known as the Lourdes Convent, is designed around a courtyard garden and is surrounded by landscaped grounds. Two off-street parking lots border the Locust Avenue street frontage. One of the lots is along the western border of the property and contains 14 parking spaces. The second lot is located near the northeast border of the site and contains four parking spaces. The property is located in the Dominican neighborhood, which is primarily characterized by single-family residential homes (many on larger lots) and the expansive Dominican University campus. For this reason, there is some variation in the City zoning and General Plan land use designations for the properties. The San Rafael General Plan 2020 deSignates the Lourdes Convent property as Public/Quasi-Public. Properties west, north and east of the subject property are deSignated in the Large Lot Residential land use category, while the Sisters of St. Dominic residence campus and the Dominican University are deSignated in the Public/Quasi-Public land use category. With regard to property zoning, the 2.1-acre Lourdes Convent site is located within the Planned Development (PO) District. The PO District was adopted for this property in 1992 because of its size and unique use. The PO District replaced the former "U" (Unclassified) District zoning. In 1979, the City issued a Use Permit for the Lourdes Convent (UP79-18) permitting the retirement center use. As the subject property was developed and operating under Use Permit UP79-18 at the time the City adopted the current PO District, it does not have behefft of an approved Development Plan. However, the PO District zoning is intended to promote a comprehensive planning for the site in the event it is redeveloped or substantially changed. As the convent facility is an established use, minor additions and changes to , the facility have been accomplished through the review and approval of individual Use Permit Amendments and Environmental and Design Review Permits. By comparison, the neighboring Sisters of REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ Case Nos: AP17~001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 3 St. Dominic residence campus to the south (the "Mother House") is within the PD-1827 District, which has an approved Development Plan. Properties to the west, north and east are located with the single- family -residential R~ 1 a and R~20 Districts. BACKGROUND Use Permit Amendment Application On November 23, 2016, the Dominican Sisters filed a Use Permit Amendment application for the Lourdes Convent property. In partnership with Homeward Bound, the Dominican Sisters are proposing to convert a 1 ,995~square~foot portion of the Convent's congregate care facility (which currently contains 10 residential rooms; encompassing approximately 12% of the facility area) referred to as the "yellow hallway" to a single~dwelling unit containing a full kitchen. This single dwelling unit would be made available to be shared between two single women, each with two young children (up to eight years in age). The shared dwelling unit is proposed to be "transitional housing," meaning that it would provide short-term residency, transitioning to permanent housing. The use is proposed for a period of two years following initial occupancy. At that time, the use would terminate. A more detailed description of the proposal is provided below (Project Description). Zoning Administrator Hearing On January 4, 2017, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to present the proposal and to obtain public comment. Property owners and residents within 300-feet of the subject property were provided a 15+ day notice of the Zoning Administrator hearing. A total of 23 property ownerslresidents were sent notice of the hearing. In addition, the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association was provided with notice of the hearing. The Zoning Administrator hearing was attended by approximately 50 people that included the applicants and neighboring residents. Approximately 20 people spoke in both support and opposition to the proposed project. Meeting minutes have been prepared and are attached to this report (Attachment 9). Those expressing opposition to the project presented a list of the following questions and concerns: 1. Adequacy of off-street parking. The capacity of the current parking lot is often exceeded causing spillover parking off~site. 2. What regulations or restrictions are proposed for "guests" or residents? 3. The proposed use would change the nature and character of the property use introducing residential activities such as BBQs, parties and an outdoor playground, which presently do not occur on the convent property. 4. The proposal could facilitate an expansion into a larger scale multi~family transitional housing development, which would not be consistent with the character and uses in the neighborhood. 5. No proposal has been presented which describes what happens after two-years of operation. 6. The proposal violates the Fair Employment Housing Act as the tenancy/occupancy is limited to single women. The Fair Employment Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on marital status. Therefore, this law would prevent the Sisters/Homeward Bound from prohibiting the tenants from moving their spouse or domestic partner into the residence. 7. Concern with tenant oversight and what happens if the tenant gets married during occupancy. 8 Questions about the long-term intentions of the program, as well as the long~term plans for the convent property. 9. Consideration should be given to relocating this proposal to the "Mother House" (across Locust Ave). Following public comment, the applicant and Zoning Administrator provided verbal responses to a number of the concerns listed above. The Zoning Administrator indicated that a decision on the application would be made by January 28, 2017, following a review and consideration of all public testimony. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 4 Zoning Administrator Action On January 28,2017, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the Use Permit Amendment. The action was presented in letter form ("Notice of Zoning Administrator Action"), which included and is supported by the following: > A description of the proposed use and analysis of use consistency with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, Zoning and State laws applicable to transitional housing; );-The tenanUresident screening criteria; :> A detailed response to the comments and concerns raised at the hearing and in correspondence received by the City. The Zoning Administrator compiled and organized 17 questions and comments (mostly concerns summarized above). A detailed response to each question/comment was prepared. The responses to questions and comments were considered in making findings to support and condition the approval. The Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by the Public (January 23, 2017) is provided as an attachment to this staff report (Attachment 6); );> Required findings and conditions for the Use Permit Amendment; and );> Zoning Administrator meeting minutes (Attachment 9 of this staff report). The Notice of Zoning Administrator Action can be accessed and viewed at the following link: http://cityofsanrafael .granicus.comlDocumentViewer.php?file=cityofsanrafael 61d848da072a2cOcddee2 6e808143d53.pdf&view=1 Appeal{s) of Zoning Administrator Action Two appeals of the Zoning Administrator action have been filed. On February 3, 2017, a timely appeal was filed by Christopher Dolan, neighboring resident of 1 Locust Avenue (AP17 w001). A copy of the appeal letter is attached (Attachment 3). On February 6,2017, a second timely appeal was filed by Gary Scholick, neighboring resident of 141 Locust Avenue (AP17 w002). A copy of the appeal letter is attached (Attachment 4). The points of the two appeals, along with staff responses are provided in the Analysis section, below. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As discussed above, in partnership with Homeward Bound, the Dominican Sisters are proposing to convert a 1 ,995wsquare wfoot portion of the Convent's congregate care facility (10 residential rooms; 12% of the facility area) referred to as the "yellow hallway" to a singlewdwelling unit containing a full kitchen. Homeward Bound is proposing to make this single dwelling unit available to be shared between two single women, each with two young children (up to eight years in age). The shared dwelling unit is proposed to be "transitional housing," meaning that it provides shortwterm residency, transitioning to permanent housing. The single residential unit would contain a parlor, kitchen, bathroom and seven sleeping rooms. The proposed floor plan of the "yellow hallway" is provided in Attachment 1 of this staff report. Homeward Bound would manage the dwelling unit and the tenancy. Homeward Bound is proposing a list of criteria used to screen and select potential residents and the residents must enter into an occupancy agreement. The agreement would include, among others, the following terms: );> The adult tenant/occupant must be a Homeward Bound program participant. );> Monthwtowmonth occupancy not to exceed 24 months. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001. AP17-002. UP16-057 Page 5 );> The dwelling unit can be occupied by only the program participant and the persons noted in the agreement , » Occupancy of the unit by guests cannot exceed seven (7) consecutive days. Extended stay by guest requires the written approval by Homeward Bound staff. l> Subletting is prohibited. » Pets are prohibited. » Smoking inside the unit is prohibited. ) As a program participant, tenants/occupants are required to comply with a ·clean and sober environment ~ policy. )0 Tenants must sign a "Code of Conduct." The specific occupancy agreement for this project has not been drafted. However, a sample/model occupancy agreement has been submitted by Homeward Bound ("Next Key Agreement"), which is on file with the Community Development Department. The tenanUresident screening criteria developed by Homeward Bound and approved by the Dominican Sisters include, among others: » The adult tenant/occupant must be a single mother with children under the age of eight. » The adult tenant/occupant must be six-months sober and committed to a recovery plan. » The adult tenant/occupant must be working toward economic self-sufficiency. » The adult tenanUoccupant must be able to pay $550.00 per month for rent and utililies. };> If the tenanUoccupant owns a vehicle , n must be registered and insured. A copy of the tenant/resident screening criteria is attached (Attachment 7). Some limited exterior improvements to the Lourdes Convent facility are proposed with this request. Specifically, the plans propose a new, uncovered redwood porch/landing and new stairs (approximately 50 square feet) at the entrance to the unit. The large landscaped area south of the unit is proposed to be enclosed by a 36-inch tall open redwood fence, which would provide usable and safe outdoor area for the residents. Given the minor and incidental nature of these exterior improvements, the Community Development Director has determined that it is exempt from an Environmental and Design Review Permit per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.25.040D.5. Two of the existing 18 off-street parking spaces would be reserved for use by the two adult residents. It is proposed that the transitional housing would be available for two years, at which time the use and Use Permit Amendment would sunset. At this time, no plans have been developed and submitted describing what will be proposed after the two year period. ANALYSIS Zoning Administrator Analysis of Use Permit Amendment In considering action on a Use Permn or an amendment to such pennrt. the City must determine if the proposal is consistent with the General Plan , zoning and other applicable lam. The Zoning Administrator's action on this Use Permit Amendment was based on the following analysis: Consistency with San Rafael General Plan 2020 Overall, the proposed use is consistent with pertinent goals, policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. A summary of the key policies and programs is provided as follows: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Cas. Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 6 • Land Use Elemenl-Public/Quasi-Public Land Use Designation. This designation permits a variety of public and quasi-public land uses including residential use. Response: Consistent. The residential unit is allowed under this designation. • Housing Element-Policy H-9 (Special Needs). Encourage a mix of housing unit types throughout San Rafael, including very low-and low-income housing for families with children, single parents, students, young families, lower income seniors, homeless and the disabled. Accessible units shall be provided in multi-family residential developments consistent with State and Federal law. Response: Consistent. The project proposes transitional housing for lower-income single mothers and their children. • Housing Element-Policy H-10 (Innovative Housing Approaches). Provide opportunities and facilitate innovative housing approaches in financing, design and construction of units to increase the availability of low-and moderate-income housing and especially for housing that meets the City's housing needs. Response: Consistent. The project proposes to re-purpose space from one residential housing type to another, which would accommodate transitional housing for special needs. • Housing Element-Policy H-11 (House Sharing). Support organizations that facilitate house sharing, linking seniors and small households with potential boarders to more efficiently use existing housing stock. Response: Consistent. The project proposes the sharing of a single dwelling unit between two single parents and their children. It should be noted that the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Housing Element Background Report acknowledges that in 2011, San Rafael had 2,004 female-headed families with 1,182 such families with children under the age of 18. The Background Report states that in this family category, there is a need for transitional and emergency housing. San Rafael provides at least 45% of the transitional housing in Marin County. Consistency with Zoning and State Laws Applicable to Transitional Housing As noted above, the property is located within the PD District. The proposed use, which involves the conversion of 10 residential rooms within the Convent facility to a single, residential dwelling unit, would be consistent with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. One of the purposes of the PO District is to accommodate various types of compatible and complimentary uses within a development. The Lourdes Convent selVes as a residence and retirement center for the Dominican Sisters; the proposed single dwelling for transitional housing would be compatible and complimentary to the convent use and operation. Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.07.020 (Land use regulations for PO Districts), a Master Use Permit or individual Use Permit may be required to establish specific uses on the property consistent with the General Plan and parking standards. The Use Permit Amendment is specific to the current proposal and the use is proposed to "sunset" after two years. The conversion of the "yellow hallway" to a single, residential dwelling unit would be compatible with other uses on the subject property, as well as neighboring residential land uses. At present, full use of the yellow hallway area would be occupied by 10 residents (retired nuns). Replacing this occupancy with two adult women and their children would not change the character of the use; both are residential in nature. In addition, as demonstrated in the findings below, the use would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 7 In approving this Use Permit Amendment, the City must determine that the use meets the parking standards set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.19 (Off-Street Parking). The City Code does not include a specific parking standard for the convent use as a retirement center. In such cases, parking is determined based on a study. The Lourdes Convent site provides a total of 18 off-street parking spaces, which is approximately one parking space per 900 square feet of the convent area (16,450 square feetl18 parking spaces = 913 square feet). The subject "yellow hallway" is 1,995 square feet, so 2.18 parking spaces are provided for this area. The conversion of this area to a single residential unit would require 2.2 off-street parking spaces (based on the proposed unit type/number of bedrooms + guest parking). Therefore, adequate parking is provided by the current supply to meet the City Code. It should be noted that parking standards for uses are based on averages, meaning that spiked periods of parking demand are averaged with low periods of demand. A study of the existing parking capacity was also completed by the Zoning Administrator to assess existing conditions and parking demands of the existing use. A survey of the two parking lots was conducted over a one week period to assess parking use and demand. The survey was conducted during both weekdays and weekends, during varying times of the day to assess usage. The results of this survey, which are presented in Attachment 6 of this staff report (Responses to Comments and Questions Raised by the Public), find that the parking supply exceeds demand. The City must follow State law mandating provisions and allowances for transitional housing. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that local jurisdictions must treat transitional housing as a residential use only, subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other housing of the same type in the subject zoning district. Because of the PO District zoning, a Use Permit would be required to convert the "yellow hallway" to a dwelling unit for any other equivalent residential use (manager's residence; caretaker's residence or separate dwelling for the Dominican Sisters). If Homeward Bound were to lease or rent an existing single-family residence in the adjacent Dominican neighborhood (or any residential neighborhood in San Rafael) that is located in a residential zoning district (e.g., R1a District, R-20 District, etc.) the proposed transitional housing would be permitted by right, meaning no Use Permit or discretionary review by the City would or could be required. Summary of and Responses to Appeal AP17-001 (Christopher Dolan) Mr. Dolan's appeal letter (Attachment 3) presents an introductory summary of the property zoning history followed by a number of appeal points. The history and appeal pOints are summarized as follows along with a staff response: Introductory Summary The appellant notes that the Dominican Sisters received special treatment in the zoning of the Lourdes Convent property because the property was a part of and there was an affiliation with Dominican College (now Dominican University). The appellant summarizes that the rezoning of the property in 1979 to U (Unclassified) District was intentionally done because of the convent's affiliation with Dominican University and the fact that the col/ege and other Dominican Sisters property holdings were also located in the U District. It is noted that the subsequent rezoning to PD District was done for the same reason. The appellant notes that the 1979 action considered an R-3 District zoning to be inappropriate for this properly. The appellant states that there is no information available as to whether a hearing or process was involved in the 1979 and later PD District rezoning actions, and that the 1979 Use Permit appeared to have been granted without any public notice. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-0S7 Page 8 The appel/ant notes that Dominican Sisters are requesting a use (transitional housing) that is not related to the continued affiliation with Dominican University as the relationship between the two parties has ceased. Lastly~ the appellant notes that the General Plan 2020 land use map shows a [public}quasi- public land use designation, "that seems to be a leftover from the unity of the Dominican Sisters and Dominican Col/ege" as it conflicts with the Municipal Code's Zoning Ordinance. " Response: Staff agrees with much of the property zoning history summary provided by the appellant. Staff has reviewed the 1979 rezoning file (File No. n9-5), on March 27,1979, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on both the rezoning and the Use Permit (UP79-18); two separate reports were prepared. The 1979 report to the Planning Commission acknowledged that the retirement center was nonconforming under the then property zoning (R1-B2 District) and that such uses are typically permitted in R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Districts. At that time, City staff indeed reported that an R-3 District property zoning was not appropriate and recommended that the property be rezoned to U (Unclassified) District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both applications to the City Council. On May 7, 1979, the City Council adopted the rezoning and approved the Use Permit. File Z79-3 includes the public notice of the hearings, a publication of the notice in the Marin Independent Journal, as well as a list and map of the property owners within 300 feet of the Lourdes Convent site that were notified of the public hearings. In 1992, the City completed a comprehensive update of all the zoning districts in the City, which resulted in a rezoning of many properties throughout the City, including the subject property. The resulting Zoning Ordinance update and accompanying rezoning actions underwent a major public process that included community outreach, public hearings and property owner notifications. As part of this process, the U (Unclassified) District, which had been broadly applied to many larger properties throughout the City, was phased out. For the subject property, it was replaced by the PO (Planned Development) District. The purpose behind the adoption of the PO District for the Lourdes Convent was not solely because of its affiliation to Dominican College. Many larger properties in San Rafael were rezoned from U to PO District. The PO District was adopted for the Lourdes Convent site for several reasons: a) the convent was part of a handful of collective property holdings owned by both the Dominican Convent and Dominican University (then Dominican College) in the neighborhood and all of these property holdings were rezoned to PO District; and b) the purpose of applying the PO District to the Lourdes Convent and these other collective holdings was to encourage comprehensive, master planning when properties propose to redevelop. For example, the PO District was also adopted for the Dominican Sisters' Santa Sabina Center property at 25 Magnolia Avenue. At that time, none of these holdings had been master planned nor had the City approved a specific, approved Development Plan adopted with the PO District. Since 1992, a comprehensive master plan (approved Development Plan) was approved for both the Dominican University holdings (PD-1884 District, initially adopted as PD-1730 District, August 17, 1998) and the main Sisters of St. Dominic resident campus (Mother House) to the south (PD-1827 District, initially adopted as PD-1656, December 6, 1993). The master plan process for both the Dominican University and the Mother House were individually initiated by the property owners to facilitate major redevelopment and reuse on those sites. In the staff-prepared Response to Comments and Concerns Raised by the Public (Attachment 6, #2, page 1), it is noted that Dominican Sisters have severed their affiliation with Dominican University, but the operation of the Lourdes Convent continues as a non-commercial retirement center and residence for the Sisters. We have received an update regarding this matter. The relationship and affiliation between the Dominican Sisters and Dominican University has not ceased. Please see the attached letter from Gary Ragghianti, attorney at law representing the Dominican Sisters (Attachment 5). Mr. Ragghianti provides a detailed explanation on the history of this affiliation and how this affiliation has morphed over REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001. AP17-002. UP1S-057 Page 9 decades. Regardless of this affiliation, the property zoning runs with the land. The conditions of the 1979 Use Permit UP79~18 for the retirement center are active and inMforce. Use Permit condition (a) limits the retirement center to its operation so long as the ownership and operation is by "affiliation with Dominican College and is not a private commercial facility." At minimum, any change with this affiliation would require an amendment to the current Use Permit and any major change to the use, facility or property would necessitate a rezoning. Lastly, the General Plan 2020 land use designation for the site (Public/Quasi-Public) is not in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. The PO District zoning is a "customized n zoning for larger sites and has been applied citywide in many forms representing varying land uses. The best examples are the adopted PO Districts for the neighboring Dominican Sisters Mother House (convent residential use) and Dominican University (educational institution). The General Plan 2020 also designates these properties in the Public/Quasi-Public land use category. Appeal Point #1: The proposed use would necessitate a rezoning. The proposed use will constitute a residential, multi-family use. Response: Staff disagrees with this appeal point for the following reasons: a. Given that the proposal maintains the basic residential use of the yellow hallway area, is limited in size and would not result in any expansion to or SUbstantial physical changes to the property, a property rezoning or amendment to the current PD District is not warranted. The specific purposes of the PO District are set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.07.010. The specific purposes encourage master planning for the development of large site primarily to promote, among others, clustering, innovate design, protection of open space, and allowances for deviations in conventional zoning standards. A rezoning or amendment to the PO District would be warranted if the property were to be redeveloped or if there were a major re- purposing or reuse of the existing retirement center facility. b. SRMC Section 14.07.020 set forth the process for Land Use Regulations in the PO District. Sub- section 14.07.0200 addresses temporary uses. Temporary uses are short-term. As the proposed conversion of the yellow hallway area would sunset/terminate after two years, it is arguably a temporary use. The provisions of this code section apply to PO Districts (with or without a valid or approved Development Plan), requiring approval of a Zoning Administrator-level Use Permit. c. Approval of the Use Permit amendment would allow the conversion of an existing 1,995 square foot area to a single, residential dwelling unit. This area was developed for and has been used as a retirement residence; the proposed change maintains the basic residential use. Further, yellow hallway area represents 12% of the overall convent facilities, which is a minor portion of the in retirement center use. d. As discussed above, the Lourdes Convent retirement center operates under a current and valid Use Permit (UP79-18) that pre-dates the current PO District property zoning adopted for the site in 1992. The Use Permit Amendment is the best and most appropriate zoning tool to address the proposed use as it is short-term. The Use Permit Amendment allows the City to condition the approval to sunset in two years. e. The proposal involves the conversion of the "yellow hallway" to a single residential dwelling unit with a single kitchen. The single residential dwelling unit would be shared by two women and their children. The arrangement does not constitute a multiple-family residential use. Rather, it represents a single, shared household of two single women and their children residing in a single REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 10 dwelling . The San Rafael Municipal Code (SMRC Title 14 , Zoning) defines a multiple-family residence as three or more individual. attached residential dwelling units on a single site. Appeal Point 112: The current PD District zoning does not permit the proposed use. Response: Staff disagrees with this appeal point. As noted in response to Appeal Point #1 above , the property and current land use are governed by an active and valid Use Permrt (UP79-18), which pre- adopted the current zoning. The current PO District does not include an approved Development Plan, which would set forth specific land use allowances/limitations and development standards. Therefore, using this argument, nothing is permitted on the Lourdes Convent property. SRMC Section 14.07.035 sets forth the following provisions in the event a PO District contains no development standards or regulations : a. Sub-section 14.07.035A states that when the PO District does not include site-specific regulations or spatial standards, the Community Development Department shall determine, based on development characteristics, use and density, and the contiguous zoning districts, a zoning district adopted within this title that is most compatible with the PO District. The property is bordered by the R1a (north , west and east), R-20 (north) and the PD1B27 (south-Mother House convent property) Districts. If the R1a and R20 Districts are used as a default, the proposed transitional housing would be permitted by-right with no Use Permit requirement. The neighboring PD1827 District includes an approved Development Plan and a list of adopted land use prov isions and development standards. As the P01627 District specifically includes residences , it can be argued that the transitional housing would be permitted by right. However, since all uses in a PO District are memorialized by a Master Use Permit, it could also be argued that a Use Permit Amendment would be needed to approve the proposed use . b . Sub-section 14.07.035C states that the Community Development Director shall determine if the improvements are major or minor. Improvements determined to be major shall require an amendment to the PD District. Improvements determined to be minor shall not require an amendment to the PO District. As discussed above, staff determined that the proposed use change and improvements are minor. The approval of a Development Plan and amendment to the current PD District would be triggered when or if the property is redeveloped or if there were a major re-purposing or reuse of the existing retirement center facility. The continued operation of the existing use is governed by Use Permit UP79-16. As noted above , minor changes in the existing use are typically processed and permitted through a Use Permit Amendment. It should be noted that there are a number of developed properties in San Rafael that are within a. PO District, which do not have an approved Development Plan. The current uses of these properties either operate by right or are regulated by a Use Permit. Until such a time when redevelopment or s ignificant changes in use is proposed. the shell PO zoning with the approved Use Permit may remain in effect, Appeal Point 113: The proposal constitutes an amendment to the PD District zoning and should require a new zoning application. The appellant notes that Zoning Ordinance Section 14.07.150 states that *r equests for changes in the contents of approval of a PO District zoning and Development Plan shall be treated as a zoning amendment (rezoning) .• Response: Staff agrees that the establishment or a new or an amendment to an existing PO District requires approval of a Development Plan and a zoning amendment (rezoning) action. However, when minor changes in use are proposed to an existing, developed site that is zoned PO District, they are REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-0S7 Page 11 typically processed as a Use Permit or Use Permit Amendment. See response to Appeal Points #1 and #2, which explain why a Use Permit Amendment was required and a rezoning is not necessary. The City's application of the Use Permit process for minor use changes in a PO District is not uncommon. This approach has been taken by the City on a number of other properties located in PO Districts. Two examples area as follows: );> 1600-1650 Los Gamos Road (Marin Commons Office Complex), This office complex is located in a PD1590 District, which is exclusively approved for general and administrative office. In 2008, the City processed and approved a Use Permit (UP08-029) to allow the establishment and operation of a child care center. The center occupies a small portion of the office complex and was determined to be a minor change offering a use that is supportive to the primary office use and therefore considered ancilliary. );> 111 Mcinnis Parkway (Office Building). This office building is located in the PD1488 District, which is approved for office use. In 199B, the City approved a Use Permit (UP9B-14) to allow the establishment and operation of a health club, which was determined to be a compatible use to the primary office use. If the project proposed a major change in the use of the Lourdes Convent facility (e.g., a commercial retirement center) or if the facility was demolished and the site was proposed for redevelopment, a zoning amendment to the PO District and a Development Plan would be required. Appeal Point #4: The proposal is non-compliant with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.115 as the City has zoned GC and LlIO Districts in other area of the City for shelters for families. The proposal does not meet the Petformance Standards of this ordinance section. Response: Staff disagrees with the appeal point. San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.115 is not relevant or applicable to the proposed project. The section of the zoning ordinance is specific to the establishment and operation of emergency shelters not transitional housing. The project proposes transitional housing. The root of this zoning ordinance section (14.1B.115) is Senate Bill 2 (SB2), which amended the State Housing Element law (Government Code Sections 65582, 65583 and 65584). SB2 was approved and signed by the Governor in 2007 establishing local land use mandates regarding emergency housing, transitional housing and supportive housing. The law sets forth the following mandates for each local jurisdiction: a. The local jurisdiction must establish a "zone" or an area of the jurisdiction where an emergency shelter can be approved without a Use Permit, subject to specific performance and operational standards. In response to this mandate, in 2011, the City adopted an "overlay zone" in Southeast San Rafael area to allow emergency shelters "by right" (no Use Permit required), subject to compliance with specific standards. The overlay zone is what is referenced in the appeal letter. The overlay zone is not applicable to transitional housing, which is what is proposed for the "yellow hallway." b. The local jurisdiction must treat and zone for transitional housing and supportive housing as a residential use only, subject to only the same restrictions that would apply to other housing of the same type in the subject zoning district. In response to this mandate, in 2011 the City: 1) adopted specific definitions for transitional housing and supportive housing; and b) amended the definitions for "Residential, Single-Family," "Residential, Duplex" and "Residential, Multifamily" to include households for transitional and supportive housing. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 12 Appeal Point #5: Objective studies conducted pursuant to statutory mandate, show that home/essness among the population of families with children has decreased. Therefore, the stated urgent need is not supported by the empirical evidence. Response: The San Rafael General Plan 2020 Housing Element Background Report acknowledges that in 2011, San Rafael had 2,004 female-headed families with 1,182 such families with children under the age of 18. The Background Report states that in this family category, there is a need for transitional and emergency housing. San Rafael provides at least 45% of the transitional housing in Marin County. Much of this housing already exists in residential neighborhoods. The appellant presents more recent findings of the 2015 Marin Point in Time Homeless Census and Survey noting that the need for sheltering families experiencing homelessness has been reduced. There is nothing in the approval of the Use Permit Amendment by the Zoning Administrator that cites or implies that there is urgency in approving this proposal. The application for the Use Permit Amendment was not promoted or prompted by the City; rather, the City is responding to an application filed by the Dominican Sisters, no different than any other application filed with the City for a Planning permit process. Regardless of the matter of urgency, there is a need for housing in general. Regarding housing need, the General Plan 2020 Housing Element (page 42) explicitly identifies: a) a broad list of those that need housing (which includes very low-income households including those without a place to call home); and b) the kind of housing that is needed. Appeal Point #6: The decision includes recommendations for future use which are inappropriate and go far beyond the application. These recommendations demonstrate that the neighbor's concerns for their community and are well justified. The appel/ant opposes Use Permit Condition #7, which addresses the term limits of the Use Permit Amendment and the options that required at the time the permit amendment terminates/sunsets. Response: The Zoning Administrator's action to approve the Use Permit Amendment is subject to seven conditions. Condition 7 addresses the specific term limits of the Use Permit Amendment (two years) with a requirement to address use of the "yellow hallway" area when the use approval terminates/sunsets. Condition 7 reads as follows: 7. This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance date of Certificate of Occupancy. At the end of the two year period, the Use Permit Amendment wil/ terminate. At that time, the project proponent shall be required to proceed with one of the fol/owing for the "yellow hallway:" a. Request an extension to this Use Permit Amendment to continue the transitional housing use for a term period of in perpetuity; b. Re-purpose the single residential dwelling unit to another residential use such as for a manager's/caretaker unit or for convent use; or c. Remove the kitchen facility and return the area to its current use as residential convent rooms. This condition requires that at the end of the two-year period, the Dominican Sisters proceed with one of three options for the yellow hallway area. The appellant's concerns regarding conditions 7a are legitimate and staff agrees that it warrants a revision to this condition. Regarding condition 7 and the appellant's concerns, staff presents the following response: a. Staff would like to acknowledge that there is a typo in Condition 7a, which heightens this concern. Conditions 7a should read: "Request and extension of the Use Permit Amendment to continue the transitional housing use for a term period ef QLin perpetuity." REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 13 b. The purpose of Condition 7 is to forcefully require the Dominican Sisters to plan for use of the yellow hallway area following the two year period. As the project proposes and requires physical improvements to the yellow hallway, the mere "sunset" of the use after two years does not address what will happen to the physical space and these improvements. If it is the intent of the Dominican Sisters to return the yellow hallway to the current use, then the City will require that the kitchen be removed. If, at that time it is the intent of the Dominican Sisters to request an extension to the current proposal or re-purpose the space in another way, the City will need to know so that the Use Permit for the Lourdes Convent is amended and accurate to the future purpose and use of the space improvements. c. It was not the City staff's intent or goal of this condition to advocate for the options in condition 7, nor deny due process to the public. With the exception of 7c (returning the yellow hallway to its current use), the other two options would require a Use Permit action by the City, which is the same public process that is being followed for the current proposal. Due process would be provided if the Dominican Sisters were to pursue 7a of 7b. d. It is very clear that the Dominican Sisters worked closely with their neighbors through this process. In doing so, there was an agreement and commitment by the Dominican Sisters to a two year sunset period for this use. Staff agrees that this effort should not undermine this agreement by placing a condition on the permit that is viewed as a compromise to this commitment or prejudge future use of the yellow hallway area. Given the above, staff recommends that Condition 7 be revised and simplified by eliminating the three options. The recommended revised condition language is proposed as follows and is presented in the attached resolution (Attachment 2): 7. This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance date of Certificate of Occupancy. At the end of the two year period, the Use Permit Amendment shall terminate. At that time, the kitchen facility shall be removed and the area returned to its current use as residential convent rooms. If at the end of the two year period the property owner decides to retain the kitchen and re-purpose the yellow hallway area, City approvals will be required. Appeal Point #7: If the Zoning Administrators action is upheld, any change in zoning/use should have a condition to run with the land that if the [Dominican] Sisters ever transfer title to the property, whether it be by sale or gift, the transitional housing must terminate. Response: As recommended in response to Appeal Point #6 above, if Use Permit Condition 7 is revised, the proposed use would terminate two years following unit occupancy, Therefore, this suggested recommendation by the appellant would no longer seem necessary, Appeal Point #8: Given that the whole purpose behind the PD special zoning for this address was because of the Convent anc:l/or the properties affiliation with Dominican Col/ege, should the Sisters cease using this as a convent, the PD District should be abolished and the property should revert back to the R1a residential zoning and its use be in character with the surrounding single~family residential neighborhood. Response: The purpose behind the PD District for the Lourdes Convent was not solely because of its affiliation to Dominican College, As discussed above, the PD (Planned Development) District was adopted by the City in 1992 as part of a major citywide update and change in property zoning, Many larger properties in San Rafael were rezoned to PD District. As discussed above, the PD District was REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-057 Page 14 adopted for the Lourdes Convent site for several reasons: a) the convent was part of a handful of collective property holdings owned by both the Dominican Convent and Dominican University (then Dominican College) in the neighborhood and all of these property holdings were rezoned to PO District; and b) the purpose of applying the PO District to the Lourdes Convent and these collective holdings was to encourage comprehensive, master planning. At that time, none of these holdings had been master planned nor had the City approved a specific Development Plan adopted with the PO District. Since 1992, a comprehensive master plan (approved Development Plan) was approved for both the Dominican University holdings (PD-1884 District, initially adopted as PD-1730 District, August 17, 1998) and the main Sisters of St. Dominic resident campus to the south (PD-1827 District, initially adopted as PD-1656, December 6, 1993). Should the Dominican Sisters cease to use the convent the property as a convent, the current PO District would neither be abolished, nor automatically be rezoned to the R1a District. Given the property size (over two acres), a rezoning of the PO District to incorporate an approved Development Plan would likely be recommended. Any change in property zoning requires a public process, which is set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.27 (Amendment). The public process requires public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Any major re-use of the existing convent facilities or redevelopment of the property would require a property rezoning. Property zoning must be consistent with the San Rafael General Plan land use designation. The property land use designation for the subject property is Public/Quasi-Public. While this land use designation permits residential use, its primary purpose is to accommodate public and quasi-public uses and facilities. If the property were to be rezoned to the R1a District as suggested by the appellant, an amendment to the General Plan land use designation would need to occur first, likely to the Large Lot Residential land use designation. By the way, if the property were to be rezoned to the R1a District, the State law would require that transitional housing be allowed by right (no Use Permit) on this property. Summary of and Responses to Appeal AP17-002 (Gary Scholick) Mr. Scholick's appeal letter (Attachment 4) presents two appeal points. The appeal points are summarized as follows along with a staff response: Appeal Point #1: Use Permit Condition of Approval #7a is a denial of due process and fundamental fairness, is arbitrary and capricious and is entirely lacking in evidentiary supporl. The appellant is specifically concerned that: a) the condition is inconsistent with the agreement reached between the Dominican Sisters and the neighbors (two year limit on use); and b) the condition invites or encourages the proposed use "in perpetuity" or as a permanent use without the opportunity of due process to the public. Response: This appeal point is also made in the first appeal filed by Christopher Dolan (AP17-001). See Appeal Point #6, above for a response to this issue. As summarized in the above response, the appellant's concerns regarding condition are legitimate and staff agrees that it warrants a revision to this condition. As discussed above a revision to Condition 7 is recommended by staff. Appeal Point #2: The Acting Zoning Administrator's conclusions concerning traffic and safety are not based on facts but speculation. The appellant argues that projected traffic and safety impacts of the future residents have not been fully analyzed assuming multiple daily trips to-and-from the site. The appellant states that the Public Warns Department conceded that it never actively monitors the intersection of Magnolia Avenue/Locust Avenue. Further, the appel/ant notes that the review of parking relies on a one-week survey of the existing parning which does not factor the parking and access impacts of the future residents of the yellow hallway area. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17 -001, AP17 -002, UP16-0St Page 1"6 Response: Staff disagrees with this appeal point. The issue of traffic and safety was raised during the Zoning Administrator hearing. This concern was considered and responded to in the "Response to Comments and Questions Raised by the Public," which is provided in Attachment 6 of this staff report. Please refer to Comment/Response #4, pages 3-4. As indicated in the response to this issue, the intersection of Magnolia Avenue/Locust Avenue is not actively monitored by the Public Works Department; this response does not state that the City has never actively monitored this intersection. For local, un-signalized intersections such as this one, the Public Works Department uses accident reports to assess intersections and to determine if safety or traffic improvements are warranted. The appellant notes that Comment/Response #4 is based on "ex-parte" communications with the Public Works Department. In responding to the questions about traffic and safety, the Public Works Department was consulted for feedback, which was determined to be adequate. However, to formalize this feedback, the Public Works Department has prepared an email (Attachment 8) and a summary of its review and findings on traffic and safety. The summary is as follows: a. The Public Works Department reports that this inters~ction is safe and is substantiated by the excellent safety record of this intersection with zero collisions in the past five years, according to San Rafael Police Department reports and collision database. ' b. This project does not propose a major expansion to or major reuse of the convent facility that would warrant the preparation of a detailed traffic study. The conversion of the convent area (10 rooms) to a single residential unit is not expected to change the amount of traffic. The Dominican University of California, the greatest trip generator in the area, generates a significantly larger amount of daily trips in comparison, thus making the amount of trips generated from this proposal negligible to the overall impact. This conclusion is substantiated by the standard trip generation formulas for the different land use types. In this case, equations for Apartment and University land use types were referenced. Logic needs to be considered in this proposal. Two adult women with small children will not exacerbate the existing traffic condition. The appellant also references the assessment of parking, noting that a one [mere] week survey of parking conducted before new tenants are residing at the site is not factual, is lacking in evidence and is speculative. Staff disagrees with this finding and presents the following: a. The issue of adequate parking was raised during the Zoning Administrator hearing so it was specifically addressed in the "Response to Comments and Concerns Raised by the Public," January 23, 2017, which is provided as Attachment 6 of this staff report. Please refer to #3, pages 2-3. The response provided in #3 was considered and included in the Zoning Administrator's action. b. Parking requirements for uses are set forth in the City Municipal Code (SRMC Chapter 14.19, Off-Street Parking). The convent provides one parking space per approximately 900 square feet of building area (16,450 sq. ft. of building area/18 off-street parking spaces = 913 square feet). The subject "yellow hallway" that is proposed for conversion is 1,995 square feet, so 2.18 off- street parking spaces ar~ currently provided for this area. For changes in use or expanded property il11provements, off-street parking is reviewed for compliance with the Code. The conversion of the "yellow hallway" to a single residential unit would require 2.2 off-street parking spaces (based on the proposed unit type/number of bedrooms + 0.20 guest spaces). Therefore, adequate parking would be provided to meet the provisions of the City Code. c. Typically, City staff would conclude that since the parking requirement has been met to support approval of the permit, no further action or study would be warranted. However, given the REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-0S7 Page 16 concern over the adequacy of parking, it was determined that it would be appropriate to conduct a survey to assess supply and demand . As the off-street parking meets the City code , there is no purpose or w arrant to conduct a detailed parking study. Rather , the survey was conducted to provide facts on parking supply and demand to reinforce an action on the Use Permit Amendment. Again , the proposal is to convert 10 existing rooms to 1 single family , with two small families , and the traffic change is negligible. d . Park ing su rv eys that are conducted as part of a project or permit rev iew process; such surveys are not conducted "after the fact~ unless the post-approval ~monitoring · of parking activity is recommended or warranted. e . For its purpose , the duration and scope of the parking survey is adequate, provides evidence of existing parking supply and demand and is not speculative . The City conducts parking surveys on a regular basis. Most parking supply and demand surveys cover a varied duration of time. The most recent example of a parking survey conducted for a private project was for the Marin Shakespeare, a 165~seat theater proposed for 514 4th Street (former Heller's Baby Clothes). Three days of parking counts were conducted by a licensed traffic engineer to determine parking adequacy . This project proposes a large theater with very limited off-street parking. The seven day parking count conducted at the Lourdes Convent is more than adequate to determine supply and demand . Conclusion With the except ion of the appeal points regarding Use Permit Amendment Condition 7, staff finds that there is no merit to the other appeal points presented by the appellants. It is recommended that both appeals be denied and that the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit Amendment UP16-057 be upheld subject to a revision to Cond ition 7 . ENVIRONMEN TAL DETERMINATION The project proposes a repurposing of existing , developed space within the Lourdes Convent facility. This activity is deemed to be categorically exempt from environmental review per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING I CORRESPONDENCE Notice of the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission hearings were completed in accordance with the noticing requirements contained in Chapter 14.29 (Zoning~ Public Notice) of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The notice of the public hearings was mailed to 23 property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site and to the pertinent neighborhood association (Dominicanlblack Canyon Neighborhood Association ). For the Planning Commission hearing , the noticing list was expanded to include those that attended the Zoning Administrator hearing and provided the ir mail ing address. The publ ic hear ing not ice fo r the Planning Com mi ssion meet ing and the ma ili ng list are.aHached (Attachment 10). The City has received many letters and emails with comments of support and opposition to thjs proposal and the appeals . Copies of correspondence received to date are prov ided in Attachment 11 of this staff report (under separate cover). i ; , , ; , , REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos: AP17-001, AP17-002, UP16-0S7 Page 17 OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Use Permit Amendment; 2. Deny the" appeals and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Use Permit Amendment with modifications , changes or add itional conditions of approval ; 3. Uphold the appeals and deny the Use Permit Amendment; or 4. Continue the matter to address comments or additional information requested by the Planning Commission . EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity/Location Map and Reduced-size Plan Set of Lourdes Convent 2. Draft Resolution 3. Letter of Appeal from Christopher Dolan; February 3 , 2017 4 . Letter of Appeal from Gary Scholick; February 6 , 2017 5. Letter from Gary Ragghianti representing the Dom inican Sisters, March 6 , 2017 6 . Response to Comments and Concems Raised by the Public; January 23, 2017 7. T enanUResident Screening Criteria 8. Email from Public Works Department to Community Development Department regarding traffic and safety; March 2, 2017 9. Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes; January 4 ,201 7 10 . Planning Commission public notice and mailing list 11. Public Correspondence (under separate cover) Full-size Site Plan and Floor Plan distributed to the Planning Commission only ATTACHMENT 1 LOURDES CONVENT -77 LOCUST AVENUE VICINITY fLOCATION MAP AND PROJECT PLANS n Locust Ave -Vicinity Map UP1IHJ57 J / ,_I ~ ,. ~ ) / ~ \'f' ~ ,. 0 "~ J • .' ~'~,. ,- " • 't •• i i I I I' I I I , , 1 ,I • I • . . .. ... c II B , l , • I S Ii ,-I ail ~ \ @ I. . ATTACHMENT 2 RESO ON NO RESOLUTION OF THE RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPEALS AP17-001 AND AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING MINIS OR'S A VAL 0 SE PE MEN T (UP1 TO RMIT T NVER OF TH 5-SQU OOT " OW HA AY" ARE HE LO S CO SINGLE UNIT FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING A TERM OF TWO 77 LOCUST AVENUE (A -111-2 WHEREAS, Sisters of Dommie Congregation the Most Name Charitable Trust (Dominican own and occupy the "Lourdes Convent" located 77 Locust A vcnue. The -acre IS with 6,450-squarc t facili houses ement with c ate car for reti ns; The ent cen ancill soper der a U mit (UP ) that ued by the CIty in 1979. The Lourdes property rezoned the U (Unclassified) to PD Development) District 1992; WHE , in lat 6, the ican Si ded an cation nd the s Con se Pe P16-0 e conv 1,995-foot p of the retirement center hallway" rooms single, residential unit kitchen transitional housing. In Homeward the unit b de avail bl two sin I men a childr shared nce. T ed unit be for' ional h ' for th ents. T Permi ndment t is for ars foIl nit occ ; and WHEREAS, following review the proposal, the Use Permit Amendment tion w duled iewan n by th 'ng Ad ator. uary 4, he Zon dminist eld a pu~lic g on t Perm ndment tion. ning A trator was a by ap ately 5 pIe that included applicant neighboring residents. Approximately 20 people provided testimony expressing support opposition proposal. Following public p and ning A . trator: sed th ic hear indic at all nts wo d that a review on on t ressed Permit nsider n actio e appli dment app ca wou e by January TIS and and c) 2017; WHE , follow e Janua 017 he he Zon ministr mpiled ganized uestion comm esented e heari d in c ndence su mltted to t e CIty. detatled response to questlOn comment prepared vVll.:>l\J''-'l\;iU m findings for on the Use Permit conditi hearing 3/8/20 REAS approv REAS leW an nuary 2 Perm 7, the ndment Admi -057. r issue proval and supported by response to comments questlOns to conditions of approvals included in the Notice of Action; arch 14 del' Ap , the P P17-0 2- Com AP17- held a the Zo tice of was ba noticed dminis by the t al of nyand rmit A itten rep ATTACHMENT 2 ent U 7, and dered a and the CommunIty Deve opment Depal ment; WHEREAS, project has aecnne:a to be from environmental review per public rnia Env ental Q ct (CE uidelin ion 15 isting es); WHEREAS, custodian documents which the of proceedings upon decision based, Community Development Department. The records dings in he "No Zoning nistrato n" wit ments anuary 7. