HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-12-06SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1993, AT 7:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION
1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a
No. 93-22 (a) - #7
No reportable action was taken.
Litigation was not discussed.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1993, AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
David Zappetini, Councilmember
Absent: None
Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE
RE: HIRING HALL IN CANAL AREA - File 231
Richard Marquez from San Francisco, spokesperson for the Coalition for Breaking the
Borders, presented demands to the Council on behalf of the Coalition. They were:
a. They want a hiring hall now, which is under immigrant worker control.
b. They want an end to Police harassment and invasion of the Canal area.
C. They condemn the Marin Immigration Reform Association and its right wing
supporters in this County.
d. They will not tolerate intimidation practices against the Latinos.
e. They will not accept any anti -solicitation ordinances in the City; workers have a
right to be wherever they want in the City.
Manuel Castro spoke of the rights of immigrant workers, stating that the Marin Immigration
Reform people harass the day laborers daily in their own neighborhoods, and he wants the
racism to stop. He informed the Council that they are taxpayers and want the right to look
for work.
Mayor Boro informed the group that the issue of the job center has been scheduled for dis-
cussion in January, as planned earlier.
RE: CLOSURE OF JORDAN AVENUE IN SAN ANSELMO - File 11-19
Linda Beck, of 2219 Fifth Avenue in San Rafael, spoke against the proposed closure of
Jordan Avenue and asked for the support of the City of San Rafael to keep it open. City
Manager Nicolai reported that she has spoken to Public Works Director Bernardi about this
issue and would like direction from the City Council to contact the City of San Anselmo
and ask for an analysis before taking any action on the closing of Jordan Avenue. Council -
member Cohen stated we need the opportunity to discuss the issue with San Anselmo and we
should also make a point that San Rafael and San Anselmo are neighbors, and hope they
consider that. Also, they should have discussed this matter with San Rafael, rather than
have it come up as an urgency item at a Council meeting. Councilmember Heller noted she
lives in that neighborhood, and has been contacted by many of her neighbors.
RE: P.A.L.M.A. - THE LATINO ALLIANCE OF MARIN - File 231
Jesus Campos, an eight-year resident of San Rafael, announced the organization of PALMA,
to defend the rights of the Hispanic community - P.A.L.M.A., The Latino Alliance of Marin.
RE: NEEDLE EXCHANGES IN CITY PARKS - File 13-1 x 9-3-66
Steve Patterson, Co-chair of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, expressed concern
about needle exchanges in San Rafael City parks, particularly Albert Park. His organiza-
tion asks that the City declare City parks as Drug Free Zones and make it a reality so
families and children can use the parks again. He stated he is not discussing the merits
of the needle exchange program but merely the use of City parks for that purpose. He rec-
ommended that the City work with Marin County to determine sites for the needle exchanges
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 2
and address both of these issues at a future Council meeting as a regular agenda item.
Mayor Boro informed Mr. Patterson that he has spoken with the County Health Director and a
member of the Board of Supervisors, and has informed them that the City of San Rafael does
not want the needle exchanges in our City parks. He added that this subject will be on a
future Council agenda.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like more information on Drug Free Zones and what kind
of commitment it will take on the part of the City. Councilmember Thayer agreed and stated
that the County has often come up with programs within the jurisdiction of San Rafael and
implemented them without notifying the City.
Mayor Boro stated that the City will go on record that we do not want needle exchanges
occurring in our City parks.
RE: CALTRANS WORKSHOP ON 101 CORRIDOR - File 11-16 x 171
Hanna Creighton, representing Advocates for Transit, invited the Council to attend a
CalTrans Workshop Open House on December 7, 1993, at the San Rafael High School Cafeteria
from 5:00 to 9:00 PM. Among items for discussion is the widening of Highway 101.
Mayor Boro responded that he has spoken with Public Works Director Bernardi, who informed
him that a hearing will be conducted in San Rafael subsequent to that meeting, where the
public will have the opportunity to discuss the project. He explained this is not a City
project, but a project of the State of California, and the City cannot conduct a public
hearing on the adequacy of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report), but we will have an
opportunity to give our input later.
Councilmember Cohen inquired if the City will be able to participate in the scoping, and
Mr. Bernardi responded that it is presently in the process. If the Council has any
concerns, he would send them on to CalTrans. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to
have a hearing to get the comments of our constituents.
City Manager Nicolai stated she had heard that there was not proper notification by
CalTrans for the previous meeting. She suggested that perhaps we could have a hearing in
our Council Chambers, but have it conducted by CalTrans, and keep the ball in their court.
She noted there are multiple CalTrans projects and not just this one about Highway 101 in
San Rafael. She stated we could take up this issue at the meeting tomorrow night. Mayor
Boro agreed, stating that tomorrow night we will get together with the appropriate people
so the City can participate in subsequent hearings on the adequacy of the EIR.
RE: COMPLAINTS, VARIOUS - File 100
Irving "Whitey" Litchfield informed the Council they should be aware of the following
concerns:
a. The traffic tickets issued on Fourth Street are not legal.
b. The sewer tax which is being charged is illegal.
C. The starting up and re -use of the Rafael Theater is illegal.
d. The Library go-ahead is illegal.
e. The building of bus shelters was not awarded to the low bidder.
f. The "old timers" in San Rafael are being discriminated against, many restaurants
are closing, and the City is being ruined.
g. There are 200 lawsuits outstanding against the City.
h. There is no place for the homeless or the teenagers to go.
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Attorney Ragghianti stated he has a correction to the minutes of April 26, 1993,
which he would like to give to the City Clerk. The Council agreed. Minutes to be
approved as amended.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the recommended
action on the following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of Approved as amended.
April 26, 1993 (CC)
Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of Approved as submitted.
November 9, 1993, and Regular Meeting of
November 15, 1993 (CC)
3. Reappointment of John Govi to Marin/Sonoma Approved staff recommendation,
Mosquito Abatement District Board for areappointing John Govi to a 4 -year
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 3
4 -year Term (CC) - File 9-2-9
5. Resolution Rejecting Bid and Authorizing
Staff to Negotiate and Purchase on the Open
Market for a New 1994 Midsize 4x4 Enclosed
Truck for the Police Ranger (Fin)
File 4-2-279 x 9-3-30
term on the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito
Abatement District Board, term
ending 12/31/97.