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLV)l:D, that Planning Commission denies API 1 and AP and the Zoning Administrator's January pprova se Pe endme 16-057 Plann mmiss ds and nes th h the on the I poin ated t Permit ndment Condition the points appeals cannot be for following reasons: Point The use would necessitate a rezoning. DrtlDO,sea Uft'e will constitute a rp'~1I1,>JfI1al multi-jamily use. anning ission iewed, dered a point p d in th ort to t ning C Planning Commission that the proposed use maintains basic residential use yellow pment p of the g retire rmit A ent is ased ( at the I woul in a si would by single women multiple-family residential use. The ple-fam idence e or m ite: , nter; a r appro esidenti ees wit sion da not ll"'~"""H"U" a taff re area; IS mmor of an to this The consid temp or e as the Further lanning mission lling un a sing en that The arrangement not constitute Code Title Zoning) "'''',Hn.", hed res I dwell ts on a The current PD District zoning does not permit on'IJu,:)'eu use. anning ission viewed, dered a ees wit taff re to this presented in Report the Planning CommIssion dated March 4, 2017, la.UUlUl~ Commission finds the use not violate be prohibited by the PD adopted Lourdes Convent. The Commission acknowledges that the curr Distri s not h approv elopm n, whic forth la regulat d devel t stand this di Howev Planni missio per San MUlllclpal Code Section 14.07.035C, the improvements and minor not an amendment to the PD District. The approval Development Plan and amendment to current PD District would tri ered or if pro e is redevelo d or if th re a m -purpo reuse existin ement facility continu ration existing govern Use P P79-I or cha existing use typically processed and permitted a Use Amendment. 3/8/20 2- ATTACHMENT 2 "",,"","" constitutes an amendment to the District :f.Ul'ttTl:!! and should require a applic The a t notes oning ance S 14.07.1 tes tha sts for es in t tents 0 ovalo/ Distl'ic ng and opmen Plan be treated as a zonmg amendment 'TeZUl'tln:It}. The Commission has and agrees with the response to point ed in t ort to t ning C sian d arch 1 The ng Com n finds e proje not req amen 0 the P 'ict and that thc proccssmg issuance of Use Permit Amendment is appropriate process request. noted in response Appeal Points I and 2 the projcct proposes change to existing residential use the yellow area. Pcr San Rafael Munici 14.07 the im ents an re min do not an arne t to the strict. lanning ISSIon that thi oach ha taken nor use changes located the PD including 600-1650 Gamos (Marin McInnis Parkway complex). Planning Commission that if a majo of the L d s Conv f ility (e. ommer . iremen were e facil s dem and t e was sed fo lopmen ning a ent to D Dist daD ment P ould be required. I Point oposal -com pi th Zon dinanc d LIIO ts in 0 ea of th for she meet the Pelformance Standards ordinance section. ission ed in t n finds viewed ort to t an Raf 'dered a nning C nicipal on 14.1 or/ami ees wi sian d ection as the s zoned he pro oes no staff re to thi arch 1 The .115 is vant 0 anning point ngCom applicable the establishment and anal h project. section the ordinance specific project proposes of emergency shelters transitional h~)Using. The ng Co on can hat sin code IS no t or a IOn to ropose sitional ng use s an ards oft IS co e "'"",UV'H are not apphca e. ive stu nducte 'es witl ant to fen ha tion of supported the tJ,,,,,,,,,, eVIdence. ryman ased. howth ore, th require elessn d urge rmanc ong the d is no Planning Commission reviewed, considered agrees with staff response to this appeal present he Rep he PIa ommis ated M 4, 2017 e Planni missio there i ng in th oval of e Perm ndmen Admlllistrator that ImplIes there is urgency in this proposal. The Commission acknowledges that application the Use Amendment was not or b the rather, City is respondin to an ap lication b the Domin isters, fferent any ot plicant Plan ermit Regard the m urgen re is a r hous general Rafael 2020 ,LLU'Y"JLUI", Element 42) identifies: a) a list of those that need 3/8/20 2 ATTACHMENT 2 housing (which includes very low-income households including those without a place to call home); and b) the kind of housing that is needed. Appeal Point #6: The decision inc/Iltle,f recommendations for fllture Wle which are inappropriate and go far beyond the appli<:a tioll. These recommendations demons/rate that the neighbor's concerns for their community and are wel/justijied. The appellalll oppo!;e:" Use Permil Condition #7, which addresses the term limits of the Use Permit Amendment and the 0P/;OWi 'hal required at the lime {he permit amendment terminates/sunsets. The Plannin g Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14,2017. The Planning Commission finds that the appellant's point is legitima.te and that a revision to Condition #7 is warranted. The Planning Commission acknowledges that the Dominican Sisters have worked closely with their neighbors through tile Use Permit Amendment process. In doing so, there is an agreement and commitment by the Dominican Sisters to a two year sunset period for this use. The PlatUling Comm ission finds that the terms and conditions of the Use Permit Amendment should oot undennine this commibneot o r prejudge future use of the yel lo w hallway area. Condition #7 has been revised and is presented below. Appeal Point #7: if the Zoning Admillistrator's action is upheld, any change in ZOlling/llse !.Itould have a condition to rtlll with the land that if the {Domillktm] Sisters ever tranuer title to the property, whether it is by ~'Ole or gift, the transitional hOIl~'illg must termillate. The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14,2017. As the Planning Commission's action includes a revision to Use Pennit Amendment Condition #7. the proposed use would tenninate two years following unit occupancy. Therefore, thi s s uggested recommendation by the appellant is no longer necessary. Appeal Point #8: Given that the whole pllrpo~'e behind the PD spec/al zOllingfor this addre.f,f was because oftlte Convent andlor tlt e properties affiliation with Dominican Col/ege, should the Sisters cease using thil· as a cOtlvent, the PD D;,fitrict l'hou/d be abolished and the property should revert back to the RIa residential zoning atld its use be ill. character with the surroullding single- family residential Ileighborlwod. The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14,2017. The Planning Commission finds that should the Dominican Sisters c'ease to use the convent the property as a convent the current PD District would not be abolished or automatically be rezoned to the RIa District as suggested by the appellant. Given the property size (over two acres), a rezoning of the PO District to incorporate an approved Development Plan would likely be recommended. Any change in property zoning requires a public process, which is set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code C hapter 14.27 (Amendment), The public process requires public hearings with the Planning Comm issio n and City Cow)cil. Any major re-use of the existing convent facilities or redevelopment of the property would require a property rezoning. The Planning Commission finds that property zoning must be consistent with the San Rafael General Plan land use designation. The property land use designation for the subject property is 3/8/2017 2·4 ATTACHMENT 2 Public/Quasi-Public. While this land use d es ignat ion permits residential use, its primary purpose is to accommodate public and quasi-public uses and facilities. Findings for Denial of Appeal AP17-002 Appeal Point #1: Use Permit Condition of Approval #7a is u denial of due process andfant/amelltai fairness, is arbitrary alld capricious (lilt! is entirely lacking ill evidentiary suppo,t. The appel/alit is specifically concerned tltal: oj the cOfUlit;tm i~ ;m:olls;stelll with the agreement nached between the Dominica" Sisters and the neig/,bors (two year limit un lise); alld b) the condition invites or encourages the proposed lLft! «ill perpetuity" or as a permanent use without the opportunity of dlle process to the public. The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14,2017. The Planning Commission confinns that this appeal point is also made in the first appeal filed by Christopher Dolan (API7-001). See Appeal Point #6, above for a response to this issue. As s ummarized in th e above response. the appellant's concerns regardin g condition are legitimate and the Planning Commission finds that it warrants a revision to thi s condition. As discussed above a revision to Con dition 7 is approved with action on this resolution. Appeal Point #2: The Acting Zonillg Administrator's conc/us/otls cOllcel'lling traffic and safety are not hased 011 facts but speculatlolt, n,e appellant argues that projected traffic and safety impacts of the future residents have not been jully analyzed aWlfning multiple daily trips lo-alld-from the site. The appellant states that the Public Works Department conceded that it never actively monitors the intersection of Magnolia Avenue/Locust Avenue. Further, the appel/ant no{e~' th at the review of parking relies on a one-week survey of the existing parking which does notjaclO" the parking and access impacts of the future re.s·idenl.\' of the yellow hallway area. The Planning Comm ission has reviewed , considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point pre sented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14,2017. The Planning Commission disagrees with this appeal point and finds that there is adequate infonnation in the Use Permit Amendment documents and record to address and confirm that the project will not exacerbate existing traffic conditions, road safety and parki'ng demand. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that th e Planning Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit Amendment UP I 6-057 based Oil th e following finding s and subject to the following conditions: Findings for UP 16-057 1. As proposed and conditioned, the use is in accord with the General Plan 2020, the objectives oftlIe City Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the PO (Planned Development) District in that: a. The General Plan 2020 Land Use Element land use map designates Lourdes Convent for public/quas i-public use. This land use designation permits residential use. The current use,the Lourdes Convent is a res idential use. The proposed transitional hou s ing is also a residential use and is therefore consistent with the allowances o f this land use designation. 3/8/2017 2-5 2. c. ATTACHMENT 2 The p d use is tent wi eral PI 0 Hous ment P H-9, which recognizes speCIa needs. 0 ICY H-9 encourages a 0 umt types San Rafael, housing very low-low-income families and parents. proposed, residential would provide transit ousing 0 singl ers wit childre g as a s house General Housing Element H-IO, proposed use construction The p d use w which be con Sharing). approach supports financing, design and of low-income that the reate a withG house Plan 2 two si ousing rents w nt Polie Idren, e. The proposed consistent with one objectives of the PD f. As ment) District which to accoHnllodate various types of cOlllpatibl campi ry uses n a dev nt. Lo onven nts a se d f comp esident s. approval Use Permit Amendment use is appropriate in allow re-purposing existing uU,C<U"U/,> area a two year period. Given limited e and ti f me of th' . ect, it not resu substa ange to the rty or u would itate or te aco ensive, erm maste for Lou onvent and conditioned, will not detrimental to the public health, safety If are, 0 dally i . s to pro or imp ents in . inity, e eral w of the C that: Thep will not in new pment, anal b area or the Convent it proposes the conversion of rooms, "yellow to a dwelling for a shared house Further ellow y" repr a small tage a erall conve ity (12 he Lou onvent The p J would r p pose an 1,995 square foot area 0 the conven 0 residential unit which not result in an increase traffic would change exacerbate traffIc patterns or or safety hazards local ystem. As de ated by -week surve cted at oject si supply the demand, there is adequate parking use without impacting vicinity. d. not impair reduce of the convent facility e. f. ng resi that th e resid set ba the p reet oor yar would ed and ation. r, to a hne sIght for vehIcle recommended that heavy located pad be back. xterior vement sed fo oject a d yard hich is tly fen well s heavy vegetation. These improvements will not result in a ed to t dfrom tion of blic str '''',",''V.l''' change the property conditions would not be injurious properties improvements in the area oposed nts are wardB ly scre will pro ndmee esidenc iteria f sight to dency. e that versigh 3/8/20 2- ATTACHMENT 2 ensur he prop se is pr manag nsure t ty and e of resIdents surrounding neIghborhood. 3. As and conditioned, complies each applicable provisions City Z Ordina that: As re by the ons of Distric ropose itional g use is a resIdentIal that IS retirement center use. , the approval Use Permit Amendment is consistent the requirements of the PD to ensure that all uses one site com com There uate p 0 meet ty Code her, it h n demo d by the on parkin ey cond at the s roperty he exis rking is City A study parking that the existing parking e propo ichco e meet with 8t ity Zon . PerC dinanc iaGov tion fo nt Code tional n 6558 g, housing must be as a 'U...,UlU:U use only, subject to the same as housing of same type subject district. The sole Ulreme ated w identia he app f a Use 't Ame is that es Con PD Dis A Use Amend would b ired fo similar ropose he "yel llway" saman or car cept as ed by t ditions Use Pe endmen ,a conditions 0 approval for Use UP79-1 relating to and of the Convent are unchanged and remain in effect. is Use Amend pprove onversi e 1,99 e-foot' a area 0 the convent to e resIdential dwelhng (mc1udtng kitchen) transitional housing. proposed, residential dwelling is approved shared eHow Bound onsible As presented mUse Permit participants Homeward Bound meet the screening ",.,to"",,, enter an occupancy agreement mply w Code 0 uct for cy. 4. Pnor to any and construction, building is required shall be secured for completion construction and inspection process, a of be issued by Ci 5. Al Locus ue front . acent t ain dri is an in , grave surfaced pad, located the public right-of-way. order provide a of sight safe vehicle back-up, located of this pad be tri d back to h . sfactio e Publi s Depa The v . on trim . sha omplete to the ncy. 3/8120 2 ATTACHMENT 2 e applic ora hu ermit uire re d appr the Fi alteratIOns shall comply with the UH.'U"""" and amendments. upgrade may required ermine of Certificate ofOccupaney. At the eBd of the two year period, the Use Pennit AmeBdmeBt will tenniflate At that time the project nmnOBent slJRll hp. requiter! tn n~F)eeed v/ith nl'l~ of the !ewing-~ ~ ~ use fur a tORn period of iB perpetuity; b. Re purpose the single residential dwelliBg-unit to another residentialu:;e :mch as for a lnanayor'''/°''tretaker " ... ;t .. ": for 00 ... "0 ... + 'tse;-et' Reme ffieheft r-aBd-fE e-al'etH H'l'eflt;j ~ fOnt feem&- 7. This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance date will he required. regoing tion w he regu ty of S ael PIa g Commi meeting held on 4th day March 2017. hyCo oner onded missio NOES: NT: ATTEST: A. Jensen, Secretary Gerald Belletto, W:/ .. .177 3/8/20 2 ATTACHMENT 3 APPEAL AP17-001 FILED BY CHRISTOPHER DOLAN CHRISTOPHER B DOLAN ESQ 1 LOClJST AVE SAN RAFAEL, CA, 94102 Chris@dolanlawfirm,com 415-421-2800 February 3, 2017 City of San Rafael Planning Commission 1400 Fifth Ave, San Rafael, Ca 94901 RE: Appeal of 1128/16 Zoning Administer Action UP16-057 77 Locust Ave, (Lourdes Convent) APN 015-112-23 Dear Esteemed Members of the Planning Commission, INTRODUCTION I am the ovmer of 1 Locust A venue, a contiguous neighbor to 77 Locust Ave, Lourdes Convent, owned by The Sisters of the Third Order afSaint Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charities Trust ("the Sisters"). The Sisters have applied for an Amendment to the Use Pennit for Lourdes, to convert 1,995 sq. ft. of the Convent from congregate housing into a separate, divided, residential unit for two families each consisting of a mother and a child below the age of8. The division of the Convent will result in anew living unit, which will contain: a separate entrance, 10 rooms, two full bathrooms, a kitchen, laundry room, and a designated fenced in yard. To undertake the project, the Sisters will engage in a significant expense associated with creating the new entrance and kitchen, some interior remodeling, as well as locked doorways to isolate the unit from the rest of the convent. Much has been made of this project based on the proposed intended use: transitional housing, for up to two years, for two women, each with one child. The intentions of the Sisters, while laudable, 1 are not what should be driving this decision: indeed, it seems that the Decision of the Zoning Administrator was reverse engineered so as to 'validate a conclusion based on social policy rather than sound planning and existing zoning policy. 1 The Sisters, responding to a call from the Pope to provide shelter to refugees and see this project as a way to fulfil that calling as their ministry. It is not this intention which is challenged but, instead, the proposed execution. In short, it's the execution of a righteous intention in the wrong place and manner which has spawned this conflict. \ Below I will, as required, elucidate my points for appeal. I am not versed in planning and zoning law so excuse me ifI am not familiar with the nuances of the tenninology. To be as specific as possible I will provide citation to the applicable sections of the California Government Code, The City of San Rafael's Municipal Code / Zoning Ordinance, the City's Master Plan for 2020, and the 2011, 2013 and 2015 Marin Point-In-Time Homeless Census and Surveys. While the subject of homeless ness is interjected by the nature of the proposed use, this august body must not give that factor any additional consideration or weight in coming to a decision concerning the Sisters' application. California Government Code Section 65583 (7) unambiguously states that "Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone." The Sisters' application must be considered as if it were any other residential dwelling. The Sisters received special treatment in the zoning of this property when it was part of, and because of their affiliation with, the Dominican College. (Now the Dominican University.) This application and appeal must be treated as if it were being made by a secular entity. The piety of the applicants should play no role in the consideration of this application as to do so would discriminate on the basis of religion and might expose the City to being leveraged, and/or to civil liability, if and when a non- sectarian applicant makes a similar request. mSTORY OF CURRENT ZONING AND CONDITIONS OF USE History of 77 Locust Ave., Lourdes Convent The history of Lourdes Convent and Retirement Center (Lourdes) at 77 Locust Ave is summarized below. Lourdes is a 2.1 acre parcel, located where Locust Ave turns from an east-west heading to a north-south heading at the intersection with Magnolia. The parcel, were it not originally affiliated with the Dominican University and the Dominican Sisters, would be restricted to residential use and to no more than two residential dwellings. It is in that context that the Commission should begin its analysis. 1be Sisters' application requests an atypical use for this area. The City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 characterizes the Dominican-Black Canyon neighborhood as follows: The Dominican-Black Canyon neighborhood is primarily developed with single-family homes, a Iimnber of which are historic and unique in character ... Aside from the Convent on the South side of Locust (on Grand between Locust and Acacia) all other parcels on Locust are zoned for residential use. Starting in 1951, 77 Locust had been designated as R-l B-2 (residential). In the late 1950's, early 60's, part of the existing structure was moved to the current site by the Dominican College which was, then, operated by Dominican Sisters before it was transferred to a separate entity, now Dominican University. The . \ ,. ( structure had operated as an infirmary, student health center, and retirement facility for the Sisters. In 1979 a rezoning was sought by the Dominican Sisters to change the zoning from Rl B-2 (residential) to V, and later to the current, modem, designation ofPD Planned Development. There is no evidence or information available as to whether there was any hearing or process involved in this designation. Vnlike the parcel containing the Sisters of Saint Dominic Residence Campus, located on the site of the former "Mother House" specialty zones as PD-, 1827, there is no master/general plan designation number associated with the site. It appears that the permit was granted without any notice or hearing and 77 Locust Ave has operated under a Vse Permit, UP79-18, since 1979. In 1979 The San Rafael Planning Department (Staff), as Part of the rezoning request, considered whether it would be appropriate to change the zoning to R-3 (multi-family use), but did "not consider an R~3 type zone appropriate for the neighborhood." The Staff recommended rezoning to a V District, which was, at that time, the zoning classification for the rest of the Convent and the Dominican College property. Because Lourdes was re-classified as a V-District upon which "controls and limitations could be placed on its use through a conditional use permit" the Staff indicated that such a use permit would assure that the association with Dominican College could be continued. (Appellant requests that the Commission take notice of the files maintained by planning commission on the subject property. See March 27, 1979 City Staff Report, item 279-5. Emphasis added. These documents will be provided by request to the email above.) This condition is key, the only reason that Lourdes was originally zoned PD was because of its affiliation with Dominican College. The use permit was granted because of, and to assure, the continued affiliation with the College. The March 27, 1997 Staff Report found that "the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan designation/or residential use and will not result in development which will adversely affect adjacent or vicinity properties." (Id., emphasis added.) At the same time-The Sisters sought to build an addition to Lourdes. The Staff recommended Conditional Approval. City Staff Review stated: ''An important consideration in Staff and Commission determination that the existing use is appropriate in the neighborhood is its relationship to Dominican College. Staff would question the compatibility of a private commercial retirement center in this location. For that reason, it is important that the use permit be limited to the ownership/operation of Dominlcan College affiliated Corporations." The Conditional Approval read: "Findings: "Continuation of the Lourdes Retirement Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as its facility re~ains affiliated with Dominican College and is not a private commercial facility." "Conditions of Approval: (a) This use permit is limited to the Lourdes Retirement Center so long as ownership _ and/or operation remain an affiliate of Dominican College. (b) No future expansion of the use other than that currently under consideration shall take place without the modification of the current us~ permit." (Ibid. emphasis added.) It is these conditions which the Sisters now seek to alter, in order to permit their intended use for transitional housing. That use certainly is not related to the continued affiliation with Dominican College as that relationship between the ~isters, and this property, has ceased. In 1990 the historic Mother House burned in a tragic fire. The Sisters relocated while a new convent was designed and built. When the housing they had purchased as temporary housing to be used during reconstruction was no longer neede~, it-is reported that they sought to donate it to Homeward Bound but the endeavor resulted in significant neighborhood opposition so the Sisters sold the property and donated the proceeds to Homeward Bound instead. The Sisters have a strong affiliation with Homeward Bound not only because of their mission to help the greater community but, also, because of the fact that the Executive Director, Mary K Sweeney, PhD, is a former nun with the Sisters of Mercy. There is much concern from the neighbors, including this Appellant, that a similar strategy may be developing here and that this requestJor an Amended Use Permit is but a step towards homeless housing being established here in perpetuitY .. (See section below re objection to Acting Zoning Administrator's JanuarY 28, Notice of . Administrators Action which recommends a future potential change of use to permit this use, "in perpetuity. ") In 1992 the Sisters made an application for a building permit to expand Lourdes, The Sisters sought to add seven bedrooms, eacl;1 with a private en-suite bathroom, and expand the dining room and chapel. As part of the expansion the Sisters sought to add 5 additional parking spaces (in addition to the 10 existing spaces). (See February 12, 1992 letter from architect Peter Walz to City Planner Shelia Delimont re TWM #91-121.) At that time the Sisters indicated that the chapel was used by residents only and that it was being enlarged to accommodate the extra space required by Sisters in wheelchairs and walkers. The facility was identified as a "strictly private facility" that should not be subject to parking or other requirements that might apply to a public facility. (Id., emphasis added) Zoning Administrator Jensen has indicated that the facility has been designated for public/quasi-public use. This may hav:e originally been the case when Lourdes was part of the Dominican College; but, as is clearly stated in the 19921etter, it has been strictly private since no later than that date. Additionally, as portrayed below in the legal analysis section, the map within the 2020 General Plan may, by green dots, reflect that this is quasi-public use, that seems to be a left over from the unity of the Sisters ,with Dominican College as it conflicts with the Municipal Code's Zoning Ordinance. . Indeed, during the 1992 pennitting process, The City indicated that it did not have a current description of the facility at Lourdes. The Sisters indicated that the facility was neither senior housing nor a residential care facility: it was described as "a convent." (Id.) At that time tne Sisters indicated that Lourdes was no longer affiliated in any way with Dominican College then describing the current use as follows: "Lourdes Convent is a residence for the Dominican Sisters or San Rafael.'.' At that time there were 30 units (donnitory type rooms), two of which were occupied by Sisters who were administrators of Lourdes. They stated that they had "25 Sisters residing at Lourdes most of whom were retired and unable to live in their other residences because they were unable to climb stain and need some level of assistance in their daily routines." (The Mother House's current design has the majority of living quarters located on ground level.) It was indicated that occasionally "other Sisters resided at Lourdes if they were recovering from surgery or illness." The Sisters stated that "Lourdes Convent is not a public facility but is a traditional convent to which sisters are assigned by the administration of the congregation." Additional assurance was given that there were no on-sight health care providers living in the facility; it was for the Sister's only. Clearly when the affiliation with the Dominican College ended, the quasi-public nature of the property ended as well. Indeed, as referenced above, by the Sisters' own admission and designation to the City, Lourdes ceased to have any public/quasi-public function yet, for some reason, that was not changed on the General Plan Land Use Map (where Mr. Jenson appears to have gotten his information on public/quasi-public use as nowhere else in the over 500 page document is this addressed). Based on the original Use Pennit, which was never amended once Lourdes was no longer affiliated with Dominican College, Lourdes should have lost its general PD status'and, most appropriately, should have been incorporated into the PD-1827 District formed by the Sisters when they re-zoned the site of the Mother House, which had also separated from Dominican College. Had the Planning Department and Zoning Commission done this, the authorized uses of the land would now be governed by that Planned Development but, instead, the land's conditional use remained contingent on its ongoing affiliation with Dominican College. Since this affiliation had by then enped, the Use Pennit, as a matter of the terms of the Conditional Use Permit, and pursuant to a breach of the condition, should have expired. In 1993 and 2010 Lourdes underwent remodeling and expansion, each time maintaining that the same, exclusive, use would continue to be a convent. REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF USE According to the Sister's Website, http://sanrafaelop.orglwho·we-are/congregational-history/,at its height in 1965, the congregation munbered 376. Presently there are 77 sisters remaining: primarily in California and Nevada. In short, as stated in their Application, their census is down, and· they have extra space in Lourdes Convent across the street from their main convent. The facts show that the vacancy will continue to expand, not contract, as women are not entering religious life. The location of Lourdes is depicted below: 77 Locust Ave -Lourdes Convent Although the Sisters indicate that there would be "very minor modifications" to a "very small portion" of the Convent, the project seeks to create anew entry way, a 1,995 sq. foot living unit consisting of 13 rooms including a kitchen, sitting room, six bedrooms, and a fenced-in yard with an outdoor playground. locust Ave (facing Dominican) locust to Gold Hill Grade The average sized home in San Rafael is 2,133 sq, feet. httl.:llwww.marinmodem.comlSan- Rafael-Real-Estate.php . Therefore, although relative to the overall space available in Lourdes, this proposal is only 12% of the total facility, this space is not "very small" relative to residential dwelling sizes in Marin. THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NECESSITATE ARE-ZONING The proposed use will constitute a residential multi-family use Throughout the process, which has unforhmatcly been divisive, it has been clear that neighbors have well founded concerns about this change and its effect on the character of the neighborhood which is predominantly zoned R-la, R20 and R-5 (single family homes). Indeed if Lourdes was . . ( to be converted into single family residences, the PD zoning would cease and only two homes . would be able to be built on the site as it would be zoned R-la. Many in opposition, including the Appellant, question "how this could be accomplished without a zoning change?" I and others are concerned that change in use will ultimately lead to the Sisters or future lessors/owners "backing into" a rezoning of the parcel at some future point so as to conform to the changed use which, if this erroneous Administrative Action is not reversed through this appeal, it is quite probable that this fear will materialize. Indeed if the Administrative Action is upheld and the use of the property is changed; it should have to be re- zoned as it will meet the defmition of "Residential, Multifamily Housing" under Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, (hereinafter the Zoning Ordinance "ZO") Section 14.03.030, which reads as follows; DEFINITIONS: ''Residential, multifamily" means medium and high density residential development, including a "transitional housing development" or "supportive housing" as defined under State Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 (and subsequent amendments), containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units in one (1) or more structures located on a single parcel or common lot. The relevant part of California Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 reads as follows; .(h) "Transitional housing" and "transitional housing development" means buildings configured as rental housing developments, ·but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. the Sisters and Homeward Bound have characterized this proposed use as "transitional housing," which will be rented for up to 2 years. This new space should be characterized as two units as there are two family units which will be occupying the spac.e sharing a kitchen. Additionally, there are numerous Sisters living on the property, along with caregivers, full time. These individual units have their own en-suite bathrooms which are similar to SRq units. Thus, by application of ZO Section 14.03.030 and Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2, this will be facto residential multi-family housing .. As in any zoning determination, one looks at the use to see if it is conforming to the zoning applicable to the land and not try to conform the title assigned to use so as to arrive at a desired objective. Neighbors are justly concerned that if this project proceeds pursuant to the Zoning Administrator's Decision, the Sisters, or their successors in interest, will seek to have the property "spot zoned" for a non-conforming use, in perpetuity. Therefore the Decision should be reversed and this Appeal granted. The Current PD Zoning does not Permit the Proposed Use When the property was zoned PD it was because of its affiliation with the Dominican College, an educational institution. Lourdes has a PD zoning designation without an approved Master Plan. The Zoning Ordinance shows that the current use would violate a PD designation. As such, the zoning should revert back to what it was, RIa (21ots of2.05 acres each). An examination of Title 14, Section 14.04.020, Land Use Regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD) demonstrates that a 77 Locust is now, and has been since it was disassociated from Dominican College, a religious institution: a Catholic Convent.2 Section 14.04.020 contains an illuminating table, Table 14.04.020, which clearly states that Religious Institutions would be prohibited in both R (residential) and PD zoning districts. 14.04.020-Land use regulations CR, DR, MR, HR PD) , P: Permitted by right; C Conditional use permi t; A: Administrative use permit; Blank: Notallowed. Table 19,04.020 ! ! Type of land Use R DR ! MR HR PD Additional i I I I ! Use , I Regulations I . --- .- ---[-. . -t .. . __ ._--\ Public and Quasl-• I Public Uses i .. ----.. "". ----------. • , --.-.'~. . _. ----,-.~. .. _ .... , 1-. --.-.....•.... ! Religious C* ( ( ( (' "'Prohibited in institutions R2a. R1a and PD-hillslde I districts, and I R20 hillside , 1 I residential .. -1--- lots . I --1 -'--,--_ .. _ .......... ..... , 2 As stated supra, the U (later PD) designation was chosen so that "controls and limitations could be placed on its use through a conditional use permit" the Staff indicated that such a use permit would assure that the association with Dominican College could be continued. (See March 27, 1979 City Staff Report, item 279-5) Emergency shelters for the homeless Permanent C see standards, Section 14.16.]15 Therefore, a plain reading and application of the Land Use Regulations demonstrates that the proposed use is not allowed and, indeed, is prohibited. Therefore the Decision should be reversed and the Appeal granted. The Proposal Constitutes an Ammendment to the PD Zoning and Should Require a New Zoning Application The cunent PD use is as a private convent and/or a retirment community, depending on which title has been affIxed to the PD use at Lourdes. ZO 14.07.150 states that "requests for changes in the contents of approval of a PD zoning and development plan shall be treated as a zoning amendment (rezoning). Rezonings shall be heard and decided by the city council (sic). The procedures for fIling and processing a rezoning shall be the same as those established for an initial PD zoning and development plan application." Therefore, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this application should not be handled as a Change in Use but, instead should be handled as a zoning ammendment. The procedure which has been employed is improper and inappropriate and, therefore, the Decision should be rejected. The Proposal is Non-Compliant with ZO 14.16.115-The City has Zoned GC and LIfO Districts for Shelters for Families. As part of the justification for the application, and the Zoning Administrator's Action, there is a stated need for additional shelter for families with children to meet the requinneents of Government Code Section 65583. 14.16.115 reads as follows: A. Purpose. This section establishes standards for location and operation of a permanent emergency shelter for homeless populations in compliance with California Government Code Section 65583, including allowing shelters as a pelTIlitted use in some commercial and industrial district locations. Tills section is not applicable to temporary emergency shelters established by the city in response to an emergency event. B. Applicability. Emergency shelters to provide temporary housing and assistance for families and individuals who are homeless shall be pennitted as of right in the GC and LIIO districts generally bounded by Bellam Boulevard and I~580, consisting of those shaded parcels within this area, as shown on Map 14.16.115, and at other locations where conditionally permitted by the land use tables of this title. However, the total number of beds provided within the area shown on Map 14.16.115 shall only be permitted by right as necessary to meet the local housing need established by the General Plan 2020 Housing Element (refl.ecting regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments and based on the state housing and community development department needs assessment at the time of adoption of the most current housing element). A conditional use pennit shall be required to provide additional facilities within this area in excess of the RHNA needs assessment identified in the General Plan 2020 Housing Element. All facilities shall be operated in compliance with the provisions herein. (Emphasis added.) There has been no showing that the current use is actually needed to meet the regional housing need in the General Plan 2020 instead, we are going on the assumption that this is housing actually needed to meet a need which has never been objectively demonstrated so as to meet San Rafael's obligation. Indeed, many expressed concern that this housing may be actually directed at families living outside of San Rafael. As no need has been demonstrated, aside from the presumption that such housing is needed, this appeal should be granted and the Descision should be overturned. Map 14.16.115 Map 14.16.115 \ - "', ... The Proposal is Non Compliant for Failure to Meet Performance Standards 14.16.115 D An emergency shelter shall meet the following development and performance standards: 1. On-site management and on-site security shall be provided during hours when the emergency shelter is in operation~ .. ( 6 (c). The provider shall have a written management plan including, as applicable, provisions for staff training, neighborhood outreach, security, screening of residents to ensure compatibility with services provided at the facility, and for training, counseling, and treatment programs for residents. This Shelter has no on site management or on~site security and no management plan that satisfies Section D(6)(c). The only thing that has been provided is a document relating to the screeing criteria. Therefore the Decision should be overturned and the Appeal should be granted. San,Rafael has, consistent with the General Plan and Government Code Section 65583, designated proper zones for this type of transitional housing. Objective Studies, Conducted Pursuant To Statutory Mandate, Show that Homelessnes Amoung the Population of Families with Children Has Decreased Therefore the Stated Urgent Need is not Supported by the Empiricle Evidence. Every two years Marin is obligated to conduct a homeless census. In that regard, since 2009, the Marin Point-In-Time Homeless Census and Survey has been recorded. The census, done under contract with the County of Marin, by Applied Survey Research out of Watsonville, shows that there has been a downward trend in the need for housing for families with children. In 2011, in Marin, there were 155 households with children counted as homeless. In 2013 that number had dropped to 99. The 2015 Point-In-Time Census stated that: "very few families experiencing homelessness are unsheltered. Public shelters typically serve around 90% of homeless families in the United States, a significantly higher proportion of the population compared to other subpopulations, including unaccompanied youth." The following table from the 2015 study illustrates the statistics on homelss familes in Marin. FIGURE 34. HOMELESS-FAMILIES Wl-fH CHILD-REN POPULATION ESTIMATES TOTAl POPUIJTION Of FAMlllES: 51 flMIl1fSIlIITH 11M fAMILY MEMBERS .. __ ..... _._ ... -.. ;.' .. , MUD DEfiNITION: A household with at least 0I\e adult member (p~U on~ 18 or oldel) and alleusl (me child member (P'WilIOS uOOer18). Source: Applied Survey ReHtlrlrch. (20)5), Marin Crltmty Homeless C~IlSUS I'b S{'~"l'C.Y.' Warsollville, CA Therefore, the need is not as great as stated such that a residential area, and a PD zoning district for a convent, should be adapted to accommodate the stated, yet unsupported need. Other areas in San Rafael are zoned for this use/need. While the demand for housing is low, the risks of this proposal are high. The Domincan is an area of families with small children and young students. A large donn and the cafeteria are on the north side of the campus ncar Lourdes. The following table shows that 6.8% of the 19 homeless families surveyed in Marin in 2015 suffered from either drug or alcohol abuse or psychiatric conditions that contributed to their homelessness. Another 26% suffered from PTSD. Therefore 94% are suffering from illnesses and conditions which require treatment. HEAI.:rH CONDIT IONS AMONG HOMELESS FAr-flUES WITH CHIL DREN Eight of the 19family members l'eportedsuffering from psychiatric or menial problems. FIGURE 37. HEALTH CONDITIONS AMONG HOMELESS FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN (. " 0% .. "" -Drug or Psychllllrk: Physicnl PO$\-Trnumnllt Chronic Hilalf h . TraumatiC AIDSIHIV Alcohol Abuse or EmolloMI DlsablHty Stress D1sortk!: Problems Blain InjulY Iklwled Conditions (f>TSDI Drug or alcohol libuse 11:19: Ps),chialrk or cmot imllll coml ilio/ls 11:19; PI I)"sica' (l iS(fbilit)' n:l9; Posr-Tmmnl.l tic 51 rc.~s Disorder U'TSD) 11:19; Chro nic he.lllh prohlems 11:19: 'I'mumatic Braill Jl1illry 11;19: IUDS/HI V rddtcd )):J8 Source: Applied SUn.'CY Re:;carch . (2015). Marin COlflll), Homeftss Survey. WatsolllliUe, CA. Despite the evidence showing that this constituency-suffers a disproportionately high set of mental/emotional health illnesses and conditions, NO SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED TO THOSE LNING AT LOURDES. THE DECISION INCLUDES RECCOMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE USE WmCH ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND GO FAR BEYOND THE APPLICATION. THESE RECCOMENDSATIONS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS FOR THEIR COMMUNITY ARE WELL JUSTIFIED Under the conditions set forth in the Decision, Conditions of Use, Paragraph 7, there are improper statements concerning the post sunset use of 77 Locust Ave. They mandate ("shall") that one of the three proposed post sunset actions must be taken. These mandatory actions should be stricken from the Declsion with the only post~sllllset conduct being referenced is return the property to its pre Ammended Use Pennit condtion, i.e., remove the modifications or apply for an entirely new application as was the agreement with the Sisters. I I I III In the Decision, Conditions of Use, Paragraph 7, Mr. Jensen states the following: 7. This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the Issuance date of Certificate {)f Occupancy. At the end of the two year period, the Use Permit Amendment will terminate. At that time, the project proponent shall be required to proceed with .Qll! of the following for the "yellow hallway:" a. Request an extension to this Use Permit Amendment to continue the transitional housing use for a term period of in perpetuity; b. Re-purpose the single residential dwelling unit to another residential use such as for a manager's/caretaker unit orfor convent use; or c. Remove the kitchen facility and return the area to its current use as residential conventrooms.-. Items a and, b infer that these options have been arrived at as a result of the public notice and , hearing process. Indeed, in a future application for an Amended Use Permit this mandatory language could be considered precedent. The mention of a perpetual Amended Use Permit, if not inadvertent, is shocking. This is what all of the neighbors in opposition expressed concern about: i.e. this becoming a perpetual use. It is in direct contradiction to the "one and done"_ representation which the Sisters made to the community. Any amendment in perpetuity would run with the land and, thereby, be applicable to any subsequent owner. It will change the nature ofthe property and may affect future sale andlor transfer of the property. Part <;>fthe rational stated in the Administrator's Decision is that the Sisters and Homeward Bound will supervise and enforce the various criteria and conditions for participation in the program. What guarantees do the neighbors have re program supervision if the property is sold to someone else and Homeward Bound no longer has a lease there? A perpetual change in use has never been part of the Application, Notice, or hearing. Therefore there has been no fair process consideration and this provision should be eliminated. Likewise, 7(b) was not part of the Application, Notice or hearing process. Indeed the current ~ Conditions of Use indicate that there will be no overnight resident staff. The inclusion of this proposal for post-sunset use in the Decision creates an inference that this future use was arrived at after fair process, it was not. There is no basis for this future reccommendation and, therefore, this provision needs to be stricken. The only post sunset process that was discussed is the restoration of the property back to its pre- ammended use or the filing of an ENTIREL Y NEW Application, starting from scratch, with no inference or presumption of future use. That is all that should be said, that was all that was contained in the Notice, was and discussed in the hearing. It was a commitment made by the Sisters. This language needs to be stricken. \\\ \\\ ( ( - IF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION IS UPHELD; ANY CHANGE IN ZONINGIUSE SHOULD HAVE A CONDITION TO RUN WITH THE'LAND THAT IF THE SISTERS EVER TRANSFER TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE BY SALE OR GIFT, THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING USE MUST TERMINATE Just as the PD zoning was allowed to remain as long as the Convent remained associated with the Dominican College, so as, to assure that the College would have oversight and the community could be assured of continuity and a stable custodian, if the Sisters leave, that is stop utilizing the facility, sell it, gift it or otherwise dissacociate from Lourdes, the .An-u.rJ.ended Conditional Use should immediately terminate and the property revert to a R ... la zoning district. Part of , what is relied upon by the Zoning Administrator is the reassurance that he believes exists given the fact that the ~isters wi11live in close proximity, in residence, at Lourdes. If that safeguard no longer exists, the transitional housing relationship should automatically expire. Miscelanious Concerns re17 Locust and Lourdes Given that the whole purpose behind the creation of PD special zoning for this address was because of the Convent and/or the property's affiliation with Domenican College, should the Sisters gease using this as a convent, the PD district should be abolished and the,property should revert back to the R-la residential zoning and its use be in character with the surrounding single , family residential neighborhood. ! ,CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons the, appeal should be granted and Zoning Administrators Action overturned. This is a rezonning, and as such a much more formal and deliberative process shouJd be undertaken so as to reevaluate the appropriate zoning for this parcel. ATTACHMENT 4 APPEAL AP17·002 FILED BY GARY SCHOLICK GA HOLI 1 LOCUS]' I \NUE SAN RAFAEl, 94901 gscholick(cl)gmail.com 4 3-4109 Feb ,2017 Han vered Commumty opment Department; City 0 Rafae Fifth Rafael Appeal Notice or Allproval of Zoning Administrator Amendment (UP at 77 Locust Dea of San 1 Plann ommis I live a 1 Loc e, one twoim te adja Lourdes ("Lourdes"). Our (husb d wife wodau ) has Ii Thr t this he Sist Lourde been compassionate neighbors. We we have been Wh Sisters' ly Sep 2016 . forme and orary" e 111 us elr pn onvent ers with no o exce ommlssl0n lor the omest ocust re for ximate ghbor theyh O 6 ')1 [, PLAN i'JG Convent Use , 1e ears. n goo neighbors them. at they dtom "minor" ommo woho young years, sed th rs that understood object temporary change. Afte ghbor eeting urdes 0 tember 016, at anum neig expres ncern whethe applic 0 the c uld se chang continuation of the use permit beyond two years, Sisters their attorney, Gary Ragghianti, followed up calls letter to reassure the neighbors that the '"" 111 use d be a ' nd don porary _ e ("Th ested _ 'mit wi matica nset an re (at 0 uest) t rs afte suance the ex n ofthe permIt temporary will also cease. Letter from Isters, Novem 7,2 ). Our Iy still not ob' eet to the Sisters' two year in use at Lourdes for e two s. Mo , we d bject t isters g such famil r Moth se on perm asis fo g this ar per he Mot House its buildings also by the its mere 100-300 feet Lourdes and is a more '~""'L_~' and safe H-''-'<AU,"'" within a families childl sed on , pede and nei hood c s, that des. This 1 raise . arily t es: we our neIghbors have been asic due process un "'''ivin',u concernmg Acting Administrator Mr. Jensen's Conditions the year use the proponent shall be with fthe f ng for llow h :" a. R an ex to thi Am nt to c e the tr nal ho use for perio rpetui Permit The inclusion of Action arbitrary capricious and vVj,H'JivC'~' lacking in Sec ndings 2a and 3b, al ith the g Zoni ministr Respo Comments and Concerns Raised Project Opponents, Nos. and 4, to extent they pertam parking aggravationlworseni of Traflie on Locust Avenue and intersection Loc A enue a d M gnolia A e, and th fety children, pedestrians others or d in that which in tho ares fo nts an ors to ican ColI ho reg peed a ore th d stop t that i ction) , 0 arbitrary capricious wholly in evidence. Mr. failure undertake an appropriate, reasonable, investigation of issues, inst ere on k surv n the lants 0 lar ten ere not Lou nd his e com ations e Publ rks De nt dur ng at ich th Department fact that It conduct actIve monitoring of that comer or streets, shows bcyond that findings concerning traffic safety arc spec e, are a y and . ous an ot sup . al evid They al likel liabil es for one mv not a use or zonmg attorney I ask indulgence Planning Commission errors I make concerning land terms or concepts. I am submitting this Slm a very me res f San (I mo San R n 1978 believ that ty's ac is-a-vi sident hbors ighbor should 1', transparent consistent with basic fundamental and should supported substantial rather speculation and OIN 1. Condition 7 a me neighbors Due Process and Fundamental and capricious entirel m As above,. Jensen's approval letter included lowing the two year permit terminates], ect proponent shall required to proceed with one of the wing 'yello way:" uest an sion to se Pe mendm inue th sitiona ng use term in pe ty [.]" 2 IS That condition was a complete surprise to our family and other neighbors and should be rejected by the Planning Commission and not included in any amended use considered or granted in this matter. An "in perpetuity" condition was not mentioned in the Sisters' application for a change in Use, it was not mentioned in the Notice of Public Hearing concerning this matter, it was not mentioned, argued for or against by any speaker during the January 4, 2017 public hearing, and no one (to our knowledge) submitted a letter before or after the Public Hearing concerning an "in perpetuity" condition. To the contrary, both in writing and in oral discussions, the Sisters and their representatives repeatedly assured neighbors that their change in use would be "minor" and "temporary," they had no plans beyond this two year period for their "yellow hallway," and that was why they agreed to and sought an application that would "sunset" and expire in two years. It was in fact this very sort of in perpetuity condition and future use that neighbors objected to and expressed fear to the Sisters, and about which the Sisters repeatedly indicated they were not seeking and had not even thought about. Where did this condition come from? Why was it included? Did the Sisters or their attomey suggest it to Mr. Jensen after the public hearing in ex parte communications? Did Mr. Jensen come up with the idea on his own? And if so, why? None of these questions is answered in the Acting Zoning Administrator's Notice of Action. The Planning Commission, in the interests of fundamental fairness and transparency, should seek answers to these questions. We understand that after receipt of the Notice of Action, a neighbor expressly asked these questions of Mr. Jensen and Mr. Jensen chose not to answer them. Neither I nor any other neighbor therefore had any notice or opportunity to address the "in perpetuity" condition at the public hearing, and/or to bring forward witnesses or evidence before the Acting Zoning Administrator to show why an "in perpetuity" condition was inappropriate if not outrageous, and contrary to all that the Sisters assured and advised the neighbors. The inclusion of this condition in the Notice of Action is thus a classic example of a denial of due process and fundamental fairness. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence in this record that would support an "in perpetuity" condition. From all that the record shows, its inclusion comes out of thin air. It is thus arbitrary and capricious and entirely lacking in evidentiary support. For each of these reasons, we respectively urge the Planning Commission to strike it from the Notice of Action and not include it in any amended use. II. The Acting Zoning Administrator's conclusions conceming traffic and safety are not based on facts but speculation. 3 The ministr finding errnng ng, tra d safet ., that a Issue would not at t e corner Magnolia (Findings Nos. and b, Zoning Res onse Comments Opponents Nos. 3 4), a edon s tion, a oid of ndare gme ary su on a one week survey January he oversaw about parking and issues Lourdes time when additional women four school-age chil Lourd ex pa mumc with t lic W Dep t in w e Dep t conc at it h £! acti onitor intersectIOn Locust and MagnolIa Locust Itself, WhICh claimed there been "reported" accidents several Suc subst viden upport findin utpark affic al ty. mothers with two children (four reside Lourdes, a greater of the automobile driveways and out Lourdes. t conc . The t thers a r child ve fath latives ds, and clas , and w e visit ctor v chools nd, pr fier sc ctivitie to attend, which will necessarily logIcally involve new and automobIles entering leaving two areas, at a comer in fact Uflsafe n two (Locu Magn here st and v' to extr Dom Colle monl and b y 19nO stop si he co Locus and g Nowhere his a lia. findings Noticc the t these us and I facts. Zoning Administrator scuss or lived next to that corner for approximately years -I seen and experienced numerous neighbors dozens instances of students and to up a n Loc d Mag venue ring th sIgn 0 comer e a neig It com to add wn per 'Stop Stop" and w extreme y to ourdes. I ave also obse peeding mobile st over of my neighbors peacefully standing of their Avenue (an event which degenerated physical confrontation because ',1 In Incn -_L'Lne neI--LL ---'s spou--' ---LIlt: ULn------!-nouns 1.. ____ ·UiU Ill\;; +1.._+ +1..\;;y Ili:t"~ essed near on Lo venue. numer ghbor experi untold numbers of students and visitors to Dominican blowing the stop on Locust Magnolia ;\ venue, resulting in numerous of screeching tires es ofp ians an mobil . ions. into The Zonmg Admul1sttator di not any of those acts, nor ISCUSS ho\v our young children playing talking away from thoroughfare, that comer or on that thoroughfare affect the House two 4 other resident buildings, owned by the same Sisters and within 100-300 feel of Lourdes do not have any of these parking lot, traffic and safety concerns). Surely my eyewitness experiences afthcse tramc issues these last 30 years, and those afmy neighbors who wrote or spoke supporting statements at the public hearing , are of greater weight than a one week survey that took place when!!Q extra residents resided at Lourdes or an oral report by a Departm ent that conceded it had never actively monitored traffic at the locations at issue. Indeed , my eyewitness experiences and those of m y neighbors (essentially ignored by the Acting Zoning Admini s trator) were the only material and s ubstantial evidence offered on these issues. For each of these reasons, the findings of the Acting Zoning Administrator discussed above concerning parking, traffic and safety issue are arbitrary and capricious and lacking in evidentiary support. CONCLusrON For the reasons discussed above, thi s appeal shou ld be granted and the Acting Zoning Administrator's Notice of Action should be modified andlor overturned acco rdingly -by deleting Condition 7a, and by requiring the Acting Zoning Administrator to undertake an objective, meaningful parking, traffic and safety investigation that, among other things, would require an analysis of the many additional trips in and out of Lourdcs that four young children und two young mothers would likely undertake at Lourdes, and thc risks and actual safety for four young children and young mothers and others at the intersection and stop s ign on the corner of f .ocust Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. Submitted , 5 SISTERS of ST. DOMINIC CONGREGATION of the MOST HOLY NAME 1520 Grand Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901-2236 415453-8303 fax 415453-8367 www.sanrafaelop.org November 7,2016 Gary Scholick & Judy Coffin 141 Locust Aveue San Rafael CA 94901 Dear Gary and Judy: -, The Dominican Sisters of San Rafael are proposing minor changes to a small portion of Our lady of Lourdes Convent located at 77 Locust Avenue. The present convent facility is used to house our ill, disabled and/or retired sisters and has been so operated for decades pursuant to a 1979 use permit granted by the City of San Rafael. lourdes Convent has been located at its present location since 1951. It was expanded in 1979. We have cared for our retired sisters at Lourdes Convent for many years. The Sisters have declined in their numbers over the years. This decline has resulted in some excess space becoming available. In keeping with our mission and values, we want to temporarily share a very small portion of this space in order to house two single mothers, each with two young children, while they transition to permanent housing. Our intention is to perform some very minor modifications to an existing hallway inside the convent in order to provide the space for these individuals during their stay. The proposed use requires the Dominican Sisters to apply to the City for an amendment to our existing use permit for Lourdes Convent. The requested use permit will automatically sunset and expire (at our request) two years after its issuance. With the expiration of the use permit the temporary use will also cease. During the time of this limited occupancy the sisters will not expand the use to any other part of the convent nor will there be permitted any increase in the number of persons temporarily residing with us in the convent. When our application to the City is filed you will receive a notice from the City. It will advise you of the filing by the Sisters and any hearing date and place. We did not want you to receive such notice without the courtesy of this prior communication from us. Please direct any questions to Katherine Martin, Director of Communications for the Dominican Sisters, at either {415j456-1544 or kmartinssd@sanrafaelop.org. Sincerely, Sister Maureen Mcinerney, a.p. Prioress General ~~A' X Sister Patricia Simpson, ~ Director of Our Lady of Lourdes Convent ATTACHMENT 5 RESPONSE TO APPEALS FROM GARY RAGGHIANTI, ATTORNEY AT LAW REPRESENTING DOMINICAN SISTERS t~ RagghiantiJFreitas LLP GARY T . RAGGH IANTI GTRAC CS @RFLAWUP.COM San Rafael Planning Commission ~1AI? 00 20 17 PLANNIN G March 06, 2017 c/o City of San Rafael Community Development Department P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915 Dear Chairman Schaefer and Members of the Commission: ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1101 FIFTH A VENUE , SUIT[ 100 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901-2903 TELEPHONE 41 5.453.9433 FAC SIMILE 4 15.453.82 69 WWW.RFLAWllP.COM I represent the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael (The S isters) and submit this letter in response to the wo appeals filed from the determination of the Zoning Administrator (ZA) issued on January 28, 2017 granting a Use Permit Amendment (UPA) for the Sisters' Our lady Of lourdes Convent (Lou rdes) property located at 77 Locust Avenue. The Sisters filed an application in November 2016 seeking an Amendment to a Use Permit Lou rdes presently holds to allow the conversion of a 1995 square foot area of the lourdes Convent for use as transitional housing to be shared by two unmarried mothers, each of whom has two young children ages 2-8 years. The area in question is a long narrow hallway painted yellow and referred to by the Sisters over the years as "the yellow hallway". Minor alterations to the structure are proposed and involve no expansion of the building or footpr i nt. At one time the yellow hallway area served as a place of occupancy for up to 10 Sisters. Over the yea rs the population of Sisters has declin e d and unused space has become available. The present population of lourdes is approximately 15-17 Sisters. At its highest occupancy 35 Sisters re~ided there. The S isters, in collaboration with Homeward Bound, seek to make this area available to assist these two single parent families who are making the journey to independence and self-sufficiency. By providing them short term residency the families will have the opportun ity to transition to pe rmanent hous ing. The point of the Lourdes project is to address, albeit modestly, the dire housing crisis by utiliz ing a space currently. unused in the Convent that will not disrupt the current residents at Lourdes. The conversion will require only minor modifications at Lourdes. There is neither the t~ Ragghianti IFreitas LLP PACE 2 OF 11 space nor would the expense be minor to create similar space (or the proposed use in another Convent on the south side of Locust. The determination to issue the UPA by the ZA was supported by a comprehensive written analysis of the application resulting in a determ ination that the application was consistent with the Land Use and Housing elements of San Rafael General Plan 2020 (SRGP 2020) as well as with the Housing Element Background Report to the General Plan pointing out the need in San Rafael for the very type of transitional housing that this application seeks to provide. The ZA also found that the application was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with its objectives and the stated purposes of the PO zone in which the subject property has been so long situated as well as with the State law applicable to transitional housing (Gov't Code section 65583). It was determined that the application was categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Moreover and finally it was determined that the application, as proposed and conditioned would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vic inity or to the general welfare of the City. The appeals are filed by two (2) neighbors, each of whom a re located directly adjacent to the Convent at Lourdes. The appeal of Mr. Scholick focuses on the subject of traffic on and around the Locust Avenue area where the Convent is situated. He asks that a traffic study be performed before a decision on issuing the permit is made by the City. The other appellant advances a litany of objections purportedly based on certain provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code and related development policies. It is respectfully suggested that the Planning Commission reject both appeals for the reasons set forth herein and based upon the evidence contained in the record of proceedings in this matter. The appeals will each be addressed separately. The Dolan Appeal This appeal has little to do with the application ofland use regulations to this application. One need only look at the statements contained both in the appellant's submittal to the ZA and to the Commission in his February 3, 2017, letter to discern the overrid i ng concern of this appellant. In Mr. Dolan's submittal to the ZA he stated as follows: "Given the population to be served there exists concern over who will enforce policies regarding occupancy". t~ RagghiantilFreitas LLP PAGE 3 OF 11 What exactly is it about these two women and their young children that requires this different and heightened scrut iny and enforcement? And precisel y what causes the concern that they may need monitoring? It is that th ey are currently in a program operated by Homeward Boun d that fuels this type of response? In his submittal to the Commission (the pages are not numbered) he states the following; "In 1990 the historic Mother House burned in a tragic fire .. ' When the housing they had purchased as temporary housing ... was no longer needed, it is reported that they sought to donate it to Homeward Bound but the endeavor resulted in significant neighborhood opposition so the Sisters sold the property and donated the proceeds to Homeward Bound instead." Mr. Dolan goes on to state, "The Sisters have a strong affiliation with Homeward Bound not only because of their mission to help the greater community but also because of the fact that the Executive Di rec tor, Mary Kay Sween ey, PhD. is a former nun with the Sisters of Mercy." And then "There is much concern from the neighbors, including this Appellant, that a similar strategy may be developing here and that this request for an Amended Use Permit ;s but a step towQrds homeless housing being established here in perpetuity". (Emphasis added where shown and m ine). These types of statements are not only regrettable in their content but also display the often employed "Trojan Horse" arguments used by opponents of projects. I n other words this pr oj ect will facilitate some type of unwanted cree p and deleterious consequence that hasn 't occurred and there is no evidence ever will occur and which is entirely unrelated to the me rit s of the application being considered. It focuses in stead on stigmatizing the proposed two residents here simply because they may be enrolled in a program with Homeward Bound and were at one ti me homeless. Byt the actual facts concerning this application are sufficient to dispose of such baseless and unfounded s urmise. Th is UPA terminates in 2 yea rs by its very terms. Thi s UPAwili n ot go on "in perpetu ity". This UPA is conditioned to permit only these two women and their young children t o live in a small area unit where previously up to 10 Sisters had resided. This UPA permits no expansion of the hallway area where the transitional housing will be located during the two year period of the UP. t~ Ragghianti IFreitas LLP PACE40F 11 This UPA prohibits any more than the two mothers and their children to occupy the hallway area during the two year per io d of the UP. The examination of the history of the zoning of the lourdes Con ve nt property is well set out in the ZA's determination. In reviewing that history this appellant argues that since the legal disassociation of the University from the Congregation the UP granted to the Sisters i n 1979 ought to have failed and the underlying zoning (PO) changed to that across the street at the Sisters residency structure and administrative offices (PD 1827). The conditions imposed in the' 979 UP were imposed when the then existing U zoning deSignation was changed to the present PD. The staff report does renect a then existing planning concern that the Lourdes convent facility not be allowed to change into a private commercial facility. Thus the City imposed a co ndition that implicated the UP and required it be tied to continuing affiliation with the then College. In the finding s made at the time the 1979 UP was granted it is stated that: "Continuation of the Lourdes Ret ire ment Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as its fa ci lity remains affiliated with Dom;n;can College AND IS NOT A COMMERCIAL FACILITY", As we will argue the affiliation of the Sisters with the now University has survived their legal corporate separation and the facility has not morph e d into a commercial facility. A briefb it of the history of the relationship between the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael and the former Dominican College, now University, is instructive and demonstrates the continued Affiliation that exists and will always exist between the Sisters and the educational institution th ey founded in the late 19 th century. The term "affiliation" is undefined in the UP condition under discuss ion . It is commonly defined to mean to associate oneself with or to be connected with. The legal separation of the Sisters and the University did nothing to terminate the long histo ry of affiliation of the congregation with the school it established. To argue otherwise is to magnify technicality at the expense of reason. The Sisters will forever be "affiliated" with the University. Its Sisters ha ve se rved as past presidents of the College, pain ted and exhibited their art and photography on campus and taught and continue to teach both undergraduate and graduate courses th er e. Th e Sisters have also served on and continue to serve on the college/uni ver s ity Board of Trustees. Moreover the Dominican university gymnasium facility bears the nam e of Sister Samuel Conlan who was a former Dom inican College President. t~ Ragghian ti I F rei tas LLP PAGE SOl' 11 By 1960 the business affairs of both the Sisters and of the College had grown to the extent that the need to separate the Sisters and the College into two corporations became evident. The Sisters formed a nw corporation, Sisters afSt. Dominic, Congregation afthe Most Holy Name. Even though there were then two distinct corporations, the Prioress General and the Sisters continued to govern and carry out the bus iness of the College. In 1969, in keeping with the spirit of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council, the Dominican College Board of Trustees was expande d to include lay women and men. The ownership of all property, as well as the govern ance and responsibility for the College, was vested in the Board. In the late 70's the property held under the Dominican College title that was used exclusively by the Sisters for their living and ministry needs was deeded back to the Sisters. In 2000 Dominican College became Dominican University of California. Today the not-for- profit independent university defines its mission and values in this manner: Dominican educates and prepares students to be ethical leaders and socially responsible global citizens who incorporate the Dominican values of study, reflection, community and service into their lives. The University is committed to diverSity, sustainability and the integration ofthe liberal ans, the sciences and professional programs. While the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael and Dominican University of California maintain independence in operation and finance, it is the desire of the congregation that Dominican values will continue to be borne out in the mission and character of the University. Through ongoing dialogue, the congregation and the University seek to be mutually supportive of each other's mission and endeavors. In add ition the following demonstrates that collaboration, mutual support and affiliation continues to this day. Four (4) Dom inican Sisters of San Rafael s it on the DU Board of Trustees. Five (5) Sisters are teaching at DU presently. One (1) Sister (a Dominican Sister of Adrian) works at DU as the Director of Campus Ministry and lives o n campus. I I t~ Ragghian ti I F rei tas LLP PAGE 6 OF 11 Clearly "affiliation" between the Sisters and the University exists as it always has and is ongoing, alive and well. To illustrate the lack of necessity for a legal relationship and affiliation between parties I refer to the language used by this appellant in his appeal letter, referring to the relationship between the Sisters and Homeward Bound. There is no legal connection between these two corporate entities. Yet it is pointed out that they have a "strong affiliation" ... and they proudly do. This affiliation need not require a legal relationship but rather can and frequently does exist independent of such relationship. Further regarding this issue, UP's do not routinely expire automatically. Rather they run with the land. They are either revoked or abandoned. An exception exists when the UP dearly sets forth an expiration date, as it will do in Jhe UPA applied for here. The current UP held by Lourdes is still in existence and valid. The several post1979 actions taken by the City regarding alterations to Lourdes support the fact that the City recognizes this. Lourdes remains a private Convent operating under a valid use permit that now seeks a UPA for the limited and ben ign purposes of accommodating temporary transitional housing consistent with and at the heart of the Sisters mission as a religious congregation as well as a direct response to the call of Pope Francis to use, if available, places of religious occupation to allow persons exactly like those proposed here to be helped and housed This use fits squarely with in the protections afforded by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The proposed use will not necessitate a rezon i ng of the property nor will it constitute a residential multi-family use. The multi-family argument of the appellant is premised on the m istaken belief that the oc-cupation of the area to be provided at the Convent constitutes two (2) women and their children living in two (2) separate units, which is of course i naccurate. This argument is an attempt to shoe-horn the appellant's way into a claim that the proposed housing area in the Convent meets the definitional criteria set forth in SRMC section 14.03.030 for multifamily housing. It doesn't. One need simply read it to so conclude. On P. 2 of the ZA's determination under the heading PROJECf DESCRIPTION it is stated in pertinent part that, "In partnership with Homeward Bound, the Dominican Sisters are proposing to convert a 1995 square foot portion of the convent's congregate care facility (10 residential rooms; 12% of the facility area) referred to as the "yellow hallway" to a single dwelling unit ... " t~ Ragghianti I Freitas LLI' PAGE 7 OF 11 Additionally section 14.03.030 provides as follows: "Residential, multifamily" means medium and high density residential development. including a "transi tional housing deve lopmen t" or "supportive housing " as defined under State Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 (and subsequent amendments), containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units in one (1) or more structures located on a s ingle pa rcel or common lot. (14. 3. 030·0efinitions) One doesn't count the number of occupants to determine the number of units being lived in. Nor finally do the provisions of section 50675.2 cited in the above SRMC section add anything to this failed assertion. Lourde s is a conve nt not a pa rt of several "buildings configured as rental housing developments .... " The next claim of this appellant is that since Lourdes is a "Catholic Convent" it is therefore a "religious institution" and accordingly would be prohibited from locating in the PD zoning district under SRMC section 14 .04.020. Thi s section of the City's code contain s a table which does indeed prohibit religious institutions in the PO-hillside distri cts of the City. Lourde s isn't located in that district. Neither does the application propose to cre ate an "emergency shelter" for the homeless. It involves two women and their children occupying cu rrently vacan t s pace in a convent for a maximum of two years. This proposal will be operated in collaboration with Homeward Bound and will involve restrictions and regulations placed upon the occupants which will be monitored and enforced as needed. The occupants, members of a Homewa rd Bound program already, will enter i nto an Occupancy Agreement with Homeward Bound which will prOVide that violation of the imposed regulations will result in expulsion from the Homeward Bound program they are enrolled in as well as removal from the facility. In addition the facility will benefit from and have additional oversight by the resident Sisters who manage the Lourdes facility. In fact the s ingle parents who are fortunate enough to be accepted to live in this transit ional area must be accepted for residency by both the Sisters and Homeward Bound. A final few comments on the Dolan appeal: remarks. There is no competen t evidence to even suggest, much less support, an argument that this project is in any way inconsistent with every applicable development regulation and/or policy of the City including specifically the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. t~ Ragghian ti I F rei tas LLP PA.CE 8 O F 11 It is we suggest, very clear that: This application is for a UPA-not a rezone. Nothing involved in granting the requested UPA constitutes or implicates an act of zoning. This application does not result in Lourdes becoming Multifamily housing. This application does not involve creation of an Emergency Care Facility for homeless people. This application if granted will not result in spot zoning as a matter oflaw. The current Use Perm it granted to the property in 1979 remains in force and valid today. M r. Dolan, despite his lengthy submittal, struggles to find any legal basis upon which this application should be denied. Rather his appeal is based on mistaken readings of(ity codes, tortured analysis of the UP condition relating to continued affiliation of the Sisters with the University, a failure to appreciate the legal consequences arising from receipt of a use permit by a property owner and unsubstantiated and immaterial concerns that on some unknown date at some unknown time in the future the Sisters may seek to change or repurpose Lourdes since the Congregation is declining in numbers and that such happenstance may adversely affect his property in some unspecific and unartkulated manner. This position is advanced despite the fact that the application or change he fears has not been made nor is it the one before the Commission fried by the Sisters. The positions advanced by this appellant do not take into account and simply avoid dealing with the land use realities this application presents, i.e. the fact that the S isters have voluntarily requested that the UPA expire at the end of two years, that two women only with two young children each will occupy the proposed area at the Convent, that mo re than adequate monitoring and supervision will be prov ided by both Homeward Bound and the Sisters in residence managing Lourdes and that the application comports with all pertinent land use regulations of the City. Further confounding the posturing of this appeal is the curious fact that this appellant has re peatedly adv ised the S isters and the City that if they would simply move their proposed site for this transitional housing across the street to their larger Convent he would forego h is objections and fund in part the expenses for the modifications needed to be made to that structure to accommodate the use. This despite the fact that such a move would result in the proposed use actually being closer to his home. To this proposal the Sisters have consistently t~ Ragghianti I F rei tas LLP PAGE 9 OF 11 stated that such a use across the street from Lourdes would not work for the families involved nor for the convent which is already full to capacity. Moreover the Sisters didn't make such an application to locate the transitional housing there. It is at Lourdes where the space already exists to accommodate the proposed use with m inimal expense required. The appeal of Mr. Dolan, respectfully, falls both legal and log ica l scrutiny. The reasons offered by him to deny this application do not intersect with either reality or the law. The Scholick Appeal Mr. Scholick expresses concern that condition 7a of t he ZA's determination has denied him and his family due process since it mentions that at the end of the two year UP period the Sisters might request an extension to continue the transitio nal housing for a term in perpetuity. This language contained in section 7a was not proposed by the Sisters or their counsel and is inconsistent with the posi tion and representations made to the neighbors prior to and at the ZA hearing in January. We attach a copy of the undersigned's email to Paul Jensen dated 2/21/17 sent after reviewing the language to which the appe llants take issue here. This email makes it clear that the Sisters are and have been content to have the UP applied for expire after two years and that it has never been the intention of the Sisters to ask that the UP run with the land in perpetuity. We incorporate that email herein as well as the reply of appellant Dolan to it. Mr.Scholick attacks the ZA's determination regarding traffic at the corner of Locust a n d Magnolia and safety concerns related thereto. He requests that "a meaningful parking, traffic and safety investigation analyzing the number of trips that the two women and their children would cause to occur while residing at Lourdes be performed. He rejects the analysis and conclusions reported in the ZA's determination at findings 2 b, c, and d. and the discussion concerning same that appears on page 5. The ZA after reviewing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after conducting a one week parking survey at various times of each day and engaging in discussion with the City's Department of Public Works concern ing the particular location opined that: the proposed project will not result in an increase in traffic that would change or exacerbate existing traffic patterns or conditions or increase safety hazards; that the existing parking at Lourdes exceeds t~ Ragghian ti I F rei tas LLP PACE 10 OF 11 demand and that there exists adequate off·site parking to serve the proposed use without impacting the properties in the vicinity. The ZA also recommended that vegetation located east of an informal parking pad at Lou rdes be trimmed. This latter condition is acceptable to the Sisters and steps have been taken to res trict the use by the installation of fe ncing of the informal pad parking although located entirely on the Lourdes lands. In res ponding to the position espoused by this appellant I hasten to observe that the condition s that currently exist at the location of concern exist independent of the occupancy of lourdes and certa in ly the proposed m ino r addition of occupants to the Convent proposed under this application While young and exuberant un iv ersity students and visitors to the campus who speed and fail to observe stop sig ns may create problems those issues have nothing to do with the operation of lou rdes. Other families living and us ing locust and Magnolia each day also present their own traffic load and concerns. In a ddition Lourdes was once occupied by 35 Sisters each of whom had family and relatives who visited Lourdes. It is curious that the addition of two women and the ir young children could be thought to actually cause a measurea ble increase in traffic or safety concerns in the area under discussion . This type of assertion is in stark contrast to consideration of an unmentio ned by appellant fact relating to the clear traffic impact caused by all families with and without children living on Locust, their visitors and guests and service providers. The fact that this appellant believes that a problem exists that will be exacerbated by these families doesn't mean th at his concern is accurate and/or fact based. The ·Sisters ought not to have to bear the burden of the time·and expense of a traffic study to admit this proposed small family group into their Convent any more than new families moving on to locust with two or more children ought to be subjected to such a burden. The park ing and traffic issues have also been looked at by the ZA, and the City Department of Public Works. No traffic concerns were found to be ass ociated with the proposed use and/or small number of occupants pro po sed here. No police or fire personnel have come forward to express any safety concerns or traffic issues s imply due to the use of the convent by these few persons. It is respectfully suggested that the concerns of this appellant whil e made in good faith cannot and should not result in a requirement to prepare and pay fo r an expensive traffic study in the absence of data or objective facts that support and compel such a result. There are no such objective facts present here and using the occupancy of a small a rea of t he t~ RagghiantilFreitas LLP PAGE 11 OF 11 Convent by the proposed occupants is I suggest wholly insufficient to require the study sought. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein and based upon the evidence contained in the record of proceedings herein it is. respectfully requested that the appeals filed be denied. ve~::{;i<vrrt-~ 'fry T. Ragghianti GTRfjlp Enclosure ATIACHMENT6 LOURDES CONVENT, 77 LOCUST AVENUE-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UPl6-()S7) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBUC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4, 2016 The following is a list comments and questions raised by the public prior to and during the January 4,2017 Zoning Administrator Hearing on Use Permit Amendment application UP16-057 for the Lourdes Convent (Lourdes Convent) located at 77 Locust Avenue. Following the January 4, 2017 hearing, the Zoning Administrator reviewed each comment and question, along with responses provided by project proponents. As a result of this review and other follow-up. the Zoning Administrator has prepared responses to each comment and question. 1. Consideration should be given to relocating this proposal to the "Mother House" (across Locust Ave). Why was this alternative not proposed? Response: The Dominican Sisters and their representatives responded to this question at the Zoning Administrator hearing and in written correspondence, which is on file with the Community Development Department. The following is a summary of the reasons why the ~Mother House" was not considered for this proposal: 8. There is no available area at the "Mother House" to accommodate the proposed residence . b. Accommodating the residence would require major financing to remodel space within the Mother House. c. The Lourdes Convent provides a ready condition to accommodate the proposed use . The residence is proposed in the unoccupied "yellow hallway" area of this facility containing resident rooms that make it ideal for conversion . The proposed use would require minor alterations to this existing space (addition of a kitchen) that would involve no expansion of the building or facility footprint. d . The conditions of the "yellow hallway" make it ideal for creating a separate resident space that would not interfere with the Lourdes Convent facilities and/or operations . City staff agrees that for the above reasons , the location for the proposed use is logical and practical. The City must review the merits of the current application that has been filed, which is a specific request for the Lourdes Convent property . The requested Use Permit Amendment is reviewed to determine consistency with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and applicable zoning provisions and must make the findings that are required to take action on the amendment to the Use Permit. There is nothing in this City process that can require the applicant to propose or submit alternatives (e .g ., alternative locations, alternative uses) to what is proposed. 2. The proposal would change the character and use of the property from a convent to multiple-family residential use, which is a major change in use. In 1979, the City determined that "R-3 zoning" (multiple-family residential zoning) was not appropriate for the convent site. Response: The proposal would not change the character and use of the property for the following reasons : a . The lourdes Convent property is located within the PO (Planned Development) zoning district and operates consistent with City Use Permit UP79-18 issued on March 27, 1979. This Use Permit approved the Lourdes Retirement Center (residential use). When the Use Permit UP79-18 was reviewed and considered by January 23, 2017 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 6 LOURDES CONVENT, 77 LOCUST AVENUE-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UPl6-0S7) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BV THE PUBLIC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4. 2016 the Planning Commission, the potential for approving a "private commercial retirement center" was a concern. Consequently, UP79-18 was conditioned to limit the retirement center use to its operation and affiliation to the (then) Dominican College . Since then, the Dominican Sisters have severed their affiliation with Dominican University, but the operation of the Lourdes Convent continues as a non- commercial retirement center and residence for the Sisters. The partnership between the Dominican Sisters and Homeward Bound is not a financial arrangem'ent where Homeward Bound would be paying rent to use the "yellow hallway.M Therefore , this arrangement would not result in a private , commercial use of the retirement center. b. Approval of the Use Permit amendment would allow the conversion of a 1,995 square foot area to a single, residential dwelling unit. This area represents 12% of the overall convent facilities, which is not a major change in use. c. The proposal involves the conversion of the Nyell ow hallway· to a single residential dwelling unit with a single kitchen. The single residential dwelling unit would be shared by two women and their children . The arrangement does not constitute a muHiple-family residential use. Rather, it represents a single , shared household of two single women and their children residing in a single dwelling. The San Rafael Municipal Code (SMRC Title 14, Zoning) defines a multiple-family residence as three or more individual, attached residential dwelling units on a single site. 3. The off-street parking is not adequate to accommodate the residents and their guests. The capacity of the current parking lot is often exceeded causing spillover parking off-site. The three parking spaces that back out onto Locust Avenue are unsafe and in the public right-of-way. Response: The convent site is developed w ith 18 off-street (on site ) parking spaces located on two lots . At the main entrance to the convent , three additional parking spaces are located east of the driveway ; these spaces are informal and are located in the public right-of-way. Parking requirements for uses are set forth in the City Municipal Code (SRMC Chapter 14.19, Off-Street Parking). As the City Code requirements apply to off-street parking, the convent provides one parking space per approximately 900 square feet of building area (16,450 sq . ft . of building area/18 parking spaces = 913 square feet). The subject "yellow hallwat that is proposed for conversion is 1,995 square feet, so 2 .18 off-street parking spaces are currently provided tor this area. For changes in use or expanded property improvements, off-street parking is reviewed for compliance with the Code. The conversion of the Nyell ow hallwayn to a single residential unit would require 2.2 off-street parking spaces (based on the proposed unit type/number of bedrooms + 0.20 guest spaces). Therefore, adequate parking would be provided to meet the provisions of the City Code. Regarding existing capacity , the Zoning Administrator completed a survey of the two on- site parking lots over a one week period to assess parking use and demand. Use of the three infonnal parking spaces within the public right-of-way was also surveyed . The surveys were conducted during both weekdays and weekends, during varying times of . the days to assess usage. The City Public Work.s Director was consulted to confirm the January 23, 2017 Page 2 ATIACHMENT6 LOURDES CONVENT, n LOCUST AVENUE-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UPIIHlS7) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBUC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4,2016 scope of the survey. The results of this survey, which represent the number of parking spaces that were observed as occupied and in-use are presented below. Date & Time lot 1 Lot 2 Public ROW 114 spac.s) {4spac •• J_ (3 .pacos) Frida y,Janua~6 2 017 Noon 11 2 3 Saturday, Januarv 7 2017 -5:00pm 6 2 2 Sundav. Januarv 8 2 0 17 -Noon 7 2 2 Monday, Janua~ 9 2017 -9:00am 10 2 3 Tuesday. January 10 , 2017 6:00pm 6 2 2 Wednesday. January 11 2017 -Noon 6 3 3 Thursday, January 12 2017 10:00am 9 3 3 Based on the one-week survey conducted , the on-site parking supply exceeds the demand and therefore , there is adequate parking to serve residents and guests of the "yellow hallway: It should be noted that the results of the parking survey do not consider the different peaks in parking use. The. convent peaks during the day when staff and visitors are present. Also not accounted for is that the potential residents of the ·yellow hallway" may not ownlhave a yehicle. Regarding the three, informal parking spaces within the public right-of-way, the Public Works Department was consulted about safety. These parking spaces, which back out into Locust Avenue are not formalized by striping or pavement. This gravel area has been used as informal parking for decades and there is no City record of conflict or safety hazards . However, s ight distance is impaired at the east end of this parking area by heavy vegetation . It is recommended that vegetation be trimmed back to maintain a line of sight for safe back-out 4. T h e project would aggrav ate/wo rsen traffic at the L ocust Avenue/Magno lia Ave n ue Intersection. A t present, t h is Intersection is dan gerous because d r ivers . speed and do not respect the stop sign at Magnolia A venue. Response: Oversight and management of City street circulation and operations is provided by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department has been consulted on this concern . The findings are summarized as follows : a. The City uses a "Level of Service-(LOS) methodology to monitor and assess traffic at signalized intersections. As the Locust Avenue/Magnolia Avenue i ntersecti on is un-signalized, a LOS analysis is not conducted. b. As an un-signalized residential intersection, active monitoring of it is not conducted by the City. However, accidents that are reported are used to assess intersection safety and warrants for safety improvement such as signalization . According to the Public Works Department there have been no recorded accidents at this intersection in the past several years. c. As the proposal involves the conversion of e xisting residential convent area to a s ingle residential unit, it is not expected that there would be a change in the amount of traffic generated from the con vent site (estimated at two peak hour trips). In fact, the proposal involves converting existing residential con vent area that has been historically occupied convent residents and supported by staff. January 23,2017 Page 3 ATIACHMENT6 LOURDES CONVENT, 77 LOCUST AVENUE-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UP16-D57) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4, 2016 For the above reasons, the proposed use would not change or worsen current operating conditions at the Locust Avenue/Magnolia Avenue intersection. 5. The proposed use would change the nature and character of the property use introducing residential activities such as BBQs, parties and an outdoor playground, which presently do not occur on the convent property. Response: that: The proposed use would not change the character of the property use in a. The outdoor yard area that is proposed is well screened from offRsite by a tall hedge and heavy vegetation. b. The subject "yellow hallway" represents a small percentage of the overall convent facility (12%). Likewise, the proposed outdoor area is approximately 3,000 square feet, which is approximately 4% of the convent campus grounds (75,000 sq. ft.). c. There is nothing in the present Use Permit for the convent that precludes or prohibits the Dominican Sisters using the outdoor areas for similar activities. No outdoor playground structure is contemplated. d. The Dominican Sisters live in a quite convent setting. As stewards of the convent, it is expected that the Dominican Sisters will ensure that the quite setting and environment will be maintained. 6. The proposal could facilitate an expansion into a larger scale, multi-family transitional housing development, which would not be consistent with the character and uses in the neighborhood and would be a "slippery slope" to changing the use of the property. Response: This assumption that this proposal would facilitate a larger scale development of the property is speculative and not supported by substantial evidence. The Dominican Sisters have not presented or submitted an application for longRterm plans for the convent property so a future use cannot be assumed. As discussed above, the proposed use will occupy 12% of the overall convent facility and is proposed to "sunset" after two years. If there is a request to extend this use after two years, the Use Permit would have to be amended, which would require a public review process. Similarly, should the Dominican Sisters propose to re-purpose the "yellow hallway," request an expansion of the proposed use, or propose a reRuse or redevelopment of the convent property, it would be subject to an independent City planning review. As the Lourdes Convent property is located within the PO (Planned Development) District, the City planning review process would depend upon the scope of the longer-term plans for the site. A longer-term plan that involves site redevelopment or major reRpurposing of the property that is different than the current convent use would require an amendment to the PO District and approval of a Development Plan. This action would require an ordinance change by the City Council. Lastly, the City must review the merits of the current application that has been filed, not what might be proposed at a future date. 7. In response to Senate Bill 2 (882), the City was required to zone an area of the City to accommodate transitional housing without the requirement for a Use January 23, 2017 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 6 LOURDES CONVENT, 77 LOCUST AVENUE-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UP16-llS7) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4,2016 Permit. The proposal creates a "special privilege" to the Dominican Sisters, which sets a precedent for other requests. Resoonse Approving transitional housing at this location would not create a special privilege to the Dominican Sisters or set a precedent for similar requests . In fact , the proposal would be consistent with Senate Bill 2 (SB2). SB2 established specific State mandates for local jurisdictions to provide for and accommodate emergency housing , transitional housing and supportive housing . SB2 requires that a local jurisdiction: a. Establish a ~zone M or an area of the jurisdiction where an emergency shelter can be approved without a Use Permit, subject to specific performance and operational standards. b. The law prescribes that local jurisdictions treat and zone for transitional housing and supportive housing as a residential use only, subject to only the same restrictions that would apply to other housing of the same type in the subject zoning district. In response to 582 , the City adopted an ~ove r lay zone" in Southeast San Rafael area to allow emergency shelters gby right" (no Use Permit required), subject to compliance with specific standards. This overlay zone is not applicable to transitional housing. which is what is proposed for the "yellow hallway ." Approval of the proposed Use Permit Amendment would not set a precedent for similar requests. As summarized in the response to #8 below, transitional housing must be treated no different than any other residential housing use that is allowed in the same zoning district. 8. Transitional housing is not appropriate for this location or area. Response : Staff finds that the proposed use is residential and is appropriate for this location and all residential areas of San Rafael. First, the City must follow State law mandating provisions and allowances for transitional housing. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that local jurisdictions must treat transitional housing as a residential use only, subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other housing of the same type in the subject zoning district. The Lourdes Convent is a retirement center, which is a residential use. The Use Permit Amendment is required because of the site~ specific PO District zoning ; any change to the current retirement center use of the "yellow hallway" (e.g., a manger's unit, caretaker's unit , nurse's unit) would require a Use Permit Amendment. If Homeward Bound were to rentnease a home in the contiguous residential neighborhood (or any single~family residential neighborhood in San Rafael that is located in a single-family residential zoning district) for the same purpose of providing transitional housing, no Use Permit would be required . Further, the City would have no discretion over such a proposal. Further, the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Housing Element Background Report acknowledges that in 2011, San Rafael had 2,004 female~headed families with 1,182 such families with children under the age of 18. The Background Report states that in this family category , there is a need for transitional and emergency housing . San Rafael provides at least 45% of the transitional housing in Marin County. Much of this housing already exists in residential neighborhoods. January 23, 2017 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 6 LOURDES CONVENT, 77 LOCUST AVENUE· PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UPlfHl57) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4, 2016 Overall, the proposed use is consistent with pertinent goals, policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. A summary of the key policies and programs is provided as follows: • Land Use EJement-Public/Quasi-Public Land Use designatIon. This designation permits a variety of public and quasi-public land uses including residential use. Response : Consistent. The residential unit is allowed under this designation. • Housing Element-PolicY H-9 (Special Needs). Encourage a mix of housing unit types throughout San Rafael, including very low-and low-income housing for families with children, single parents, students, young families, lower income seniors, homeless and the disabled. Accessible units shall be provided in multi-family residential developments consistent with State and Federal law. Response: Consistent. The project proposes transitional housing for lower-income single mothers and their children . • Housing Element-Policy H-10 (Innovative Housing Approaches). Provide opportunities and facilitate innovative housing approaches in financing, design and construction of units to increase the availability of low-and moderate-income housing and especially for housing that meets the City's housing needs. Response: Consistent. The project proposes to re-purpose space from one residential housing type to another, which would accommodate transitional housing for special needs. • Housing Element-Policy H-11 (House Sharing). Support organizations that facilitate house sharing, linking seniors and small households with potential boarders to more efficiently use existing housing stock. Response : Consistent. The project proposes house sharing between two single parents with their children. 9. No proposal has been presented which describes what happens after two years of operation when the Use Permit "sunsets." Is the City able to condition the Use Pennit so that It Is issued for two years only? Response: It is correct that no specific proposal has been submitted which describes what would happen after the Use Permit "sunsets.w The Use Permit provides the City the opportunity and authority to require conditions, including the provision for a sunset clause . It is logical and practical to include a condition that sets forth the requirements that must be met at the time of the two year "sun seC Specifically, since the approval involves a physical change to the existing gyellow hallway ~ that includes a kitchen, the condition should require that at end of two years , the Dominican Sisters submit a plan to the City that addresses the future use of this area . Options could include a continuation of the proposed use, a re-purposing to other uses (e.g., caretaker's or manager's unit; return to current use; removal of the kitchen). January 23, 2017 Page 6 i I ATTACHMENT 6 LOURDES CONVENT, 77 LOCUST AVENUE-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UP16-0S7) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4, 2016 10, What are the intentions of the program for the long~term? What are the long-term plans for the convent property? Response : The City in its review of this spe Cific application cannot speculate concerning long-term plans for the convent property , As stated above , the current application must be reviewed on its own merits. Further, as stated above, should the Dominican Sisters propose to re-purpose the ~yellow hallway," request an expansion of the proposed use, or propose a re-use or redevelopment of the Lourdes Convent property, it would be subject to an independent City planning review. As the Lourdes Convenl property is located within the PD (Planned Development) District, the City planning review process would vary depending on the longer-term plans for the site. A longer-term plan that involves site redevelopment or major re-purposing of the property that is different than the current convent use would require an amendment to the PO District and approval of a Development Plan . This action would require an ordinance change by the City Council. 11. What regulations or restrictions are proposed for residents? How are guests-or domestic partners addressed in the residency requirements? What if a resident marries? Response : As reported and proposed by Homew ard Bound, potential tenants would be subject to the following process and conditi ons to qualify for residency : a . The potential tenant must be a woman that is in a Homeward Bound program. b. The potential tenant must meet the specific criteria for occupancy . The specific criteria are on file with the Community Development Department. c . The potential tenant must sign an occupancy agreement that sets forth conditions of occupancy, the ability to pay the monthly rent and continued participation in the Homeward Bound program. A sample/model occupancy agreement ("Next Key Occupancy Agreement") is on file with the Community Development Department. d . Upon and through occupancy, the tenant must meet a specific "Code of Ethics." 12. What if a resident violates the terms of the resident agreement? What if a resident refuses to move or vacate the premises? Response: Homeward Bound staff has indicated that should a resident violate the terms of the resident agreement , the resident would be terminated from the Homeward Bound Program and be requ ired to vacate . If the res ident refused to vacate the premises, Homeward Bound would pursue formal ev iction. 13. The proposal violates the Fair Employment Housing Act as the tenancy/occupancy is limited to single women, The Fair Employment Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on marital status, Therefore, this law would preclude the Homeward Bound (landlord) from allowing the tenants from moving their spouse or domestic partner into the residence. Response : First, this a landlord/tenant matter for which the City has no authority to regulate through the permit process. Second, the California Fair Employment and January 23 , 2017 Pag e 7 I ATIACHMENT6 LOURDES CONVENT, 77 LOCUST AVENUE-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UP16-0S7) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4,2016 Housing Act sets forth regulations regarding fair hous ing and discrimination. Section 50801 .5 of the Act is specific to "emergency shelters ~ and also references "transitional housing " (which is what is proposed for the 'yellow hallwa y"). It is claimed that if the program receives financial assistance from the State , the program operator is precluded from allowing the above discrimination. The Homeward Bound representatives have stated that while it is correct that the organization receives funding from many sources, including sources from the State , no State funding is used to administer this program. The project proponent would not violate the provisions of this Act by providing transitional housing that is exclusively available to single women and their children (a family). Further, it is important to note that the subject property is a convent/retirement center, which presently is and has always been exclusively occupied by women. 14. The Homeward Bound website states that they support women who are victims of domestic violence. However, the Homeward Bound representative has stated that the two single~women residents would not be victims of domestic violence. Response : While Homeward Bound offers assistance to victims of domestic violence , the representatives have indicated that the women selected for this housing would not be victims of domestic violence . 15. Who provides tenant oversight and what happens If the tenant gets married during occupancy? Response : Homeward Bound staff has indicated that should a tenant marry while occupying the residence, they would be in violation of the resident agreement. Therefore, the tenant would have to vacate the premises. Further , as the Lourdes Convent houses women only, the Dominican Sisters agreement with Homeward Bound that the dwelling unit is to be rented to single women and their children only. 16. This proposed use would lower the property values In the neighborhood. Resoonse: No facts or evidence has been submitted , which supports a claim that this use will impact property values in the neighborhood . The proposed use, its location and s ize , represent an ancillary change to the Lourdes Convent (apprOXimately 12 % of the convent facilit ies). Further, as d iscussed above , as transit iona l hous ing , the proposed use cannot be treated any differently than other residential uses that are allowed in the subject zoning district. From a zoning standpOint, the City must consider the merits of the project , its compliance with the applicable laws and the ability to make the findings required to approve a Use Permit Amendment. As proposed, the use would be fully consistent with General Plan 2020 and the applicable provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance. There is nothing presented in this proposal that would be detrimental to the health , safety and welfare of those residing on the convent site or neighboring properties, or the neighborhood in general. lanuary 23 , 2017 Page 8 ATIACHMENT6 LOURDES CONVENT, 77 LOCUST AVENUE-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (UP16-OS7) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC Zoning Administrator Hearing -January 4, 2016 17. The notification process for this Use Permit is inadequate and the process has been handled poorly. Resoonse The Communrty Development Department properly followed the procedures prescribed for public notice of this application . As required by the San Rafael Municipal Code (Chapter 14.29, Public Notice), property owners and residents within 300 feet of the convent property were notified of the application and the Zoning Administrator hearing. It was stated at the Zoning Administrator hearing that only three (3) property owners were notified of the application and hearing, which is incorrect. Twenty-three (23) neighboring properties, as well as the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association were sent notifications of the hearing . It should be noted that: a) the intention of the process is to not notify every person in the Crty , but those that are closest to the project and the pertinent neighborhood association ; and b) it is expected that the pertinent neighborhood association would pass on the project information to the greater neighborhood residents . By City policy, it is always recommended that a project proponent independently reach out to the neighborhood to present their proposal. This policy was respected by the applicant. Several pre-application meetings were conducted by the project proponent including the hosting of an "open house," a presentation to the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association and individual meetings with neighboring residents. SOURCES: The following sources are available and on file with the Community Development Department: Criteria for SelecUon of Families Moving Into Dominican Sisters Housing Opportunity, Homeward Bound Next Key Occupancy Agreement, Homeward Bound Letter from Gary Ragghianti, Ragghianti/Freitas to Paul Jensen, City of San Rafael; January 3, 2017 Letter from Sister Patricia Simpson to Paul Jensen, City of San Rafael; January 5, 2017 Conversation between Mary Kay Sweeney, Homeward Bound and Paul Jensen, City of San Rafael ; January 11 , 2017 January 23, 2017 Page 9 ATTACHMENT 7 TENANT/RESIDENT SCREENING CRITERIA Criteria for seJection offamil1es moving into Dominican Sisters' Housing Opportunity: .Slngie parent (mom) family with younger children (e.g. 2 -8) .Mom-must be working toward more economic self-sufficiency and open to career planning .6 montb's sobriety and committed to recovery (has a plan) .No other housing options available at,tbe time of application .Kids in Head Start. child care, or public school .Transitional Housing; up to 2 years 'Wanting and needing services, understanding that it is a program .WiIlingness to meet with Homeward Bound staff on a regular basis .Ability to cook meal for tbemselves . • Upholds tbe no smoking policy on campus .Agreement to sign a Code of Conduct .