RESOLUTION NO. 9065 - REJECTING THE
BID OF CAPITOL FORD, INC. AND AUTH-
ORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE AND
PURCHASE A 1994 4WD ENCLOSED TRUCK
FOR THE POLICE RANGER
6. Resolution of Findings - Appeal of Disabled RESOLUTION NO. 9066 - RESOLUTION OF
Access Requirements - 1607 Fifth AvenueTHE CITY COUNCIL (in its capacity as
Jennifer Donnellan, Representative), Board of Appeals) GRANTING APPEAL
AP 11-196-02 (PW) - File 13-1-1 x 9-3-40 FROM STATE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS -
1607 FIFTH AVENUE
7. Bid Opening and Award of Contract - Routine RESOLUTION NO. 9067 - RESOLUTION OF
and Emergency Tree Services (PW) - AWARD OF CONTRACT, ROUTINE AND EMER-
File 4-1-463 x 11-6 x 9-3-40 GENCY TREE SERVICES (Project No. 001-
444358270(2)) (Fahy Tree Service,
$118,871.25, Lowest Responsible
Bidder)
8. Authorization to Call for Bids for ParkApproved staff recommendation.
Street Storm Drain Improvements (PW) -
File 4-1-466 x 9-3-40
9. Joint Powers Agreement for Ownership,
Acquisition, Operation and Governance of
Integrated On -Line System for the Library
(Lib) - File 4-13-83 x 9-3-61 x 8-20
10. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE
NO. 1654 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20,
MOBILHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, AND
REENACTING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20, RENT
STABILIZATION ORDINANCE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE
THE RENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM INCLUDING NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS, PURCHASER'S RIGHTS, BASE RENT AND
FREEZE PROVISIONS (CA) - File 13-7-1 x 9-3-16 x
1 q_1 F
RESOLUTION NO. 9068 - AUTHORIZING
THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR
AGREEMENT - JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT FOR OWNERSHIP, OPERATION,
GOVERNANCE OF AN INTEGRATED ON-LINE
LIBRARY SYSTEM WITH THE COUNTY OF
MARIN AND THE CITIES OF MILL VALLEY
AND SAUSALITO
RESOLUTION NO. 9069 - APPROPRIATING
$108,007.04 FROM THE DAVIDSON
BEQUEST AS SAN RAFAEL'S SHARE OF THE
ACQUISITION COST OF AN INTEGRATED
ON-LINE LIBRARY SYSTEM
RESOLUTION NO. 9070 - APPROPRIATING
$22,678 FROM THE DAVIDSON BEQUEST AS
SAN RAFAEL'S SHARE OF START-UP AND
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF THE INTEGRA-
TED ON-LINE LIBRARY SYSTEM
Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1654.
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Heller and Zappetini
(from minutes of Special Meet-
ings of April 26 and
November 9, 1993 only, due to
non-attendance at
meetings.)
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
4.REQUEST TO WAIVE PUBLIC BID AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SEVEN POLICE PATROL VEHICLES
THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BID PROCESS FROM SOPP CHEVROLET, BELL, CALIFORNIA
(Fin) - File 4-2-280 x 9-3-30
Councilmember Zappetini stated he presumes that the standard practice is to go out for bid
for these vehicles, and he asked if we would be getting someone else's leftover 1993
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 4
vehicles once the 1994 cars are out, and would that be a problem for the City.
Finance Director Coleman explained that the cars meet all of our specifications for the
Police Department and are very similar to the cars presently on the road. He added
that the cars being offered to us are the cars which the Police want, and we have in
the past used similar situations. Last year we also bought through the Los Angeles
County purchasing program. Councilmember Zappetini stated it looks like a deal we
should not pass up.
City Manager Nicolai explained that this does not take someone else's allotment. She
stated that Los Angeles County is so big that it is to our advantage to ride on their
bids because of the prices due to their volume. Mayor Boro pointed out these are new
vehicles.
Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution as
recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 9071 - WAIVING THE PUBLIC BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SEVEN
POLICE VEHICLES FROM SOPP CHEVROLET, BELL, CALIFORNIA (in
amount of $102,517.77)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
11.PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO BMR RENTAL UNIT AGREEMENT RE: McINNIS PARK
APARTMENTS; AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LOT 5B TERMINATION); TERMINATION OF
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND ASSIGNMENT OF MHDC PARTNERSHIP INTEREST TO McINNIS
PARK VENTURE (CA) - File 229 x 5-1-290
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for comments from City Attorney
Ragghianti.
Mr. Ragghianti explained that there are several issues, the most important being the
Ordinance which is before the Council tonight. He briefed the Council, stating that
in 1985 a Development Agreement was entered into between the City and the developers
of Smith Ranch. A portion of the Agreement related to the construction of a 98 -unit
apartment building which was required to be constructed ahead of the Smith Ranch
Retirement Community. Twenty of the apartments were restricted for occupancy by low
income households for ten years, and twenty other units were to be occupied in perpe-
tuity by moderate income households. He explained that in order to help the City
facilitate these restrictions, an agreement was entered into with the Marin Housing
Development Corporation (MHDC), and a partnership was formed between it and the
developer. At this particular point, MHDC was to have a 100 limited partnership
interest or equity participation in the entity owning the apartments. In return for
giving up that interest, the owners have agreed to extend the restrictions with
regard to the occupancy for low income households for another ten years, to and
including the year 2009. Mr. Bornholdt has provided the City with information which
is included in the staff report concerning the financial data and what the net cost
effect of that assignment is and how it benefits MHDC and the City.
Mr. Ragghianti explained that the proposed Ordinance amends the Development Agreement for
the fourth time to provide that this Development Agreement will no longer affect the
McInnis Apartment site, which is Lot 5B, and all of the other matters before the
Council flow from that. The first is an amendment to the BMR (Below Market Rate)
Rental Agreement which extends the project period to March 22, 2009. It would
otherwise expire in 1999. Second is the Termination of Declaration of Restrictions,
because it is no longer necessary due to the existence of the BMR Agreement and
because it now addresses the rights of the MHDC partnership and the assignment.
Finally, the Partial Termination Agreement, will delete any further reference or
agreements we have with the owners, to Lot 5B.
Mr. Ragghianti reported that he had met at length with the general partner on these
issues.
Mayor Boro noted the value of this extension is $360,000, which is well in excess of the
remaining period we have in the lease, so this is definitely an advantage to the
City, and also keeps those units at below market rate until the year 2009. He stated
it seems like a very positive step. Mr. Ragghianti stated he believes it is, and
stated Mr. Bornholdt does as well.