• Agreement to share progress and status updates .Ability to pay $550 for RENT / Utilities / sign a rental agreement .Master lease is in Homeward Bound's name .If owning a car, it must be registered and insured HB '-28-16 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: ATTACHMENT 8 (harmine Solla Thursday, March 02, 2017 8:56 AM Paul Jensen Bill Guer in Traffic Study for Dominican Convent After reviewing the request to host two single women and their children in a single housi ng unit at the Dominican (Lourdes) Convent, I can confi dently conclude that there will be no additional traffic impact to the intersection at Locust and Magnolia Avenues or in the surrounding area. This is not a heavy traffic area, there have been no reported traffic accidents in the previous five years and we therefore conclude that no traffic study will be required. The Dominican University of California, the largest trip generator in the area, generate s a significantly larger amount of daily trips, thus making the amount of trips generated from an addition of two single woman residences negligible to the overall impact. At most, two additional peak hour trips would be generated which would not exacerbate or otherwise impact traffic or safety on locust Avenue or Magnolia Avenue. This conclusion references the standard trip generation formula s for the different land use types. In this case, Apartment and Univers ity land use types we re used. If you ha ve any questions or concems, please feel free to contact me and we will further discuss. Thank you. Charmine C. SoUa , P.E., T.E. Deputy Public Works Director City of San Rafael Public Works Department 111 Morphew Street, San Rafael CA 94901 Ph . 415.485.3473 I Charmlne,Solla@cltyofs2lnrafael.org 1 Zoning Administrator Meeting MINUTES -January 4,2017 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16-057 Page 1 Zoning Administrator Meeting January 4, 2017 10:00 am 77 Locust Avenue (Lourdes Convent) -Zoning Administrator (ZA) review of a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a l,995-square-foot area of the Lourdes Convent from congregate housing (Dominican Sisters) to a transitional housing residential unit that would be shared by two adult women and their children. The Use Permit is proposed to authorize the transitional housing unit as a temporary use for two years. APN: 015-112- 23; Planned Development (PD) Zoning District; Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust, owner; Gary Ragghianti, Ragghianti-Freitas, applicant; File No.: UP16-057. PUBLIC COMMENT Paul Jensen, Acting Zoning Administrator, provided a brief introduction and welcomed those in attendance (approximately 50). Jensen described the purpose of process for the hearing. It was also noted that a fact sheet describing the project, site conditions and other information was prepared and copies were made available to those in attendance. He explained the importance of the sign-up sheet noting that is will be used for notification for future meetings on the on this project. It was requested that those people wishing to speak and provide public comments should provide their name and contact information. Jensen described the format of the meeting noting that it starts with a report from City staff, which is followed by an applicant presentation of the project. He stated applicant presentation will be made by the Dominican Sisters and Homeward Bound. Following the public comment period, the applicant/City staff will respond to the public comments and address the next steps. Jensen provided a brief summary of request, which is to C0nvert 1,995 square feet of the Lourdes Convent facility from residential rooms to a single dwelling unit containing one kitchen. He stated that The Dominican Sisters are proposing a partnership with Homeward Bound, who will manage the unit to be shared between two single women and their children (under 8 years of age). He indicated that the unit that is proposed will be "transitional housing" which provides short-term occupancy by a tenant that will ultimately transition to permanent housing. He explained that the unit is to be managed by Homeward Bound, who will be screening the tenants, and ensuring that the tenants are active participants in the Homeward Bound program. Further, he remarked that the tenants must sign a key occupancy agreement and meet specific criteria. In addition, he described that the proposal is structured so that the unit would be available for two years. Jensen pointed to the graphic of the site plan, the campus, and the area where the tenants would reside. It was-noted that the convent site is a little over two acres in size. The convent facility is one- stoty, roughly 16,400 square feet, is a retirement center, congregate care and is also approved for 32 residents. ATTACHMENT 9 Zoning Administrator Meeting MINUTES -January 4,2017 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16-057 Page 2 Jensen indicated that there had been reference in the comments received to date that the property is located within the "u" (Unclassified) district. He stated that the site has not been in the "u" District for many years and that the property was rezoned in 1992. He explained that the lourdes convent property is in the "PD" (Planned Development) District. The PD District requires a Use permit to convert the residential space to a single dwelling unit. He explained that the surrounding area has varying zoning, but is mostly single-family residential. He mentioned the San Rafael General Plan 2000 (a twenty year master plan for the City), includes specific policies addressing housing and special needs. They include: • Housing Element Policy H-9, which encourages a mix of housing types throughout San Rafael for very-low income families with children; • Housing Element Policy H-lO, which encourages innovative housing approaches; and • Housing Element Policy H-ll, which encourages house sharing. House sharing is common at the present because of rising rents. Jensen noted that three findings must be made in order to support the approval of a Use Permit: • The Use must be in accord with our General Plan and Zoning • The Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare to property or improvements ·in the vicinity or.to the general welfare of the City. • The Use must comply with applicable conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. It does allow the imposing of conditions, like a two-year sunset clause, for example. Further, Jensen reported that State laws sets forth special allowances for transitional housing and that the City must follow the law in this regard. He explained that the State requires that local jurisdictions must consider transitional housing as a residential use ONLY subject to the same restrictions and allowances that apply to other housing of the same type in the subject zoning district. In other words, in this case if the property owner wanted to turn the space into a caretaker unit, managers unit or separate dwelling unit for one or several nuns, a Use Permit would be required. Similarly, Jensen explained that if Homeward Bound were to rent a house in a single-Family residential neighborhood for transitional housing, this be can without a Use Permit. Transitional housing would be treated the same as whatever the underlying use is in the zoning district allows. Jensen summarized the notification requirements for a Use Permit. For a Use Permit that is reviewed and considered by the Zoning Administrator, property owners and residents within 300 feet of the property are noticed. In addition, the local neighborhood association (Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association) was notified. This association has been very good about notifying neighbors and the City relies on this outreach. He stated that a fifteen-day notification for this hearing is typically required, but that in this case, more time was provided in the noticing at was during the holidays. ATTACHMENT 9 Zoning Administrator Meeting MINUTES -January 4,2017 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16-057 Page 3 Jensen stated that the City received a number of letters and emails both supporting and opposing the project. A list of opponent concerns was acknowledged. As part of the concluding statements, Jensen reported that public comment would be taken but that a decision on the Use Permit application would not occur until January 13, 2017. At that time, a decision will be made to determine whether the Use Permit is approved, denied or conditionally approved. Jensen opened the meeting to public comment and introduced the applicant{s) for a detailed presentation of the project. Sister Maureen Mcinerny, Dominican Sisters stated that she filed the application for a Use Permit. She introduced Sister Raya Hanlon for a more detailed summary ofthe background and proposal. Sister Raya Hanlon described when the Dominican Sisters came to San Rafael (in 1889) emphasizing that "we were the neighborhood". She explained the vision of the Dominican Sisters, which is to extend the mission of Jesus, with depth and compassion on the critical issues of our time and seek the transformation of systems that deny dignity to any person. She stated that Pope Francis (in 2015/2016) issued a call to religious congregations, pleading with them to open their doors to serve people in an immediate way. Upon reflecting, it was then that Sister Raya Hanlon realized the opportunities offered by the Lourdes Convent property. The utilized space referred to as the "yellow hall" could be easily re- purposed for accessed and use by others in need Sister Raya Hanlon stated that the Sisters of Lourdes (retired sisters, infirmed sisters) welcomed the notion of sharing their home with women and children. This notion eventually came to be two women with two children each, under the age of eight years old. She stated that it had been asked if the Mother House across the street could be used for housing and it was decided that their convent lifestyle: a) not be appealing to families as it is congregate living; and b) requires a level of privacy that is not the same as in a single family home. She stated that the lourdes Convent facility is appropriate for independent family living as it is self-contained with a private entrance, and that there is an easy opportunity to establish a kitchen to serve as a self-contained contained residence. She stated that due to the fact that the sisters are engaged in their own Long Range Planning for the convent facility the use of this space for a two year period through the partnership with Homeward Bound was logical. She stated that the Sisters feel a moral imperative to share the abundance of what they have been graced with, and since this is underutilized space, it is appropriate to share the space with women and children in transition to permanent housing. She stated that this will be collaboration with Homeward Bound and that the Sisters have long been associated with this association. She asked for public support of families, particularly women and children. Sister Joan Hanlon, Director at Saint Raphael Pre-school introduced herself. She stated that the collaboration with Homeward Bound goes back some thirty years and she believes that Homeward Bound provides an outstanding program. In addition to housing, the program includes education, skilled development, job placement and all aspects of self-esteem and independence being the stepping stones ATTACHMENT 9 Zoning Administrator Meeting MINUTES ~ January 4, 2017 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16~OS7 Page 4 to fully functioning and contributing citizens as member of our society. She stated that Dominican Sisters have been collaborators with Homeward Bound for 26 years in various ways such as being volunteers in their shelters and offices, moral and financial support, employees in their organization and serving on their Board of Directors. She noted that Sister Raya referred to the Dominican Sister's mission and vision statements to bring the gospel to bear with depth and compassion on the critical issues of our time, and that they revere and affirm the inherent dignity of each person. She explained that these are some of the values that the Dominican Sisters share with Homeward Bound and that Mary Kay Sweeney, Director of Homeward Bound will speak to the program. Sister Joan Hanlon stated that she would like to speak about the children that would be housed at the convent or be part of the "yellow hallway". She explained that these families will have an opportunity to live in a safe, warm, comfortable and home-like setting. In addition, these mothers will be able to play, teach and sing and interact and form character and love their children. She stated the importance of positive, loving, responsible and interactive environment for a child's health and development such as the social, moral, emotional, and academic and all aspects of support in a child growing into a team player, critical thinker adaptable, compassionate, and collaborative. She stated it all begins with a child's first experiences -children under the age of 5. She stated that children under the age of Five years grow and develop in enormous ways in social and emotional as well as growing their vocabulary by thousands of words -"it is amazing" she said! She stated that the Sister at Lourdes are very excited about welcoming these families into their homeand that perhaps the families and Sisters will have an opportunity to interact. Mary Kay Sweeney, Executive Director of Homeward Bound, introduced herself and stated that she was thankful for the opportunity to further the missions of the Dominican Sisters, Homeward Bound and City of San Rafael. She stated that creating housing opportunities in a time of great need is all of our responsibilities and that together there is a better chance of achieving this goal. She stated that she is honored and grateful to work on this proposal with the Dominican Sisters as they have long been courageous allies and recognizing that everyone needs a place to call home. She explained that the "yellow hallway" project is a great opportunity for transitional housing for up to two years for two single parent families. She described that the transitional housing program that is proposed with the Dominican Sisters is similar to Homeward Bound's "Next Key" transitional housing program. She explained that it is similar in the sense that the families would be selected on the need to pursue further career training and goals, on their ability to pay rent, to abide by an Occupancy Agreement, to meet with staff regularly, and to follow a prescribed "Code of Conduct." She stated that most of the families that Homeward Bound target are female, single family households and that they are not involved in or victims of domestic violence. She stated the Center for Domestic Peace is the designated organization that provides housing for these individuals. Sweeney emphasized that the services provided by Homeward Bound promote transitional housing, goal setting for those in transition, money management, housing plans, career development and resource counseling for individualized needs. She added that for the Yellow Hallway project, Homeward Bound and Dominican Sisters will jointly interview families. The selected families would be required to sign a month to month agreement. Sweeney ATTACHMENT 9 ~oning Administrator Meeting MINuTeS· January·4, 201,7 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16.0S7 PageS reported that Homeward Bound closely works with Headstart, placing children in programs and working with in-home visits. She explained that school-age children would already be enrolled in the public school system. Lastly, Sweeney explained that they will work with families on their permanent housing goals while in transitional housing. She explained that Homeward Bound operates several long-term supportive housing programs for many families in Marin. She thanked the Sisters for this opportunity Dianne Henderson, land use planner, spoke as a representative to the Dominican Sisters. She explained that Gary Ragghianti, attorney for the Dominican sisters, contacted her to meet with the Sisters to discuss the use of the "yellow hall" area. Henderson noted that she met with the Dominican Sisters and found that they had a wing that was unoccupied due to the drop in resident numbers (as they now have less than 75 sisters in the Order). Henderson stated that at one time, the Order had close to 400 sisters. She said that the "yellow hallway" has 10 bedrooms designed for residency by 10 sisters. Henderson noted ·that after several meetings, the idea of providing a single dwelling unit to be shared by two single women with two children under the age of eight was decided. Henderson explained that upon initial thought, the proposed use of the "yellow hallway" would be considered a residential use and that not discretionary City permit (e.g., a Use Permit) would be required. She explained that she went on to advice the Sisters that in the interest of the neighborhood that it would be in the best interest to explain this proposal to the neighbors and obtain City feedback. She emphasized that the Dominican Sisters and Mr. Ragghianti agreed and that they wanted full transparency. Following a meeting with Paul Jensen, City Community Development Director, it was decided that it would be best to apply for an amendment to the existing Use Permit that would specifically allow for two single women and two children each to occupy the residence for a maximum period of two years. Henderson noted that she requested the city staff to provide a list of the neighbors that would be noticed by the City. She stated that by law, the City has to notify residents within 300 feet of the property boundaries and that more names were added to the original list. The Dominican Sisters invited some neighbors to their home to show them what is involved with the project and to determine the extent and focus of neighbor concerns. She stated that the "yellow hallway" is just less than 2,000 square feet and is less than 1/8 of the total building. Henderson reiterated the limits the City can impose on transitional housing. She stated that any property in the neighborhood could enter into a lease with Homeward Bound without any permission from or permit approvals by the City. She remarked that the City has a General Plan that is essentially the blueprint for any development in the City. She stated that the General Plan identifies a dire need for housing, especially transitional housing. She said that the General Plan 2020 Housing Element Background Report indicates a shortage of housing for single mother households in San Rafael. She mentioned that when Mr. Jensen takes action on this project, he will make a determination as to whether the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She stated that she feel that this project is consistent. ATTACHMENT 9 Zoning Administrator Meeting MINul1s -January 4, 2017 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit ~P1i .. OS7 Page 6 Mr. Gary Ragghianti, local attorney and a 38 year resident on Palm Avenue spoke on behalf of the project proponents. He stated that he believes that everyone has the rig~t to his or her opinion, in opposition or in favor of the proposal. However, Ragghianti noted that people are not entitled to their own facts. He explained that facts drive the determination as to what should, and in his opinion, happen in this case. He stated that unilateral subjective opinions and conclusory statements don't withstand the scrutiny necessary that the City must exercise in its analysis. He stated that every application that comes before the City has to be tested against certain guidelines and principles. He asked that people express their opinion, but that they support it with facts, not conclusory statements that bear no relation to the law. He cited these statements: 1) This application is consistent with the SR General Plan 2020 in every respect 2) This application is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 3) This application is consistent with the Housing Element of the General plan, particularly, the policies that he reference in his letter to the city, which encourages a mix of housing types including housing for precisely the type of p~ople in this application. The Background Report to the GP 2020 recites that Single women head of households are particularly in need of housing and there exists a shortage of this type of housing 4) The property is zoned PD, not U. This is not a rezoning application the grant ofthe use permit WILL NOT rezone the property 5) The City has noticed this application properly and has determined that is entitled to be categoricallyexempt. 6) Use Permits run with the land. This Use Permit expires in two years. Ragghianti referred to Mr. Chris Dolan's letter of opposition, which has circulated through the Dominican neighborhood. He stated that he respectfully disagrees with the points that Mr. Dolan advances. He remarked that he received a picture of two cars in the parking lot and that it suggests that there is a parking lot problem. He said that the Mr. Dolan's letter further suggests that the Dominican Sisters should conduct a parking study. He stated that there is no parking problem and that the photo depicts cars that are parked on the Lourdes Convent property, not the street, and there is a lot of other parking that the photo does not show. Also, he stated that the women that we do not know -why do we assume that the women will have vehicles? Even if they did have vehicles, the impact of traffic on Locust would be minimal. Also, Ragghianti challenged Mr. Dolan's point that providing housing for women residents only would be discriminatory .. He stated that the Health and Safety code provides that the proponents of transitional housing may restrict occupancy based on sex. He stated that convents are not co-ed and that no man will ever live at Lourdes Convent. 'He referred to the last comment in Mr. Dolan's letter that this proposal will change Dominican forever ... the fabric and character. He requested that facts be provided to support this finding as there is no evidence that this proposal will change the character if the area? ATTACHMENT 9 Zoning ~ministrator Meeting ~MIN:Ut~S -January ~4, 2017 17 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16-0S7 Page 7 Ragghianti stated that since Mr. Dolan lives adjacent to the Lourdes Convent, he simply does not want this use next to him. He stated that Mr. Dolan's contention that if this use were moved across the street that it would be acceptable. He explained that there is nothing in the City of San Rafael General Plan that allows such a consideration to be made in the denial of a Use Permit. He stated that Mr. Dolan and. others, who have signed their name to the document that Mr. Dolan prepared and presented to the City, also take the position that the use is inappropriate. Lastly, Ragghianti noted that there is a lack of evidence to support the fact that this use would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He asked that the public in attendance at the meeting keep in mind that facts upon which the arguments are based, not just the expression of opinion. He stated that the City has analyzed this Use Permit and that. has determined that is consistent in every respect with the development standards, its policies such as General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Acting Zoning Administrator Jensen invited the public to comment. Chris Dolan, neighbor spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that the reason he wrote the letter to the surrounding neighbors about the project was because he felt that neighbors needed to know about it and that people were insufficiently notified. He stated that if there is a "right" to do something, it does not mean that it is "right". He stated that he believes that this use will affect the community and that he truly admires all that the Dominican Sisters do and that that they are acting from their heart and have good intentions. He stated that he believes that Homeward Bound wants to fulfill its mission to provide housing to people. He stated he is not here to cast dispersions. He said he wrote the letter and states that the Lourdes property was a U district at one time. He stated that he believes that only three adjacent property owners were notified by the City. He said that the previous change in use in 1979, it was considered if R3 multi-family was an appropriate use for this site, and it was decided that it was not appropriate for the neighborhood. He stated that at the time this use was converted, the finding was that the use was "inappropriate" for multi-family. He said that it may not be legally classified at "multi- family", but he states there will be two families with two children, and therefore, this should be considered "multi-family". He stated that it is not appropriate to allow two families to move into a convent without anyone knowing about it. Dolan stated that they are adding a kitchen which is creating a separate living space and this should be against the San Rafael ordinance. In terms of the size of the space, Dolan noted that the 1,995 square feet is larger than many houses in the neighborhood. He stated that it is a convent, with 30 dormitory rooms; it is not a living unit. He said that the law does not say that we do not have to think about the future and that they might convert it to Dominican in the future and have more families living there. However, he noted that he feels that the neighbors should have a voice and express their concerns. Dolan remarked that in regards to the cars parked in the lot, he is concerned about the overall lack of parking in the neighborhood. He stated that on the issue of marriage, generally speaking, the Fair Housing Act states that you cannot discriminate based on marital status, race sex or national origin. In addition, he said that since the unit would be a rental unit, there are other tenant rules that must be adhered to in its operation. He stated that this is a change in the current use and that he has concerns about housing two families and not referring to the ATTACHMENT 9 ~oning ~ministrator Meeting MINUllS -January 4, 2017 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16-0S7 Page 8 use as multi-family. Dolan inquired about whether the two families can use the Mother House property across the street. He explained that he is concerned about this property being used in the future for additional multi-family scenarios. He stated that housing is his area of law by profession and that he has sued people that have kept domestic partners out of housing who then have children. He said that he has read the Homeward Bound website and that many women that they help are fleeing domestic violence and has concerns about this issue. He stated that he believes he would be fine if they moved the family across the street to the Mother House. He said he thinks that this particular change in use is a step down a slippery slope and that the neighbors should be conscious of. He remarked that he believes that the Dominican Sisters are making plans for future use of this property and eventually it will be viewed as an asset and perhaps sold for residential use. He stated that he believes that the Lourdes Convent is the wrong place for this use. Doug Carlson, a neighbor, spoke in favor of the project. Carlson stated that he believes in a purpose driven life and that what the Sisters are trying to do here is consistent with their word and that they have been doing it for centuries and consistent with the neighborhood. He stated that he believes that we cannot solve problems of our society by hoisting them off on others. Basically, he explained that we need to look at our own community, our own neighborhood issues and solve them locally. He stated that homelessness is a major problem and that hundreds of homeless people in our community have died over the last twenty years. He stated that many of us have family members who have struggled. Carlson explained that he lost his house in a fire in 1978 and got help from neighbors and that supporting one another is very important. He remarked that it is important that families moving in to the site are welcome in the neighborhood. He said he hopes that the families that need transitional housing are not here today to hear these proceedings and stated that they are a vulnerable population. Carlson noted that it is his hope that the families are welcomed in the neighborhood and that he hopes that they eventually get back on their feet, and help their children understand that they have prospects going forward that do not include living under a bridge or a future without hope. Hugo Landecker, a 48-year San Rafael resident, spoke about SB 2 zoning that provides for transitional housing without a Use Permit. He stated that the Dominican area does not have such zonil1g and that is why we are here today. He stated that the requested use is for two women and two children and that this would be conditionally approved. He also stated that transitional housing is not limited to women and children. He requested that the City should address the subject of special privilege. He stated that State law cannot be granted to any organization and that other property owners can provide housing for homeless whether it is an emergency shelter or transitional housing. Landecker stated that if this use is approved then other residents can do the same at their properties because if others are not allowed to provide transitional housing and the Dominican Sister are allowed, this would be considered a "special privilege" and not legal. Landecker noted that if the conditions of approval are not followed, the City will not be able to enforce these conditions nor will the Police Department and that it will result in a legal process. ATTACHMENT 9 Zoning Administrator Meeting MINUTES R January 4, 2017 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16-0S7 Page 9 Don Dickenson, resident of Dominican for over thirty seven years spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he was the Planning Director in Mill Valley and served as Acting Zoning Administrator for the County of Marin. He stated that he is currently a Planning Commissioner for the County of Marin. He explained that he is very aware of zoning regulations, and has been involved in the findings required to take action on a Use Permit. He explained that he has been involved in activities to preserve the neighborhood to protect it from inappropriate uses, like fighting the development on Gold Hill Grade, and the proposed Master Plan on Dominican University. He stated that for the past twenty years he has been involved with the Dominican University Advisory Committee to try to keep good relations with neighbors and to keep disputes away from the City. Dickenson stated that he attended the Open House sponsored by the Dominican Sisters at Lourdes Convent. He stated that the proposal is modest and is limited to two years. Dickenson noted that the operation would not take in homeless off-the-street; rather, a screening process is administered by Homeward Bound. Lastly, Dickenson noted that the new tenants would be able to enjoy the benefits of Dominican and the Dominican Sisters would be able to enjoy the fact that there will be young children living at the convent site. Regarding impacts on the neighborhood, Dickenson noted that the proposal is benign. Barry Gilbert, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project. Gilbert indicated that he was notified ofthe meeting through by Chris Dolan's letter; he considers this a major use and indicated that not many people were notified about the proposal. He stated that many people here today are here because of Chris Dolan's letter. Gilbert noted that the. Dominican Sisters need to be forthright in what they will be doing with the campus in the future. He stated that heis concerned with the women and children telling their friends about the housing and that this will create a scenario where the space will continue to grow into larger spaces and more transitional housing will be created at this location. He stated that as a real estate broker, that in broke ring the sale of property in the area, that in any future contract, it will have to be revealed that there is a conditional housing situation in the neighborhood and he fears that it may affect property values. He stated that this is an altruistic proposal and could work in another part of the City. He stated that he fears that the use could get larger and larger and this is just the start. Peggy Woodring, 45 year resident, spoke in favor of the project. Woodring stated that she supports the proposal in a big way noting that that she does not understand how the proposed use and residents would forever change the neighborhood. She said that she does not understand what the "slippery slope" is all about. Paula Doubleday, 19 years on Linden Lane, stated that there is a lot of "fearmongering" going on and we have gone from two women with kids for a specific two year period to the Dominican Sisters selling the convent property for apartment development and use. Doubleday stated that it is this kind of catastrophic thinking and hysteria that is taking us away from what really is the intent of this Use Permit. As was stated, she reiterated that the Dominican Sisters are the center of the neighborhood and they 'have done their homework. She views it as "not a big issue" and noted that the use would be good for the neighborhood. Doubleday encouraged the City to approve the Use Permit. In closing, Doubleday AITACHMENT9 Zoning Administrator Meeting MI~UT6S -January 4, 2017 77 Locust ~venue, Use Permit UP1.6-0S7 Page. 10 noted that the future is the future and in 19 years she has lived in the neighborhood, she has never had to "vote" on who is moving in next to her, and that there is a reason for it. Gary Scholick, adjacent homeowner to Lourdes Convent spoke with concern about the project. He stated he is not objecting to a use that will be expiring in two years but that if the permit would allow this use beyond the two years, he could have a problem with it. He inquired as to what would happen after two years, specifically, if the City has the ability to condition the permit so that the use terminates in two year. He said that he has raised two daughters and says that he is frustrated about student and visitors of the University who refuse to observe the stop sign at the intersection of Acacia Avenue and Locust Avenue. He stated that there has been an additional sign placed under the existing sign that reads "Stop means Stop". Scholick noted that the Lourdes Convent is located on a sharp corner and that there have been many near misses of accidents by people blowing through the stop sign. He said that the parking lot has issues of people driving out or driving into the lot. He explained that he is concerned that the increase in vehicles with visitors to these families will have an impact on the exit/egress to the parking lot and could cause a hazard to the safety of the corner. He said he hopes that the young children are provided a safe play zone. He remarked that he has yet to hear any fact as to why the Mother House facility across street is not a more appropriate place for these two young mothers and their children. He stated that the question was asked on September 22, 2016 and was not answered. He stated that the answer that came about is that the Convent across the street is not suitable for a family with two children. He remarked that he questions that and would like a detailed factual explanation as to why it is not appropriate for two mothers with their children. He suggested that it is a more logical location for this use. He asked whether or not a traffic study has been done to get facts about the safety of the corner. Annie Sammis, who lives on Locust Avenue, spoke in favor of the project. Sammis stated that she was informed of the project by the City notice. She stated that she feels a moral imperative to do her part for the largest crisis of our time which is housing for families. She stated that her concern is more of a pet peeve which has to do with the traffic problem at the stop sign. Also, she stated that if there is no smoking inside, then where will the tenants smoke? She said that she is concerned about a fire if people are smoking outside. She mentioned that she thinks that there are a lot of people on Locust who smoke, possible from the University (employees). She mentioned that there is an area by her house which could be an ideal place for people to congregate and smoke. She said that she would like to have someone to report this activity to should it happen in the future and remarks that her safety and security is very important to her. Sister Susannah Malarkey, who resides at the Mother House Convent, spoke in favor of the project. Malarkey explained that the Mother House is full and there is no room for more people or for the new families at this facility. She indicated that the Sisters are very active and engaged in the community. David Wolfersberger, who lives on Locust Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that he has two boys, ages five and seven. He stated he placed the sign up "Stop Means Stop" that was referenced by another speaker. Wolfersberger stated that he believes that the project will just happen ATTACHMENT 9 Zoning Administrator MeetingMINl!TES -January 4,20,17 77l,.ocust Avenue, Use Permit UP~6-0S7 Page 11 and that he never received a notice from the City. He stated that the noticing of the meeting was handled poorly. He stated it should be done elsewhere. He remarked he is against it and feels that San Rafael bears too much burden of the homeless problem in Marin. He mentioned that he had a bad experience with a homeless person relieving himself in the bushes, which put him at physical risk and requiring doctors care. He explained that he is concerned about the homeless camping out in the bushes and is concerned about fire. He said that he is worried about the unintended consequences of moving homeless people into the neighborhood. Jane Kroesche, resident of Palm Avenue spoke in favor of the project. Kroesche thanked Chris Dolan for the letter that he distributed. She also stated that we are not entitled to know who are neighbors are or have a say on who they are. She said that she is thrilled to know that two single mothers will have a place to call home. She remarked that her only regret is that it is only for two years and that that these people matter and have greater fears that the rest of us. She said that she plans to welcome these families with open arms and she wishes nothing but the best for these" families and that she hopes that they feel safe and secure. Hugh Cadden, resident of 201 Locust Avenue spoke in opposition of the project. Cadden stated that he learned about this project on Christmas Eve. He said that he agrees with Gary Ragghianti about sticking to the facts. He stated the issues raised on both sides have been illuminating. He remarked that he views this as a critical zoning issue. He said he feels that everyone is on the same page in terms of that this is a good thing to do. He said you have to look at the actions that are being taken and he is not inclined to just dismiss the future and that there are all sorts of tools that the City and planners can use to impose rational conditions and restrictions. He said he still wants to know why this cannot be carried out at the Mother House. He stated that he believes that this is an important point and that he wants no conclusions, but facts. He stated that 77 Locust is not the same as the Mother House. Cadden explained that 77 Locust Avenue is a restricted ancillary use for the operation of a Convent. In addition, that was all achieved by taking a single-family zoned property and placing conditions on it to accommodate the convent. He stated it is his opinion that it is a "big step" to operate the convent for multi-family residential use. He remarked that he feels that if the use was at the Mother house it would mitigate many concerns like traffic, type of use, etc. Lastly, Cadden stated he feels that approving this project sets up a slippery slope, as it will open the door to other uses over time that will impact the single-family residency characteristic of our property. He states that he feels that the issue is zoning and questions the consequences and impacts that will arise from this change in zoning. Lastly, Cadden stated that he was shocked by the fact that the decision for this project was to be by January 13. He stated that he is requesting that the timeframe be extended. He stated that City Hall was closed for two weeks and· that so he requests that the period be extended to January 28. He stated that it would allow him to research files at the City. Laura Merlb, resident of 297 Locust Avenue, spoke in favor of the project. Merlo stated that many of . this issues that people have been complaining about today, have absolutely nothing to do with this project. She stated the issue of fire exists all the time and will not change because of the addition of two ATTACHMENT 9 ~oning Administrator Meeting MINUTES -January 4, 2017 77 ~ocusf Avenue, Use Permit UP~6-0S7 Page 12 families. In addition, the stop sign issue will not change nor people smoking pot will change due to these people moving in. She stated that convent life in quiet aod contemplative and that the Mother House would not be appropriate for two families with children. She explained that the term for all of this raving of bad possibilities is called a "parade of horribles" that are no~ necessarily logically related and also, that some of these things are very answerable by how Homeward Bound operates. She stated there are rules and that if you do not abide by them, you are kicked out. She states that if you marry, you are no longer single and are kicked out. She said she welcomes these families here. Acting Zoning Administrator Jensen asks if there are any more public comments and that the applicant may want to address question/comments and that he has some follow-up comments. He stated that he will be addressing comments that were made today. Paul Cassella, resident of 367 Locust Avenue spoke with concern about the project. Cassella stated that he is a retired special education teacher for the SFUSD. He stated that he has worked with many homeless people during his career and has had both positive and negative experiences. He stated there too many issues with this use and that people need more time to accommodate this use. A neighboring resident (no name disclosed) spoke about the concerns of traffic noting that the street intersection near the property is very dangerous. He said that the length of time to approve the use needs to be extended. He said he did not know about the project until he received the letter from neighbor Chris Dolan. Sister Malarkey addressed the issue of moving the use to the Mother House. She remarked that she would like to address it in three areas: families, the facilities and the finances. With regard to families, she mentioned that the Dominican Sisters would like to support their transition, where they can build their own resources, to prepare their own meals, have a sense of privacy, and have family time where they would like to be alone. She remarked that in terms of the facility, the proposal is have an entrance/exit to a fenced in common area to play, a kitchen to prepare meals in an area that is currently unused. She stated thatJn terms of finances, there are no resources available to accommodate a new residence at the Mother House and that it is full and is congregate living. Further, she noted that it is extremely difficult to isolate any area of any of those buildings that would provide privacy for the proposed residents. She stated that displacing sisters at the Mother House would be disruptive to the Sisters. For these reasons, she stated that Lourdes building is a much better place for these families. Gary Ragghianti stated the application would expire in two years and that there would be not an expansion of the use during those two years. He stated that at the end ofthe two years, the kitchen could be removed, if so desired by the City. He mentioned that the traffic problem will be there today, tomorrow and will not be exacerbated by the admission for a short period of these two families. He stated that Mr. Wolfersbergers comment about not knowing about this application, when in fact, Mr. Ragghianti says he saw him at the Sisters Open House. He said that he does not support a continuance. ATtACHMENT 9 Zoning Administrator Meeting MINUTES -January 4, 2017 77 Locust Avenue, Use Permit UP16-0S7 Page 13 Hugh Cadden asked a question about the lease agreement between these two families and Homeward Bound. He questioned what would happen if a tenant on a month-to-month agreement is thrown out or evicted for some reason. Cadden also inquired about the track record of people staying/leaving transitional residences? Paul Fordham, Deputy Director of Homeward Bound stated that Homeward Bound has 300 beds that they rent every day to people moving out of homelessness. He stated that people have occupancy agreements, and if they not pay the rent, or break the terms of the agreement, they are asked to leave. He stated that should they refuse to leave they will go through an eviction process like any landlord is required to follow. He explained that they experience about one eviction per year. He said that they work with tenants, building relationships over time with supportive housing, providing engaging relationships and a range of services. However, should someone not pay rent or break terms of agreement, they would be evicted. He stated that in the case of these two families, if a situation would occur that an individual were to be asked to leave/get evicted and there was sufficient time left in the two-year term of the Use Permit, then another family following the same guidelines would be considered to move in. Chris Dolan asked about what if the women should marry. Paul Fordham stated that since the women would be participating in a program with guidelines and restriction such as being single women. Should someone get married, they would be in violation of the terms of the program agreement and would be required to leave/vacate the residence. Dolan asked about guests and Paul Fordham responded that if guests would more than like be pre-approved and would not be allowed to stay over-night. Acting Zoning Administrator Jensen stated that the Cfty mailed notices of the public hearing to 25 residents/property owners within the 300 feet of the subject property. He stated he has listened to the comments and concerns and will be very objective in reviewing this proposal for action. Regarding the request to an extended time period for action, Jensen stated that additional time would be observed and a decision would be made by January 28, 2017. He stated that there are other issues like traffic and parking that he would like to discuss with Public Works Department. He remarked that the two-year sunset provision will be carefully reviewed to determine what happens to this space beyond this period. He stated that January 28 will be the date of the decision. The meeting is ended at 12:35pm Prepared by: --:---=----:-;--;----:-c-c-c:----:---:-,--:c-- Anne Derrick, Administrative Assistant III Approved by:, __ ---: ____________ _ Paul Jensen, Acting Zoning Administrator ATTACHMENT 9 ATTACHMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTICE & NOTICING LIST ~SANRAFAEL V' THECITYWfTHAMISSION NonCE OF PUBUC HEARING -PLANNING COMMISSION You are invited to attend "the Planning Commission hearing on the following proposed project:- PROJECT: 77 locust Avenue (Lourd .. Convent) -Appeals(s) of the Zoning Administrator's January 28, 2017 action approving a Use Permit (UP16-057) to allow the converslon'of a 1 ,995-square·foo! area of the lourdes Convent from congregate housing (DomIn ican Sisters) to a single dweillng unit for \r.msitional housing to be shared by two adult women" and their ch ildren. The Use Permit is proposed to authOOze the transitional housing unit as a temporary usa fO( two years. APN: 015-112·23; Planned Development (PO) Zo ni ng Oisbicl; Appellallts: Christopher Dolan and Gary Scholick; Congregation of the Most Ho ly Name Support Charitable Trusl, property owner; Appeal FilE! No(s): AP 17-OO1 and APf7-002. As required by ~atfJ law, the project's potential environmental impacts hove been 8ssessed. Planning staff recommends Ii finding that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the california Environmental Quality At:! (CEQA) under 14 CCR SectIon 15301 (Beisting Facilities). If the Planniflf} Commission dotermines that this project Is in on onvironmantally sensitive llf9a, further studies may be required. MEETING OATElTIMEILOCATION: Tuesday, March 14, 2017, 7:00 p,m. City Counc~ Chambers, 1400 F(flh Ave al D st ~ San Ra fael , CA . FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Paul Jensen, Project Planner at (415) 485-5064 or pauLiensen@cityofsanrafaelorg . You can also corne 10 lhe Planning DIvision office, located In City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office Is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and FridaY: You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m . on the Frk:lay before the meeUng at hUQ ·Uwww·civofJaorafael .orgfmeetings WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. Ttle Planning Commission win consider all publ ic tesllmony and docide whether to approve the appeal or uphold the Zoning Administrato r action to approve tho Use Permit application. IF you WANT TO COMMENT: You can send written correspondence by email to the address above, or by post to the Community Development Department , Plann ing Divis ion, Cily of San Rafael, 1400 ffl' Avenue, San Rafael , CA 94901. You can also hand deliver It prior 10 the action dale. A I the above Eme Mel place. all letters recelv&d wiD be noted alld all Interested paJ1Ies 'MIl be heard. I f you challenge In co urt Ille matter dl!sCJlbeci aboVe, you may be l i rr.~ed \Q ralUlg cn ~ those issues you or wmeone else raised at the pubic heari ng descri bed l n INs notice , or in wrttten Qmts.ponda T1C8 dollvered at, or pliOI' to, the above relarvnc:ed publ k: hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). App eels of decisions by the Plann~g CommissIon to the City COI.Incll ehall b6 mado by filing a notic(! thornor in writing with the required fee to the Planning Divi sion of the Corrvnunlty Development O~rtmOnl wIthin 5 working d;,y8 of a decision Involving Title 14 (Zoning) (SRMC Section 14.28.030) or wlth~ 10 calendar daya of !I decision Involving T1~e 15 (Subc:ivisions) (SRMC 15.6a.010). Sipl'I LlmgU8ge EHKIitJI«preWion and a ~ Iis feniog ~m llY beroquNl&d byciJllitrg (415) 485·3085 (OfOIceJ or (4 15) 485-31P8 (TOO) a ll8asl72 /IoUl$/tI advMCe. 00pies of d¢CUmf!f'~ are a~ In I!(:reS!ible fotma ls upon reque 3:f. Pub/Ic transportation to City HaR is avallabla through Goldan Gale Transit, Lina 22 or 23. Para-transit Is aVllilabie bycalHng WhislJestop Whae /s ill (415) 454 -!)g64. To allow individuals willi environmental Illness or mullip/e. chemiclll sensilivi!y to Ifttend tile meeting/he &rinQ, indlvldulfls aft requested to refrain from wearing scented products. \ , \ . • , .~ . I c::: I {] I i~ I~ I " 'O\J i • • OP -'D NAME ADDRESS CITY -061-14 ALIOTO 1993 TRUST ETAL 110 LINDEN LN SAN RAFAEL CA 015-081-10 ROS IRRE ETRUST AL USTAV ANRAFA CA 015-081-30 pant UST AVE AN RAFA CA 015-081-30 MIS ANN ST UST AVE AN RAFA CA -081-31 CADDEN HUGH J (rR/ & 201 LOCUST AVE SAN RAFAEL CA -112-02 Occupant 1554 GRAND AVE SAN RAFAEL 015-112-02 EN CLAIR ANDAV AN RAFA CA 015-112-04 ICH PET INDAM IVINGT L NTAINV E AN RAFA CA -112-04 Linda McLean Emrich 14 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE SAN RAFAEL CA -112-06 CelebriDucks 28 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE SAN RAFAEL 015-112-06 FE CRAI LIVING NTAIN V E AN RAFA CA 015-112-07 AlE MICH NTAIN V E AN RAFA CA -112-09 SCOTT E GRIMM 2012 TRUST ETAL 109 LOWELL AVE SAN RAFAEL CA -112-10 Occupant 20 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE SAN RAFAEL 015-112-10 ENIRUE 2829 AN FRAN CA 015-112-11 LETRUS TAL NTAINV AN RAFA CA -112-12 DOLAN CHRISTOPHER B 2012 TRUST 1 LOCUST AVE SAN RAFAEL CA -112-12 Occupant 1 LOCUST AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 015-112-13 INGDA / UNTAIN E AN RAFA CA 015-112-13 pant UNTAIN E AN RAFA CA 015-112-16 GIN JEFF 12 REVO UNTAIN E AN RAFA CA -112-18 Independent Employment Counsel 141 LOCUST AVE SAN RAFAEL CA -112-18 SCHOLICK GARY TR & 141 LOCUST AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 015-112-19 N MICH NB UST AVE AN RAFA CA 015-112-20 NIG KIMB & MERC LD W LI ETAL UST AVE AN RAFA CA -112-20 Occupant 149 LOCUST AVE SAN RAFAEL -112-21 Bristol Group Ltd., The 2399 PO SAN RAFAEL 015-112-21 RIS PETE & UST AVE AN RAFA CA 015-112-23 RSCHA TRUST F GATION THOLY AN RAFA CA -112-24 ROELL FAMILY TRUST ETAL 110 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE SAN RAFAEL -121-11 CARLSTON DOUGLAS G TR PO BOX 91S1 SAN RAFAEL 015-121-12 STON D GTR 9151 N RAFA CA 015-121-13 STON D GTR 9151 N RAFA CA 015-142-02 Joanne Cullimore 1520 GRAND AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 015-142-02 SISTERS OF SAINT DOMINIC 1520 GRAND AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 015-142-02 Sisters Of St. Dominic 1520 GRAND AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 015-142-03 DOMINICAN COLLEGE OF SAN RAFAEL 50 ACACIA AVE SAN RAFAEL CA Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Associat Cheryl Douglas P.O. Box 151702 San Rafael CA Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Associat Cheryl Douglas P.O. Box 151702 San Rafael CA Paul Jensen, Community Development Dept City of San Rafael 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael CA Gary Ragghianti Ragghianti-Freitas, LLP 1101 5th Ave, Suite 100 San Rafael CA Diane Henderson DMH Land Use Planning 980 5th Avenue San Rafael CA John Contini 311 Locust Ave. San Rafael CA Heather Stewart 363 Locust Ave. San Rafael CA Kathleen Bestor 31 Glenaire Drive San Rafael CA Jacquelyn Urbani School of Education and Counseling Psychology Dominican Uni\ 50 Acacia Ave. San Rafael CA Howard and Eileen Lee 49 Palm Ave. San Rafael CA Diane Suffridge 5 Pine Tree Court San Rafael CA Barbara Killey 7 M-Liss Lane San Rafael CA Barbara George 536 Las Colindas Road San Rafael CA Gail Lester 37 Broadview Drive San Rafael CA Sharon and Ed Cushman 249 Devon Drive San Rafael CA Dottie and Dick Breiner 43 St. Francis Lane San Rafael CA Dashiell Stander 64 Martens Boulevard San Rafael CA Christine Johnson 116 Jewell Court San Rafael CA Claire Murphy Instructional Resources Coordinator 40 Acacia Avenue San'Rafael CA Laura Stivers Professor of Ethics Dominican University 50 Acacia Avenue San Rafael CA Richard Kalish Kalish Nexon, LLP 1108 Fifth Avenue, Suite 320 San Rafael CA Tim and Ann Dale 15 Palm Avenue San Rafael CA Dave Coury P.O. Box 278 Corte Madera CA Alan Hayakawa 221 Belle Avenue San Rafael CA William and Katherine Harrison 254 Mountain View Avenue San Rafael CA Frank and Marie Marino 7 Mountain View Avenue San Rafael CA Tony Franco 219 Glen Park Avenue San Rafael CA Robert Pendoley 31 Tan Oak Circle San Rafael CA Nancy Hall Bennett 268 Mountain View Ave. San Rafael CA Matthew White 297 Locust Avenue San Rafael CA Paula Doubleday 246 Linden Lane San Rafael CA Susannah Malarkey 1540 Grand Avenue San Rafael CA David Wolfensperger 250 Locust Ave. San Rafael CA Jane Kroesche 170 Palm Avenue San Rafael CA Joan Cardeau 375 Locust Ave San Rafael CA Laura Merlo 297 Locust Avenue San Rafael CA Paul Fordham 1385 N. Hamilton Parkway Novato CA Jamie Pera 1610 Grand Avenue San Rafael CA Kathy Lovold , 64 Dominican Drive San Rafael CA Jeff Lovold 64 Domincan Drive San Rafael CA Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California .., (415) .., TDD: (800) www.fairhousingnorcal.org .., March 3,2017 Paul A. Jensen, AICP Community Development Director City of San Rafael 1400 sth Ave, 3rd Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 VIA POSTAL MAIL & EMAIL ) RE: 77 Locust Ave (Lourdes Convent) Dear Mr. Jensen, I am writing to you on behalf of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) to express our support in favor of the Dominican Sisters' Use Permit Amendment application for the Lourdes convent, which would provide a transitional housing program in partnership with Homeward Bound. FHANC is a private non- profit designed to maximize housing opportunities for all persons regardless of disability, race, color, religion, national origin, familial status, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, occupation, ancestry, immigration status, or source of income. Our mission is to ensure equal housing opportunity and educate the community on the value of diversity in our neighborhoods. The transitional housing program will serve two single mothers, each with two children. It is unfortunate that housing such a small number of individuals has raised so much concern in the community. It is my understanding that at least one person has raised concerns that the transitional housing program might violate state and/or federal fair housing laws. Along with FHANC's Executive Director, Caroline Peattie, I consulted with a number of colleagues well versed in fair housing law regarding any concerns of discrimination on the basis of marital status, familial status, and/or gender posed by this program. The consensus is that the transitional housing program falls under one of the limited exemptions from fair housing law coverage! and/or is in line with case law permitting intentional discrimination in specific situations when the restriction benefits members of protected c1asses 2 (like women, families with children, and unmarried individuals). 1 See 42 U.S.C. 3603(b )(2). This exemption from the federal Fair Housing Act applies to shared living situations in which no more than four families living independently of each other occupy the premises, including the owner. Presuming the nuns will be occupying the premises, the proposed housing program would be owner-occupied and would be occupied by four or fewer families, meeting the requirements of this exemption. In addition, a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FHA does not extend to "shared living arrangements," permitting people seeking tenants for shared living arrangments to advertise their preferences in a discriminatory manner. See Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Vaney v. RQQmmate!l.,£:om, 666 F.3d 1216, 1222 (9th Cir. 2012). While the proposed housing program does not fall directly in line with this fact rattern -, people seeking roommates -the case has been broadly interpreted. See Community House Inc v. City of Boise Idaho. 490 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). Specifically, "".To allow the circumstance offacial discrimination under the Sixth and Tenth Circuits' approach, a defendant must show either: (1) that the restriction benefits the protected class or (2) that it responds to legitimate safety concerns raised by the individuals affected, rather than being based on stereotypes." A local non-profit helping communities eliminate housing discrimination TDD: CALIFO~NIA RE,LA Y.SER';'ICE F_OR .THE H~ARING_ OR SPEECH I~PAlRED: (800) SE HABLA ESPANOL -NEU CAN GIUP DO BANG TIENG VIJ;lT NAM XIN LIEN L~C so: (415) MEMBER, NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE In addition to the exemptions from fair housing law and the case law permitting intentional discrimination, one must have standing in order to bring a fair housing claim and establish a prima facie case. It is my understanding that the individuals who have raised fair housing concerns would not have standing to bring such a claim, and it is difficult to imagine a situation where an individual would have standing to bring such a claim here. I have reviewed Mr. Dolan's appeal letter, which states that the urgent need for housing families with children is not supported by evidence, noting a downward trend for the need for housing for families with children. I must respectfully disagree. Records from my agency demonstrate an increase in the number of households alleging discrimination on the basis of familial status, or the presence of minor children in the home, over the past few years. In 2014,4.7% of clients with fair housing concerns alleged discrimination on the basis of familial status, increasing to 7.8% in 2015 and 9% in 2016. Furthermore, the statistics on homelessness can be misinterpreted, as family homeless populations are especially difficult to track and are not as visible, as they do not come through the doors of social service providers as frequentll. It is troubling that a temporary transitional housing program that aims to serve two families has incited the level of opposition it has, which raises concerns about the true motivations behind those opposing this program. FRANC wholeheartedly supports the Dominican Sisters and Homeward Bound's partnership. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at or at . Sincerely, Casey Epp Supervising Attorney 3 Families with children are the types of homeless populations for which individuals have the most compassion. As such, they are less likely to have to resort to shelters and more often reside in temporary living situations with friends or eother family members. 2 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr Paul Jensen, Lisa Lord < Thursday, March 02, 2017 10:49 AM Paul Jensen Dominican Sisters Use Permit UP16-057 I am a 20 year resident of San Rafael. I own my home. I have served on SR City Commissions and assisted with the Marin County 20 year plan. I completely support the Sisters at Dominican University to utilize their property at 77 Locust to house two single adult moms and their children at this time. I also support continued use of this property in this manner as these first tenants progress and move on to other housing. The homeless situation in San Rafael is, as you are aware, a pertinent and prevalent issue both downtown San Rafael and in the surrounding accessible neighborhoods. This is a positive and generous effort toward a meaningful resolution for two families. The City of San Rafael must support and approve Use Permit UP16-057. Thank you, Lisa Lord San Rafael, CA 1 Paul Jensen from: Sent: To: Subject: March 2,2017 Dear Mr. Jensen, Ms Angela Gott < Thursday, March 02, 2017 8:40 AM Paul Jensen I support the Use Permit (UP16-0S7 at 77 Locust Ave (Lourdes Convent), I thought this was settled and the Sisters were going to be able to open their home to two single mothers with their toddlers for a stable living situation in transitional housing. The Sisters know what they are doing and will manage the situation so that there will not be any problems at all. The tenants will be will screened and well behaved and there won't be any disruptions with two women and their young children living in a convent. The neighbors won't even see them or know they are there. I think the "opposition" is much to do about nothing. The young women/mothers will have a safe, stable place to live, their children will be happy and content, and this will benefit the community to be helping young mothers in transitional housing while they gain the skills they need to move on in their lives to permanent housing. fhere is so little affordable housing for all ages. I am a senior who had to give up my apartment of 11 years in in San Rafael off Lincoln Ave. in order to afford to get on Medicare. I could not afford to do both with what I earn, $22,406 (2016) and I have been on the Marin Housing wait list to "no where" along with thousands of other seniors. San Rafael and Marin County and the other cities need to build additional senior subsidized housing that is NOT Section 8, so that seniors residing in Marin and its cities can gain access to the units built for the extremely low and very low categories of poverty. Section 8 is controlled by HUD and seniors are not a targeted priority. (Mentally Ill, Families with kids, Veterans, chronically homeless defined by HUD as having lived on the streets a year or longer) Seniors are falling into homelessness, particularly boomer generation women, due to life long low earnings and the rising rents which are displacing them to the streets. People who live in other states, other counties,and who are settled in the USA from other countries all get Section 8 vouchers. So housing for Marin's seniors needs to be subsidized with the subsidy tied to the property, not the person and that way the property owner (Cities, County) will have control to screen San Rafael residents, Marin county residents with well established roots in the communities to reside in what is built. Seniors need permanent housing, not transitional housing. I hope that San Rafael will be mindful of the needs of seniors to create housing solutions for those in the extremely low income category, (under $29,000 a year). My income is not going to increase. I am just lUcky to have two part-time no benefits jobs with the ability to keep on going to physically be able to do those jobs and have a 32 year old car that still runs too so i can get to those jobs. (Property management; mUltiple locations so a car is necessary to do the job.) 1 It would be helpful if cities were proactive in encouraging outside companies to create housing for their employees as part of the deal, on top of their businesses too. With so little housing available, every time a business goes in, housing should be part of the permuting process. Please allow the Sisters at Dominican Convent to open their doors to the two mothers and their kids. Don't make the lives of two single moms more difficult when this solution is such a good one. This won't diminish the value of the neighbors' homes one bit either. Thank you. Angela Gott 94903 2 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: John Contini < Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:23 AM Paul Jensen Project: 77 Locust Ave (Lourdes Convent) I am a Dominican neighborhood resident and I have been following with interest the brouhaha over the Convent housing proposal that is has been brought before the Community Development Director and now to the Planning Commission. It saddens me that there is such a fervent opposition to this proposal. These days we seem to have a level of "NIMBYism" that has pervaded our communities from the local to the national level. It behooves us to remember that we are a community of people, people of different backgrounds, different cultures, different needs; and we need to and we should take care of each other. This is what makes us strong as a community. This proposal brought forth by the Dominican Sisters is a modest one with a minimal impact upon our neighborhood. I believe the opposition to be mean spirited and fraught with unfounded suppositions. The specific issues raised to the proposal are for the most part manufactured and superfluous and those few that merit further attention can easily be resolved. I urge the Commission to support this proposal and allow it to go through unimpeded. Thank you. John Contini Locust Avenue 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Eileen Gordon < Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:26 AM Paul Jensen Support for the Use Permit (UP16-057 at 77 Locust Ave (Lourdes Convent) I support the Use Permit (UP16-057 at 77 Locust Ave (Lourdes Convent) allowing the Sisters to house two single parent families in transitional housing. Please ensure that my support is registered with the correct official or department to help the Sisters succeed in countering the appeal to the Zoning Administrator's approval that is to be heard at the March 14,2017 Planning Commission meeting. Best regards, Eileen Gordon 1 Paul Jensen -=rom: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Planning Commission, Murphy, Claire < Wednesday, March 01, 2017 1:38 PM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Avenue (Lourdes Convent) I am an employee at Dominican University, which is adjacent to the Lourdes Convent and would like to comment on the housing project prior to the public hearing. I've read the information provided regarding the housing project and the objections as well. I have to say that given the scope of this project I don't see how it will adversely affect the environment. It has been detelmined that the convent parking lot will accommodate additional parking and there will be only 2 additional cars needed for the two families since these are single mothers with young children. Concems about bar-b-ques and outdoor activities these families may partake in should raise no more fears than any other neighborhood bar-b-ques and outdoor activities. We're talking about families moving into the convent and the fact that they're cUlTently people without homes should not be raising such unfounded fears. The project will be maintained by Homeward Bound and has very stl'ict guidelines, including a seven day guest limit and a clean and sober environment, which I believe is not required of any of the households in the vicinity. The fear of sexual predation and crime is baseless and no reason to hold up this project. People become homeless for a number of reasons and that doesn't mean these people and their families are cl'iminals. I don't believe Homeward Bound would take a chance on housing families within a convent of nuns if they felt it Nould endanger the convent community, let alone the community at large. I sincerely hope this project will be approved and hope it's success will encourage similar project development here and in other communities, including the one I cUlTently live in. Regards, Claire Murphy Claire Murphy Instructional Resources Coordinator San Rafael, CA 94901-2298 Phone: Hours: Monday-Thursday 8:30 to 4:30 1 Paul Jensen Crom: .:»ent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Chris Santilli Johnson < Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:11 PM Paul Jensen I approve of UP16-057--77 Locust Ave (Lourdes Convent) As a long-time Dominican University community and faculty member, I ask that you approve the Use Permit (UP16-057) at 77 Locust Ave (Lourdes Convent). I learned of some of the concerns of those opposed to the plan. Those reasons do not hold enough sway to thwart the efforts of the Dominican Sisters to help two homeless families. I'm so pleased to have this opportunity to support the efforts of the Sisters. Their plan is well thought out and doesn't need reworking--Iet's get those families in a home. Best regards, Chris Johnson 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Diane Suffridge < Monday, February 27,20178:20 PM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Avenue I am a resident of San Rafael and a faculty member of Dominican University of California. I want to register my support for the application of the Dominican Sisters to convert a portion of the Lourdes Convent to transitional housing. I believe this plan will address a great need in our community with very low risk, due to the screening by Homeward Bound and the nature of the families to be housed at this location. I encourage rejection of the appeal and approval of the use permit allowing this conversion. Diane Suffridge San Rafael, CA 94903 Assistant Professor, Counseling Psychology Department Dominican University of California Sent from my rPad 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS ,. TV GARBARINO .Ident .,,uinSanltaryService Vke Chair CRAIG NELSON CEO Nelson Family of CompanIes Secretary!Treasurer STEVE PAGE PresIdent &General Manager Sonoma Raceway Executlve Committee BRAD BOLLINGER Publlsher North Bay BusIness Journal Executive Committee BARRY FRIEDMAN Presldent&CEO Friedman's Home Improvement ExecutlveCommittee PAT KENDALL Medical Group Administrator KalserPermanente ExecutlveCommlttee MARK WOOD Chairman Emernus North Bay leadership Council MICHELLE AUSBURN Partner Burr PIlger Mayer SAM BELDONA Dean, School of Business and leadershIp Dominkan University of California NANCY DOBBS Presldent&CEO KRCB Radio & Television INGRID ESTRADA SVP, HR and Workplace Solutions. KeyslghtTechnoJogJes STEVE FALK CEO Sonoma MedIa Investments Press Democrat RICHARD "DICK" GH1LOTTf Owner&Presldent GhlJottiConstruction DEREK HER/OER "'''a VIce Presldent·North/EastBay "ast JAN LAVINSKY rdrtner Hanson BrldgettllP KATHRYN LOWELL Vice P reSident of Government Affairs BloMann BRETT MARTINEZ President&CEO Redwood CredIt Union LESLIE PERRY Partner Perry,Johnson,Anderson, Miller & MoskovAtl llP MIKE PURVIS CAO SutterSanta Rosa Regional Hospital JUDY SAKAKI PresIdent Sonoma State Universlty TODD SALNAS President, Sonoma County SI.Joseph Health System GARY TENNYSON CEO Verlheahh/FAlCK NC FRED VELA ReglonalVke PresIdent We[Js Fargo Bank BUDDY WALL Partner Moss Adams LLP Chairman Emeritus GORDON RADLEY Retired President Sky\'1alkerPropertles ltd LLC, Board MemberEmerftus TOM FORSTER Former Director of Operations SkywalkerProperties ltd LlC, Board MemberEmeritus MARY MCEACHRON CYNTHIA MURRAY Presldent&CEO KATIE MURRAY CAO February 22,2017 San Rafael Planning Commission NORTH BAY LEADERS IP COUNCIL c/o City of San Rafael Community Development Department PO Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915 Re: Lourdes Convent unit Dear San Rafael Planning Commissioners: North Bay Leadership Council (NBLC) urges your support of the Lourdes Convent unit expansion proposal. The Dominican Sisters are proposing to convert a small portion of their Lourdes Convent to provide a separate residential unit. The proposed unit is consistent with the City's General Plan, land use map, and zoning ordinances. The Lourdes Convent has held a Use Permit since 1979 allowing the use as a retirement center for the Sisters. The 1979 Use Permit has been amended to permit changes over time. The Sisters are asking for an amendment to the Use Permit to allow the creation of a unit from unused space in the convent for use as transitional housing. NBLC supports the Sisters' desire to create the new unit. The unit will provide housing to one or two families in desperate need of affordable housing. In addition of these families finding secure housing, the Sisters will benefit socially, emotionally and spiritually from having these people living there. San Rafael has a housing crisis. While a single of unit of housing will not solve the problem, each unit of housing added will help reduce the demand for new housing units. Please support this innovative idea to provide housing in a space that is not being used. Given the critical need for new housing in San Rafael and the mission of the Sisters, NBLC supports making this unit permanent. Sincerely, 0--~~ Cynthia L. Murray President and CEO 775 Baywood Dr., Suite 101 .. Petaluma, CA 94954 .. Fax: II Paul Jensen From: Sent: Michele Ginn on behalf of Community Development Friday, February 17,201712:10 PM To: Paul Jensen Subject: Fw: Dominican Sisters -Homeless Housing Unit From: Jon Haveman Sent: Friday, February 17,20177:09 PM To: planning Subject: Dominican Sisters -Homeless Housing Unit Dear San Rafael Planning Commission, I am writing as a long time San Rafael and Dominican area resident to applaud the Dominican Sisters and Homeward Bound for their plans to provide housing for two women and their small children who would otherwise be homeless. In this era of significant homelessness and too little in the way of resources being devoted to the issue, private efforts such as this one should be applauded and strongly encouraged. That a small number of residents would object reflects nothing other than ignorance and selfishness on the part of these residents. \s one who walks by the convent on a nearly daily basis, I can not imagine that this project would have the least effect on my life or that of the residents who have appealed then permit. It will have a considerable effect on the women and kids who will be served. San Rafael is a city with a bigger heart than one that would deny this permit. Thank you for considering this issue. I sincerely hope that you will reject the appeal and grant the permit. Jon Haveman San Rafael 1 Paul Jensen From: jent: To: Subject: Another email. ............ . Anne Derrick Monday, February 06,20174:32 PM Paul Jensen FW: Letter in support of Chris Dolan & Gary Scholick's appeals of the Dominican Sisters' plan to re-zone the Lourdes Convent From: Bethany Wolfensperger Sent: Monday, February 06,20174:31 PM To: Anne Derrick Subject: Letter in support of Chris Dolan & Gary Scholick's appeals of the Dominican Sisters' plan to re-zone the Lourdes Convent Dear Members of San Rafael Planning Commission, We are writing to you in support of both Chris Dolan & Gary Scholick's appeals of the Dominican Sisters' plan to re-zone the Lourdes Convent at "'7 Locust Avenue in San Rafael. Our family moved to 250 Locust Avenue in the Dominican neighborhood 5 years ago from San Francisco because we were expecting our second child and we wanted to own a home in a neighborhood that was safe and beautiful. Much of the allure to the Dominican was that it was an older neighborhood made up of single-family homes and many people in this community have lived here for 40 or 50 years. As Catholics, we loved the idea of having the Dominican nuns in retirement on our block. 1 , Living in the same home for that amount of time says a lot about a neighborhood. To us, it represented a solid community, one where everyone knew each other and everyone kept an eye out for each other's homes when they were away and if something looked suspicious or seemed out of place, the other neighbors would let you know. That kind of a neighborhood is very rare in the Bay Area and we want to preserve these qualities. We strongly believe that if the Dominican Sisters are allowed to change the zoning of their Convent to allow the Homeward Bound families to live there, it will not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. When the Sister's do decide to sell their property, we do no want it to become a multi-family dwelling as a result of this project. After reviewing both Chris Dolan & Gary Scholick's appeals, we support +heir intent. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kin~est regards, Bethany and David Wolfensperger San Rafael, CA 94901 Bethany cell 2 David cell 3 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello, Anne Derrick Monday, February 06,20174:15 PM Heather Stewart Paul Jensen RE: Lourdes Project Appeal Thank you for your comment I will make sure it is part of the permanent record. Anne From: Heather Stewart L Sent: Monday, February 06, 20174:02 PM To: Anne Derrick Subject: Lourdes Project Appeal Hello, I would like to state my objection to the decision of opening the Lourdes Convent to Homeward Bound tenants. I feel that this is a stepping stone for the facility to eventually become a permanent shelter, halfway house, or multi-unit dwelling-none of which are appropriate for this neighborhood setting. I wholeheartedly agree with the appeal put forth by Chris Dolan and hope that you will all reconsider the unintended consequences of the convent's use permit. fhankYou, Heather Stewart San Rafael, CA 94901 1 February 6, 2017 Hand Delivered GARY SCIIOLICK SAN RAP AEL CA 9490 I Development Department; City of San Rafael Planning Commission 1400 Fi fth Avenue San Rafael CA 94901 Re: Appeal of Notice of Approval of Zoning Administrator Action for the Lourdes Convent Use Permit Amendment (UP 16-057) at 77 Locust A venue Dear City of San Rafael Planning Commission: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY I live at 141 Locust Ave, one of the two immediate adjacent homes to 77 Locust Ave, the Lourdes Convent ("Lourdes"). Our family (husband and wife and two daughters) has lived here for approximately 30 years. Throughout this time, the Sisters at Lourdes have been our neighbors, and they have been good and compassionate neighbors. We believe we have also bt.::en good neighbors to them. When the Sisters in early September 2016 first informed us that they wished to make a "minor" and "temporary" change in use to their private Convent to accommodate two homeless young mothers with two children each for a period not to exceed two years, I advised the Sisters that we understood the need and that we \votIld not object to that temporary change. Atler a neighborhood meeting at Lourdes on September 29, 2016, at which a number of neighbors expressed concern about yvhether [heir application to the city would seek any changes or continuation of the use permit beyond two years. the Sisters and their attorney, Gary Ragghianti, followed up with calls and a letter (attached), evidently to reassure the neighbors that the change in use would be a "one and clune" temporary change ("The requested use permit will automatically slinset and expire (at our request) two years after its issuance. With the expiration of the use permit the temporary use will also cease," Letter from Sisters, November 7,2(16). Our family still does not object to the Sisters' two year temporary change in use at Lourdes for these two families. Moreover, we do not object to the Sisters housing such needy families at their Mother HOllse on a more permanent basis following this two year period. The Mother House and its resident buildings are also owned by the Sistet's. its residential units are within a mere 100-300 feet from Lourdes and is a milch mOle logical and safe location for young families with children, based on traffic, pedestrian Hnd neighborhood concerns, than Lourdes. This appeal raises primarily two issues: First, we and our neighbors have been denied basic due process and fundamental fairness rights concerning the Acting Zoning Administrator Mr. Paul Jensen's Conditions of Approval, 7a: "[After the two year use permit terminates 1, the project proponent shall be required to proceed with one or the following for the 'yellow hallway:" u. Request an extension to this Use Permit Amendment to continue the transitional hOllsing lise fora term period in perpetuity [.]" The inclusion of this condition in the Notice of Action was arbitrary and capriciolls and completely lacking in evidentiary support. Second, Findings Nos. 2a and b, and 3b, along with the Acting Zoning Administrator's Response to Comments and Concerns Raised by Project Opponents, Nos. 3 and 4, to the extent they pertain to parking and the aggravation/worsening of Traffic on LocLlst A venue and the intersection at Locust Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, and the safety of children, pedestrians and others walking or driving in that area (which are main thoroughfares for students and visitors to Dominican College who regularly speed and ignore the posted stop sign at that intersection), are also arbitrary and capricious and wholly lacking in substantial evidence. Mr. Jensen's failure to undertake an appropriate, reasonable, and t~'lctually based investigation of these issues, but instead a mere one week survey when the new tenants or similar tenants were not residing at Lourdes, and his exparte communications with the Public Works Depatiment during which the Depatiment in fact conceded tbat it does not conduct active monitoring of that corner or those streets, shows beyond question that his findings concerning parking, traffic and safety are speculative, are arbitrary and capricious and are not supported by substantial evidence. They also likely raise liability issues foJ' everyone involved. I am not a land use or zoning attorney and I ask the indulgence of the Planning Commission for any errol'S I may make concerning land use terms of art or concepts. I am submitting this appeal simply as a very long time resident of San Rat~lel (I moved to San Rut(lel in 1978) who believes that the City's actions vis-a-vis its residents, neighbors and neighborhoods should be fair, transparent ancl consistent with basic fundamental rights and that they should be suppOIied by substantial evidence rather than speculation and hope. POINTS OF APPEAL 1. Condition 7a denied me and the neighbors Due Process and Fundamental Fairness, is arbitrary and capricious and is entirely lacking in evidentiary support As noted above, Mr.,Jensen's approval letter included the following condition: "[After the two year use permit terminates], the project proponent shall be required to proceed with one of the following for the 'yellow hallway:" a. Request an extension to this Use Pe1111it Amendment to continue the transitional hOLlsing use for a term period in per'petuity [.1" 2 That condition was a complete surprise to our family and other neighbors and should be rejected by the Planning Commission and not included in any amended use considered 01' granted in this matter. An "in perpetuity" condition was not mentioned in the Sisters' application for a change in Use, it was not mentioned in the Notice of Public Hearing concerning this matteI', it was not mentioned, argued for or against by any speaker during the January 4, 2017 public hearing, and no one (to our knowledge) submitted a letter before 01' after the Public Hearing concerning an "in perpetuity" condition. To the contrary. both in writing and in oral discussions, the Sisters and their representatives repeatedly assured neighbors that their change in use would be "minor" and "temporary," they had no plans beyond this two year period for their "yellow hallway," and that was yvhy they agreed to and sought an application that would "sunset" and expire in two years. It was in fact this very sort of in perpetuity condition and future use that neighbors objected to and expressed fear to the Sisters. and about which the Sisters repeatedly indicated they were not seeking and had not even thought about. Where did this condition come from? Why was it included? Did the Sisters or their attorney suggest it to Mr. Jensen after the public hearing in ex parte communications? Did Mr. Jensen come up with the idea on his own? And if so, why? None of these questions is answered in the Acting Zoning Administrator's Notice of Action. The Planning Commission, in the interests of fundamental f~lirness and transparency. should seek answers to these questions. We understand that after receipt of the Notice of Action, a neighbor expressly asked these questions of Mr. Jensen and Mr. Jensen chose not to ans\ver them. Neither I nor any other neighbor therefore had any notice or opportunity to address the "in perpetuity" condition at the public hearing, andlor to bring forward witnesses or evidence before the Acting Zoning Administrator to show why an "in perpetuity" condition was inappropriate if not outrageous, and contrary to all that the Sisters assured and advised the neighbors. The inclusion of this condition in the Notice of Action is thus a classic example of a denial of' due process and fundamental fairness. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence in this record that would support an "in perpetuity" condition. From all that the record shows, its inclusion comes out of thin ail'. It is thus arbitrary and capricious and entirely lacking in evidentiary suppOJi. For each of these reasons, we respectively urge the Planning Commission to strike it from the Notice of Action and not include it in any amended use. II. The Acting Zoning Administrator's conclusions concel'l1ing traffic and safety are not based on facts but speculation. 3 The Acting Zoning Administrator's l1ndings concerning parking. traffic and safety -e.g., that they do not raise a meaningful issue and would not change or worsen the situation at the corner of Locust and Magnolia (Findings Nos. 2a and b, and 3b. along with the Acting Zoning Administrator's Response to Comments and Concerns Raised by Project Opponents, Nos. 3 and 4), are based on speCUlation, are devoid of logic ancl are lacking in evidentiary support. Mr. Jensen relied on a one week survey in January that he apparently oversaw about parking and ingress and egress issues at Lourdes at a time when two additional women with four school-age children did not live at Lourdes, and ex parte communications with the Public Works Department in which the Department conceded that it hadl!.£.Y£! actively monitored the intersection of Locust and Magnolia nor Locust A venue itself, but whleh claimed there had been no "repotied" accidents for several years. Such is not substantial evidence in support of his findings about parking, traffic and safety. When two young mothers with two young children each (four children) reside at Lourdes, thcre will obviously be a greater use of the two automobile driveways into and out of Lourdes. Logic dictates that conclusion. The two mothers and four children have t~1thers, relatives, friends, and classmates, and will have visitors, doctor visits, schools to attend, pre and after school activities to attend, all of which will nccessarily and logically involve new traffic and automobiles on Locust Avenue entering and leaving Lomdes's two parking areas, at a corner that in fact is extremely unsafe, and on two streets (Locust and Magnolia) where students and visitors to Dominican College commonly speed and blatantly ignore the stop sign on the corner of Locust and Magnolia. Nowhere in his findings or the Notice does the Acting Zoning Administrator discuss or take into his account these obvious and logical facts. I have livecl next to that cornel' for approximately 30 years - I have seen and experienced -as have numerous neighbors --dozens of instances of students ancl visitors to Dominican speeding up and down Locust and Magnolia Avenues, ignoring the stop sign on that corner (where a neighbor felt compelled to add his own personal "Stop Meai1s Stop" sign), and which is extremely close to Lourdes. I have also personally observed speeding automobiles almost running over two of my neighbors while peacefully standing in front of their home on Locust Avenue (an event which degenerated into a physical confrontation because the automobile came within inches of the neighbor's spouse) while other neighbors have told me that they have witnessed similar neal' misses on Locust Avenue. I and numerous neighbors have experienced untold numbers of students and visitors to Dominican College blowing past the stop sign on Locust and Magnolia Avenue, resulting in numerous instances of screeching tires and near misses of pedestrians and automobile collisions. The Acting Zoning Administrator did not investigate any of those facts, nor discuss how four young children living, playing and talking walks mere feet away from that thoroughfare, that corner or on that thoroughfare would affect their safety (while the Mother I-louse and its two 4 other resident buildings, owned by the same Sisters and within 1 OO~300 feet of Lourdes do not have any of these parking lot, traffic and safety concerns). Surely my eyewitness experiences of these traffic issues these last 30 years. and those of my neighbors who wrote 01' spoke supporting statements at the public hearing, are of greater weight than a one week survey that took place when !!.Q. extra residents resided at Lourdes or an oral rep0l1 by a Department that conceded it had never actively monitored traffic at the locations at issue. Indeed. my eyewitness experiences and those of my neighbors (essentially ignored by the Acting Zoning Administrator) were the only material and substantial evidence offered on these issues. For each of these reasons, the findings of the Acting Zoning Administrator discussed above concerning parking. traffic and safety issue are arbitrary and capriciolls and lacking in evidentiary support. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, this appeal should be granted and the Acting Zoning Administrator's Notice of Action should be modified andlor oveliurned accordingly -by deleting Condition 7a, and by requiring the Acting Zoning Administrator to undertake an objective, meaningful parking, traffic and safety investigation that, among other things. would require an analysis of the many additional trips in and out of Lourdes that four young children and two young mothers \voldd likely undertake at Lourdes, and thc risks and actual safety for four young children and young mothers and others at the intersection and stop sign on the corner of Locust Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. R!~pectfUllY ~: ubmitted. .. I L \' 1/ ;,' .. \, , L·' :\1~' (/ 'Ie.' G~ry Sch(~ , 'lbruary ~ 2017 5 DOMINICAN SISTERS of ST. DOMINIC ISlE CONGREGATION of the MOST HOLY NAME San Rafael, CA 94901-2236 fax wvvw. sanrafae10p. org November 7,2016 Gary Scholick & Judy Coffin 141 Locust Aveue San Rafael CA 94901 Dear Gary and Judy: The Dominican Sisters of San Rafael are proposing minor changes to a small portion of Our Lady of Lourdes Convent located at 77 Locust Avenue. The present convent facility is used to house our ill, disabled and/or retired sisters and has been so operated for decades pursuant to a 1979 use permit granted by the City of San Rafael. Lourdes Convent has been located at its present location since 1951. It was expanded in 1979. We have cared for our retired sisters at Lourdes Convent for many years. The Sisters have declined in their numbers over the years. This decline has resulted in some excess space becoming available. In keeping with our mission and values, we want to temporarily share a very small portion of this space in order to house two single mothers, each with two young children, while they transition to permanent housing. Our intention is to perform some very minor modifications to an existing hallway inside the convent in order to provide the space for these individuals during their stay. The proposed use requires the Dominican Sisters to apply to the City for an amendment to our existing use permit for Lourdes Convent. The requested use permit will automatically sunset and expire (at our request) two years after its issuance. With the expiration of the use permit the temporary use will also cease. During the time of this limited occupancy the sisters will not expand the use to any other part of the convent nor will there be permitted any increase in the number of persons temporarily residing with us in the convent. When our application to the City is filed you will receive a notice from the City. It will advise you of the filing by the Sisters and any hearing date and place. We did not want you to receive such notice without the courtesy of this prior communication from us. Please direct any questions to Katherine Martin, Director of Communications for the Dominican Sisters, at either or Sincerely, Sister Maureen Mcinerney, O.P. Prioress General 1_.() 1-r ( ~~V~~. ~tY\/ Sister Patricia Simpson, O.P. Director of Our Lady of Lourdes Convent • I ,j'" '.';..:, -•• ' , . .,;. '.~ \ CHRISTOPHER B DOLAN ESQ SAN RAPHAEL, CA~ 94102 'FebruaryJ, 2017 City of San'Rafael Planning Commission 1400 Fifth Ave. San Raphael, Ca 94901 RE: Appeal of 1/28/16 Zoning Administer Action UP16-057 77 Locust Ave. (Lourdes Convent) APN 015-112-23 Dear Esteemed Members of the Planning Commission, INTRODUCTION FEB 03 LUll PLANNING I am the owner'of 1 Locust Avenue, a contiguous neighbor to 77 Locust Ave, Lourdes Convent, . owned by The Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charities Trust ("the Sisters"). The Sisters have applied for an Amendment to the Use . Permit for Lourdes, to convert 1,995 sq. ft. of the Convent from congregate housing ;into a separate? divided, residential unit for two families each consisting. of a mother and a child below the age of 8. The'division of the C<?nvent will result in a new living unit, which will contain: a separate ent:rance, 10 resident units, two full bathrooms, a kitchen, launqry room, and a designated fenced in yard. To undertake the proj ect, the Sisters will engage in a significant expense associated with creating the new entrance and kitchen, some interior remodeling, as well as locked doorways to isolate the unit from the rest of the convent. Much has been made of this project based on the proposed intended use: transitional housing, for up to two years, for two women, each with one child. The intentions of the Sisters, while laudable,l are not what should be driving this decision: indeed, it seems that the Decision of the Zoning Administrator was reverse engineered so as to validate a conclusion based on social policy rather than sound planning and existing zoning policy. 1 The Sisters, responding to a call from the Pope to provide shelter to refugees and see this project as a way to fulfil that calling as their ministry. It is not this intention which is challenged but, instead, the proposed execution. In short, it's the execution of a righteous intention in the wrong place and manner which has spawned this conflict. l· .• Below I will, a,s required, elucidate my points for appeal. I am not versed in planning and zoning law so excuse me ifI am not familiar with the nuances of the terminology. To be as specific as possible I will provide citation to the applicable sections of the California Government Code, The City of San Raphael's Municipal Code / Zoning Ordinance, the City's Master Plan for 2020, and the 20 11, 2013 and 2015 Marin Point-In-Time Homeless Census and Surveys. While the subject of homeless ness is interjected by the nature of the proposed use, this august body must not give that factor any additional consideration or weight in coming to a decision concerning the Sisters' application. California Government Code Section 65583 (7) unambiguously states that "Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dV/ellmgs of the sam.e type in the same ZO]1C." The Sisters' application must be considered as if it were any other residential dwelling. The Sisters received special treatment in the zoning of this property when it was part of, and because of their affiliation with, the Dominican College. (Now the Dominican University.) This application ap.d appeal must be treated as if it were being made by a secular entity. The piety of the applicants should play no role in the consideration of this application as to do so would discriminate on the basis of religion and might expose the City to being leveraged, andlor to civil liability, if and when a non- sectarian applicant makes a similar request. mSTORY OF CURRENT ZONING AND CONDITIONS OF USE History of 77 Locust Ave., Lourdes Convent The history of Lourdes Convent and Retirement Center (Lourdes) at 77 Locust Ave is summarized below. Lourdes is a 2.1 acre parcel, located where Locust turns from rureast-west heading to a north- south heading at the intersection with Magnolia. The parcel, were it not originally affiliated with the Dominican University and the Dominican Sisters, would be restricted to residential use and to no more than two residential dwellings. It is in that content that the Commission should begin its analysis. The Sisters' application requests an atypical use for this area. The City of San Raphael General Plan 2020 characterizes the Dominican-Black Canyon neighborhood as follows: The Dominican-Black Canyon neighborhood is, primarily developed with single-family homes, a number of which are historic and unique in character ... Aside from the Convent on the South side of Locust (on Grand between Locust and ACl:lcia) all other parcels on Locust aTe zoned for residential use. Starting in 1951, 77 Locust had been designated as R-1 B-2 (residential). In thdate 1950's, early 60's, part of the existing structure was moved to the current site by the Dop:rinican College which was, then, operated by Dominican Sisters before it was transferred to a separate entity, now Dominican University. The structure had operated as an infirmary, student health· center, and retirement facility for the SIsters. In 1979 a rezoning was soughtby the Dominican' Sisters to change the zoning from R1 B~2 (residenti81) to U, and later to the current, modem, designation ofPD Planned Development. There is no evidence or information available as to whether there was any hearing or process- involved in this designation. Unlike the parcel containing the Sisters of Saint Dominic Residence Campus, located on the site of the former "Mother House" specialty zones as PD.:. 1827, there is no master/general plan designation number associated with the site. It appears that - the permit was granted without any notice or hearing and 77 Locust Ave has operated under a Use Permit, UP79~18, since 1979. In 1979 The San Raphael Planning Department (Staff), as Part ofthe rezolling request, considered whether it would be appropriate to change the-zoning toR~3 (multi~family use), but did "not consider an R-3 type zone appropriate for the neighborhood." The Staff recommended rezoning to a U District, -which was, at that time, the zoning classification for the rest of the Convent and the Dominican College property. Because Lourdes was re-classified as a U~District upon which "controls and limitations could be placed on its use through a conditional use permit" the Staff indicated that such a use permit would assure that the association with Dominican College could be continued. (Appellant requests that the Commission take notice of the files maintained by planning commission on the subject property. See March-27, 1979 City Staff Report, item 279-5. Emphasis added These documents will be provided by request to the email above.) This condition is key, the only reason that Lourdes was originally zoned PD was bec~use of its affiliation with ,Dominican College. The use permit was granted because of, and to assure,' the continued affiliation with the College. The March 27, 1997 Staff Report found that "the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan designation/or residential use and will not result in development which will adversely affect adjacent or vicinity properties." (Id, emphasis added.) At the same time The Sisters sought to build an addition to Lourdes. The Staff recommended Conditional Approval. City Staff Review stated: "An important consideration in Staff and Commission determination that the existing use is appropriate in the neighborhood is its relationship to Dominican College. Staff would question the compatibility of a private commercial retirement center inthis location. For thatreason, it is important that the use permit be limited to the ownership/operation ofDo1::ninican College affiliated Corporations." The Conditional Approval read: "Findings: "Continuation of the Lourdes Retirement Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as its facility remains affiliated with Dominican College and is not a private commercial facility. " "Conditions of Approval: t, (a) This use permit is limited to the Lourdes Retirement Center so long as ownership and! or operation remain an affiliate. of Dominican College. (b) No future expansion of the use other than that currently under consideration shall take place without the modification ofthe current use permit." (Ibid. emphasis. added.) It is these conditions which the Sisters now seek to alter, in order to permit their intended use for transitional housing. That use certainly is not related to the continued affiliation with Domi,nican College as that relationship between the Sisters, and this property, has ceased. In 1990 the historic Mother House burned in a tragic fire. The Sisters relocated while a new convent was designed and built. When the housing they 'had purchased as temporary housing to be used during reconstruction,was no longer needed, it is reported that they sought to donate it to Homeward Bound but the endeavor resulted in significant neighborhood opposition so the Sisters sold the property and donated the proceeds to Homeward Bound instead. The Sisters have a strong affiliation with Homeward Bound not only because of their mission to help the greater community but~ also, because of the fad that the Executive Director, Mary K Sweeney, PhD, is a former nun with the Sisters of Mercy. There is much concern from the neighbors, including this Appellant, that a simir'ar strategy may be developing here and that this request for an Amended Use Permit is but a-step towards homeless housing being established here in perpetuity. (See , section belowreobjectionto ActingZbning Adininisfrator'sJanuary 28, Notice of . Administrators Action which recommends a future potential change of use to permit this use, "in perpetuity. " In 1992 the Sisters made an application for a building permit to expand Lourdes. The sisters, sought to add seven bedrooms, each with a private en-suite bathroom, and expand the dining room and chapel. As part of the expansion the Sisters sought to add 5 additional parking spaces (in addition to the 10 existing spaces). (See February 12, 1992 letter 'from architect Peter Walz to City Planner Shelia Delimont re TWM #91-121.) At that time the Sisters indicated that the chapel was used by residents only and that it was being' enlarged to accommodate the extra space required by Sisters in wheelchairs and walkers. The facility was identified as a "strictly private facility" that should not be subject to parking or other requirements that might apply to a public facility. (Id., emphasis added) Zoning Administrator Jensen has indicated that the facility has been designated for public/quasi-ppblic use. This may have originally been the case when Lourdes was part of the Dominican College, but, as is clearly stated in the 1992 letter, it has been strictly private since no later than that date. Additionally, as portrayed below in the legal analysis section, the map within the 2020 General Plan may, by green dots, reflect that this is quasi-public use that seems to be a left over from the unity of the Sisters with Dominican College as it conflicts with the Municipal Code's Zoning Ordinance. ' Indeed, during the 1992 permitting process, The City indicated that it did not have a current description of the facility at Lourdes. The Sisters indicated that 'the facility was neither senior housing nor a residential care facility: it was described as "a convent." (Id.) At that time the Sisters indicated that Lourdes was no longer affiliated in any way with Dominican College then describing the current use as follows: "Lourdes Convent is a residence for the Dominican Sisters of San Raphael." At that time there were 30 units (dOrmitOlY type rooms), two of which were occupied by Sisters who were administrators of Lourdes. They stated that they had "25 Sisters residing at Lourdes most 'of whom were retired and unable to live in their other residences because they were unable to climb stairs' and need some level of assistance in their daily routines." (The Mother House's cun'ent design has the maj ority of living quarters located on ground level.) It was indicated that occasionally "other Sisters resided at Lourdes if they were recovering from surgery or illness." The Sisters stated that "Lourdes Convent is not a public facility but is a traditional convent to which sisters are assigned by the administration of the congregation." 'Additional assurance was given that there were no on-sight health care providers living in the facility; it was for the Sister's only. Clearly when the affiliation with the Dominican College ended, the quasi-public nature of the property ended as well. Indeed, as referenced above, by the Sisters' own admission and designation to the City, Lourdes ceased to have ,any public/quasi-public function yet, for some reason, that was not changed on the General Plan Land Use Map, where Mr. Jenson appears to have gotten his information on public/quasi-public use as nowhere else in the over 500 page ' document is this. addressed. Based on the original Use Permit, which was never amended once Lourdes was no longer affiliated with Dominican College, Lourdes should have lost its general PO status and, most appropriately, should have been incorporated-into the PD-1827 District formed by the Sisters when tliey re-zoned the site of the Mother House, which had also separated from Dominican College. Had the Planning Department and Zoning Commission done this, the authorized uses of the land wuuld now be governed by that Planned Development but, instead, the land's conditional remained contingent on its ongoing affiliation with Dominican College. Since this affiliation had by then endeq, the use permit, as a matter of the terms of the Conditional Use Permit, and pursuant to a breach of the condition, should have expired. In 1993 and 2010 Lourdes underwent remodeling and expansion, each time maintaining that the same, exclusive, use would continue to be a convent. REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF USE According to the Sister's Website, http://sanrafaelop.org/who-we-are/congregational-historyl,at its height in 1965, the congregation numbered 376. Presently there are 77 sisters remaining: primarily in California and Nevada. In short, as stated in their Application, their census is down, and they have extra space in Lourdes Convent across the street from their main convent. The facts show that the vacancy will continue to expand, not contract, as women are not entering religious life. , The location of Lourdes is depicted below: f 77 tocu:rt Ave -tourdes Convent Although the Sisters indicate that there would be "very minor modifications" to a "very -small portion" ofthe Convent, the project seekS to create a new entry way, a 1,995 sq. foot living unit consisting of 13 rooms including a kitchen, sitting room, six bedrooms, and a fenced-in yard with an outdoor playground. 1- tocustAve (facing Dominican) I I I I . I locust to Gold Hitl Grade The average sized home in San Raphael is 2,133 sq. feet. http://wvvw.marinmodem.com/San- Rafael-Real-Estate.php. Therefore, although relative to the overall space available in Lourdes, this is but 12% of the facility, this space is not "very small" relative to residential dwelling sizes in Marin. THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NECESSITATE ARE-ZONING The proposed use will constitute a residential multi-family use Throughout the process, which has unfortunately been divisive, it has been clear that neighbors have wen founded concerns about this change and its effect on the character of the neighborhood which is predominantly zoned R-1a, R20 and R-5 (single family homes). Indeed if Lourdes was to be converted into single family residences, the PD zoning would cease and only two homes would be able to be built on the site as it would be zoned R-1a. Many in opposition, including the Appellant, question "howthis could be accomplished without a zoning change?" I 'and others are concerned that change in use will ultimately lead to the sisters or future lessors/owners "backing into" a rezoning of the parcel at some future point so as to conform to the changed use which, if this ,erroneous Administrative Action is not reversed through'this appeal, it is quite probable that this fear will materialize. Indeed if the Administrative Action is upheld and the use of the property is changed, it should have to be re- zoned as it will meet the definition of "Residential, Multifamily Housing" under Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, (hereinafter the Zoning Ordinance "ZO") Section 14.03.030, which reads as follows; DEFINITIONS: "Residential, multifamily" means medium an,d'high density residential development, including a "transitional housing development" or "supportive housing" as defined under State Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 (and subsequent amendments), containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units in one (1) or more structures located on a single parcel or common lot. The relevant part of California Health and Safety Code Section '50675.2 reads as follows; (h) "Transitional housing" and "transitional housing development" means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements ' that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. The Sisters and Homeward Bound have characterized this proposed use as "transitional housing,;' which will be rented for up to 2 years. This new space should be characterized as two units as there are two family units which will be occupying the space sharing a kitchen. Additionally, there are numerous Sisters living on the property, along with caregivers, full time. These individual units have their own en.;suite bathrooms which are similar to SRO units. Thus, by application of ZO Section 14.03.030 and Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2, this will be facto residential multifamily housing. As in any zoning determination, one looks at the use to see if it is conforming to the zoning applicable to the land and not try to conform the title assigned to use so as to arrive at a d.esired objective. Neighbors are justly concerned that if this project proceeds pursuant to the Zoning Administrator's Decision the Sisters, or their successors in interest, will seek to have the property "spot zoned" for a non-conforming use, in perpetUity. Therefore the Decision should be reversed and this Appeal granted. ' The Current PD Zoning does not Permit the Proposed Use When the property was zoned PD it was because of its affiliation with the Dominican College, an educational institution. Lourdes had served as a general PD zoning designation without an approved Master Plan prohibits the current use. As such, the zoning should revert back to what it was, RIa (2 lots of2.05 acres each). An examination of Title 14, Section 14.04.020, Land Use Regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD) demonstrates.that a 77 Locust is now, and has b€en since it was, disassociated frompominican College, a religious institution: a Catholic Convent.2 . Section 14.04.020 contains an illumination table, Table 14.04.020, which clearly states that Religious Institutions would be prohibited in both R (residential) and PD zoning districts. 14.04.020-L'llld use regulations (R, DR, MR, HR PD) P: Permitted by right; C: Condftiooai use permit; A: Administrative use permit; Blank: Not allowed. ~bn(andQua-:r-r---r-1 1--_~-~__=~._ PubJit Uses ). I I , ,.. I. -;... 