There was no public input, and Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilmember Thayer inquired about the chronology of the McInnis Park Apartments. She
noted Item 13, which states that McInnis Housing Partners transferred its 90o general
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 5
partnership interest to McInnis Park Venture, a California limited partner- ship. She
pointed out that under Item 15, it states that the City and McInnis Housing Partners
enter into a Below Market Rate Rental Unit Agreement for a term expiring March 22,
1999. She wonders why the agreement was not with McInnis Park Ventures.
Thomas Feldstein, counsel for McInnis Housing Partners, the owner of the apartment
project, explained that McInnis Housing Partners is a limited partnership which was
created in 1989 to own the apartment project. He stated that Item 13 references
transfer of the general partner which was a California corporation, McInnis Housing
Partners, Inc., to a new entity to serve as a general partner of that partnership.
The current general partner of McInnis Housing Partners is the McInnis Park Venture.
That is why Item 15 references McInnis Housing Partners entering into the BMR
agreement, because they are the legal owner of the apartment project.
Councilmember Thayer stated that over the years she has wondered why the original
partnership had divorced themselves from the McInnis Park Apartments. She explained
it has always been her fear that the City would not have a guarantor with regard to
the affordable housing units.
Mr. Feldstein responded that he has appeared before the Council in the past, not only on
behalf of the McInnis Housing Partners, but also representing Tishman Speyer Mediq
Marin Limited Partnership, which was the developer of Smith Ranch Homes and built the
McInnis Park Apartments. He stated that his clients, Tishman Speyer, made the deter-
mination in 1993 that they did not want to be in the rental housing business. They
are principally an office building and retirement housing developer, and they felt
more comfortable concentrating on businesses that they knew. He explained they
brought in a local real estate developer and mortgage banker, Mr. John Shalavi of
Marin County, and he created a new partnership, McInnis Park Venture, and acquired
Tishman Speyer's general partnership interest. He stated that what we are doing
tonight is recognizing that the City has a contract with the owners through the BMR,
which gives the City the tools to ensure that until the year 2009, twenty of the
units will be made available to low income residents. Also recorded against the
project is another recorded covenant which ensures that in perpetuity it remains a
rental project with twenty additional units available to moderate income residents.
Therefore, although there has been a change in the ownership of the project, the
operation of it remains fully within the City's ability to control if those covenants
are breached or if the BMR were breached.
Councilmember Thayer stated she was speaking more to the terms of the solvency of the
project. Mr. Feldstein replied that the project is substantially leased and is not
overly financed, and that the financial health of the project is probably furthered
by having an interested local person who is running it.
Councilmember Cohen noted this issue has come up before as the Council has gone through
changes of ownership on this project, and it appears to him that the City's interest
in maintaining their stock of affordable housing is protected by maintaining the
agreement with the owners of the apartments. He stated he was more concerned when
there was an implication that the City's agreement would be with the operators of
Smith Ranch Homes and not with McInnis Park Apartments. Also, this will be main-
taining and extending affordable housing stock.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE SMITH RANCH
HOMES (FORMERLY SMITH RANCH HILLS) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT".
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading
of the Ordinance in its entirety, to refer to it by title only and pass Charter
Ordinance No. 1655 to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution
authorizing the signing of First Amendment to BMR Rental Unit Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 9072 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO BELOW MARKET
RATE RENTAL UNIT AGREEMENT, TERMINATION OF DECLARATION OF
RESTRICTIONS, AND PARTIAL TERMINATION AGREEMENT (LOT 5B)
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND McINNIS HOUSING PARTNERS, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 6
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution
approving assignment of partnership interest by Marin Housing Development Corpora-
tion.
RESOLUTION NO. 9073 - APPROVING ASSIGNMENT OF PARTNERSHIP INTEREST BY MARIN HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT
CORPORATION, RE: McINNIS PARK VENTURE
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
12.PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE
SISTERS OF SAINT DOMINIC, INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE MOTHER HOUSE AND ST. THOMAS
HALL AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEVEN NEW BUILDINGS; 1520 GRAND AVENUE; SISTERS OF SAINT
DOMINIC, OWNERS; PETER WALZ/TWM ARCHITECTS, REPRESENTATIVE; AP 15-142-02 (PL) -
File 10-6 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened.
Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that the purpose of this hearing
is to decide on the adequacy of the EIR which has been prepared on applica- tions
submitted by the Sisters of St. Dominic. The applications are for rezoning, design
review, and a use permit. The purpose of the applications is to secure the approval
of a Master Plan for a new residential and administrative complex on property owned
by the Sisters on Grand Avenue. He explained that approval of these applications
would allow the demolition of St. Thomas Hall and the Mother House. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires preparation of an EIR when significant
historic and/or architectural or cultural resources would be lost. He stated that
given the standards set for the City by the State of California, it is clear that
CEQA applies in this case. Accordingly, the Planning Commission required that an EIR
be prepared. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that this EIR is focused on only one issue -
the impact on architectural and historical resources.
Mr. Pendoley noted that the staff report explains in depth what the project involves, and
the principal impacts, and points out that the basic impact on environmental and
historic resources is the loss of St. Thomas Hall and the Mother House, which would
be a significant adverse impact which could not be mitigated by the project as
proposed. He stated that the decision before the Council tonight on this item, is
whether or not the EIR is adequate. He noted that in the staff report they have
summarized the adequacy standards. He noted that we are not looking for perfection,
but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort, and he thinks the EIR repre-
sents all of that criteria. He then introduced Stu During, consultant who prepared
the EIR.