2 As stated supra, the U (later PD) designation was chosen so that "controls and limitations could be placed on its use through a conditional use permit" the Staff indicated that such a use permit would assure that the association with Dominican College could be continued. (See March 27, 1979 City Staff Report, item 279-5) I Emergency I I I I I I shelters for the I homeless , I I !. I Permanent I I c See I standards, Section I I 14.16.115 : I Therefore, a plain reading and application of the Land Use Regulations demonstrates that the proposed use is not allowed and, indeed, is prohibited. Therefore the Decision should be reversed and the Appeal granted. The Proposal Constitut~s an Ammendment to the PD Zoning and Should Require a New Zoning Application The current PD use is as a private conyent an,d/or a retirment community, depending on which title has been affixed to tl1e PD use at Lourdes. ZO 14.07.150 states that "requests for changes . in the contents of approval of a PD zoning and development plan shall be treated as a zoning amendment (rezoning). Rezonings shall be heard and decided by the' city council (sic). The procedures for flling and processIng a rezoning shall be the same as those established for an initial PD zoning and development plan application." Therefore, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, this application should not be handled as a Change in Use but, instead' shoul dbe handled as a zoning ammendment. The procedu,re which has been employed is improper and inappropriate and, therefore, the Decision should be rejected. The Proposal is Non-Compliant with ZO 14.16.115-The City has Zoned GC and LIIO Districts for Shelters for Families. As part of the justification for the application, and the Zoning Administrator's Action, There is a stated need for additional shelter for farriilieswith children to meet the requirmeents of Government Code Section 65583. 14.16.115 reads as follows: A. Purpose. This section establishes standards for location and operation of a permanent emergency shelter for homeless populations in compliance with California Government Code Section 65583, including allowing shelters as a permitted use in some commercial and industrial district locations. This section is not applicable to temporary emergency shelters established by the city in response to an emergency event. B. Applicability. Emergency shelters to provide temporary housing and assistance for families and individuals who are homeless shall be permitted as of right in the GC and LIIO districts generally bounded by Bellam Boulevard and 1-580, consisting of those shaded parcels within this area, as shown on Map 14.16.115, and at other locations where conditionally permitted by the land use tables of this title. However, the total number of beds provided within the area shown on Map 14.16.115 shall only be permitted by right as necessary to meet the local housing need established by the General Plan 2Q20 Housing Element (reflecting regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments and based on the state housing and comniunity development department needs assessment at the time of adoption ofthe most cunent housing element). A conditional use permit shall be required to . provide additional facilities within this ~rea in excess of the RHNA needs assessment identified in the General Plan 2020 Housing Element. All facilities shall be operated in compliance with . the provisions herein. (Emphasis added.) There has been no showing that the cunent use is actually needed to meet the regional housing need in the General Plan 2020 instead, we are going on the assumption that this is housing actually needed to meet a, need which has never been objectively demonstrated so as to meet San Rafaels obligation. Indeed, many expressed concern that this housing may be actually directed at families living outside of San Rafael. As no need has been deomonstrated, aside from the presumption that such housing is needed, this appeal should be granted and the Descision should be overturned .. Map 14;16.115 ,~ .. ; Map 14.16.115 The Proposal is Non Compliant for Failure to Meet Performance Standards 14.16.115 D An emergency shelter shall meet the following devt:)lopment and performance standards: 1. On-site management and on-site security shall be provided during hours when the emergency shelter is in operation. . . ( , 6 C c). The provider shall have a writt~n, management plan including, as applicable, provisions for staff training, neighborhood outreach; security, screening of residents to ensure compatibility with services provided at the facility, and for training, counseling, and treatment programs for residents. This Shelter has no on site management or on-site security and no management plan that satisfies Section DC 6)( 0). The only thing that has been provided is a document relating to the screeing criteria. Therefore the Decision should be overturned and the Appeal should be granted. San Rafael has, consist~nt with the General Plan and Government Code Section 65583, designated proper zones for this type of transitional housing. Objective Studies, Conducted Pursuant To Statutory Mandate, Show that Homelessnes Amoung the Population of,Families with Children Has Decreased Therefore the Stated' Urgent Need is not Supported by the Empiricle Evidence~ Every two years Marin is obligated to conduct a homeless census. Tn that regard, since 2009, the Marin Point-In-Time Homeless Census and Survey has been recorded. The census, done under contract with the County of Marin, by Applied Survey Research out of Watsonvilk1e, shows, that there has been a downward trend in the need for housing for families with children. In 2011, in Marin, there-were 155 househeldswithohildrencounted as homele-ss~ In 2013 that ", number had dropped, to 99. The 2015 Point-Tn-Time Census stated that: very few families experiencing homelessness are unsheltered. Public shelters typically serve around 90% of homeless families in the United States, a significantly higher proportion of the population compared to other subpopulations, including unaccompanied youth. The following table from 2015 illustrates the statistics on homelss familes in Marin. FIQURB 34. HOMELESS FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN POPULATION ESTIMATES HUDDEfINITION: A ltu\;l~$1iQkf wlilt at least (!!ill fJdidt member (peisnns 1B Of nlda) Slid Qt leasl one child member (pelsans : l.fIldwW· Therefore the need is not as great as stated such that a residential area, and a PD zoning district for a convent, need not be adapted to accommodate the stated mid unsupported need. Other areas are zoned for this use/need. While the demand is low, the risks are high. The DOnllncan is an area of families with small children and young students. A large dorm and the cafeteria are on the north side of the campus . near Lourdes. The following table shows that 68% of the 19 homeless families surveyed in Marin in 2q 15 suffered from either drug or alcohol abuse' or psychiatric conditions that j contributed to their homelessne~s. Another 26% suffered from PTSD. Therefore 94% are suffering from illnesses and conditions which require treatment. H~U'rl C~Nl)ffroN$ t\W,ii4G HO~ fA~n.I~SYm« QillD~~~ Bigbt()fh"le 19 family members ~l·ted:sufferingfrompsyehiatdcM mental problems. Pl(;~31. . HEALTH CONDlTlOOS AMONG HOMln£SS f'AMn:mSW11'H CIUWREN Drug Of ~chI!lUlt Pllys.kal Ale~~ . Qt~ ~bllliy C1:lndl!lOM . p(!rt.rr~ ttrooltlWalth ~mllti(; S~t)isOi~ Pr~ EroIn lllimv ~ Drug (If alcolwl.a!P~ n:1V; P~iamcor trfililOOmli CO».dittii>iS n:l?; ,F'hysi~l41saln1ity id9: ~:fraumatic StrtSs DiSDriWr (P'fSDl ~9; t:hrtrdithealrh ~rem5 M9: Trdumatic Brain Jnful;lfl:19: A IDS/filV relam! m18 . , . SoUY{'-e; Appl~f!SIl'l'W}llW~llh. (:ro15). MarlnCvltJ1tY'HQnl~SuI'WlY. Wauon'rilllt, C1l Despite the evidence showing~that this constituency suffers a disproportionately high set of mental/emotional health illnesses and conditions, NO SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED TO THOSE LIVING A! LOURDES. THE DECISION INCLUDES RECCOMENDSATIONS FOR FUTURE USE WHICH IS INAPPROPRIATE AND GO FAR BEYOND THE APPLICATION. THESE RECCOMENDSATIONS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS FOR THEIR COMMUNITY ARE/WELL JUSTIFIED Under the conditions set forth in the Decision, in Paragraph 7, there are improper statements concerning the post sunset use of 77 Locust Ave. They should be stricken from the decision with the only post-sunset conduct being referenced is 1) return the property to its pre A:tru:Uended Use Permit condtion, i.e., remove the modifications. 1// 1// -" In the Decision, Paragraph 7, Mr. Jensen states the following; 7, This Use Permit Amendment Is approved for two (2) year:s oommenolng (}n tile issuance . date of CertiflQaw Qf Oooupancy. At the end rtf the two yaar partod, the use Permit Amendment will tl1i(rtlinaie. At that time, the pr¢jeot proponent shall be required t<J . proce$d \vfrh Qn~ {if the foUtrvV'Jiig fur -me ~y~uO\lij nairNay:71 a Request an extension to thl$ Use Permit Amendment to continue the transitional housing U$~ for a term period of in perpetuity; . . n. Re-putpO$e the single tt;l~h:lemi@! (lw~!lfng unit to anofuer relOirlentiE!l !.!S$ S!,iC,1'J as for a managers/caretaker unit erfor convent use; or . 0; Remove the kitchen factfity and retum the area to Its current use as resfclel'\tlal (lonv.mt fooms. Items a and, b infer that these options have been arrived at as a result of the public notice and he8ring process. Indeed, in a future application for an Amended Use Permit this language could , be considered precedent. The mention of a perpetual Amended Use Permit, if not inadvertent, is shocking. This is what all of the neighbors in opposition expressed concern about: ie thois becoming a perpetual use. It is in direct contradiction to the "one and done" representation which the Sisters made to the community. Any amendment in perpetuity would run with the land and, thereby, be applicable to any subsequent owner. It will change the nature ofthe property and may affect future sale and/or transfer oft}1e property. Part of the rational stated for your Decision is that the Sisters and Homeward Bound will supervise and enforce the various criteria arid conditions for participation in the program.~at guarantees do the neighbors have re program supervision if the property is sold to someone else andHomewru;d Bound no longer has a lease there? . A perpetual change in use has never been part of the Application; Notice, or hearing. Therefore there has been no fair process consideration and this provision should be eliminated. Likewise, 7 (b) was not part of the Application, Notice or hearing process. Again, the inclusion of this in your Decision creates an inference that this was arrived afafter fair procyss. There is no basis for this future commendation. Indeed, the current Conditions of Use indicate that there will be no overnight resident staff. Thi's provision needs to be stricken. The only post sunset process that was discussed is the restoration of the property back to its pre- ammended use or the filing of an ENTIRELY NEW Application, starting from scratch, with no inference or presumption of future use. That is all that should be said, that was all that was contained in the Notice, was and discussed in the hearing. It was a commitment made by the Sisters. This language needs to be stricken. ·IF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION IS UPHELD, ANY CHANGE IN ZONINGIUSE SHOULD HAVE A CONDITION TO RUN WITH THE LAND THAT IF THE SISTERS EVER TRANSFER TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE BY SALE OR GIFT, THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING USE MUST TERMINATE Just as the PD zoning was allowed to remain as long as the Convent remained associated with the Dominican College, so as to assure that the College would have oversight and the community could be assured of continuity and a stable custodian, if the Sisters leave, that is stop utilizing the facility, sell it, gift it or otherwise dissacociate from Lourdes, the Ammended Conditional Use . should immediately terminate and the property revert to a R-la zoning district.. Part of wh~t is relied upon by the Zoning-Administrator is the reassurance that he believes exists given· the Sisters will1ive in close proximity, in residence, at Lourdes. If that safegUard no longer exists, the transitional housing relationship should automatically expire. Miscelanious Concerns re 77 Locust and Lourdes Given the whole purpose behind the creation of a PD speccial zoning was because of the· Convent andlor propelties' affiliation with Domenican College, should the Sisters cease using this as a convent, the PD district should be abolished and the property should revert back to the R-la residential zoning in character with the surrounding neighborhood. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons the appeal should be granted and Zoning Administrators Action overtUlned. This is a rezonning, and as such a much more formal and deliberative process should be undertalcen so as to reevaluate the appropriate zoning for this parcel. ~anuary26, 2017 Mr. Paul Jensen Planning Department City of San Rafael 1 400 Fifth Street San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Mr. Jensen, Kathleen A. Bestor 31 Glenaire Drive San Rafael, CA 94901 I am writing to voice my support for the Dominican Sisters proposal to provide transitional housing at Lourdes Convent. As near as I can tell, the sisters will only be hosting 2 single mothers each of whom will have 2 children. This is only 6 additional people. It is hard to imagine this will have anything but the most minimal impact on the neighborhood. If one of the neighbors decided to rent their home to a family of 6 (or 6 unrelated individuals), there would be no restriction on such an action. I have lived in San Rafael/Marin County for most of the last 50+ years since I first came to Dominican College in 1965. Honestly, it is heartbreaking to read the comments of the neighbors who are opposed to this proposal. I do not understand how they who have so much can try to deny help to those who have so little. Marin County has a significant shortage of housing for moderate income individuals. This is a very small step in helping to solve that problem. Please approve the sisters' request. Thank you, Kathleen A. Bestor Paul Jensen '=rom: .)ent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Urbani, Jacquelyn < Monday, January 30,201710:57 AM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Street, Lourdes Convent UP16-057 Please support this community outreach to facilitate the independence and recovery of these women and families. Sincerely, Jacquelyn Jacquelyn M. Urbani, Ph.D. Chair & Assistant Professor of Special Education School of Education and Counseling Psychology Dominican University of California 50 Acacia Avenue San Rafael, CA 9490 1 p. (415)- 1 January 26, 2017 Paul Jensen Zoning Administrator Planning Division City of San Rafael Hugh and Luanne Cadden 201 Locust Avenue San Rafael, California 94901 SENT BY EMAIL ONLY Re: 77 Locust Avenue -Use Permit UP-16-0S7 Request for Transitional Housing Dear Paul, Thanks again for the extra time to come up to speed on the proposed project for the Lourdes property at 77 Locust Avenue. Since your recent public meeting, I have had the opportunity to review the Sisters' application, proposed plans and comment letters in detail along with the zoning files related to the Lourdes property since 1974. My wife and I have lived on Locust Avenue near the Lourdes property for the past twenty-one years. We, like many of our neighbors, support the Sisters' efforts to use some of their excess space to provide transitional housing to two single mothers and their children on a temporary basis. However, as discussed below, the Sisters' proposed project, as currently structured, goes far beyond that objective and must be denied. At the same time, we believe that the Sisters, working with the neighbors, can achieve their stated objective with a different, simple approach. Our comments follow: 1. The Lourdes Convent property at 77 Locust Avenue is expressly conditioned and limited to the Lourdes Retirement Center that is owned and operated by the Sisters. The current proposal must be considered in the context of this property's unique zoning history. In short, the zoning files related to this property indicate that in 1974 the City on its own initiative changed the zoning ofthe Lourdes Convent property from its original R1B2 status to a flU" (Unclassified District}. This change was necessitated by the Sister's request to expand their convent retirement facility and the fact that the facility was a R1B2 non-conforming use at that time. At that time the planning staff considered whether it would be appropriate to change the zoning to R3 (multi-family use) but did not consider an R3 type zone appropriate for the neighborhood. In changing the zoning and approving the Sisters requested expansion, the Planning Commission recognized the single family nature of the area, the singular use as the Lourdes Retirement Center and the unique ownership and control relationship by the Sisters; and it expressly limited the use of this property to the Sisters' Convent Retirement Center use. The conditions established by the Planning Commission which were agreed to by the Sisters provide: "Conditional Approval Findings: Continuation of the Lourdes Retirement Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as its facility remains affiliated with Dominican College and is not a private, commercial facility. Conditions of approval: (a) This use permit is limited to the Lourdes Retirement Center so long as ownership and/or operation is by an affiliate of Dominican College. (b) No future expansion of the use other than that currently under consideration shall take place without modification of the current use permit. (c) This approval is pending City Council approval of rezoning." (Z79-5i UP79-18iED-7) In the early-mid 1990's the City again on its own initiative replaced the "U" classification with PD when it did away with the "U" classification district. It is important to note that from 1974 until today, these limitations on the use of the property have been in place and complied with. During the past 42 years, the Sisters have received approval from the City for various remodels, additions and expansions to the Lourdes property. These included such things as storage space addition, a temporary kitchen, a single story addition, a second story addition and various remodels. In every instance, these actions were limited to the Convent use at the Lourdes Retirement Center owned and operated by the Sisters. We, like others, relied upon the Planning Commission's limitations when buying our property and we have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with the Convent and Sisters over the years. It is special and unique to our neighborhood. 2. The proposed project is inconsistent with and violates the specific conditions attached to the Lourdes property by the Planning Commission when it changed the zoning from R1B2 to "U." The current proposal calls for the conversion of part of the property to a multi-family residential housing unit to be leased by a non-affiliated third party entity who in turn will rent the property to individual tenants. In short, this violates the original restrictions set by the Planning Commission in every regard: the use is not Convent use; it is not operated by the Sisters or an affiliate; and it is not under the control or operation of the Sisters. The fact that the proposed use is temporary or that it sunsets in two years or that it only involves part of the property does not change the outcome. This proposal is a zoning and use change plain and simple and cannot be approved without violating the very conditions attached to this property. It must be remembered that the City rezoned this property in 1974 from R1B1 stating that "[a]n important consideration in staff and Commission determination that the existing use is appropriate in the neighborhood is its relationship to Dominican College. Staff would question the compatibility of a private, commercial retirement center at this location. For that reason, it is important that the use permit be limited to the ownership/operation of Dominican College affiliated corporations." These conditions are clear and unique to this property. While the Sisters can make changes, expand or remodel the Lourdes Retirement Center property by means of the use permit process, the Sisters cannot use the use permit process to change the Planning Commission's foundational use limitation to the Lourdes Retirement Center which must be under the ownership and/or operation of the Sisters. In short, this limitation is unambiguous, runs with the land and cannot be negated or ignored or changed by administrative, general use permit processing. In fact, in my opinion, the limitations in place are so integral to the initial rezoning that when the Sisters' Lourdes Retirement Center use ceases and/or it sells the property the zoning must revert to R1B2. 3. The Sisters, working with the neighbors, can achieve their objective by restructuring their proposal. The stated objective of the Sisters is to make some of their excess space available for transitional housing for two single women each with two children under the age of eight. This can easily be accomplished by seeking a permitted use for two non-congregation members and their children as residents for a temporary period. There is no need to have a master lease with Homeward Bound. Homeward Bound can deliver its services pursuant to a management agreement. There is no need to create a multi-family residential unit. Working with the neighbors to hammer out mutually agreeable details, the Sisters could be providing this housing in a matter of a month or so. Instead of the extensive proposed permanent improvements, improvements can be scaled way back, for example, using a portable modular in law kitchen unit and so on. In short, the proposed project far exceeds the stated objective and there is a simple approach right in front of us. It causes me to ask why. 4. Site Specific Considerations Need to be Quantified, Evaluated and Set I was surprised when I attended the meeting, as well as when I reviewed the file, that important site and use specific considerations have not been quantified, evaluated or determined. Rather, these considerations have been treated anecdotally or in very general terms. This is unusual. Chris Dolan has detailed many ofthese factors in his letter to you. Parking, on-site guest occupants, and personal and professional visitors are typically subject to well-established metrics and evaluated prior to approval, not after. Here, parking is a good example. While a full blown traffic study may not be required, the proposal that "two ofthe 18 off-street parking spaces would be reserved for use by the two adult tenants" doesn't begin to address real parking and traffic issues. Parking has been addressed in several of the past use permit actions relating to this property. There is no doubt that the proposed use will increase the burden on parking as well as traffic and noise. As you know there are many different metrics for quantifying and evaluating these impacts taking into consideration the number oftenants, guests, visitors and so on. That analysis needs to be done and brought back to the neighbors. While I believe that these factors can be reasonably managed, they need to be first quantified and evaluated before any proposed use can be properly considered and passed upon. 5. Proposed Conditions for Approval The following are some proposed conditions for the Sisters' proposed use. I believe that these conditions are reasonable and will serve to achieve the objective of the Sisters, that is, to use their excess space to provide transitional housing to two single mothers and their children as well as to achieve the objective of the neighbors, that is, to support the Sisters in this endeavor without converting the property into a multi-family use property. a. The Sisters must operate and control the facility and use. This is required by the historic and existing zoning and permitted use limitations which run with the land. The Homeward Bound services can be provided by means of a service agreement. b. The use will sunset two years from approval. I believe that this was first advanced by a neighbor and agreed to by the Sisters. c. The activity will be limited to two single mothers each with two children under the age of eight. This is proposed by the Sisters. d. At no time during the two year use period, or any subsequent time, will the Sister's proposed use for transitional housing exceed two single mothers each with two children under the age of eight. If the Sisters are unwilling to agree to a once and done approach and not file for additional periods of use then they should be willing to agree to a condition that if they do, any such use will be limited to two single women and their two children. e. The edge of street parking on Locust next to the hedge area must be eliminated. f. Conditions relating to parking, overnight guests, on-site visitors need to be specified and made part of the conditions of use. This ensures that any breaches or violations may result in the termination of the use. In closing, I think it would be a good idea to defer your ruling on this matter and to have another public meeting. The last meeting was too unstructured and not that productive in terms of getting to the details. Moreover, no comment was elicited regarding potential alternative approaches. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter with me, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Hugh J. Cadden January 26, 2017 Mr. Paul Jensen Director, Community Services City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafae" CA 94901 Re: Change of use of Lourdes Convent Retirement Center 77 Locust Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 File No. UP-16-0S7 Dear Mr. Jensen The Dominican sisters attempted to "railroad" the above application by not notifying the greater Dominican neighborhood of their intentions and thereby avoiding public scrutiny. Only a handful of Dominican neighbors learned of the hearing of January 4, 2017 and were able to attend. Most of those who did attend were not Dominican residents. The concept of converting the Lourdes Convent to traditional housing is fraught with dangers to the neighborhood and with legal and financial consequences to the sisters, Homeward.Bound and to the city. First: Who would be monitoring these residents and their children? Would the nuns be expected to enforce rules and regulations? Would Homeward Bound be available 24/7 to monitor the residents? What if relatives of the residents (husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends, friends, etc.) came to stay (live) with the residents (?temporarily?), (define temporary) and bring their undesirable life style with them--drugs, alcohol, violence, abuse? Second: the Dominican University campus is adjacent to the Lourdes Convent--a possibly ideal location for sexual predation, as well as other forms of violence, such as robbery, assault and intimidation. The college is predominately female and these women could easily be targetted and victimized. The sisters, Homeward Bound, and the city would be subject to legal consequences in such an event; not to mention the,Dominican neighbors in general, who would be at risk of violence and intimidation. Young children and their parents walk through the neighborhood; adults, some elderly, are constantly walking through the neighborhood. They could be subject to assault and intimidation. The neighborhood could be turned into a mini version of downtown San Rafael where homeless people routinely accost passersby. It is not a"pleasant experience. This could be the future of the Dominican area. Third: The "renters" of the units at Lourdes would be eligible for all th"e legal rights of renters. If they didn't comply to the rules and policies set down by the sisters and Homeward Bound J would they be removed? How would they be removed? The process of eviction could be lengthy and all the legal and finanCial consequences of such an action would fall on the sisters, Homeward Bound and ultimately, the city. liThe poor homeless mother and children versus the establishment". The press would love the story! The acrimony that could ensue could bring possible crime and violence to the neighborhood. These are only some of the problems that might ensue if the proposal by the sisters and Homeward Boun,d,is allowed to go through. The proposal should be sent to the Planning Commis'sion and city Council for review: Further public hearings should be held, this time with the full notification of the greater . , Dominican (leighborhoo<;l,.r~ther than, as previously, in a somewhat "se~qet" setting. We are vehemently opposed to the proposal by the Dominican sisters and ;a;:4n~ eL P< .p':" '. . ., ~~~e-Dr. Howard Lee Eileen Lee san Ra1ael, CA 94901 '" t ... ' . , Romulus I Cases I #44659 Proposal by Dominican Sisters I want to express my support for the proposal by the Dominican Sisters to house two single mothers and their young children for a period of two years. I am a San Rafael resident and I work at Dominican Vniversity. I feel strongly that this proposal carries a very low risk of any danger to the community while providing needed housing for families. Details (else No. 44659 Tf::1Linda St~lttiS Open Alldrpss San Rafael. CA Pnoritv nlo Sourre Form Upd"icci 17 hours ago Created 17 hours ago Conversations (2) More Details History Transfers Inquiry #44659 opened Diane Suffridge We've opened an inquiry for you entitled Proposal by Dominican Sisters. If you have any ... Inquiry 1144659 received Diane Suffridge Thanks for your comment· it will be incl\Jded in the permanent record for this project. Than ... https:llapp.romuluscrm.com/cases/44659 Page 1 of2 ./' Edit Case tags + This (ose j, not tOBsed. Assigned users Tasks + This case 110.') no associated tos/,..;. Constituents + Diane Suffridge Organizations This CllSC hos no linl<erl orgonizah'ons, 1 messClge 2 messages 'iC',It-rd.1V 1125/2017 Romulus I Cases I #44613 Permits for Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide transitional housing for 2 women and their children I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide transitional housing for 2 women and their children. I urge the City Council to expedite the permitting required to move forward with this noble and well-planned proposal. The Sisters are working with Homeward Bound. an agency with a well-respected track record of moving people from unemployment and homeless ness to self-sufficiency. And knowing the high standards Dominican sets and achieves in all areas, no one can seriously believe that this small program would not be sufficiently monitored by the Sisters. Please do the right thing, the humane thing, and approve the permits ASAP!! Details C<'lse No. 44613 Department Planning Department Case tags This case is 110t tagged, Assigned users Tasks This cose has no ossociaten tasks, Constituents Barbara l<iHey Organizations Page 1 of2 + Status V' Closed TIlis case has no linked orsonizoHons. Adclreos San Rafael, CA Priority nla Source Form Updated a day ago CreJted a day ago Conversations (2) More Details History Transfers Public link https:llpublic.romuluscrm.com/cases/pheygbkw 8' Addresses Incident San Rafael CA 94901-5287 Primary Attachments This case /los no attachments. Notes This case has no notes, https:llapp,romuluscrm,com/cases/44613 1125/2017 Romulus I Cases I #44570 Page 1 of2 Dominican Sisters' proposal to house two single women and kids I support the Dominican Sisters' proposal to house two single women and their children and urge the San Rafael City Council approve the necessary use permit amendment. I can't believe I even have to weigh in on such a no-brainer. Details Ca':\e t-Jo. 44570 D '.}!I, ,-. DepJrtloent Planning Department f § Status '" Closed ~~ Addre"s San Rafael, CA ()[."t Priority n/o SOUf(C Form Upddtrd 2 days ago Crp<itrd 2 days ago Conversations (2) More Details History Transfers Inquiry #44570 opened Barbara George 1 message \/2"3/17 We've opened an Inquiry for you entitled __ Dominican Sisters' proposal to house two single wo ... Inquiry #44570 received 2 messages Barbara George Hello-Thank you for your comments on the Dominican Sisters project. I will make sure the com ... https:llapp.romuluscrm.com/cases/44570 Case tags This case is 110t tO~i8ed. Assigned users Tasks This ((1se h05 no asS"oc;atecl taskS. Constituents Barbara George Organizations This cose has no linked lH'sanizations. 1125/2017 Romulus I Cases I #44651 Housing at Dominican U. I live close to Dominican and fully support the sisters' efforts to offer housing to 2 families. This is just the kind of compassionate and well planned affordable housing we need. It is a win-win situation.Thank you. Details Case I~o. 44651 D Status Open Address 37 Broadview Dr San Rafael, CA Priority nla Source Form Upd,<trd 18 hours ago Crl'Cltc'd 19 hours ago Conversations (2) More Details History Transfers Inquiry 1144651 opened Gail Lester 2 messages Thanks you for your comments -we will be sure to include them in the permanent record for th ... Inquiry #44651 received 1 message Gail Lester '((:',luJav We've received your submission entitled Housing at Dominican U. from our web form. You'I ... https:llapp.romuluscrm.comicases/44651 Page 1 of2 It' Edit Case tags + This cosc is 110t tQ3gcd Assigned users Tasks + This C(1se I1t15 no aS50ciated task '>. Constituents + Gail Lester Organizations + This case has no linked organizoHons. 1/2512017 Romulus I Cases I #44636 Page lof2 Dominican Sisters housing for tow homeless woman and their children As San Rafael residents we are in total support of the Dominican Sister obtaining the needed permits to house two women and their children from HOmeward Bound in their facility. These are women registered in a treatment program who clearly want,to move their lives forward. Let us help in any way we can. This would have no negative impact on the neighborhood that we could foresee. Details Case Nce 44636 Status Open Addres'; San Rafael. CA Priority n/a SOUl(e Form Updated 20 hours ago .,,, ,., ...... " ... Created a day ago Conversations (2) More Details History Transfers Inquiry #44636 opened Sharon and Ed Cushman 1 meSSJge We've opened an inquiry for you entitled __ Dominican Sisters housing for tow homeless woman a ... Inquiry #44636 received 2 messages Sharon and Ed Cushman Yest(:rdny Thanks for your comment .. we will add it to our public comments for this project Thanks Again ... https:llapp.romuluscrm.com/cases/44636 ,,' Edit Case tags + Thi, cOle is not togged Assigned users Tasks + This casc hos no asoacioted tosks. Constituents + Sharon and Ed Cushman Organizations + This ((isr hos no linked organizations. 1/25/2017 Romulus I Cases 1#44613 Permits for Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide transitional housing for 2 women and their children I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide transitional housing for 2 women and their children. I urge the City Council to expedite the permitting required to move forward with this noble and well-planned proposal. The Sisters are working with Homeward Bound, an agency with a well-respected track record of moving people from unemployment and homeless~ess to self-sufficiency. And knowing the high standards Dominican sets and achieves in all areas, no one can seriously believe that this small program would not be sufficiently monitored by the Sisters. Please do the righHhing, the humane thing, and approve the permits ASAP!! Details Case No. 44613 Department Planning Department Case tags This case is not tagged. Assigned users Tasks This case has no associated tasks. Constituents Barbara Killey Organizations Page 1 of2 + Status Open This case has no linked organizations. Address San Rafael, CA Priority nla Source Form Updated 20 minutes ago Created 10 hours ago Transfers -) 1 -Inquiry #44613 opened Barbara Killey I-_~ We've opened an inquiry for you entitled __ Permits for Dominican Sisters' proposal to provid ... 1 message 8:46 am 1 Inquiry #44613 received 1 message .1 Barbara Killey Yesterday 1--We've received your submission entitled __ Permits for Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide ... [ https:llapp.romulusClm.com!cases/44613 1124/2017 Romulus I Cases I #44613 Permits for Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide transitional housing for 2 women and their children I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide transitional housing for 2 women and their children. I urge the City Council to expedite the permitting required to move forward with this noble and well-planned proposal. The Sisters are working with Homeward Bound, an agency with a well-respected track record of moving people from unemployment and homelessness to self-sufficiency. And knowing the high standards Dominican sets and achieves in all areas, no one can seriously believe that this small program would not be sufficiently monitored by the Sisters. Please do the right thing, the humane thing, and approve the permits ASAP!I Details Case No. 44613 Department Planning Department Status Open Address San Rafael, CA Priority nla Source Form Updated 20 minutes ago Created 10 hours ago r Conversations (2) More Details History Transfers 'I Inquiry #44613 opened Barbara Killey We've opened an inquiry for you entitled __ Permits for Dominican Sisters' proposal to provid ... Inquiry #44613 received Barbara Killey 1 message 8:46am 1 message Yesterday We've received your submission entitled __ Permits for Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide ... https://app.romulusCIID.com!cases/44613 Case tags This case is not tagged. Assigned users Tasks This case has no associated tasks. Constituents Barbara Killey Organizations This case has no linked organizations. " -I I Page 1 of2 + 112412017 January 15, 2017 TO: PAUL JENSEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, SAN RAFAEL DICK & I HAVE LIVED HERE IN THE DOMINICAN NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 54 YEARS, JUST A FEW BLOCKS AWAY FROM LOURDES. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCREENING CRITERIA USED BY HOMEWARD BOUND, PLUS THE INCLUSION OF A TWO YEAR "SUNSET" PROVISION, AMONG OTHER CRITERIA SET BY THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, WILL PROVIDE ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS FOR THE CHANGE IN USE OF THAT BUILDING TO HELP TWO HOMELESS MOTHERS -WITH YOUNG CHILDREN. FOR THOSE REASONS, WE SUPPORT THE DOMINICAN SISTERS' COMPASSIONATE PROPOSAL FOR THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CC: GARY T. RAGGHIANTI DOTTIE & DICK BREINER SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 Romulus I Cases I #44273 RE: Dominican Nuns & Transitional Housing To whom it may concern: My name is Dashiell Stander and I have lived in San Rafael for 15 years. I am writing to say that I think that the opposition to the (temporary) amendment to the convent's use permit is outrageous. Any neighborhood should be happy to provide space and comfort to Marin's neediest. The burden on them is minimal and yet it will mean the world to the two families involved. San Rafael is a wonderful city, we should strive to make it more accessible so as many people as possible can enjoy it. Thank you so much for your time, Dashiell Stander Details Case No. 44273 D Department Planning Department Status Open Address San Rafael, CA Priority n/a Source Form Updated an hour ago ....................... Created a day ago Conversations (2) Transfers Public link https://publlc.romuluscrm.com/cases/vliI5wbo C? Addresses Incident San Rafael CA 94901-5029 Primary ) Attachments This case has no attachments. Notes This case has no notes. https://app.romuluscrm.com/cases/44273 ,-'? G (.) c, Case tags This case is not tagged, Assigned users Tasks This case has no associated tasks. Constituents Dashiell Stander Organizations This case has no linked organizations. Page I of2 + 1117/2017 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr Jensen- Kimberley Banuelos < Friday! January 13! 2017 12:24 PM Paul Jensen 77 Locust St Lourdes Convent UP16-057 I was saddened to learn that the council and City of San Rafael is considering denying the request made by the sisters of the Lourdes Convent to provide temporary housing for two transitionally homeless families. Although I am not a resident of Marin County, I do reside in the East Bay and am a graduate student at Dominican. I realize that homelessness is not just a local or regional issue but a national and possibly global humanitarian crisis. I do what I can on an individual level but many times feel helpless to alleviate a situation that is so multi-dimensional without a "one size fits all" solution. The sisters of Lourdes Convent must feel they are equipped to help these families, otherwise I doubt they would make the attempt. I fully support their request and would hope that the astute members of the council will make the humanistic decision to support their efforts to combat homelessness in their community. Sincerely, Kimberley Keegan Banuelos Student, MSOT @ Dominican University Sent from my iPhone 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Paul, Adam Chan < Friday! January 13! 2017 11:31 AM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Street Lourdes Convent UP16-0Sr I would like to give my support to the two homeless families in transition to be temporarily housed at the Lourdes Convent. Thank you, Adam Chan 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Chris Santilli Johnson < Thursday, January 12, 2017 8:07 PM Paul Jensen pis support Lourdes Convent UP16-057 plan Please support the plans for 77 Locust Street in San Rafael (Lourdes Convent UP16-057 plan) so the Dominican Sisters can help two women and their children. I live off Jewell Street and work at Dominican University so I would be affected only in a positive way knowing that two more families striving to better themselves were sheltered and off our city's streets. Sincerely, Christine S. Johnson Adjunct Professor, English Dominican University home: San Rafael, CA 94901 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Bette Hollis < Friday, January 13, 2017 5:31 AM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Street, Lourdes Convent UP16-057" in the subject line. I write to support the sisters in their desire to be part of the solution. Their request will make little or no impact on the surrounding area which has a large population of students, faculty and staff already in the immediate vicinity. It is beyond imagining how the neighbors could possibly protest this move. As a faculty member for the last twenty years, my acquaintance with the sisters has been nothing but positive. Their influence and service in this way should be encouraged and supported. Sincerely, Bette Hollis 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Bette Hollis <bettehollis@aol,com> Friday, January 13, 2017 5:31 AM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Street, Lourdes Convent UP16-057" in the subject line. I write to support the sisters in their desire to be part of the solution. Their request will make little or no impact on the surrounding area which has a large population of students, faculty and staff already in the immediate vicinity. It is beyond imagining how the neighbors could possibly protest this move. As a faculty member for the last twenty years, my acquaintance with the sisters has been nothing but positive. Their influence and service in this way should be encouraged and supported. Sincerely, Bette Hollis 1 Romulus I Cases I #44514 Dominican Sisters' request for ~ use permit amendment I work and pay for a business license in San Rafael, patroniz/e the city's businesses, restaurants, and theaters frequently, and live just over the border in San Anselmo. I am 1000% behind the Dominican Sisters' wish to house two Homeward Bound clients and their young children within their convent, and urge you to approve without hesitation the amendment to the use permit that will enable them to proceed. It pains me as aizen to see the NIMBYism that has emerged to oppose even this tiny and worthwhile proposal for not only compassion and decency, but making a material'difference in lives that wilt benefit us all. Thank you. Details Case No. 44514 Department Planning Department Status Open Priority nfa Source Form Updated an hour ago Created 3 hours ago Conversations (3) More Details History Transfers Inquiry #44514 opened Lorrie Goldin '1 message 12:41 pm We've opened an inquiry for you entitled __ Dominican Sisters' request for a use permit amendm ... Inquiry #44514 opened 1 message Lorrie Goldin 12:22 pm We've opened an Inquiry for you entitled __ Dominican Sisters' request for a use permit amendm ... Inquiry #44514 received 1 message Lorrie Goldin 10:59 am We've received your submission entitled __ Dominican Sisters' request for a use permit amendme ... https:llapp.romuluscrm.com!cases/44514 Page 1 of2 Case tags This case is not tagged. Assigned users Tasks This case has no associated tasks. Constituents Organizations This case has no linked organizations. 1123/2017 Romulus I Cases I #44514 Dominican Sisters' request for a use permit amendment I work and pay for a business license in San Rafael, patronize the city's businesses, restaurants, and theaters frequently, and live just over the border in San Anselmo. I am 1000% behind the Dominican Sisters' wish to house two Homeward Bound clients and their young children within their convent, and urge you to approve without hesitation the amendment to the use permit that will enable them to proceed. It pains me as a izen to see the NIMBYism that has emerged to oppose even this tiny and worthwhile proposal for not only compassion and decency, but making a material difference in lives that will benefit us all. Thank you. Details Case No. 44514 Department Planning Department Status Open Priority nla Source Form Updated an hour ago ....................... Created 3 hours ago ....................... Transfers L Inquiry #44514 opened Lorrie Goldin 1 message 12:41 pm We've opened an inquiry for you entitled __ Dominican Sisters' request for a use permit amendm ... Inquiry #44514 opened 1 message Lorrie Goldin 12:22 pm We've opened an inquiry for you entitled __ Dominican Sisters' request for a use permit amendm ... Inquiry #44514 received 1 message Lorrie Goldin 10:59 am We've received your submission entitled __ Dominican Sisters' request for a use permit amend me ... https://app.romuluscrm.com/cases/44514 Page 1 of2 Case tags This case is not tagged. Assigned users Tasks + This case has no associated tasks. Constituents Lorrie Goldin Organizations This case has no linked organizations. 112312017 January 23, 2017 Mr. Paul Jensen Community Development Director City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Change of use at Lourdes ConventiRetirement Center, 77 Locust Ave., San Rafael, CA94901 File No. UP-16-057 Dear Mr. Jensen: This letter is being written on behalf of my husband Barry Gilbert and myself, Elaine Gilbert. We live at 1604 Grand Avenue (at Mountain View). We are opposed to the Dominican Sisters plan to partner with Homeward Bound to settle 2 women with a total of 4 children, 2 each, under the age of 8 at Lourdes facility at 77 Locust Avenue, San Rafael. . . What appears to be a small innocent program has the propensity to grow into a serious neighborhood issue. There is likelihood that these women will bring their lifestyle problems with them. Their old or new friends will seek them out for overnight shelter, meals and companionship~ The presence ofthese friends and acquaintances will bring crime, drug use, alcoholism, domestic violence, litter, and possible dangers to Dominican college students, the nuns and neighbors. There appears to have been an initial attempt to quicldy approve the sisters' proposal. Only informing immediate neighbors denied the rest of the neighborhood knowledge of important changes, which will affect them by the consequences of this ill-advised program. We only became aware of the proposal by a letter delivered to us on January 1, 2017 by Christ Dolan, the next-door neighbor at 1 Locust Avenue, San Rafael. Most of the immediate neighborhood was unaware of the application for such a major change of use. This major change of use from a convalescent senior care facility for Dominican nuns to one that offers shelter to homeless families through Homeward Bound program should require approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Programs of this type rarely terminate .. They generally accelerate in numbers bringing more potential problems to the neighborhood. -2- The additions of a kitchen, bathrooms, a separate entrance and a playground dictate the requirement of a further conditional use approval. The nuns are requiring that the occupants can only be 2 single women with up to 2 children each, under the age of 8. The nuns Lourdes proposal is a discriminatory fail' housing practice, beca1l:se they are limiting the number of children, the childrens' ages, as well as not allowing for a spouse and/or domestic partner. The City, the nuns and Homeward Bound are opening themselves up to fair housing lawsuits, because they are being discriminatory in their housing practices. At the meeting on January 4,2017, The Homeward Bound representative assured the group that the tenants could be removed, if they violate the agreement. However, the only method o:f;' removal is eviction, which could be lengthy, contentious, expensive and disruptive to the Sisters, as well as the neighborhood. If the sisters want to rent part of the Lourdes Facility at a below market rate, why not consider renting to San Rafael City Employees? Police, fire, school teachers, etc. commute long distances to avoid the high rents in San Rafael. ' Elaine Gilbert San Rafael, CA 94901 Paul Jensen From: Sent: Murphy, Claire < Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:30 PM To: Paul Jensen Subject: 77 Locust Ave Dear Mr. Jensen, I have recently learned of the proposal by the Dominican Sisters to convert a section of their convent into a home for two women and their children who are participants of the Homeward Bound program. I wish I were a neighbor of these sisters so I could speak as one who would be very happy to support such a program in my own backyard. I am not a neighbor but I am a staff member at Dominican University and have been encouraged as part of the Dominican community to communicate with you my wholehearted support of this project. I truly wish I had the opportunity to support a project like this with the property next door to my own residence. It goes on the market soon and I'd love to see several tiny houses built to house families who are currently homeless. There is such a serious shortage of affordable housing in the extended bay area cities that it's nearly impossible to afford even a tiny studio on a full time minimum wage salary. I hope the neighbors surrounding the convent will open their hearts to the harsh reality facing so many people who are not privileged with the financial security the homeowners of this county experience. I hope they'll see the women seeking this housing for who they are, mothers who want to be able to provide their children with a safe and secure home. They are obviously working toward improving their unfortunate situation with the mpport of the Homeward Bound program and this secure and supportive housing opportunity will help to ensure their success in being able to pursue their goals of improving their lives and the lives of their children. I understand the fears many have expressed regarding safety and security in their neighborhood. We all want to live in safe and secure neighborhoods where our children can play freely, we can take evening strolls around the block without fear and we can enjoy having friends and family over for a warm summer evening bar-b-que, The families the sisters want to house are no different and it saddens me to think that peoples' unsubstantiated fears might prevent these families from enjoying the same privileges members of this community enjoy. Please don't let stereotyping and fear of "the homeless" prevail and deny this opportunity for two families to enjoy two years of secure housing. The sisters are not afraid to welcome these families into their living space and I hope that should this project go forward the neighborhood will not be afraid to welcome them into their community. Sincerely, Claire Murphy Claire Murphy Instructional Resources Coordinator Room 110 Meadowlands ian Rafael, CA 94901-2298 Phone: Hours: Monday-Thursday 8:30 to 4:30 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: McCarthy, Karen < Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:31 PM To: Paul Jensen . Subject: 77 locust street, Lourdes Convent UP16-057 Dear Paul, I am a faculty member in the Occupational Therapy Department of Dominican University of California . .I was so pleased to hear of the new proposal to house 2 families in transition in Lourdes convent. My late aunt Sister Mariana resided in Lourdes for many years and she was so passionate about helping others. I know she would be so happy to see this idea develop. As a faculty member at Dominican, this would create a great opportunity for our students to engage in 'service learning'. I would love my Occupational Therapy students to help the women and children with transitioning including areas of self care, job skills, and play/ learning activities with the children. Having these families at Lourdes not only helps the families themselves but all of us around them. The sisters can find company and meaning by helping the families. My students could engage in civic responsibility and service. I hope that you look favorably on this proposal. I think it sends a strong message about what type of community we are in San Rafael. Thank you, Dr. Karen McCarthy Dr. Karen McCarthy, OTD, OTRIL Assistant Professor Department of Occupational Therapy Dominican University of California 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Jensen, Merit Franklin < Thursday, January 12, 20171:22 PM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Street, Lourdes Convent UP16-057 My name is Merit Franklin, I am a graduate student in the occupational therapy program at Dominican University. As a student and a future occupational therapist, I would love to be given the opportunity to work the women that this facility would house. Not only will this experience aid in my (and other students) education, the services we are able to provide would be equally beneficial to the residents. I implore you to consider the wonderful opportunity we are able to give these families in need and how this could be an enriching experience for the surrounding community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Merit Franklin 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: Stivers, Laura < Thursday, January 12, 2017 1:28 PM To: Paul Jensen Subject: UP 16-057 Dear Paul, I'm writing in regards to your decision on 77 Locust St, Lourdes Convent UP16-057. I have seen the neighbors complaints and do not think they warrant consideration. From what I understand the neighbors have the following complaints: .. Parking especially if guests are frequent .. Use would change character of property use, ex: BBQs, parties, outdoor playground .. Rules regarding guests and visitors .. Given nature of tenants, could they bring prospect of violence into the neighborhood .. Could facilitate expansion into larger scale multi-family transitional housing development .. Long term intentions for the program are not clear .. What happens if tenant gets married? The sisters have two parking spots for the tenants and there is plenty of other parking in the vicinity. I often have to park down the road for work. Use would not change the character ofthe property extensively, except that some children might play outside (which I see as a good thing). The guests will be governed by rules from :-Iomeward Bound and the Sisters and I know that both of these groups are reputable and able to have two families follow the rules set out for transitional housing. I assume the prospect of violence has to do with the possibility that the women might have suffered from domestic abuse at some point. Domestic abuse happens at all income levels and can happen in any neighborhood. The idea of housing these women with the nuns seems like probably the safest place they could be IF there is an issue with domestic abuse (which is not proven). My understanding is that the sisters are not planning to expand into a larger scale multi-family transitional housing, but as an advocate for affordable housing and having written a book on homelessness, I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing if they did. We need communities in Marin that are mixed-income, not just enclaves for the rich (as the neighborhood around Dominican is). Last of all, I think it is of no concern to the neighbors whether these women get married. The women would be likely to move out of transitional housing in the event of marriage anyway. I hope that the Sisters get a permit to house 2 families in need. Thank you, Laura Dr. Laura Stivers Dean, School of Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences Professor of Ethics Dominican University of California San Rafael, CA 94901 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Paul, Richard Kalish < ThursdaYI January 12 /201710:27 AM Paul Jensen 77 Locustl Use Permit UP16-057 I am writing to urge you to approve the application of the Dominican Sisters for a use permit at 77 Locust so they can work with Homeward Bound to provide a ramp upward for two otherwise homeless mothers and their children. In order to qualify for the housing, the mothers must already have made significant strides toward rebuilding their lives. For the community to come together, as the Dominican Sisters and Homeward Bound are, to give these women a hand and to give their children-who have done nothing to deserve their situation-a decent future is in my tradition called a Mitzvah. Everyone with a stake in this community, including those of us who work here and our local government, should do all we can to make this wonderful effort succeed. What Meredith Griffin said in the IJ this morning is profoundly true for all of us, without exception: ((There but for the grace of God go I." I hope you will approve the application. Thanks, Paul. Richard Richard J. Kalish KALISH NE)(ON LLP San Rafael, CA 94901 Main: Direct: Fax: 1 January 9, 2017 Paul Jensen [D)~©~~~~rm IUu JAN 11 2017 \YJ COMMUNITY DEVEI.OPMENT DEPARlMENT effi' OF SAN RAFAEL Community Development Director City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Dominican Sisters transitional housing proposal Dear Mr. Jensen, John Contini San Rafael, CA 94901 I am a Dominican neighborhood resident and I have been following with interest the brouhaha over the housing proposal that is has been brought before you. It saddens me that there is such a fervent opposition to this proposal. In this day and age of "NIMBYism" that seems to pervade our communities from the local to the national level, it behooves us to remember that we are a community of people, people of different backgrounds, different cultures, different needs; and we need to and we should take care of each other. This is what makes us strong as commlmityo This proposal is a modest one. The objections raised to it are for the most part manufactured and superfluous and those few that merit further attention can easily be resolved. I urge you to support this proposal and allow it to go through unimpeded. Thank you. Sincer y 7ift.