Mr. During stated that Jay Turnbull, principal of Paige & Turnbull, architects
specializing in historic resources, was also present. He explained that the EIR was
prepared in two phases, first the Draft EIR, then a Comments and Responses document,
and then the Final EIR with amendments. He spoke of some of the major concerns which
were addressed, such as Cultural Resources. They found that the proposed Master Plan
would have a significant impact on historical resources. He stated that in preparing
the Final EIR, there were several concerns which had been raised on the Draft EIR,
particularly related to alternatives. The EIR examined a number of alternatives which
included the No -Project alternative, sale of the project, relocation off-site, adap-
tive reuse and retention of architectural components. He noted there was some detail
related to the preservation and also the issue of cost. He pointed out that on page
13 of the Comments and Responses, he had discussed in some detail the CEQA Guidelines
for the EIR provide under Section 15131, that economic and social information may be
included in the EIR, or may be presented in whatever form an agency desires. He
stated that the EIR went beyond the normal procedure in response to City staff, to
look at cost comparisons. He pointed out that in doing cost comparisons at this stage
in the process, they are looking at very generalized estimates, since there are no
detailed working drawings from which cost estimates can be made. He explained they
received cost estimates in a very general way from the project sponsor and they were
examined. There were also studies provided by the project sponsor in relation to
preservation/restoration of the Mother House, as well as rehabilitation of St. Thomas
Hall. He explained that Paige & Turnbull reviewed these costs and their cost esti-
mator, Adamson, provided their own estimates which are included in the back of the
Draft EIR, as well as the Draft Final EIR.
He added that one of the concerns raised was whether the State Historic Building Code was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 7
considered in terms of the cost estimates. It was, and there is considerable
correspondence in the record to that effect. He noted that when you are dealing with
cost estimates of this nature, there is often confusion about the terms, such as site
preparation, landscaping or contingency fees. He explained that without specific
details this can be the subject of misinformation and confusion. He stated they had
attempted to assist the City by preparing a cost comparison of the Master Plan as
well as the restoration of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall. He added that, in
general, the costs presented show that the Master Plan is considerably less than the
other two alternatives. He noted those costs are found on Table 6 in the Final EIR.
Mayor Boro inquired about the Table on page B-3 of Appendix B and asked if the estimated
cost of $5.7 million is for the Master Plan, whereas the $12 million in Table 6 of
the EIR is the cost to re -do the entire structure. Mr. During explained these are
general costs. On the plan for $5 million, they had been given a rough cost for the
Master Plan of over $7 million. They tried to eliminate some of the costs in that
estimate, and compare strictly the construction costs of all three alternatives.
Mayor Boro asked if the project sponsors would like to address the Council at this time.
Ms. Alice Suet Yee Barkley, attorney for the Sisters of St. Dominic, stated she will be
brief, but would like to reserve time for rebuttal if opponents of the certification
of the EIR present any new issues not already on the record. She stated that the EIR
before the Council is extremely thorough. The Council will be hearing testimony
tonight that the cost analysis is inadequate and that this EIR did not address the
views of the State Historic Building Code. She stated that is not true, and noted
that she has presented a letter to the Council tonight in rebuttal of letters
received from Dolores Rogers, Susan Brant -Hawley and Robert Mackensen. She explained
to the Council the credentials of the members of the EIR consultants for the City,
Paige and Turnbull, which are impeccable, and she listed the many nationwide awards
they have won.
Ms. Barkley referred to Table 6 of the EIR, and stated it includes various cost savings
which would be achieved by using the State Historic Building Code. She stated no one
should allege that no thought was given to use of the State Historic Building Code.
She stated that the opponents do not want to accept the figures provided by the
City's consultant, and yet throughout the many public hearings before the Planning
Commission, the Cultural Affairs Commission and City Council, they have not provided
any evidence to demonstrate that the EIR numbers are incorrect. She stated that
allegations without any support are not enough, and even if this evening they
produced an expert to tell this Council that those numbers are incorrect, it does not
matter. She noted that when you have disagreement among experts, it is up to the
Council to exercise their judgment to decide which expert opinion they wish to
accept. She noted there is evidence in the administrative record before the Council
which supports the EIR, including all of the background documents.
Ms. Barkley noted that the Council will hear about the Mother House, that it will not cost
$12 million to renovate. She stated there is a line -by-line item analysis of the
cost by Dinwiddie and by the Sisters, as part of this application, with an
independent review by the EIR consultants and their sub -consultants. She stated that
this EIR is legally adequate and should be certified this evening.
Mayor Boro announced he had received a phone call today from Dolores Rogers and asked if
she would like to address the Council.
Dolores Rogers, a member of the Save Dominican Committee, and a long-time resident of
Marin and alumni of Dominican College, stated they want one or both of the buildings
saved for the future, and their children's future. She added they are a cultural
heritage for the general population and not just the Sisters, and are irreplaceable,
and they are restorable with the dollars available. She noted there was $7,400,000
in insurance money, and it would be a tragic loss for the community, the college and
the Sisters if one of those buildings goes down. She stated the Sisters would lose
their heritage and their history, as well as the College.
She stated that Mr. Paige had never read the EIR, and that Mr. During had been the one who
put the numbers on this project. She added that to do the Master Plan, it will be
well over $10 million and there are feasible alternatives.
Mayor Boro inquired if Mrs. Rogers is saying that the alternatives in the EIR are not
adequate, and she stated that is what she meant. One of the things they did not see
in there is that the numbers are always given to completely bring the Mother House up
to the same square footage of the new Master Plan, whereas in other places it states
they only need Phase I, which is much less square footage. She stated that if costs
were developed to simply do the restoration of the Mother House around the same
square footage available, it also would be in the same cost range as Phase I of the
new plan. She stated bedrooms could be on the first floor, since there are only 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 8
bedrooms on the first floor of the new Master Plan. She stated it would be up to
safety code and a good level of comfort. Another option would be using St. Thomas
Hall with its square footage, to come up to Phase I needs of the Sisters. Mrs. Rogers
stated there is a third option, to build their buildings across the street, on a
trade of land.
In conclusion, Mrs. Rogers asked that the EIR not be certified as it stands. There really
needs to be new alternatives looked at, and there needs to be new costs. She asked
that this important issue be given sufficient time at the City Council and not be
rushed in one sitting.
Mr. Bruce Judd, a partner in an architectural preservation firm in San Francisco which
specializes in working on buildings such as the two in question, spoke, stating he
was the architect of record for Falkirk on several phases including the greenhouse
and spent about a year doing Downtown revitalization in San Rafael on the facades,
and is currently working on the Rafael Theatre. Also, he served on the State Historic
Buildings Safety Board and was former chairman of the State Historic Resources
Commission. He stated that currently he is on the Board of Trustees of the California
Preservation Foundation, and has a letter from their Executive Director, John
Merritt, stating there are real problems in looking at the EIR from the two issues
which were discussed - the State Historic Building Code and its applicability, and
the cost. He stated he admits there are line item costs for the two buildings, but
the costs are not the same for the Master Plan, and that is one of his questions. He
stated it would be difficult for the Council to arrive at conclusions, because he
could not tell the right answers from his review. He stated he has a difficult time
going through the numbers and arriving at a fair comparison between the Master Plan
and the two alternatives. He noted the costs on B-2 and B-3 and the questions raised
as to quantities. He stated there is not the same level of detail for all three
alternatives - St. Thomas, the Mother House, and the Master Plan - and if there were,
it would be easier to make a comparison. He stated he could understand there would
be general figures for the new Master Plan, but in the EIR there are some very
detailed elevational drawings of the proposed buildings and there must be floor plans
to go along with them, and he thinks the same level of detail could be generated.
Regarding the State Historic Building Code, Mr. Judd stated the discussion in the EIR
about its applicability has not gotten to the heart of the matter. He explained that
the State Historic Building Code requires that you take a holistic approach in
looking at design and cost. It is not a proscriptive Code, where you can say for
instance that a corridor must be 44 inches in width. He noted there are mitigating
features in the Code, with alternative ways of designing and looking at a building so
you can arrive at the same equivalent level of safety. He stated it is a
misconception that the Code gives you a lower level of safety.
Mr. Judd read a summary of a letter from Bob Mackensen, Executive Director of the Safety
Board, stating he believes the Master Plan document to be flawed and uncertifiable
because of the failure to fully explore and evaluate the rehabilitation alternative.
He stated it is his further belief that the only way to fully determine these
critical costs is by utilizing the services of architects and/or engineers with
strong credentials in the use of the State Historic Building Code.
Mr. Judd stated he knows that Jay Turnbull is a very good architect, but he does not
believe his firm was asked to really go and look at a complete design relative to the
State Historic Building Code, and he does not think that the costs which were subse-
quently generated reviewed it from that perspective. He cited Table 6 as a case in
point, which refers to the State Historic Building Code but does not give details.
He stated that, in conclusion, he feels the Council needs to get more information
before they can certify the EIR; they need to know a lot more about the costs and
where they have come from, both for the two alternatives and for the Master Plan.
Also, they need to look at the design from a better perspective, using the State
Historic Building Code from the very beginning, and not look at it as a deduct from
an already put -together cost estimate. Mr. Judd noted that he has not been paid to
appear, and is just a volunteer.
Ms. Susan Brant -Hawley, an attorney in environmental law and historic preservation,
presented a letter. She stated there is another problem which she did not mention in
her letter, and that is General Plan Consistency. She stated there is a mandatory
provision in the General Plan, LU -23, which says that buildings and areas with social
and recognized historic architecture or aesthetic values shall be preserved. She
noted there is mention in the letter from the applicant's attorney which cites a case
in which they were balancing out various provisions of a master plan, which is not
really relevant to the issue before the Council. She noted she had also seen a letter
from the City Attorney which said that you never have everything in the General Plan
complied with, so we just have to balance things out. She stated she feels the City
needs to comply with the General Plan, which promotes certain policies of the City.
She stated that a certain project cannot be inconsistent with mandatory elements of a
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 9
General Plan, and she does not see how it can be balanced out.
Ms. Brant -Hawley stated these beautiful buildings are part of the resources of the State,
and possibly of the nation if they were restored to national eligibility. They are
certainly a source of pride to the City. She stated she appreciates that the Sisters
have a very important mission, and the best solution would be, of course, to fulfill
that mission and preserve the buildings. She stated it is critical that the Council
take a very hard look at potential solutions which solve all of the problems - the
program needs of the Sisters which we all support, and the City's goals in the
General Plan policy of preserving historic buildings. She stated that is why the
cost estimates are so very important. She noted that in EIRs you do not go as much
into dollars and cents as when you are preserving historic buildings. She stated it
all comes down to money, and can you afford to restore this building or is it just
unfeasible. That must be the bottom line which the EIR looks at. She noted that on
page 3-14 of the EIR, it states that Phase I and Phase II of the Master Plan add up
to at least $10 million, without any consultant fees. She stated that when you
subtract some of the savings from restoration using the Historic Building Code, you
start comparing apples and apples again. She stated the restoration of the Mother
House may well be comparable to a project which includes both phases of the Master
Plan. She added that if you look hard at State Building Code design options, and
specific ways of utilizing that Code, you may have a way to have this project go
forward in a manner which allows preservation.
Ms. Brant -Hawley concluded by stating that the EIR is not completely adequate because the
Council has not been given all of the information they need to preserve these
resources.
Mayor Boro inquired if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to the adequacy
of the EIR. He stated he would like to hear from someone who supports it, and then
will rotate speakers.
Mr. Lionel Ashcroft, a member of the Cultural Affairs Commission, and a 25 -year San Rafael
resident, stated he has gone through the EIR in considerable detail and supports the
certification of the EIR because an EIR is required to have a good faith effort. He
noted there is a good deal of gray area and disagreement between experts on the cost,
and he thinks these disagreements are perfectly legitimate and actually quite natural
in the field of engineering, especially given the condition of the Mother House. He
stated he has been through the Mother House twice, in its fire -damaged condition, and
he stated it would be an almost impossible task to predict what the cost of the
restoration would be. He stated that the EIR has addressed every conceivable issue,
and probably beyond what EIRs normally would reach into with regard to cost estimates
and mitigation measures. He stated he strongly supports the certification of the
EIR.
Bart Jones, a San Rafael resident, and member of the Save Dominican Committee, addressed
the inadequacy of the information regarding the Olive trees. He objected to removal
of the 18 Olive trees from the garden, which were stated to be weak and in poor
condition. He went to look at them, and they are strong and vigorous, and their
pollen is no worse than that of the Oaks and Redwoods. He also objected to demolition
of St. Thomas Hall to make room for a parking lot when it only needs to be retro-
fitted. He noted it was not designed as a convent, but as a school building. He
added it is not adequate to take a position about destroying things and then finding
reasons to do so, and he thinks that is what has been done here.
Nicki Simons, a San Rafael resident and political activist, stated she hopes the Council
will think very seriously before they give their permission to demolish this
treasure.
There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed.