-------_ jOhn Contini January 9,2017 Paul Jensen 1D)~©~n~~rm I~ JAN 11 2017 l!J) COMMUNITY DEVEI.OPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SA.N RAFAEL Community Development Director City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Dominican Sisters transitional housing proposal Dear Mr. Jensen, John Contini San Rafael, CA 94901 I am a Dominican neighborhood resident and I have been following with interest the brouhaha over the housing proposal that is has been brought before you. It saddens me that there is such a fervent opposition to this proposal. In this day and age of "NIMBYism" that seems to pervade our communities from the local to the national level, it behooves us to remember that we are a community of people, people of different backgrounds, different cultures, different needs; and we need to and we should take care of each other. This is what makes us strong as commlmity~ This proposal is a modest one. The objections raised to it are for the most part manufactured and superfluous and those few that merit further attention can easily be resolved. I urge you to support this proposal and allow it to go through unimpeded. Thank you. Sincer y 2f---------_~ Planning Division of the San Rafael City Hall Planning Department 1400 Fifth Ave. 2nd Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 January 3, 2017 iii=!.LANNJN.~<f-.~ Re: Comments relating to 77 Locust Ave., FileNo. UP-16-057 Dear Sir or Madam, G R 0 U P We are writing this letter to share concerns about the proposed change of use at 77 Locust Ave. Although we appreciate the noble intention of using this space as transitional housing, we see several issues that could result in some unintended consequences that would be detrimental to our neighborhood. As long time supporters of the Edgewood Center for Children and Families and Compass Community Services in San Francisco, we understand the need for transitional housing and have a working knowledge of what makes a successful program. The most concerning gap we see in the plan for 77 Locust is the ability of Project Homeward Bound to execute their transitional program successfully at this remote location. In short, supervision seems tenuous at best. It is clear in the documents prepared by Christopher Dolan that the Dominican Sisters will have no involvement in managing these transitional families to permanent sustainability, and it is unclear how Project Homeward Bound intends to do so. We share concerns that have been raised by adjacent neighbors related to managing overnight visitors, a change in marital or co-habitation situation, potential relapse in sobriety and the potential security risks brought by the broader circle of the residents. These issues are typically managed by the sponsoring organization. We are not satisfied with the ability or intent of Homeward Bound to manage these potential issues. We also have concerns regarding the longer-term use of this space and are interested to understand the broader strategy for other excess space. As indicated in the Mr. Dolan's memo, the resident sister population is declining. We would like to understand the bigger strategy for any other upcoming space. Is the intention of the Dominican Sisters to convert all excess space to transitional housing? This is a conversation that should take place with the stakeholders in the neighborhood and one in which we would like to take part. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We look forward to hearing more about this issue in the coming months. With warm regards, (C'\~ J?!IJ-- Tim and Ann Dale San Rafael, CA 94901 adale@~~~;upsf.com ':·;!:,~Y{ ;~~-~ .- REGt:I.v cu JAN O::t': 2011' Planning Division of the San Rafael City Hall Planning Department 1400 Fifth Ave. 2nd Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 January 3, 2017 ~fLANNJN.~«.c'i~ Re: Comments relating to 77 Locust Ave., File No. UP-16-057 Dear Sir or Madam, G R 0 U P We are writing this letter to share concerns about the proposed change of use at 77 Locust Ave. Although we appreciate the noble intention of using this space as transitional housing, we see several issues that could result in some unintended consequences that would be detrimental to our neighborhood. As long time supporters of the Edgewood Center for Children and Families and Compass Community Services in San Francisco, we understand the need for transitional housing and have a working knowledge of what makes a successful program. The most concerning gap we see in the plan for 77 Locust is the ability of Project Homeward Bound to execute their transitional program successfully at this remote rocation. In short, supervision seems tenuous at best. rt is clear in the documents prepared by Christopher Dolan that the Dominican Sisters will have no involvement in managing these transitional families to permanent sustainability, and it is unclear how Project Homeward Bound intends to do so. We share concerns that have been raised by adjacent neighbors related to managing overnight visitors, a change in marital or co-habitation situation, potential relapse in sobriety and the potential security risks brought by the broader circle of the residents. These issues are typically managed by the sponsoring organization. We are not satisfied with the ability or intent of Homeward Bound to manage these potential issues. We also have concerns regarding the longer-term use of this space and are interested to understand the broader strategy for other excess space. As indicated in the Mr. Dolan's memo, the resident sister population is declining. We would like to understand the bigger strategy for any other upcoming space. Is the intention of the Dominican Sisters to convert all excess space to transitional housing? This is a conversation that should take place with the stakeholders in the neighborhood and one in which we would like to take part. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We look forward to hearing more about this issue in the coming months. With warm regards, i ~ I ~ U-C L"I~ 13~j" . Tim and Ann Dale San Rafael, CA 94901 adale@9g~Qupsf.com ,'X~jf~~~ January 9, 201 7 Planning Commission City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Dominican Sisters transitional housing proposal Dear committee members, John Contini San Rafael, CA 94901 I am a Dominican neighborhood resident and I have been follovving with interest the brouhaha over the housing proposal that is has been brought before the Community Development Director and now to the Planning Commission. It saddens me that there is such a fervent opposition to this proposal. These days we seem to have a level of "NIMBYism" that has pervaded our communities from the local level up to the national level. It behooves us to remember that we are a . community of people, people of different backgrounds, different cultures, different needs; and we should be accepting of each other and take care of each other. This is what makes us strong as a community. To do otherwise, divides and weakens us. The proposal brought forth by the Dominican Sisters is a modest one. r believe the opposition to be mean spirited and fraught with unfounded . suppositions. The specific issues raised to the proposal are for the most part manufactured and superfluous and those few that merit further attention can and should be easily resolved. I urge you to support this proposal and allow it to go through unimpeded. Thank you. SinceI;:Jly 1f>urs, .f .// J~C / ! //."/' . . //~f::::/ John Contini Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Michele Ginn CITY OF SAN RAFAEL Planning Technician Michele Ginn on behalf of Community Development Tuesday, February 14,20179:08 AM Paul Jensen FW: Dominican Sisters Transitional Housing Did you know that you can now check your zoning on line. Please go to ~=-"-ct...L.-;c.:...:..o~~~=-"-~=':':"'::"''-Ol--=-=-='';''''­ ~.=..;..:.:.=~"-and you can find the zoning for your property at your leisure -----Original Message----- From: Nicole L~~~==~~==~~~~J Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:01 AM To: planning Subject: Dominican Sisters Transitional Housing Dear Planning Commission: I\s someone supportive ofthe Dominican Sisters community, and someone with a family home in Marin, I want to register my unwavering support for their plan to provide transitional housing for two homeless women with children in their convent. While I realize that these women will not have the income level of the millionaire neighbors who oppose the plan, the suggestion that simply because they are poor and in need they will necessarily bring a risk of sexual abuse, predation, and all of the other things that are being thrown out as "risks" is discriminatory, offensive and in my view, morally abhorrent. What have we come to as a society or a community if we can not help the least of us? Even in some small way? These Sisters want to take these women (who must meet certain criteria and have been evaluated for their suitability by a reputable nonprofit) into their own community, help them, love them, and give them a chance to have a better life. Frankly, if San Rafael as a community were to decide against this plan, I think it would be shameful, and a wake up call of a story not just for Marin, but nationally -one of those moments where we have to take a look at what our society has devolved to and say -is this really who we want to be? Is this the best we can be? I am grateful to you and to the city for approving the plan, and I hope very much that it will hold up under this appeal. Warmly, Nicole Newnham Inverness 1 Romulus I Cases I #45482 Appeal to Dominican Sisters' permit grant Dear Members of the City Council and Planning Commission: I see from the Marin IJ that a Dominican neighbor has filed an appeal to the amendment recently granted for a modest conversion to the convent in order to help two women and their children transition out of homelessness. It is sad that this worthy plan evokes in some small-hearted ness and fear-based reactions. As someone who pays business license fees to work in San Rafael. I urge you to turn down the appeal and move forward with this project. Thank you, Lorrie Goldin Details Case No. 45482 Status Open D Address Priority c/o Source Form Update·<1 a minute ago Created 21 hours ago Conversations (2) More Details History Transfers Inquiry 1145482 opened 1 message Lorrie Goldin 9:01 al!1 We've opened an inquiry for you entitled Appeal to Dominican Sisters' permit grant. Ify ... Inquiry #45482 received 1 message Lorrie Goldin We've received your submissio'n entitled APpeal to Dominican Sisters' permit grant from ou ... https://app.romuluscrm.com/cases/45482 Page 1 of2 '" Edit Case tags + Tilis case is nol to!!ged. Assigned users Tasks + This case hos /10 associated tosks. Constituents + Lorrie Goldin OrganiZations + This case has no /in/<ea organizaHons. 2/9/2017 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr Jensen, marcy israel < Monday, January 09,20171:22 PM Paul Jensen Proposed project at 77 Locust I am writing in total support of the use change at 77 Locust Ave on the Dominican Campus in San Rafael. The Dominican sisters have always strove to improve, educate and love the world. They must see in this project a wonderful opportunity to impact a person's life in a positive way by providing housing to two women and their children who are involved with homeward bound. Is that not what all of us would like to do to make the world a better place? I hope your office is not influenced by what sounds like petty complaints against the project. Sincerely, Marcy Israel 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: David Coury < Saturday, January 07,201712:08 PM Brian Crawford; Liz Darby; Leelee Thomas; Caroline Peattie; Johnathan D. Logan; Barbara Cliftonzarate; Alan Burr; Jeff Jackson; Omar Carrera; Cesar Lagleva; Richard Marcantonio; Raphael Durr; Kim Stafford; Alexandra Danino; Myra Chow; Zared Lloyd; Diana Conti; Bill Pickel; Damon Connolly; Jim Geraghty; Mary Ruth Gross; Zachary McRae; Marjorie Delgadillo; Femke Freiberg; Nancy Johnson; Andrew Marshall; Ricardo Moncreif; Judy Arnold; Lewis Jordan; Douglas Mundo; Katie Rice; Kathrin Sears; Debbi La Rue; Anne Bellows; Kate Colin; Gary Phillips; John Gamblin; Christine Paqutte Subject: Local initiatives/Local control in San Raphael In case you missed it. .. The blatant statements of some of the neighbors are apparently only the tip of the iceberg. I'm not Catholic but some of my best friends are and to say: "Do you think the sisters will police the place? The convent should remain a convent," is a misguided statement. There are others. ~ am confident that the City of San Raphael will not let this attempt at discrimination by familial status stand. Dominican Sisters' housing plan at San Rafael convent draws opposition The Dominican Sisters are asking the city to allow the nuns to convert 1 part of their San Rafael convent to trans ... Best regards, Dave Corte Madera, CA 94976 One person,one story, matters. 2 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Paul, Chris Dolan < Monday, January 09, 2017 12:17 AM Paul Jensen Lourdes -Marital Discrimination As I indicated previously, I am providing the following information concerning non discrimination in housing based on marriage. I previously provided to you a reference to the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In response, Mr. Ragghianti had provided a citation to California Health and Safety Code Section 50810.5 indicating that this provision allowed for discrimination in the provision of shelter and/or transitional housing. The concern raised by myself and several others is that Homeward Bound's statement that only singe mothers, not married mothers, could live in the proposed housing would be both illegal and unenforceable so that if a woman were to be married, get married,or registered as domestic partner, they could not be precluded from moving their spouse or RDP into the unit thereby doubling the number of adults. Likewise, there is no legal justification for evicting a tenant if she becomes pregnant thereby adding another child (or two) to the household. Not only does the Fair Employment and Housing Act preclude discrimination in the rental of housing on the basis of marital status, California Government Code Section 11135 states that :(a) No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, be unlawfully denied full and ~qual access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state. A review of publicly available databases shows that Homeward Bound receives financial assistance from the State. Therefore, it can not discriminate on the basis offamily status and evicting a homeless woman because she was married, or became married, would be illegal. The citation to Health and Safety Code Section 50810.5 does not address marital status. If allows for segregation/discrimination on the basis of sex i.e., women's shelters, men's shelters and/or sex segregated transitional housing. Therefore, Health and Safety Code Section 50810.5 does not permit discrimination on the basis of marital status. Therefore, it is quite possible that marriage could increase the number of adult occupants residing in the proposed housing. This could further compound the parking issue if they were to have their own car. As to the reality behind the sunset clause: it is hard to imagine the Sisters, having spent the money on making Lourdes mult-family, with a separate kitchen, new entrance and a fenced in yard, ending this use. As the sisters have said that this for only two years, if the Amendment is granted there should be a provision requiring the removal of the kitchen at the end of those two years. Regards, Chris Dolan 1 Privileged and Confidential: This electronic message contains information that may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine and is intended solely for the use of the addressee listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this message and delete the original message. 2 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Paul, Monday, January 09,20177:39 AM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Proposal -UP 16-057 Thanks for moving the decision date on the above matter to January 28. The extra time will give my wife Luanne and I some time to review, evaluate and comment on the 77 Locust Proposal. I reviewed the Use Permit UP-16-057 file at the Planning Division Office on Friday Morning. I would also like to review the files relating to the 77 Locust Avenue parcel's initial classification as "U" (Unclassified District) and its subsequent classification as PD District which are referenced in your Background/Facts meeting handout. If these files are available at the counter, I will drop by Tuesday morning to review them. If they are not available at the counter, please let me know when I might be able to review them. Thanks again. Regards, Hugh Hugh J. Cadden Sent from Surface 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Jan. 7,2017 Mr. Paul Jensen Acting Zoning Administrator City of San Rafael Dear Mr. Jensen, Alan Hayakawa < Saturday, January 07, 2017 10:17 PM Paul Jensen Transition housing at Dominican Convent I write in response to the IJ's Jan. 7 article on neighborhood resistance to plans by the Dominican Sisters and Homeward Bound to offer temporary housing at the convent to "two women and their children for no more than two years," as the article put it. I urge you to support what appears to be a reasonable and generous offer of support to women in need. Whether disease or bad choices or moral failings are responsible for substance abuse (or mental illness, for that matter), much of the burden falls unfairly on families, especially children, and that burden is often worsened by separation. I suspect there is very little supportive, affordable housing available for families in such crises. Unnecessary separation even after recovery is under way is a horrid burden. I'm puzzled at the idea of denying shelter to families attempting to emerge from a crisis. I'm sometimes sympathetic to neighborhood concerns about new uses, but this plan hardly seems risky. Thanks for your work. Alan Hayakawa San Rafael, CA 94901 1 RagghiandlFreitas LLP GARY T. RACGHIANTI Paul A. Jensen, AICP Community Development Director City of San Rafael 1400 5th Ave, 3(d Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: 77 Locust, Lourdes Convent . Dear Paul: January 3, 2017 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1101 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 100 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901·2903 TELEPHONE FACSIMILE WWW.RFtAWLLP.COM I wish to submit this in response to the Chris Dolan missive that was provided to me recently. My clients (Dominican Sisters) flied an application in November of 2016 seeking an Amendment to a Use Permino allow the conversion of a 1995 square foot area of the LOURDES CONVENT located on Locust Avenue to a transitional housing unit that would be shared by two unmarried mother's each of whom has two young children ages 2-8 years. . 'The area in question is a long narrow hallway painted yellow and referred to by the Sisters over the years as lithe yellow hallway". Minor alterations to the structure are proposed and . involve no expansion of the building or footprint. At one time the yellow hallway area served as a place of occupancy for up to 10 Sisters. Over . the years the poi)ula'tion of Sisters has declinedancf space has become availablethat has been· for some time unused. The present population of Lourdes is approximately 15-17 Sisters. The Sisters, in combination with Homeward Bound, seek to make this area available to assist the Individuals making the journey to independence and self-sufficiency by providing to them a place of short term residency allowing transition'ing to permanent housing. The individuals who will occupy the proposed transitional housing are not homeless. Ragghian ti IF rei tas LLP PACE 2 OF 6 The Sisters making this application deem its purpose to be consistent with and at the heart of their mission as a religious congregation as well as a direct response to the call of Pope Francis to use, if available, places of religious occupation to allow persons exactly like those proposed here to be helped and housed. This use fits squarely within the protections afforded by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 In general the purpose is to provide safe, adequate, temporary'housing for these two families which will provide them with the opportunity to live independently and be self-suffkient with an adequate measure of privacy to hone their skills to transition to full independence when leaving Lourdes. The Dominican Sisters no longer have a building that we refer to as our "Mother House" as we did in the past. They have Convents/residences and Administration and Gathering building (one of the goals after the nre was to separate the functions of the former Mother House which was very inconvenient for both the Sisters in residence and the Administration of the Congregation). The point of the Lourdes project is that there is a contiguous space currently unused that will not disruptthe current residents at Lourdes and require only minor expense to modify for the proposed project; there is neither the space nor would the expense be as relatively minor to make a similar space for the proposed use in another Convent on the south side of Locust. In looking through the attachments to Mr. Dolan's packet of materials I wish to comment as follows: ' 1. This is an applicatio,n seeking issuance of an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit analyzed and cited upon in connection with a review of the City's General Plan and other pertinent development policies. 2. The application submitted is consistent with the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. 3. The application is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan (see in particular HE POLICY H·9 (Special Needs), H·10 (Innovative Housing Approaches), and H·l1 (House Sharing) which encourages a mix of housing types including housing for individuals precisely like those proposed to occupy the space here. 4. The Background Report to the City's General Plan 2020 recites that in single women head of household families there exists a shortage of just the type of transitional hOUSing being applied for here. 5. This property is not zoned U. Rather it iS,zoned PO and the application submitted is consistent therewith. RagghiantilFreitas LLp· PAGE 3 OF 6 6. The City has determined due to the very minor nature of the improvements proposed .. to be made to lourdes that the application is categorically exempt under CEQA Guideline section 15301. 7. The City has properly noticed all who they were required.to provide notice to in compliance with applicable local requirements. 8. The Use Permit Amendment, at the request of the applicant will sunset 2 years after issuance. I would like to briefly respond to the arguments set forth in Mr. Dolan's packet commencing on page 5; A. The Sisters with the approval ofthe trustees of the Support Charitable Trust as owners of lourdes propose to enter into a lease for the area in question with Homeward Bound. Homeward Bound will enter into occupancy agreements with the individuals who are selected to reside at Lourdes. The residents will be unmarried. Mr. Dolan has raised the issue of marriage by one or both of the occupants as somehow implicating a discrimination claim based on marital status if a husband is refused occupancy at Lourdes with his wife. Several responses are appropriate here. First neither Mr. Dolan nor anyone else (although no one else to my knowledge has raised this issue) has standing to assert such a claim. Additionally there is no factu~1 basis for such a claim that may now be made. Moreover there is no basis for making a claim that is purely speculative and may happen or may not. Finally there is no regulation that allows the CITY to deny an Amendment to the Use Permit because a user of the faciliiy permitted may at some unknown time in the future whilst the permit is in effect marry and seek to have a husband join them in occupancy. It is simply an extraneous and irrelevant speculative suggestion that adds nothing to the issues involved in considering this Use Permit. B. The claim of need for increased parking is completely unsupported but for conclusory statements that suggest an "attached photo" somehow demonstrates that "parking at Lourdes" frequently exceeds capacity". The photo fails to include all of the other available parking at Lourdes as well as a short distance away across locust. In addition the photo depicts vehicles parked on Lourdes property not on the street. In addition this project is categorically exempt from environmental review and there exists no evidence to support the need for a parking study. C. The claim that allowing the proposed use will somehow lead to a substantive change in the chan:~cter of Lourdes as well as in the surrounding neighborhood also Jails to survive scrutiny. The proposed project is consistent With both the General Plan and the zoning as sp~cif1ed above. How a residential use of the premises by these 2 women Ragghian ti I F rei tas LLP PAGE 4 OF 6 and their children in the same building used for residential purposes by the Sisters which is then surrounded by residential"uses adjacent to and near the premises constitutes a change in the character of the neighborhood or somehow places Lourdes and the neighborhood on a path leading to such a substantive change is hard to understand. And for good reason. It isn't that the proposed use will change the charader of the neighborhood. Rather it is Mr. Dolan's opinion that allowing it will make it somehow easier to someday change the use to non-residential or multi-family or something more intensive. Mr. Dolan claims' that he is concerned someday Lourdes may be sold. This is simply unknown and certainly undecided at this time The Sisters are engaged in a long term planning endeavor that will address the needs and desires ofthe Congregation over the long term. He concludes by advancing a unique proposition applicable to the City's review of this or any like Use Permit, "Therefore the current application must be viewed not only as to the immediate planned use but also with an eye as to how it may affict the future use." There exists no legal or other basis whatsoever for engaging in this type of speculative examination. Nor do the regulations governing the issuance of a Use Permit in San Rafael allow anything remotely close to permitting it. A Use Permit allOWing 2 mothers' and their children to res1de in 'an unused portion of Lourdes convent is a Use Permit for that,nothing more, nothing less. Any expanded or future use would necessarily require an all new , application and planning process. ' Finally on this topic it is probative that Mr. Dolan who raises these issues is willing to forego advancing all of them if the Sisters simply move the proposed use across Locust onto their lands. " The Use Permit Amendment will sunset after 2 years. This c,ondition agreed to by the Sisters attempted to assuage Mr.. Dolan and several other neighbors' concerns. Apparently it was not sufficient. Mr. Dolan insists that the Sisters must agree now not to seek a new Use Permit after the expiration of this one. They have declined this demand not because they intend to do so but because it is the exclusive prerogative' of the Sisters to make those decisions when and as they wish to do so. Not Mr. Dolan's or anyone else's. If the Sisters intended to renew the Use Permit Amendment after its expiration I suggest they wouldn't have proposed a 2 year expiration period. The fact that an application could possibly be made to continue the use (despite the applicant's indication that it has no such intention) afte.r Use Permit expiration is an improper basis on which to analyze a Use Permit application. It is also requested that the improvements be removed after the Amendment to the Use Permit expires. WHY? It is the occupants that seem to bother the neighbors not the improvements. When the occupants are gone the Sisters can utIlize the space for their own use as you will h~ar at the hearing. Ragghian ti I F rei tas LLP Mr. Dolan next states that HGiven the population to be serlled there exists concern over who will enforlie policies regarding occupancy". What exactly is the population being served that requires this different and heightened scrutiny and enforcement? And precisely what causes the concern that they may need monitoring? Is it that they might be homeless? They are not. IS,it that they may be victims of domestic abuse? They will not be and Homeward Bound does not offer programs for such individuals. Mary Kay Sweeney (Mr. Dolan incorrectly indicates Mary Kay is a former Dominican nun. This is untrue.) will be present to address any questions regarding how the occupants will be chosen (Homeward Bound and the Sisters will collaborate on selection criteria and a list of such criteria has previously been provided to Mr. Dolan and is in the packet he prepared), 2) what code of conduct and related rules the occupants must follow, and 3) and how any violations will be handled. To assume that thes~ 2 single women'and their children will abuse their stay and violate rules imposed by both Homeward Bound and the Sisters is to necessarily and wrongfully focus on their status. After almost 40 years devoted to land use issues and law and having attended literally hundreds of local agency permit entitlement hearings I am reminded once again that we simply don't count hands to see how many approve and oppose a proposal and then act accordingly. If that were the process why have a General P.lan, a Zoning Ordinance. or a Community Development Department? One is required to examine the application in light of applicable development policies of the City and State law and apply the policies and law to the application received andfacts presented. AND to follow the regulations and law. Surmise. conjecture, unsupported conclusory statements of opinion and use of inaccurate facts are strangers to the process ofland use applic;ation processing and are to be rejected. And they should be here. In this matter the analysis of the Use Permit Amendment application must be conducted according to the applicable provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code and pertinent provisions of the California Government Code that prohibitthe City from treating transitional housing different than traditional residential housing. The Sisters are more than content with such an analysis. The Zoning Administrator is entitled to issue ~m Amendment to, the Use Permit ifthe findings are made that the proposed use is consistent with the General Pla,n and the Zoning Ordinance and that the use proposed with any conditions applicable is not deleterious to the neighborhood or city. There is no legal requirement or any reason at all to consider the expressed concerns of a particular neighbor, or any person for that matter seeking to prevent Ragghian ti IF reitas ~LP PACE 6 01' 6 this proposal from being approved when the reasons put forward do not intersect with reality or the law. It is submitted that the findings can and should be made to approve this Amendment to the Use Permit application. GTRfjlp LOCUST AVENUE PROPOSED SITE PLAN ="" ... (lIm:J'V.MILUtDIIHI'Df'I'II'O'VIDt'OITWHDI} I® --------~ , , ~2 o 8 -'----.: /. I IV / " ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONVERT 1.!I!l5 SF OF lHE EXISllNG 16,450 Sf LOURDES CONVENT FRO!.! CON~TE HOUSING FOR lHE DOMINICAN SISTERS TO TRAWsmONAL fMlILY HOUSINC FOR WOLlEN WITH CHIlDREN. PROJECT INFORMATION (E) AND PROPOSED OCCUPANCY: R2 CONSTRUcnON 1Y?E: VB, FUm SPRlNKJ.EREI) FlRE Al.ARM SYSfOI: EXtSTlNC TO REMAIN ARfA OF PROPOSED 1JWGmolW... HOUSING WING: 19£15 Sf MID. Of eE) LOURDES CONVENT: 16,450 Sf OCCUPANCY: EXlSilNC stEEPING ROOMS: 10 PROPOSED SlEEPING ROOMS: IT!llli I1II III! 1~llllllllllllrtrr] ~ tSEJ,II-TRAHSF'MOO'Sf,6Si ANISfl} -6x! POSTS -(2) 2xGTOP AA1LW/ 1idl C)p -l~l.A?PED fENCE BOARDS -(2.) 2xB: acmtlll AAlL CD ;;m?~ .~ENCE DETAIL VICINITY MAP "-PROJE LOCATION RECEIVED I~&! 23.WHl ~ (E) CONVENT ENllWlCE LOBBY (E) PARLOR Feasibility Plan Keynotes 1. Install new 3-0 6-8 single lite French door meeting all accessibility requirements. Existing openingis 2-6 with a 7-4 header height. 2. Install new 3-0 6..g single lite French door meeting all accessibility requirements. existing opening Is3-Owith a 7-4 header height. 3. Install one new 3--0 s-o SH window for U&ht and ventilation. 4. Relocate one steam radiator. 5. InStall new 3-0 6-S 20 min roted door (existing Is 2-10)(total of 2) 6. Install a new accessible kitchen. [CSC 1102A.2] New common use facilities required to be i'lccessible. The kitchen sink will need to be roll-under. The counter height 34"'. 24i electric range# 30" range hood, and 30"refrigerator. The space already has accessto the ctlITldorvla a 3- o door. 7. Re-lnstall the 3.0 6-8 corridor door, closer. and lever hardware. 8. Reverse swing of Corridor ooorto Activity Room for exiting from the Activity Room. 9. Install a lighted exit sign from theActlvity Room to the exit corridor. 10. Remove existing lavatoty. 11. Remove existing utllity sink. 12. Install pantry shelving. 13. Install new 36" tall redwood fence with a gate to accessible path. Install 3" steel mesh on existing 30" perimeter railing. 14. Install new redwood porch, guardrail, and stair with concrete landing. 15. Remove hazard to children -utility sink. k ~W_ l j UMIlS OF PROPOSED TRANsmONM. HOUSING AREA - STJm..GE COU~ARD p====o±======JjI PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-..,1: (BASEC ON PDF PROVIDED BY OWNER) 1995 SF (E) SlEEPING ROOM (E) RESlROOM (E) ACIlVITY ROOM 1HESE SPACES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO CONVENT RESIDENlS ONLY (E) STORAGE (E) COMPUTER ROOM d Hemeward #Bound OF MARIN NEXT KEY OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT This agreement made this day of--'-___ 2.0 ___ by and between HO'MEWAIW BOUND OF MARIN (fiProvider") and (PProgram Participant ") on the follovying terms and conditions (lithe Agreement 'l 1. PREMISES: The Provider permits you exclusive occupancy of the premises, located at: 1385 North Hamilton Parkway, Novato, California, 94949[ Unit Nuniber _______ , The Agreement is subject to the following terms, conditions, covel}ants, and agreements: 2.. TERM: The term commences on 2.0 and continues on a month-to- month basis and will not exceed a 2.4 month period which ends on . This agreement may be terminated by the Provider by. giving the Pr9gram Participant 30 days' notice. Where there is a b~each of t,his agreement, notice of termination of this agreement will be provided within the time frame provided by law. '3. OCCUPANCY FEE: Occupancy fees shall be per month. Fees are payable on the first day of each ca'iendar month to Homeward Bound'of Marin, Administ'ration Office at 1385 North Hamilton Pkwy, Novato, CA 94949. In the event rent is not received by the sixth day of the month, the occupancy fee will be considered delinquent, $15.00 lat~ fee will be charged, ,and the Program Participant shall be in'violation of this Agreement. A service fee of $15.00 will. be charged for returned chec;ks. Aft'er a check being returned by the bank, payments by cashier's check or money order will be required. 4. OCCUPANT: The unit shall be occupied only by the program participant and those persons noted in this agreement. It is expressly understood that this Agreement is between Provider and each, individual signing this agreement. In the event of default by any signatory, each and every remaining signatory shall be responsible for timely payment of rent and all other provisions of this Agreement. 5. USE: The premises shall be used as his or her abode, for residential'purposes only. Use for any other purpose is not permitted. Occupancy by guests staying over seven (7) consecutive days will be considered in violation of this provision, unless Program Participant has received prior written permission from Homeward Bound of Maiin staff. 6. DAMAGE AND SECURITY DEPOSITS: Program Participant has deposited with the Provider the sum, equal to $ 550.00 deposit as a security depbsit for the full performance and observ~nce of each of theprovisio,ns in this Agreement. Where damage to the physical premises.i~ beyond wear and tear from normal use the Program Participant shall forfeittheir rental deposits to the extent that Provider incurs costs to repair the unit. , Cleanliness-If the unit is turned over to Provid~r ,in need of considerable clE;!aning necessary to return it to t,he condition in which a Program Participant received. it shall forfeit their security deposits to the extent that Provider incurs costs to satisfactorily clean the unit. 1 HQmeward ;Bound OF MARIN Items Left Behind in Units-If the unit is turned over to Provider with personal items left in the unit requiring disposal the Program Participant shall forfeit their rental deposits to the ext'ent that Provider incurs costs to dispose of any items left in the unit. When some or all of a deposit is used to cover the costs described above, or any other costs of restoring the unit to its original condition beyond normal, wear and tear, the Program Participant will be provided an itemized list of each area which was affected and the cost of repairing, cleaning, or disposing of items within 21 days of vacating the premises. 7. UTILIZATION OF DEPOSITS BEFORE END OF OCCUPANCY AGREEMENTTERM , . in the event that damage beyond normal wear and tear is incurred to units substantlaily before the end of a Program Participant's exit date, the Provider r_eserves the right to utilize part or all of the deposit to make the necessary repairs during the resident's stay, in accordance with the criteria established in this agreement number (6.) above. 8. UTILITIES: proVider shall pay all charges for utilities except telephone, if applicable. The Program Participant shall riot enter any agreement for utilitie,s covered by the Provider for the property covered in this agreement. Program Participant shall prope;:rly use and operate all electrical, gas, and plumbing fixtures and keep them as clean and sanitary as their condition permits. Televisio'n, cable and internet are not considered utilities and the installment of these a'menities is at the cost of the Program Participant. 9. FURNISHINGS: The unit is furnished containing the items of household furniture, kitchen utensils and other household items and are part of the occupancy agreement. Program Participan't agrees to return items listed on the atta<;:hed schedule to the Provider at the end of the term of this agreement in as good condition as when received, reasonable wear and tear accepted. 10: KEYS: Provider shall proVide Program Participant with an entry key at no charge, Aone-time replacement key will be provide<;i and deducted from your Security Deposit. Thereafter, you will have to pay for a locksmith, an expense that will not be reimbursed. Program Participant agrees not to install additional or different locks or gates on any doors or windows of the unit Without the prior written approval of the Provider. No keys are to be given to non-Prograrn Participants, In the event permisSion is given, Program Participant agrees to provide a key to the Provider. 11, PROHIBITED USES: Program Participant sha'il not do anything on the premises which will-in any way increase the existing rate of fire or other insurance upon the premises, or cause a cancellation of any insurance policy covering the premises and this inCludes use or storage of gasoline or other, combustibles. Program Participant shall not use the premises in a manner which conflicts with any law, statue}" ordinance or government rule or regulation now in force or which may hereafter be enacted. Please refer to the Rules and Regulations which are attached ana incorporated as terms of this Agreement. 2 HG}meward ~ound OF MAlliN 12. ALTERATIONS: P.rogram Participant shall not make any alterations, additions, or improvementsto the premises without prior written consent of Provider.'The installation of satellite dishes is prohibited. 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETING: Program Participant shall not assign; transfer, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or encumber the agreement, and shall not sublet the premises or allow any other person to occupy or use the premises. Any assignment or subletting by Program Pa~icipant shall be ground for Provider's immediate termihation of this agreement and shall be void. No interest of Program Participant in this Agree(11ent shall be assignable by operation of law .. 14. MAINTENANCE: Program Participant acknowledges that the premises a're in good order and repair, unless otherwise indi'cated on the Move In Inspection. Program Participant shall, at his/her own expense and at all times, maintain the premises, including all equipment,'and furnishings therein in a clean and sanitary manner, and shall surrend'er.the same at termination of this Agreement in as good condition as received, with normal wear and tearto be expected. Program Participant shall be responsible for damages caused by his/her negligence and that of his/her guests. Program ., Participantshall be responsible for any cleaning, exterminatiQn orfumigation rendered necessary by the acts or negligence of Program Participant. 15. ANIMALS: Program Participant shall keep no domestic or/other animals in or about the residence wit,hout the prior written consent of Provider. 16. DAMAGES: Whenever damage is caused by carelessness, misuse or neglect on the part of the Program Participant, or his/her guests, the Program Participant agrees to pay the cost of all repairs and do so within 30 days after receipt of the Provider's demand for the repair charges. 17. ENTRY BY PROVIDER: Except in emergencies' involving an immediate threat or safety of Program Participant, other Program Participant, ~r the building, or Program Participant's abandonment of the ,premises or court order, the Provider: shall not enter the Program Participant's unit for any reason without first giving 24-hours' notice either in person or in writing delivered to the Program Participant, or Program Participant's unit. The Program Participant may waive the 24-hQur period on any particular occasion. Provider or'Providers a~thorized agent r~serves and shall at all times have the right to enter the premises during normal business hours, after giving Program Participant twenty-four (24) hours written notice to inspect the premises, supply any service 'to be provided by Provider to Program Participant hereunder, exhibit the premises to prospective renters, post notices Gf non-responsibilitY,'or alter,'improve or repair the premises. Provider may also for such purposes erect scaffolding and other necessary structures where reasonably required by the character of the work to be performed. Program Participant hereby waives any claim for abatement of rent or damage ·for loss of occupancy, or quiet enjoyment of the premises of any other loss occasioned hereby. In the event of an emergency or program requirement, Provider or Pr'O'itider's authorized. agent shall have the right of immediate en.try to the premises. 18. TERMINATION OF TENANCY: To terminate this Agreement, the Program Participant must give the Provider 30 day's written notice. If the Program Participant vacates the premises prior to the expiration of this 30 day period, the Program Participant shall be liable for rent up to the end of t~e 30 days for which notice was required or to the date the premises are re-rented, whichever date comes first. 3 HQmeward ;Bound OF MARIN 19. BREACH: The violation of any provision of this .agreement or house rules as may be applicable, including non-paymel1lt of rent when due, shall be a breach of this agreement and sufficient cause for eviction from the premises upon proper written notice in accordance with State and local laws. 20. DAMAGE TO PI.'EMISES: In the event the premises are damaged by·fire or. other casualty, Provider shall have the option either {1} to repair damage or restore unit, this Agreement continuing in full . force and effect, or {2} within ten {10} days after material damage. rendering the premises uninhabitable, to give notice to Program Participant terminating this Agreement as of a date to be specified in such notice. In the event of the giVing of such notice, this Agreeme'nt shall ~xpire and all interests of the Program Participant in the premises shall terminate. Provider shall not be requfred to repair any damage by fire or other causes, or to make any repairs of any property installed in the premises. 21. UNLAWFUL ACTiViTiES: The Program Participant agrees not to: a. Permit guests or other household members to engage in unlawful activities in the unit, in . tne c;ommon 'areas or anywhere .on the sit~. These unlawful activities include, but are not limited to, the possession, use and/or sale of illegal drugs and disturbances or.acts of, violence that damage or destroy the dwelling unit or disturb or injure other Program Participant s. . b. Engage personally in .unlawful activities in the premises or common areas. Such activities include but are not limited to those listed in a. above. 22. CLEAN AND SOBER ENVIRONMENT: Program Participant understands and agree~ that 1385 North Hamilton Parkway, Novato, California, 94949 is a dru'g-free and alcohol-free environment and that the Provider has a policy of zero tolerance to drugs and alcohol on these premises. Program Participant further'understands and agrees that this policy entitles Provider to terminate the Agreement of any Program Participant who has engaged in any drug-related or alcohol-related .activity such as possession, s'ale, manufacture distribution or use of a controlled substance or alc;ohol at any time' during the term of the Agreement. Program Participant further understands and agrees that this policy requires Program. Participant to insure that any guest does not engage in any drug- related or alcohol-related activity such as possession, sale, manufactl,!re distribution or use of a controlled substance or alcohol on or about these premises, and that Provider is entitled to terminate the Agreement of any Program Participant who fails to do so (initial) 23. SMOKING: (Please initial) . . NON-SMOKING AREAS: The Program Participant agrees and acknowledges that smoking is ( prohibited in any room and communal areas. No Program Participant shall permit any guest or visitor to smoke inside the property at any time, Smoking of any product inside. the unit and in .communal areas of the property is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to tobacco use (cigarettes and e-cigarettes), and smoking of marijuana. I Smoking of medical marijuana is included under this policy. If you are a recipient of medical marijuana, it should be consumed in a .way that a Hows you to abide by the Non;"Smoking Policy. The City of Novato and the City of San Rafael have strict regulations with regard to smoking indoors and also restrict smoking in direct vicinity of multi-unit apartment buildings. 4 HQmeward JYBound Of MARIN Purpose: This policy purpose is'to abide by City established regulati,ons. The provider also desires to. mitigate the irritatio,} of second hand smoke; the increased maintenance, cleaning, and redecorating costs from srnoking; the increase'd risk of fire from sl11oking; and the high costs of fire insurance fQr properties where smoking is permitted. EFFECT OF BREACH: A breach of this agre~ment by the Program'Particip'ant shall be deemed a. material breach of the occupancy agreement and grounds for eviction ~y the Provider. 24. RIGHTS OF OTHERS: Program Participants are to treat other Progra'm Participants, staff, neighbors, property management/landlords and guests with courtesy and respe'ct: . Engaging in rude; abusive, insulting or threatening behavior toward other Program Participants, neighbors; property management/landlords, staff, or guests is a violation of terms of this Agreement and entitles Provider to evict the Program Participant. 'Pr:c;>gram Participants' conduct and the conduct of their guests will be in a manner which will not disturb neighbors' peaceful enjoyment of their accommodations and will be conductive to maintaining the project in a decent, safe, and sanitary condition. 25. WAIVER: The waiver by Provider of the breach by Program Participant of any term"covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deeme~ to be: a waiver of any subse.quent breach of the same of any other term, covenant of condition herein contained. 26. CHANGES: Th.e Agreement may be changed whenever if ~he Provider gives the Program Participant at least thirty (30) days written notice of the proposed changed. 27. CODE OF CONDUCT: Program Partic'ipant is responsible for being aware 'of and abiding by all rules promulgated by ProVider, including but not limited to, those which are attacbed hereto. All such rules are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Failure to comply with this code of conduct will be considered a breach of this Agreement a~d will be grounds for eviction. ' Notwithstanding the foregoing, the code ~f conduct may be prom~lgated or modified by Provider at Provider's sole discretion, upon Provider providing Program Particip~nt with a thirty day notice of any such addition or change .. 28. MODIFICATION: This instrument contains all the agreements and conditions maae between the parties to this lease and may not be modified orally or in any other manner than by agreement in writing signed by all parties to this lease of their respective successors in interest. 29. FAIR HOUSIN'G: The Program Participant (s) has the right not to be discriminated against or treated differently because of his or her political affiliati~n, race, sex, handicap, national origin, or age. If Program Participant believes that they have been discriminated against he or she shall hav~ the right to promptly discuss issues with program staff. If Program Participant t is not satisfied after follOWing this program p.rocedure, he/she may call the person(s). fisted below forfurther action: Name: Lisa Sepahi-Section 504 Coordinator 415-382-33~3 ext 204 Telephone: 5· 30. ATIACHMENTS/ ADDENDA: Program Participant(s) acknowledges receipt of a copyofthe attachments listed in this section, which incorporated into and made partofthis Agreement. Program Participant (s)'agreesto abide bysaid attachments in all respects. Anyfailureto comply with anyofthe attachments shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement. a) Program Participation Agreement b) Code of Conduct c) Smoking Addendum d) Accessible Unit Addendum . e) Maintenance an.d Repair f) Mold g) Furnishings h) Key Acceptance This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California, and any question arising hereunder shall be determined according to such law. This agreement will take effect on the date of the signatures indicated below and expires after one month, although it is automatically renewable on a month-by-month basis, unless prior written notice is provided by either participant or (provider). Pro"gram ParticipanF: ____________ Date: ______ _ Program Participant.: __ -'--_________ Date: ______ _ Program Provider: Homeward Bound of Marin Date: ___________ _ Signature, Program Coordinator/Representative Fami!y members to reside in unit: Name Age Relationship I I 6 Criteria for selection of families moving into Dominican Sisters' Housing ,Opportunity: -Single parent (mom) family with younger children (e.g. 2 -8) • Mom must be working toward more economic self-sufficiency and - open to care~r planning .6 month's sobriety and co~mitted,to recovery (has a plan) eNo other housing options available at,the time of application • Kids in Head Start, child care, or public school .Transitional Housing; up to 2 years .Wanting-and needing services, unqerstandingthatitis a program , - -. Willingness to meet with Homeward Bound staff on a regular basis -,Ability to coo~ meal for themselves .Upho~ds the no smokill:g policy on campus -Agreement to sign a Code of Conduct , III Agreement to share progress and status ':lpdates -Ability to p~y~550 for RENT / Utilities / sign a rental agreement -Master lease is in-Homeward Bound's name III If owning a car, it must be registered and insured 887-28-16 Paul Jensen From: Sent: . To: Cc: SUbject: Mr. Jensen, Frank Marino TuesdaYI January 7:19 PM Paul Jensen 77 Locust Ave'l File No. UP-16-0S7 This concerns the Application by the Dominican Sisters for a Change of Use for the property at 77 Locust Ave. known as Lourdes Convent. A hearing on this matter will be held on January 4th. We strongly oppose the Change of Use for this property from its current designation. The good intentions of the good Sisters not withstanding, such a change would incur serious detrimental unintended consequences to our historic neighborhood. Please deny the proposed Change of Use. Thank you for your consideration. Frank & Marie Marino San Rafael, CA 94901 ~ 15- 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Paul, Nancy Hall Bennett "- Tuesday, January 03, 2017 9:33 PM Paul Jensen 77 Locust I'd like to formally support the Dominican Sisters and their proposed project at 77 Locust Ave. I'm sorry for my late submission. Thank you, Nancy Hall Bennett Sent from NHB's iPad 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: SUbject: Dear Mr. Jensen, . Heather Stewart < Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:35 PM Paul Jensen . Lourdes Project -77 Locust Ave., File No. UP-16-057 Heather Stewart San Rafael, CA 94901 I am a homeowner on Loc;ust Ave and am unable to make it to tomorrow's meeting, but I wanted to express my opposition to the Sister's request for a Change of Use Permitso as to be able to rent to Homeward Bound of Marin. I think it's lovely that the Sisters wish to share their space. I have no problem if the Sisters wish to use unoccupied space in the Mother House on Grand Ave. between Locust and Acacia to fulfill their calling in providing housing for transitional families. 77 Locust Ave is not an appropriate place for this . .L\lIy main concern is that our quiet street will have unintended long term consequences, such as rezoriing if/when the nuns have to eventually sell the property. Although the Change in Use Permit claims to be for only 2 years, the Sisters are engaged in "a long-term planning endeavor that will address the needs and desires of the Congregation over the long tenn". Clearly they are leaving their options open, which is unsettling .. Please accept my vote as NO when it becomes time to decide whether or not to grant the Change in Use Permit for 77 Locust Ave. . Thank you for your consideration, Heather Stewart 1 JII( monty wh ite LLP SAN RAFAEL I SANTA ROSA January 3,2017 SAN RAFAEL OFFICE 1000 fourth street, suite 425 sail (afael, ea 94901 Via < Paul A. Jensen Community Development Director City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor San Rafael, CA 94901 tel: fax: www.rnontywhitelaw.com Re: Lourdes Convent, 77 Locust Avenue, San Rafael Dear Mr. Jensen: I support the application of the Dominican Sisters for a use permit, allowing conversion of a portion of their convent to transitional housing for single women with young children. Opponents to the application acknowledge the benefits of providing transitional housing to people in need. They only question the location of the housing, arguing that it belongs in someone else's neighborhood, rather than theirs. Whatever risks the opponents cite (that the women may get married, or park cars, or refuse to move out) will exist equally no matter where the housing exists. The argument is, essentially, that the risks should be borne by other neighborhoods, not ours. In any event, the supposed risks seem slight compared to the value of providing assistance to those who need it. As stated in 1 John 3:17: "But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" Matthew N. White San Rafael, CA 94901 January 3. 2017 Mr. Paul Jensen City of San Rafael Dear Mr. Jensen, ( J, I write regarding the hearing tomorrow about the Dominican Sisters proposal to house two women with no more than two children each at the Lourdes Center (77 Locust Street~ File No. UP-16-057). In my six years as president of Dominican University of California, I have come to respect the Sisters greatly. They have a deep understanding of what it means to create a vibrant community and that has translated in strengthening our neighborhood. Although the University is no longer affiliated with the Dominican Sisters, they continue to earn our respect with their work in San Rafael, Marin County, and California. I am confident that the Sisters will maintain and continue to strengthen the Dominican neighborhood and community. Sincerely, -11~11~ Mary B. Marcy President MBM/slp ! }! "I> 1 i ! (\ l I ,! \/1 Ii] I t \! ! ( iI' MrcC. William F. Dagley San Ra.fael~, Ch. 94901 '. . ~ '1~¥ ~ ~d +" ~ 'loCM-d't ~-~ ~, J SILVER. CLOUD From the Suite of Mrs. Sandra Niglio ! S I L \. E R. S HAD 0 W I S I L \' E R W HIS PER I S I L V E K W I :-,; D January 2, 2017 To: Paul Jenson, Project Planner Re: Lourdes -77 Locust Ave, SR JAN 03 LDU ,~: A ~\I ;;.. i [: [\" r::. ~ ~!.