Mayor Boro noted there was a question raised by Ms. Brant -Hawley regarding the consistency
with the General Plan, and asked for staff comment.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that Ms. Brant-Hawley's letter had a phrase in it that
this is a confusing area, and while he does not know the answer to the question
precisely, he feels he can answer it. He explained that the whole idea of General
Plan consistency has to be looked at from the standpoint of the cases which have been
considered over the years in terms of CEQA relevance. He stated that precise consis-
tency is not always possible, but substantial consistency is the goal to be achieved,
and it always falls to the public agency decision makers to interpret the project and
to determine, on the basis of the evidence in the record measured against the General
Plan policies, whether or not the project as proposed would be consistent. He pointed
out that there are two policies here which were called out, LU -23 and LU -36N, which
are claimed to be the subject of General Plan inconsistencies. He noted that on
November 5, 1993, we stated to Ms. Hawley that it is not possible in our opinion for
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 10
each project proposed by each developer, owner, or project applicant, to be consis-
tent with each and every policy in the General Plan. We concluded that it was our
opinion that the conflicts which are described by Ms. Hawley with the General Plan
policies, "do not require or compel denial of the project if the Planning Commission
determines that on the whole, the project complies with furtherance of the purposes
of the General Plan." He stated if that policy was strictly interpreted, no structure
which was of arguably historical significance could ever be taken down. He stated
this is an interesting and complicated issue of feasibility which bears on the
determination of the applicant to take the building down or to refurbish it. He
stated it is his best judgment that the project as proposed is generally consistent
with the General Plan.
Mr. Pendoley noted that Mr. Ragghianti has described the opinion he gave to the Planning
Commission at staff's request, to follow up on an analysis which was done in the EIR.
He noted that in the Impact section of the EIR, Chapter 4, the document explains
that potential or actual conflicts with local policies may have a signifi- cant
adverse impact. He stated that the complete analysis finds consistency on all
relevant policies with the exception of LU -23 and LU -36. He noted the analysis goes
on to point out that neither the Mother House nor St. Thomas Hall has been designated
as a landmark structure and, in fact, St. Thomas Hall was not designated on our
survey of historic resources, although the Mother House was. He noted it suggests a
couple of ways to mitigate that potential impact, the most important being to prepare
an architectural record, the Historic American Building Survey which was discussed at
some length in the EIR. He stated that the EIR left it to the interpretation by the
Planning Commission and the City Council as to whether in the final analysis, this
particular policy issue would be a significant adverse impact. Accordingly, the City
Attorney advised the Planning Commission and the Council that they have discretion
regarding General Plan consistency. He noted this has been fully analyzed in the
EIR.
Councilmember Cohen noted there has been much testimony tonight regarding the economics of
the various alternatives, and he would like more discussion on that issue, since it
will be relevant when discussing the merits of the project. He inquired of Mr.
During, in relation to his letter of November 8, 1993, and also the letter from Mrs.
Rogers, as to whether he has anything to add or if he wishes to respond to any of the
comments made this evening regarding the inability to compare the cost estimates with
the Master Plan versus the alternatives for restoration.
Mr. During reiterated that they had attempted to look at the costs with a good faith
effort, knowing there could be issues where experts possibly could disagree. He
noted there was some flexibility in the costs. He noted that in his letter of
November 8th, he does point out that when one looks at the cost per square foot, the
current estimates of restoration of damaged historic buildings generally range about
$150 to $200 per square foot. This is a generally accepted industry standard. He
noted that in their cost comparison for construction, the rehabilitation of St.
Thomas Hall was around $164, and for the Mother House it was around $183, which fall
within that range. He stated that the cost revisions which were suggested by Ms.
Rogers and submitted to the City were below $100, which does not seem realistic.
Mr. During noted that neither Mr. Turnbull nor he have a bias one way or the other. The
purpose of the environmental document is to provide information, and what they did
was take the information and put it in a form they felt could best provide data to
the decision makers for their decision.
Councilmember Cohen asked for clarification of his understanding of Table 6 in the Draft
Final EIR. He noted that two speakers tonight referred to the fact that the cost for
Phases I and II, taken cumulatively, approached $10 million, actually $9.5 million.
He stated that if he reads Table 6 correctly, the costs presented involve a choice
between the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall. If one was to try to restore what was
there prior to the fire, and the current condition of St. Thomas Hall after the
earthquake, one could also add these costs together so restoration of both buildings
to adequate safety standards could approach $19 or $20 million, and asked if that is
correct.
Mr. During stated that before he would make that comparison he would caution, because what
they attempted to do in this comparison table was to just look at the construc- ion
costs and factor in some issues and some items which they thought could be traced
across the board, such as issues of demolition which they added to the bottom, for
both of the structures. He added that they also tried to look at what the
programmatic needs were for the project sponsor in terms of square footage numbers.
He stated that is why, on the restoration of the Mother House, they subtracted out
13,000 square feet of space because they knew that the overall square footage needed
in the Master Plan was a little over 50,000 square feet. He explained that to lump
the restoration of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall might not be an accurate
comparison. He noted they looked at an alternative variant where the Master Plan
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 11
would be redesigned so the Mother House would be restored and St. Thomas Hall would
be rehabilitated, and the Master Plan implemented, but they did not have a cost for
that alternative. He asked Mr. Turnbull to comment on the issue of lumping those two
numbers together.
Mr. Turnbull stated that what they did was note that Phases I and II of the Sisters'
Master Plan does call for about 53,000 square feet of space. He then asked, if you
housed these square feet in new structures according to the Master Plan document,
what is the cost of that; if you housed the same square feet in the Mother House
itself, which has been damaged by fire, what would be the cost of that? He asked
that, finally, if you placed these same square feet into St. Thomas Hall, which is
standing but in need of seismic retrofit, what would be the cost of that? He
explained that is the attempted comparison in the Table.
Councilmember Zappetini noted that it had been brought up that Dinwiddie Construction had
helped with the figures, and inquired if that was done independently, or jointly.
Mr. During explained that it is unusual in an EIR to get very much involved in cost
comparison. As the EIR progressed, the first area of concern they had was that
information had been developed already by Dinwiddie Construction in conjunction with
the architects of the Master Plan, to get a sense of what the costs of restoration
would be. This was done partly by the project sponsor to look at the extent of the
damage that had occurred to the Mother House itself. He stated he took that informa-
tion which was in a report on both St. Thomas Hall and the Mother House, and Paige &
Turnbull took that information and went over it and then brought in their cost
estimator. In terms of the Master Plan costs, he was given a summary cost of the
total plan, and then broke that out on a square footage basis to get a rough idea
what the cost would be, of the various buildings within the Master Plan itself.
Councilmember Thayer inquired, aside from the historical preservation question and the
cost analysis and comparison with the Master Plan, that the plans require 7
buildings, and she wondered if there were any alternatives to the 7, which were
offered, as far as the Master Plan is concerned, because of the gardens and the
space, etc.
Mr. During explained that in terms of the CEQA analysis, they took the Master Plan as
designed by the project sponsor and then analyzed what the impact of that plan would
be on the environment. He noted that plan called for demolition of both the Mother
House and St. Thomas Hall. He stated that the gist of the analysis is that they
found that the only significant environmental impact which would be adverse by
implementation of the Master Plan would be the loss of an historic resource. He
noted that under CEQA they were not obligated, nor did it make sense to them, to look
at other possible combinations of the Master Plan.
Mayor Boro noted the Council has heard testimony from the applicant and from the
opponents, and had their questions answered. He stated that the issue before the
Council is to accept the report and to adopt a Resolution certifying the FEIR, if the
Council so wishes.
Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to certify the Final EIR
for 1520 Grand Avenue as submitted, by adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 9074 - CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
SISTERS OF SAINT DOMINIC MASTER PLAN; 1520 Grand Avenue;
Sisters of Saint Dominic, Owners; Peter Walz/TWM Architects,
representative; AP 15-142-02
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
13.PUBLIC HEARING - Z92-2, UP92-38, ED92-76 - ZONE CHANGE FROM THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOP-
MENT) DISTRICT TO THE PD DISTRICT WITH SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USE PERMIT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE SISTERS OF SAINT
DOMINIC, INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE MOTHER HOUSE AND ST. THOMAS HALL AND
CONSTRUCTION OF SEVEN NEW BUILDINGS; 1520 GRAND AVENUE; SISTERS OF SAINT DOMINIC,
OWNERS; PETER WALZ/TWM ARCHITECTS, REPRESENTATIVE; AP 15-142-02 (Pl) - File 10-3 x
10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened.
Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that the subject of this hearing
is the merits of the project. He stated that rather than talk about the merits, he
will talk about process, and the relationship between the applications which are
before the Council under this agenda item and the EIR which they just voted as
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 12
adequate. He noted that the project applicants are present and will be able to
describe the project in some detail.
Mr. Pendoley explained that CEQA provides that once an EIR has been certified, you can
deny a project because of its significant environmental effects, if it has some. The
Council can require changes to the project to reduce impacts, or they can approve the
project despite a significant environmental effect if certain types of findings and
statements can be made. He stated that in this case, the Planning Commission
concurred with the assessment of During and Associates that this project would have a
significant adverse impact on the environment; however, they have recommended the
appropriate findings to approve the project.
Mr. Pendoley further explained that CEQA requires that in the course of certifying an EIR,
you must make findings on each of the identified significant effects, and that has
been done by the Planning Commission and Council in the course of finding the EIR
adequate for certification, and certifying it. He noted that if the Council is
considering approving a project with significant impacts, they must examine each of
the proposed mitigation measures and evaluate them as to their feasibility as well at
each of the alternatives. At the conclusion of the process, if it is the Council's
decision to approve it, they must make findings of overriding consideration.
Mr. Pendoley briefly reviewed the record so the Council would have an understanding of the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, in which they took all of the fore- going
steps. He reported that the Planning Commission, in its hearings on the merits of
the project, took extensive testimony from people who were both in favor of and
opposed to the project. All of the Commissioners were able to agree that the basic
project design, and of course the proposed use, had great merit. The Commissioners
also said, on the record, that they would support and recommend demolition of the
Mother House; however, they were divided on the issue of St. Thomas Hall, with the
result that the Commission voted 4-2 for approval of the project with the required
findings. They first made findings as to significant impact, regarding the demoli-
tion of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall. They considered all of the mitigation
measures which were recommended, and they found some of them feasible. In their
final action recommending approval, they required that those mitigation measures be
incorporated. They considered five basic alternatives, and were particularly
interested in Alternative E which calls for salvage and incorporation of some
materials from both the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall. However, on the most
important issue, preserving either or both of the historic structures, they found
that the cost would be too high. They adopted findings of overriding consideration.
Mr. Pendoley noted that he has given details in the staff report about the Commission's
findings, but the gist of the findings was that a better use of the Sisters'
resources would be to promote their mission rather than to preserve these two
buildings. He noted that is outlined in considerable detail in the Resolution the
Commission passed, and in the draft Resolution prepared for the Council's
consideration.
Mr. Pendoley reported that this project was also reviewed by the Cultural Affairs
Commission at some length, and also by the Design Review Board. The Cultural Affairs
Commission held a special meeting on November 16th, to discuss and comment on the
Alternatives; and then discussed the reuse and the proposed demolition of the build-
ings on December 1st. He stated that the Cultural Affairs Commission did concur with
the proposal to demolish the Mother House; however, they voted to recommend to the
Council that St. Thomas Hall not be demolished. Mr. Pendoley explained staff has
tried to reflect that in their summary of the Commission's actions. He added that
the Cultural Affairs Commission also concurred with Alternative E and the various
artifacts to be salvaged and reused in the Master Plan.
Mr. Pendoley stated that the project had a favorable review at the Design Review Board.
They felt strongly that it was very high quality design.
Councilmember Thayer inquired about the tentative Resolution which is before the Council
tonight. She referred to page 6, subsection 2 A and B, compared with K. She noted
that in A, it states the insurance settlement for the fire -damaged Mother House is
$7,300,000. In B it states the estimated demolition and construction costs for the
Sisters' Master Plan, Phases I and II, are $6,400,000. However, Section K states
that the insurance settlement is only sufficient to complete Phase I of the project,
and she inquired how is that so, if the construction costs are $6,400,000. Mr.
Pendoley stated he believes the difference is development costs and contingen- cies.
Councilmember Thayer asked, that with the insurance proceeds, will the Sisters only
be able to complete Phase I at this point in time? Mr. Pendoley replied that is
correct, and suggested the Sisters could give more information on that issue.
Mayor Boro asked for a speaker on behalf of the applicant.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 13
Sister Kristin Wombacher, Prioress General for the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael, gave a
background on the process the Sisters undertook on addressing the loss of their
Mother House. She stated this process has had great significance for the Sisters, as
a congregation. The Mother House fire was a tragic loss for each and every Dominican
Sister of San Rafael, and dealing with that loss has led them through a process which
has had monumental impact on their understanding of who they are today, their
identity, and what they are about, moving into the 21st century - their mission.