~.~ ~,-! We agree with all the concerns of Chris Dolan. In addition, we have some further thoughts, how will someone monitor who's sleeping there or not, if alcohol or drugs are being consumed, rent not paid in time, noise, etc. and what repercussions and penalties ie: expulsion, if any will occur. How and who wiH be tasked with dealing with all this. Not something we want to see or deal with in our beautiful neighborhood. Seems like it would be a logistical nightmare. s~~~ Rob and Kim Schacter, ELAINE & BARRY GILBERT San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel. no, January 3, 2017 Re: Change of use at Lourdes ConventlRetirement Center, 77 Locust Avenue, San Rafael, CA94901 File No. UP-16-057 I, Barry Gilbert, wish to speak at the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, January 4, 2017 commencing at 10:00 a.m. at the San Rafael City Hall Planning Department, Community Development Conference Room, 1400 Fifth Avenue, Second Floor, San Rafael, CA 94901. ( Sincerely, ~ J:?~ Barry Gilbert IN'j U' '1 ':" "'? 1.1 \ ___ • , '-_>''''-i. Romulus I Cases 1#43917 For Paul Jensen ~ please forward by 114/16 Dear Mr. Jensen - I am contqcting you to voice my strong concerns aoout the proposed change of use of 77 Locust Ave (Lourdes Court). Neighbors have raised many questions that have not recieved sufficient responses to date (parking, tenant oversight, unplanned tenant occupancy, expansion of neighborhood to multi-family higher density housing, bringing the possibility of increased violence to what is a quiet and safe neighborhood for all, policy enforcemnt, etc ... ) While I understand the sisters calling from the Pope to assist refugees, but they also refer to the occupants as "guests". Guests do not sign leases, not do they pay rent, nor do they recieve protection under the tenant laws of California. The request to "trust the process" is rife with neighborhood squables (significant disruption of good feeling and possibly legal action) which may impact the City Planning Office as well. Homeowners of Dominican co-exist peacef\llly with the Convent & the University. This application has the potential to jeopardize this milieu. I am asking that time be taken to assure neighbors questions receive sufficient responses and that suggested changes recieve thorough evaluation before the city makes any decisions. Thank you in advance for your fairhanded review of these concerns. Respectfully Submitted, C. Shoen Details Case No. 43917 Status Open Address San Rafael, CA Priority n/a Source Form Updated a few seconds ago Created 2 days ago More Details History Public link Addresses Incident San Rafael CA 94901-2273 Primal)' Attachments This case has no attachments. Notes C. Shoen-Thank you for Y9ur comments. A number of the concerns have been raised by other residents. Regards, Paul Jensen posted by Paul Jensen a few seconds ago Add a note here https:llapp.romuluscrm.com/cases/43917 Page 1 of2 " Edit 113/2017 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Jim Barcewski . • Sunday, January 01,20175:58 PM Paul Jensen; Joann Levin 77 Locust Ave.Lourdes Project This property is zone U district.I have lived at 86 Convent Court for almost 30 years.! am schocked that the City would consider allowing a homeless zoning and use in my neighbor hood.! work in downtown Vallejo and San Rafael has a much larger population in down town San Rafael than Vallejo.Now you are considering placing homeless people in our neighborhood, shame shame shame .. Did you notify our neighborhood of this plan .Did you notify the homes in a 300 foot radius ?What is zoning U mean. I have read the IJ on the homeless problem the City has with the homeless.! will do all I can to prevent you from placing them in our neighborhood. You have made downtown a mess please do not do this to our neighborhood Joann Can you send this to next door so our neighbors can know about this stupid problem. We should employ an attorney to fight this stupid idea Jim Barcewski Jim Barcewski Realty Vallejo, Ca 94590 :::;A DRE Lic# 0068853 Fax 1 Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Jensen, JoAnn Levin < Sunday, Janua~ 01,20175:22 PM . Paul Jensen The Lourdes Project Although the Sisters are trying to "do good" by attempting to turn part of their property into transitional housing for two homeless women and their children, this project is in an older established community and the people living in close proximity to this proposed project should have a vote on whether this is the right location for this facility. I understand that no notices were sent out preceding the implementation of this plan. There is grave concern that this project could open the door to very serious issues down the road. Issues that won't easily be rectified. I urge you to consider the tax payers who live adjacent to Lourdes, or nearby and take into consideration their needs as well as the desires of the Sisters and the two homeless women and their children. There should be much more input from the community before this proposal moves forward. Thank you, JoAnn Levin Sent from my iPad 1 Paul Jensen From: ..ient: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Mr. Jensen, Joan Cardneau . ~ Sunday, January 01, 2017 10:16 AM Paul Jensen Jeffry Cqrdneau Lourdes Project -77 Locust Ave., File No. UP-16-0S7 My husband sent an email yesterday regarding his concern over the Lourdes Project and I would also like to address some of my concerns regarding this proposal. I would like to start with the frustration we felt when hearing that this notice was only addressed to the neighbors, I believe, that are within 150 feet of this project when in fact this affects the entire neighborhood. We live at 375 Locust Ave whlch is just up the road from the convent. Our family room faces an area along the bank where many bikers park when frequenting the trails that lead to China camp. It is a friendly and quiet neighborhood that we fell in love with when deciding to move here from the city. However what I have noticed is a slight decline over the three years that we have been here. There has been an increase in homeless people hiking and spending the nights up in the trails, drug dealing along the bank on Locust Ave., young and older adults smoking marijuana in their cars, young adults having sex in their cars and leaving their condoms along the side of the road, and just the other day a man deliriously walking up Locust Avenue talking to himself and walking in circles while I walked my dogs. Although these observations may not be considered a direct effect of the housing transition program, based on the uncertainty the Sisters had expressed when asked several questions by my fellow neighbors I am certain that we could potentially see more negative outcomes from this proposal. These three questions )oncerned me the most that the Sisters were not able to answer: 1. Who would be responsible for oversight of the tenants? 2. What would happen if they got married, would the spouse be able to reside with them? 3. What are the intentions of this program long term? You can. see why these are of concern to me. In addition as my husband pointed out, this could lead to multi- family housing and it would be difficult to stop this process once started. If this plan were to be in place we have to consider State laws that protect the tenants but do not necessarily protect us as home owners and neighbors. Keep in mind that we are most interested in helping our community; in fact, we fully support the Homeward Bound program. However, the manner in which this was handled, the select neighbors that were informed, the short timeline this has been presented, the uncertainty of the plans and intentions are all very troubling to many of us in our neighborhood as well as our community. We also have families here that are raising children and the safety of them as well as ourselves are just as important, especially in an area that many of us chose to live in that would offer us these values as well as maintain our property value. I am strongly opposed to the Lourdes project and find it inappropriate for our neighborhood. At the very least, I am requesting that the hearing does not result in any actions until the neighborhood has had a chance to learn and digest this proposal. In addition, I ask that these meetings to be offered at a time that is convenient for those who work to allow us to attend these sessions. Please feel free to contact me for any further questions or comments. 1 Thank you, Joan Cardneau 2 Paul Jensen From: .ient: To: Cc: Subject: Mr Jensen: cardneau Saturday, December 31, 2016 11:26 AM Paul Jensen Lourdes project I recently received information regarding the proposal for Lourdes Convent at 77 Locust Ave. This was brought to my attention by a neighbor, as I did not receive any notification from the Dominican Sisters (even though I live in the neighborhood on Locust). I am emailing you because I suspect there will not be enough time for a formal letter to arrive to you before the planned January 4 hearing. I have multiple concerns about converting some of the convent space in to living apartments for mothers and children in transition. While their current proposal states that this is only fortwo mothers and their children, the Sisters (and their attorney) have apparently rejected any firm commitment to limit this proposal to a fixed, defined time. Additionally, they have rejected proposals that would firmly state that the property would not ever be converted to multi-family zoning. I believe their initial proposal is merely the initial attempt to convert their property into a larger scale project, one in which the current proposal begins by letting "the horse out of the barn." I am certain that their attorney has advised them that control and regulation of such a project will be more difficult if the initial steps are approved. Certainly, the Dominican Sisters can see what is apparent to most of us: the declining population of nuns with no obvious influx of new ones to replenish their population. It therefore makes sense for them to begin planning for reduced financial support while at the same time having increased fixed costs for management of their property. I can understand this proposal when looking through their eyes regarding finances. However, this does not mean that changes should be allowed related to zoning. It is my understanding that this property is zoned U District, and NOT R-3. This has been the case since 1979 in keeping the with feel of the residential neighborhood. Allowing this current proposal would create the slippery slope towards multi-family housing. These beginning steps would create inertia, which, if allowed to begin, will be difficult to halt. While I will be unable to attend the hearing on January 4 (it is, after all, during working business hours), I wanted to firmly express my opposition to this proposal as a neighbor that will be affected by any unintended consequences that may arise. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to hear more personally. Sincerely, 1 Jeff Cardneau San Rafael cell 2 , Paul Jensen ' rom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Mr. Paul Jensen ' Doug Carlston· Thursday, December 29, 2016 2:25 PM Paul Jensen Patricia Simpson; Kathy J. Williams Letter of Support for Lourdes transitional housing residence plan LourdesSupportLetter.docx Community Development Department Planning Division City of San Rafael 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Paul, -. We <;Ire writing in wholehearted support of the proposed use permit to allow conversion of a portion of the Lourdes Convent to a transitional housing residence for two women and their children. We live directly across the street from the residence and, as a result, may be more affected by the proposed change han most of our neighbors. We encourage the Planning Department to approve this permit. Your department is certainly asaware as we are of the growing housing crisis in Marin County. Almost three quarters of the homeless community in 'Marin is from Marin. With the already high cost of living in this county and reported 18% rent increases last year aione, it is incumbent on us as residents of San Rafael and the county as a whole to make whatever efforts we can to ameliorate the problem, even if only one family at a time. The Sisters' proposed plan for the Lourde.s Convent, not only helps with transitional housing for two women, but it also provides a home for their children, who are most impacted by homelessness. It will provide these children with stability of place, shelter to do their homework, consistent education, and a warm, worry-free sleep. We recognize that there is a limit to what our governmental response to homelessness can provide and that community cooperation, like the Sisters' innovative plan'for the Lourdes Convent, is key in working together to solve this challenge. The Sisters saw in their own underutilization of the space at Lourdes Convent an oPP?rtunity to help others. We"as neighbors; are hopeful that this letter of support and endorsement of their plans, will be helpful to your efforts to address this serious problem. Sincerely yours, Doug Carlston & Kathy J. Williams San Rafael, CA 94901 Cc: Sister Patricia Simpson 1 December 29} 2016 Mr:. Paul Jensen Community Development Department planning Division City of San Rafael 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael} CA 94901 Dear Paul} We are writing in wholehearted support of the proposed use permit to allow conversion of a 'portion of the Lourdes Convent to a transitional housing residence for tiNo women and their children. We live directly across the street from the residence and} as a result} may be more affected by the proposed change than most of our neighbors. We encourage the Planning Department to approve this permit. . Y Ol1.r department is certainly as aware as we are of the growing housing crisis in Marin County. Almost three quarters of the homeless community in Marin is from Marin. With the already high cost of living in this county and reported 18% rent increases last year alone, it is incumbent on us -as residents of San Rafael and the county as a whole to make whatever efforts we can to ameliorate the problem} even if only one family at a time. The Sisters' proposed plan for the Lourdes Convent} not only helps with transitional housing for two women, but it also provides a home for their childrep} who are most . impacted by homelessness. It will provide these children with stability of place, shelter to do their homework} consistent education} and a warm, worry-free sleep. We recognize that there is a limit to what our governmental response to homelessness can provide and that community cooperation} like the Sisters' innovative plan for the Lourdes Convent} is key in working together to solve this challenge. The Sisters saw-in their own underutilization of the space at Lourdes Convent an opportunity to help others. We, as neighbors} are hopeful that this letter of support and endorsement of their plans, will be helpful to your efforts to address this serious problem. Sincerely yours, Doug Carlston & Kathy J. Williams San Rafael, CA 94901 Cc: Sister Patricia Simpson Paul Jensen From: Sent: To: Subject: . Mr Jen,sen, John Matulich Monday, December 26, 2016 11:44 AM Paul Jensen Dominican Lourdes My wife and I live at 211 Locust Ave in San Rafael. 1m writing to offer our support for the Dominican Sister in their Lourdes project for the homeless women. I have toured the building in question as well as understanding how they are going to make slight changes to their building to accommodate the ladies with their families. In going over the entire plan for how the women will live and what rules or procedures they must follow , we can see nothing that would be objectionable to us. Because we are referred to as The Mission City, it only makes sense to allow the Dominican sister's to fulfill their mission according to their faith and beliefs. . . Regards, John Matulich Elizabeth Alber 1 Gary Scholick & Judy Coffin San Rafael CA 94901 Mailed and Email: Zoning Administrator Att: Paul Jensen, Project Planner Community Development Department, Planning Division City of San Rafael 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: 77 Locust Avenue (Lourdes Convent) Dear Zoning Administrator and Paul Jensen, Project Planner: December 23, 2016 ~iCE\"'~ Ute i[s ~\)\6: ,p~~G As described in the attached letter which our family received from Sister Maureen Mcinerney and Sister Patricia Simpson of Our Lady of Lourdes Convent (the "Convent") in mid-November, we (an adjacent, 28 year neighbor of the Convent directly impacted by this change) are not at this time formally objecting to what we understand is a proposed "temporary" change in use which will sunset and expire in two years and thus be "a one and done" situation. We do however have some reservations and concerns about the proposed change, which are as follows: 1. Parking and Traffic: Unlike the Motherhouse located directly facing Grand Avenue and situated on a large site (almost an entire block) between Acacia and Locust Avenues, the Convent and its two parking areas are located on a very sharp almost 90 degree corner where automobiles (typically going and coming from Dominican University) regularly engage in dangerous driving maneuvers-either speeding up and down Locust Avenue or blowing by and ignoring a stop sign on the corner of Locust Avenue and Magnolia Avenue and other safety signs located all along Locust Avenue. Neighbors, the College and we believe the SRPD have tried for years to persuade Dominican Students and other drivers to slow down and stop at the clearly marked Stop sign, but with little success. Near misses (involving automobiles driving to and from the College and in and out of the Convent parking lots, and neighbors and other pedestrians walking near the Convent) occur often at this corner and are a constant threat and hazard for drivers and pedestrians alike. Adding very young children and two young mothers to this dangerous corner will be problematic. We understand that an outside play area will be built, which we assume will be fenced off from the actual street, but nonetheless young children when playing do not always stay where ,their parents and care keepers intend. Moreover, as young mothers with children, we assume that these children and moms will be visited by fathers, other relatives and friends, who will use one or both of the Convent parking lots, one on one side of the corner and one on the other side of the corner (next to our home). These visits will likely greatly increase the number of times that visitors will go in and oUt of these parking lots, and thus greatly increase the opportunities for traffic problems or accidents. Gary Scholick & Judy Coffin In light of these obvious traffic/safety and other (described below) concerns, we do not understand why the Sisters have chosen to house these two families at the small Convent rather than at their Motherhouse Convent across the street, which as noted is not located on a dangerous corner, which has ample parking and safe automobile and pedestrian ingress and egress and which we understand (from neighbors and others) has sufficient living space to house and much more easily accommodate the temporary living arrangements for these two moms and their children. 2. Locust Avenue is a quiet neighborhood of private, single family homes. It is one of San Rafael's special jewels. We would hope and expect that it stay that way. In 1992, when seeking approval for the construction of a new wing o(seven additional units and the expansion of a kitchen and chapel, (at a time when the Convent said it needed the additional 7 units and the expansion to accommodate sisters moving from the Motherhouse to the Convent and for related reasons), the Convent self-identified its use as "not a public facility but a traditional convent to which sisters are assigned by the administration of the congregation," and that "Lourdes .convent is a residence for the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael" (2/12/92, letter sent from Convent to Principal Planner, City of San Rafael). The City, on 2/11/92, in an inter-department memorandum, stated, "Lourdes Convent is not a public facility, senior housing or a residential care fas:;ility but a traditional convent.. .. " Also, ORB Minutes dated 2/19/92 noted the City Planner said, " ... this is totally a private facility." The minutes further note the Convent's representative saying, "it is not like a rest-home where people come'and go every day." We note four concerns here: First, we understand that the two families to be placed at the Convent will be assigned from Homeward Bound of Marin and subject to a master lease in Homeward Bound's name (which we assume would last for no more than two years). Homeward Bound of Marin receives almost one half of its revenues from direct Government Grants. We are not larid-use attorneys and so do not know whether such Government funding would change the character of the facility from private (as the City understands it to be) to public or quasi-public, and what effect if any that change would have on the City's zoning decisions. But we assume it is a matter that the City should consider. Second, unlike a Convent with only sisters in residence, introducing young mothers with children into the Convent will indeed make it similar to "a rest home where people come and go every day" (e.g., off site visits to pre-schools or schools, medical appointments, counselling appointments, visits from fathers, families and friends.) Third, we also wonder whether limiting temporary residents to young mothers and children would comply with federal and state and other anti-discrimination housing laws. Fourth, as a neighborhood of private, single family homes, introducing public or quasi-public multiple resident housing unrelated to a private convent at that location on Locust Ave would significantly change the character of the neighborhood -for example, other families might Page 2 of 3 Gary Scholick & Judy Coffin demand the right to rent portions of their homes to non-family members for short or long term leases, while other neighbors might demand the right to build multi-resident apartments or facilities on their lots. Such changes would surely increase traffic, noise and perhaps other problems not easily anticipated or foreseeable in what is currently a very tranquil single family and peaceful neighborhood. For each of these reasons, and assuming the Motherhouse is not now considered a better and more logical location, we are pleased that the Convent has characterized its proposal as one for a "temporary" change in use for no more than two years and which we understand is a "one and done" situation. In sum, when reviewing the Convent's proposal, we respectfully ask that you consider the above reservations and concerns during your deliberations. v~ry trul~rours, ~~'\/l.k L.Z ~ JvJ'o C~:"\ Gary Scholick & Judy Coffin cc: Sister Maureen Mcinerney, O:P.; Sister Patricia Simpson,O.P. Page 3 of3 DOMINICAN SISTERS of ST. DOMINIC CONGREGATION of the MOST HOLY NAME Grand Avenue . San Rafael, CA 94901-2236 415A53-8303 fax www.sanrafaelop.org November 7,2016 Gary Scholick & Judy Coffin San Rafael CA 94901 Dear Gary and Judy: The Dominican Sisters of San Rafael are proposing minor changes to a small portion of Our Lady of Lourdes Convent located at 77 Locust Avenue. The present convent facility is used to house our ill, disabled and/or retired sisters and has been so operated for decades pursuant to a 1979 use permit granted by the City of San Rafael. Lourdes Convent has been located at its present location since 1951. It was expanded in 1979. We have cared for our retired sisters at Lourdes Convent for many years. The Sisters have declined in their numbers over the years. This decline has resulted in some excess space becoming available. In keeping with our mission and values, we want to temporarily share a very small portion of this space in order to house two single mothers, each with two young children, while they transition to permanent housing. Our intention is to perform some very minor modifications to an existing hallway inside the convent in order to provide the space for these individuals during their stay. The proposed use requires the Dominican Sisters to apply to the City for an amendmentto our existing use permit for Lourdes Convent. The requested use permit will automatically sunset and expire (at ourrequest) two years after its issuance. With the expiration ofthe use permit the temporary use will also cease. During the time of this limited occupancy the sisters will not expand the use to any other part of the convent nor will there be permitted any increase in the numi:>er of persons temporarily residing with us in the convent. When our application to the City is filed you will receive a notice from the City. It will advise you of the filing by the Sisters and any hearing date and place. We did not want you to receive such notice without the courtesy of this prior communication from us .. Please direct any questions to Katherine Martin, Director of Communications for the Dominican Sisters, at either or Sincerely, Sister Maureen Mcinerney, O.P. Prioress General ~~~~l ~.2 Sister Patricia Simpson, ~ " Director of Our Lady of Lourdes Convent Paul Jensen From: :ent: To: Cc: Subject: craig wolfe Monday, January 02, 2017 3:57 PM Paul Jensen message from Craig Wolfe -28 Mountain View Ave. Hi Chris and Paul. I just wanted to write this letter to express my support for everything Chris brought up in his very well-written letter. All of us love and support the sisters and want' to do what is best for them AND for the neighborhood. But Chris, you brought up very valid points and I totally agree with you. There is no question in my mind that at the very least, this should only approved this for a twd year trial. "This protects both the neighborhood AND the sisters. We just have to sure that issues you brought up, Chris, are addressed to your and everyone's satisfaction. Thank you so much for taking the time to bring this matter to everyone's attention. It is important to look at potential long term effects so that over time this is all done the right away and there are no problems not just for the neighborhood, but also for the University and the sisters. I hope that this can all proceed in a sp"irt of cooperation so that in the end everyone feels good about it. I also feel that if it were not for your letter that most people in the Dominican would not have fully understood what is being requested. Communication is critical. Not sure the sisters need a lawyer to speak for them as it seems it's just human communications between neighbors who all just want the best for everyone. \)incerely, Craig Wolfe President CelebriDucks Cocoa Canard 1 Paul Jensen From: 'ent: To: Cc: RR, Monday, January 02,20173:13 PM Paul Jensen Jennifer Subject: Change of Use at Lourdes Convent/Retirement Center (77 Locust Ave.) Dear Mr. Jensen We are writing to you to express our concern with the proposed changed of use at Lourdes ,'CovenantJRetinnent Center at 77 Locust Ave., which is a few hundred feet from our family residence. We request that the proposed change of use not be granted at this time as discussed below. Weare a Catholic family and support the charitable works of our church and view favorable additional housing in the City of San Rafael for our less fortunate brethren. However, more housing alone does not solve th~ homeless situation, and the current proposal it could lead to an unwarranted alteration of the character of this family neighborhood. While Homeward bound is a good organization, creating this use in this neighborhood, which is residential, single family, is not the way to go. The following concerns remain unaddressed in the Change of Use request: Increased Parking There is concern that adding additional residents, and their associated guests, will further increase parking congestion and lead to more unlawful on-street parking. The Sisters should have to submit documentation on the impact of additional vehicles and parking as part of any requested Amendment to Change of Use. Guests No definite provisions to regulate who may visit the residents; adult guests, overnight guests, whether they be friends ofthe childrenor adults; Therefore although the primary residents would number 6, it is impossible to detennine whether these residents may provide shelter to others, have overnight guests, care for other people's children, etc. Additionally, there has been no infonnation provided to those concerned as to what would happen should the tenants increase the number of individuals using the property. Additional infonnation should be provided to the neighbors on these issues. 1 Additional Occupants Based on Marriage If a resident were married, or got married, the law would preclude the Sisters or Homeward Bound from prohibiting the tenant from moving their spouse or domestic partner into the residence. Therefore, there is no way to guarantee that the number of occupants will be limited to only 6. With additional occupants comes increased parking and congestion. Additional information should be provided to the neighbors on these issues. Changing the Nature and Character of the use at Lourdes The north side ofthe Dominican campus, relative to the south and east sides (where there are playing fields, dormitories and classroom facilities), is a tranquil place. This is owed, largely, to the residential nature of the community living in harmony with the Sisters. Lourdes has been a quiet neighbor: a residential facility for elderly nuns. Lourdes hosts no parties, no BBQs, does not have a playground, receives few visitors aside from the Sisters many of whom walk across Locust to visit their Sisters. No matter how one frames it, Lourdes will now be comprised of a retirement facility and apartments occupied by renters. Given that the building is bliilt, in essence, as a dormitory with over 30 separate bedrooms (many with their own baths) one must consider the potential long term ramifications of the shift from retirement community to apartments. Therefore, the current application must be viewed not only as to the immediate planned use but also with an eye as to how it may affect/enable future use. Duration of the Use TheSisters agreed to a 2 year "sunset clause." When the Sisters were asked whether they would commit to not renewing the Permit again after two years, they stated that, while they had no current plans to do so, they wanted to keep their options open. Currently there is no condition or commitment that the kitchen be removed, the new entry eliminated, or playground eliminated at the end of 2 years. Given the cost of capital improvements, it appears likely that the commitment is to continue to provide this transitional housing. At the two year mark, application could be made not only to continue the use but to expand the number of transitional families to fill other vacant spaces within Lourdes. This would irreversibly alter the single family residential character of the neighborhood. Who will enforce the Policies? Given the population to be served, concern was raised about who will monitor and enforce the policies. There will be no representative from Homeward Bound on site to monitor adherence. Proposed Conditions Requested by Neighbors have been Rejected by the Sisters 2 Neighbors expressed support for the proposal ifit were to be incorporated into the Mother House facilities. This was seen as a compromise. The Sisters rejected that request as stating it would interfere with the nature of their contemplative community living environment. This despite the fact that there are several 'atellite structures that could just as easily, and perhaps even at lower cost, be modified to provide separated living quarters and a kitchen. It is the position 'of several of us in the immediate vicinity that this would eliminate many of the concerns raised above as there is an abundance of parking at the Mother House, empty and available living quarters, space for children to play, and an ability for the Sisters to keep a closer watch on the comings and goings and conformity to Homeward Bound's Criteria for Selection. Other Requested Conditions have been rejected by The Sisters Neighbors requested a firm commitment that the Sisters would not seek to renew the proposed Amended Change of Use beyond two years. The Sisters, through their attorney, rejected this request. Likewise, a request was made for the Sisters to enter into a covenant, to run with the land, that the property would not be developed in the future as apartments, multi-family use, or for a dormitory. This too was rejected. Based on the above, we urge that the City of San Rafael not to approve the change of use for 77 Locust Ave. Yours faithfully Jennifer Kenny, Roberto Reichard and Julia Reichard . San Rafael 3 Paul Jensen From: Jent: Tp: Subject: Rebecca Monday, January 02, 2017 7:38 PM Paul Jensen IP-16-0S7 Mr. Jensen, my husband & I have lived on MO,untain View Avenue for 29 years, & are very much opposed to the Change of Use Permit for Lourdes. It is one thing to allow that space to be used as transitional housing, & very much another to permanently change the nature of its use. Put us down as a 'no.' Todd & Rebecca Magaline Sent from my iPhone 1 Dear Neighbor, Christopher Dolan San Rafael, Ca. 94901 This letter is to advise you of a proposed change in the Dominican Neighborhood which could affect you, your families and property values. The Dominican Sisters have applied to the City of San Rafael for a Change of Use at Lourdes Convent/Retirement Center (77 Locust Ave.) so as to be able to rent 1,995 sq. feet of space to Project Homeward Bound of Marin (www.hbofm .org) who, in turn, will rent it to two currently homeless mothers, each with two children, as transitional housing, for up to two years. Public Notice (copied below) was sent to only a limited number of neighbors whose property is located within a small radius of Lourdes. I have compiled a history of Lourdes, its zoning, 'conditjonal use,permit, and the current application. I a.m also providing you with notice of the JANUARY 4,2017,10:00 a.m. public hearing on the application for change of use to be held at the San Rafael City Hall Planning Department, 1400 Fifth Ave., Second Floor, San Rafael, Ca. 94901. If you are interested in providing input and/or comment} and are unable to 'attend, you may mail comments to the Planning Division. Identify your comments as relating to 77 Locust Ave., File No. UP-16-057. It is my position thatthe goal of the Sisters is laudable and that I (as well as several of my neighbors who have spoken publicly) are unopposed to the Sisters stated intent to use unoccupied space to provide housing for transitional families if they chose to do so in the Mother House (on Grand between Locust and Acacia) where they also have va,cant space. I am opposed to the Change of Use Permit for Lourdes for a number of reasons outlined in the attached analysis. Please feel free to contact me via email if you have any questions. Chris Dolan' NOTICS 001' PUBUC lteARJNG -ZONING ADMINIST'R:A.TOM VOUiUe. il'!vlted I.'" dliilr.icl. 'lliJiiZ-'lnirltgl Adm1iriig,lll'Bt4;lr hearing ot>iiI tBt.e f<:IDiawlng !)f.'Op"",,""",,,, project-: >IXIme· to ~ pl ...... ln9 fDiYlsioon ~ce.locatedl in City .Half. 11400 1=~ AV<;!llUIe, teo 10,* at tne fflafarlhe PrDPns.ed projac!i. The 'cffice ie cpaI'! fh:Irn.e~3Oi a.m. ao !ScOO p.m. 1m fIoGonday and Thu~y and 8:aG a.m. to 12:-45';p.m. Oft TIIHI&dary. ~ay .and Friday. ~leBsa natao'ituri City Half wOfl be ch:ntosd.fmm'.Det;p!!'Qbei"'2§ 39116 to ~ 2:. 2M7 ..... 'WHAT WiLL ..... .,.PENI You CilI'I ooenfflelr'lt on tl"I&Pi'Oieet.. Tn. Z4:lnln;. .A.dmlnlstil'lMor 'INIilII oon!ilidle!r 'all pIJl:JIi:a IlEr.ilimony and ~ ~4111:' '/;0 Eq:iPr.'aVE! or deew 1ha ,BppfiGation.. l'iF YOU WANT T'C COIMMENt~ You can "nd written COn:e!!lpcJndBnce ~ BrnailllO me acicin=le; above, C8' by PO""! In iIh .. CCi'nI1'IUJru.y , b~iM'tt De!l)llImnel'lt. Plamlng ONls1on, QIW o.f'Sl1Il'Il Rsrfael, 1400 5Ui A .... o!Inue:, hI"! IR.~\S'. OA. '94'901. YOuI can ao ~dell.Yer bt prior 1.00 tria' .aem;j\'i d:iliIbIio. • History of 77 Locust Ave., Lourdes Convent The history of Lourdes Retirement Center (Lourdes) at 77 Locust Ave is summarized below. Lourdes is a 2+/-acre parcel, located where Locust turns from an east-west heading to a north-south heading at the intersection with Magnolia. The parcel, were it not originally affiliated with the Dominican University and the Dominican Sisters, would be restricted to residential use and no more than two residential dwellings. Aside from the Convent on the South side of Locust (on Grand between Locust and Acacia) all other parcels on Locust are zoned for residential use. Starting in 1951, 77 Locust had been designated as R-1 B-2 (residential). In the late 1950'~, early 60's, part ofthe existing structure was moved to the current site by the Dominican College which was, then, operated by Dominican Sisters before it.was transferred to a separate entity, now Dominican University. The structure had operated as an infirmary, student health center, and retirement facility for the Sisters. In 1979 a rezoning was sought by the Dominican Sisters to change the zoning from R1 B-2 (residential) to U, (unclassified public/quasi-public use, also referred to as PD) for Lourdes Retirement Center because Lourdes was being operated as a non-conforming use. R·I I 77 Locust Ave -Lourdes Convent In 1979 The San Rafael Planning Department (Staff), as Part of the rezOning request, considered whether it would be appropriate to change the zOning to R-3 (multi-family use), but did "not consider an R-3 type lone appropriate for the nE!lighborhood." The Staff re<:omr:nelided rezoning to a U District, which was th~ zoning classification for the rest of the Convent and the Dominican College property. Because Lourdes was re-classified as a U-District upon which 'controls ~nd limitations could be placed on its use through a conditional use permit" the Staff indicated that such a use permit would assure that the association with Dominican College could be continued. (See March 27, 1979 City Staff Report, item 279-5 these documents' will be provided by request to the email below.) The Staff Report found; lithe proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan designation for residential use and will not result in development which will adversely affect adjacent or vicinity properties." (Ibid.) At the same time The Sisters sought to build an addition to Lourdes. The Staff recommended Conditional Approval. City Staff Review stated; IIAn important consideration in Staff and Commission determination that the existing use is appropriate in the neighborhood is its relationship to Dominican College. Staff would question the compatibility of a private commercial retirement center in this location. For that reason, it is important that the use permit be limited to the ownership/operation of Dominican College affiliated Corporations." The Conditional Approval read: "Findings: IIContinuation ofthe Lourdes Retirement Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as its facility remains affiliated with Dominican College and is not a private commercial facility." "Conditions of Approval: (a) This use permit is limited to the Lourdes Retirement .Center so long as ownership and/or operation is an affiliate of Dominican College. (b) No future expansion of the use other than that currently under consideration shall take place without the modification of the current use permit." It is these conditions which the Sisters now seek to alter to permit their intended use for tran~itional housing. Part of the Planning Department's requirements was that the white clapboard structure be repainted to earthtone colors compliment;,:lry to the cedar shingles within 5 years (March 27, 1984). [This has not been done to this date 33 years later demonstrating a disregard for the conditions of use.] In 1990 the Motherhouse, the Dominican Sister's Convent, burned in a tragic fire. The Sisters relocated while a new convent was designed and built. When the housing they had purchased as tempor!'lry housing to be used during reconstruction was no longer needed, it is reported that they sought to donate it to Homeward Bound but neighborhood opposition was against that use so the Sisters sold the property and donated the proceeds to Homeward Bound instead. The Sisters have a strong affiliation with Homeward Bound not only because of their mission to help the greater community but, also, because of the fact that the Executive Director, Mary K Sweeney, PhD, is a fonner menlber afthe Religious Order. In 199,2 the Sisters made an application for a building permit tQ expand Lourdes. The sisters sought to add seven bedrooms, each with a private en-suite bathroom, and expand the dining room and chapel. As part of the expansion the Sisters sought to add 5 additional parking spaces (in addition to the 10 existing spaces) .. (See February 12, 1992 letter from architect Peter Walz to City Planner Shelia Delimont re TWM #91-121.) The Sisters indicated that the chapel was used by residents only and that it was being enlarged to accommodate the extra space required by Sisters in wheelchairs and walkers. The facility was identified as a ,"strictly private facility" that should not be subject to parking or other requirements that might apply to a public facility. (lOid.) During the permitting process The City indicated that it did not have a current description of the facility at Lourdes. The Sisters indicated that the facility was neither senior housing nor a residentialcare , facility: it was described as a "convent/' (Ibid.) At that time the Sisters indicated that Lourdes was no longer affiliated in any way with Dominican College then descrrbing the current use as follows: "Lourdes Convent is a residence for the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael." At that time there were 30 units (dormitory type rooms), two of which Were occupied by Sisters who were administrators of Lourdes. They stated that they had "25 Sisters residing at Lourdes most of whom were retired and unable to live in their other residences because they were unable to climb stairs and need some level of as'sistance in their daHy routines." (The Mother House's current design has the majority of living quarters located on ground leveL) It was indicated that occasionally "other Sisters resided at Lourdes if they were recoveril)g from surgery or illness." The Sisters stated that "Lourdes Convent is not a public facility but is a traditional conventto which sisters are assigned by the administration of the congregation." In 1993 and 2010 Lourdes underwent remodeling and expansion; each time maintaining the same use, a convent. THE CURRENT PROPOSAL The Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charities Trust (the owners of 77 Locust Ave / Lourdes Convent) filed an application on 11/23/16 for a "change of use." Such a change of use permit is required based upon the U/PD zoning status of 77 Locust. Noting decline in their numbers, the Sisters stated in their application for an Amendment of their Conditional use Permit that there had been a decline in the Sisters numbers over the years resulting in "some excess space becoming available." The Sisters 'indicated that "in keeping with our mission and values, we wantto temporarily share a very small portion of this space (1,995 sq. feet) in order to house two single mothers, each with two young children while they tra!1sition to permanent housing." The sisters declared that there would be "some very minor modifications to an existing hallway inside the, convent to provide space for these guests during their stay.i, (Emphasis added.) The "guests" would be actually be lease-holding tenants. The Sisters are represented by well-known San Rafael Lawyer Gary Ragghianti, Senior Partner of the largest law firm in San Rafael (and perhaps Marin County) Ragghianti Freitas LLP. Mr. Ragghianti is well connected in San Rafael having served for 24 years as the City Attorney (1984-2008). He resides in the, Dominican neighborhood, on the south side of the University (the opposite side of the campus from Lourdes), on Palm Ave. Although the Sisters indicate that there would be "very minor modifications" to a "very small portion" of the Convent, the project seeks to create a new entry way, a 1,995 sq. foot living unit consisting of 13 rooms including a kitchen, sitting room, six bedr~oms, and a fenced-in yard with an outdoor playground. Locust Ave (facing Dominican) Locust to Gold Hill Grade In the Fall of2016 the Sisters alerted the immediate neighbors (and several other select neighborhood residents) of their desire to undertake this expansion. An informational meeting was -held where the Sisters and their attorney outlined their objectives. The sisters explained that they had reached an agreement with Homeward Bound to lease the 1,995 sq. feet of space. Homeward Bound's website, ..'!.:!...:!.:...'!.'!..:~=!..!.!.:::.!.l:lI states the following; "Homeward Bound of Marin is the primary provider of Marin Co~nty hGfTIe!~ss 5he!t~rs and services for homeless farnHies and indivjduat~ in Marin; Canfornia~ Catch up on the latest news and events in our efforts to end homelessness." During the discussion The Sisters indicated that they felt called by Pope Francis's message to shelter the I world's refugees. They explained that they would be sectioning off the front part of Lourdes, which is located at the corner of Locust where it turns at the intersection with Magnolia (the white part of Lourdes which was never painted.) (View from corner of Locust and Magnolia.) Homeward Bound, as the master tenant/leaseholder intends to lease the space to two single mothers each with two children. They will then have full rental rights and protections under the law. [This portion of-page purposefully left blank] \\\ Homeward Bound has provided the following criteria for selection; CrlIterJa 1'011' lfIelectioD OlfiDDIlUes moving Into DomlnioCliUll ststers· Hous ..... OpporlUnla;y: .. Single parent (mom) mmlly with younger children (e.g. 2 -0) .Mom must be W'orlticg toward lUore economic self-sufficiency and open to career planning .. 6 month's sobriet;y and committed to recovery (h~s a plan) .. No other housing optlons available at. the time of appRcation "'Kids in Head Start. child care, or public sChool "Transitional HousJng; up to 2 years .. Wanting and needing services, understanding that it is a program "WIllingness to meet Mt.~ HC'1'nC".:'"."a::rd ]gi;t-.:i1n"'1l@ ifioiLMf-; ""." ~ _""".w...,,~ ""~~""" ---= =-~ --.:;---. ~~~.., "AbUlty'to cook meal fur themselves .. Upholds the no smoking poUcy on campus .. Agreement to sign a Code of Conduct .. Agreement to share progress and status updates oAblJity to pay $55Q for RBNT / UtiUtle / i ,S s, gn a rental agreement III Master lease is in Homeward Bound"s r:tame . -If own'''''''' . ,~.A6 a car, It must be registered and insured Concerns were expressed by several neighbors, including myself and other contiguous parcel owners, as well as other neighbors living further up Locust toward Gold Hill Grade who attended the meeting after being notified by'myself. These neighbors are also raising children in the area. Some of the concerns included the following; • Increased parking in the ?rea for the residents; • What policies would exist regarding visitors (overnight guests, guests of children)?; It What happens if a selected adult is, or got, married and wanted to move their spouse in?; '" Cnanglng the nature of Lourdes and the neighborhood to muiti-famiiy higher density housing; ., What the Sister's long-term plans were for this property?; ., The duration of the use (would the two year lease be extended?); • Given the nature of the clients, and the c;:riteria for selection: what would happen if a selected adult did not stay sober and would they, as are others who are served by Homeward Bound be "fleeing from domestic violence" thereby bringing the prospect of that ,{iolence to the neighborhood, and· ., Who would enforce the policies set forth in the criteria for selection? The Sisters communicated that they had only the best intentions and that they would not create a situation which would be disruptive to their convent stating that many of the questions presented could not be immediately addressed or answered. Only one of these questions has been answered: the current plan to have the use be limited to two years. As to the other concerns we are left, in essence, to "trust the process." ,I Myselt as a Catholic, and one who considers himself to be a friend to the Sisters -my children having been the beneficiary of their educational ministry at St. Raphael's Pre-School (highly recommended) - indicated that while my heart was supportive of the initiative, my head had significant reservations about the proposed location of this endeavor. Indeed, I was the source of many of the questions posed to the Sisters. As a lawyer, who has knowledge of California landlord and tenant law, as well as property law, the proposal appears to be fraught with peril. Increased Parking As the photo above demonstrates, parking at Lourdes currently frequently exceeds capacity causing vehicles to be parked, iIIegc;llly, on the street. Usually there are three vehicles park~d on the grassy area outside ofthe parking lot of Lourdes 6n Locust. There is concern that adding additional residents, and their associated guests, will further increase parking congestion and lead to more unlawful on-street parking. The Sisters should have to submit documentation on the impact of additional vehicles and parking as part of any requested Amendment to Change of Use. Guests When asked about guests who may visit the residents; adUlt guests, overnight guests, whether they be friends of the chilc!ren or adults, no definitive answers could be provided. Therefore although the primary residents would number 6, it is impossible to determine whether these residents may provide· shelter to others, have overnight guests, care for other people's children, etc. Additionally, there has been no information provided to those concerned as to what would.happen should the tenants increase the number of individuals using the property. Additional information should be provided to the neighbors on these issues. Additional Occupants Based on Marriage The Fair Employment and Housing Act expressly prohibits housing discrimination based on marital status. (Registered Domestic Partners have the same rights.) [See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12920, 12921(b), 12955; see also Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5(f).] Therefore, if a resident were married, or got married, the law would preclude the Sisters or. Homeward Bound from prohibiting the tenant from moving their spouse or domestic partner into the residence. Therefore, there is no way to guarantee that the number of occupants will be limited to only 6. With additional occupants comes increased parking and congestion. Additional information should be provided to the neighbors on these issues. Chai,ging the Nature and Character of the use at Lourdes The north ~ide of the Dominican campus, relative to the south and east sides (where there are playing fields, dormitories and classroom facilities), is a tranquil place. This is owed, largely, to the residential nature ofthe comm~nity living in harmony with the Sisters. Lourdes has been a quiet neighbor: a residential facility for elderly nuns. Lourdes hosts no part,ies, no BBQs, does not have a playground, receives few visitors aside from the Sisters many of whom walk across Locust to visit their Sisters. No matter how one frames it, legally, Lourdes will now be comprised of a retirement facility and apartments occupied by renters who have tenants' rights under the law. Given that the building is built, in essence, as a dormitory with over 30 separate bedrooms (many with their own baths) one must consider the potential long term ramifications of the shift from retirement community to apart~ents/multi-family use. The Sisters numbers are in decline. This is clearly stated on the petition and is part of a national trend as fewer are called to a religious life. At the Sister's Mother House (the Convent located on Grand between Acacia and Locust) their census is down and there are multiple vacancies within the living quarters that ex!st bet\veen the thr~e main buHdings. Indeed, this last year, the Dominican Sisters clos~d their convent in Vallejo with the 5 remaining nuns joining the Community at the Dominican Convent. As the Sisters numbers continue to decline, they will have less and less need for Lourdes. Their needs will be capable of being addressed within the main convent/Mother House. The Sisters are not paid by, nor subsidized by, the Church. As their numbers decline their needs will also change. Those needs include revenue to pay for the Community's expenses and the care needs of the sisters as they age. In this context, Lourdes is an asset. Given the remote nature of Lourdes, being separate and apart from the Mother House, as the Order declines, Lourdes is the most logical point of contraction. Selling Lourdes would not only bring in revenue, it would reduce expenses. Given the configuration of Lourdes, its best highest use should it be sold is as a commercial retirement/assisted living center, apartment building or dormitory. Needless to say, that would greatly disrupt the nature of the surrounding community. Although the current leadership of the Convent has stated that they have no current plans to sell Lourdes, they have also stated that they are embarking on a long range planning effort, because of their declining numbers, which will include analyzing the future use of their facilities, including Lourdes. Therefore, the current application must be viewed not only as to the immediate planned use but also with an eye as to how it may affect/enable future use. Duration of the Use Originally the sisters were planning on applying for an open-ended change of use. In response to concerns expressed by those in attendance at the informational meeting, and speCifically myself, the Sisters agreed to a 2 year "sunset clause./I This means that the desired Amended Conditional Use Permit would automatically expire in 2 years. When the Sisters were asked whether they would commit to not renewing the Permit again after two years, they stated that, while they had no current plans to do so, they wanted to keep their options open. Currently there is no condition or commitment that the kitchen be removed, the new entry eliminated, or playground eliminated. It goes without stating that once the use has been granted it is much easier to extend it. Given the cost of capital improvements~ it appears likely that the commitment is to continue to provide this transitional housing. At the two year mark, application could be made not only to continue the use but to expand the number of transitional families to fill other vacant spaces within Lourdes. Who will enforce the Policies? Given the population to be served, concern was raised about who will monitor and enforce the policies. There will be no representative from Homeward Bound on site to monitor conditions. The sisters stated that they had a vested interest in preserving the quiet in their community and that they would keep an , . eye on the comings and goings. There has been no other information forthcoming on this issue. Proposed Conditions Requested by Neighbors have been Rejected by the Sisters Neighbors, including myself, expressed support for the proposal if it were to be incorporated into the Mother House facilities. This was seen as a compromise. The Si~ters rejected that request as stating it would interfere with the nature of their contemplative community living environment. This despite the fact that there are several satellite structures that could just as easily, and perhaps even at lower cost, be modified to provide separated living quarters and a kitchen. It is the position of several of us in the immediate vicinity that this would eliminate many of the concerns raised above as there is an abundance of parking. at the Mother House, empty and available living quarters, space for children to play, and an ability for the Sisters to keep a closer watch on the comings and goings and conformity to Homeward Bound's Criteria for Selection. \\\ Other Requested Conditions have been rejected by The Sisters Neighbors, including myself, requested a firm commitment that the Sisters would not seek to renew the proposed Amended Ch.:mge of Use beyond two years. The Sisters, through their attorney, rejected this request. Likewise, a request was made for the Sisters to enter into a covenant, to run with the land, that the property would not be developed in the future as apartments, multi-family use, or for a dormitory. This too was rejected. What You can do to express your Concerns and/or Opposition You can appear in person on January 4th at 10:00 a.m,. in the Community Development Conference Room,Planning Division, 2nd Floor, 1400 Fifth Street, San Rafael (City Hall) to voh;:e your concerns and/or objections. Likewi~e you can submit a written statement to Paul Jensen, Project Planner, at the same address, before January 4th. Any concerns not rose on or before January 4th, will be considered waived and cannot later be pursued in court. If you desire any of the documents referenced above please contact me' by email at Chris@doanlawfirm,'com. I will be out of town from January 1st through January 4th, 2017 (I am cutting short a family vacation to attend the meeting) but I will check my email. Please include in the subject line "Lourdes." , Regards, Chris Dolan