Sister Kristin explained that initially they struggled with the question, can they restore
the Mother House? They went through a very long and painful procedure of looking at
all of the feasibility studies, reports, facts and figures, which their consultants
produced. She stated that at some point in the midst of those long, arduous meetings
and that struggle, the question, "Do we want to rebuild the Mother House?" began to
emerge, because they all knew how inadequate and inappropriate the Mother House had
become for their religious lifestyle today. Then, eventually they arrived at the
soul-searching experience of grappling with the question, "How can we, as women
religious, committed to following God's call and serving others, justify spending $12
million to rebuild our Mother House when homelessness, poverty, unem- ployment and
the lack of basic human necessities, are so prevalent in our society today?" She
stated the answer to that question plunged them deeply into the reflec- tion of who
they are and what they are about. Their identity and their mission, and their
commitment to their ministry to serving other people, brought them to the ultimate
decision with great clarity. They could not, and they would not, spend $12 million
on rebuilding the Mother House. For them, it is both a matter of religious values
and of conscience.
Sister Kristen addressed the issue of St. Thomas Hall, the building which was added onto
the Mother House in 1912, providing classrooms and dormitories for the students. She
stated that, again, they have not arbitrarily asked to demolish St. Thomas Hall.
Just as the fire precipitated the Sisters' decision-making about the Mother House, so
too the earthquake of 1989 precipitated their decision-making about St. Thomas Hall.
Like the remains of the Mother House, St. Thomas Hall, subject to City Ordinance No.
1620, cannot stay as it is. Sister Kristen explained that, in terms of the Sisters'
decision-making process, once they had made their decision to demolish the Mother
House, they then considered the adaptive reuse of St. Thomas Hall in place of the
Mother House. Once again, their consultants provided them with facts and figures,
feasibility studies, etc., about the adaptive reuse of St. Thomas Hall. Again, the
cost considerations were beyond their capabilities. However, more importantly, the
Sisters do not fit into St. Thomas Hall. The attempt at the adaptive reuse of St.
Thomas Hall made that very clear. Sister Kristen noted some people have said it
ought to be made to fit the Sisters' needs. However, the adaptive reuse causes very
serious limitations. For example, the placement of the windows means the rooms are
either too big, and therefore there are not enough of them, or they are too small and
coffin -like with 16 -foot ceilings, and really unusable. The office space is seriously
inadequate and the living space is truly incompatible with the community's lifestyle,
placing all of the bedrooms on the third floor which is a safety and security
problem, with all the common areas on the first floor and the offices sandwiched in
between. Therefore, St. Thomas cannot be left the way it is, and the Sisters cannot
use it, since it cannot meet the programmatic needs of the Sisters. Sister Kristin
explained that if they did try to reuse St. Thomas, it would reorient the Master Plan
away from the historic park -like front on Grand Avenue, something which both the
Sisters and the neighbors dearly wish to keep.
Sister Kristin noted that readapting St. Thomas Hall raises a long line of additional
questions. For instance, if we were to reduce St. Thomas Hall, where would the
Sisters now living at St. Thomas be able to live in the meantime? Where would they
put their offices which are now housed in St. Thomas? She stated even if there were
a reasonable place to put them, which there is not, how much more money would that
cost the Sisters, and how much more would the lives of the Sisters be disrupted?
Sister Kristin pointed out that the Sisters' request to demolish these two buildings
is not a request which, if refused, they can just go on living and working the way
they are. They are, and have been, living and working in temporary emergency,
grossly inadequate spaces, and they cannot continue to do so indefinitely. The toll
on the Sisters is too great. The Sisters think the issue is quite clear. The Council
must make a decision about the Master Plan which includes the demolition of the
Mother House and St. Thomas Hall. Should the Council not approve this Master Plan,
they will place an unrealistic burden on the Sisters and will leave them with two
unusable buildings and nowhere to live or work. They will impede the Sisters'
mission, and will prevent the Sisters from serving the people of San Rafael and
beyond, and will burden the citizens of San Rafael with abandoned structures. On the
other hand, by approving the Master Plan, the Council will alleviate the Sisters'
burden and make it possible for us finally, four or five years after the fire, to
have a home and a place to work, and will enable them to carry out their mission,
facilitate their service to the City of San Rafael, and help them to care for their
elderly Sisters, and will return Grand Avenue to a place of beauty. Sister Kristin
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 14
stated they think these factors provide the Council with the overriding benefit that
is necessary for the Council to make their decision.
Sister Kristin reviewed the Dominican Sisters' history in the State of California, going
back to 1850, and noted that the Dominican Order was founded in the 13th century.
She suggested to the Council that it is the Sisters' lives of prayer, dedication and
commitment to serving others which are the real historic presence in the City of San
Rafael, and they believe their historic presence and their service are of greater
benefit to the City of San Rafael than any two buildings, albeit historical. She
noted that the Council has been presented with over 2300 signatures of people from
San Rafael, as well as other areas of Marin County, who support the approval of this
Master Plan. Sister Kristin then asked that anyone in the Council chambers who
supports the Master Plan, including the demolition of the Mother House and St. Thomas
Hall, to please stand. A majority of those present in the chambers stood, in
response.
Sister Kristin pointed out a coincidence of unusual significance to the Sisters. On
December 6, 1850, Dominican Sister Mary Goemare, who began their congregation,
arrived in San Francisco from France and first stepped on California soil to begin a
ministry of service to the people of California. Tonight, December 6, 1993, 143
years to the very day, the Sisters hope the Council will make a decision enabling
them, the followers of Sister Goemare, to continue the work of serving others,
especially those here in San Rafael.
In closing, Sister Kristin pointed out that time is a growing concern for all of the
Sisters, and there is an urgency to their request. For over 3 years they have been
in temporary living and working conditions, and cannot continue this way much longer.
She stated that one of her deepest fears is that there will be delays for one reason
or another. She firmly believes that there is no more information which will make
this decision any clearer or any easier for the Council, and it will be a difficult
decision. She noted that the Sisters remain scattered throughout Northern California,
in inadequate structures and yearn for a real home. She begged the Council not to
prolong that suffering, but to make their decision as quickly as possible. She noted
the Dominican Sisters came here to San Rafael in 1889, long before most of the
current families were here, and they claim to be among the founders of today's San
Rafael, and have served the people of San Rafael in many ways for over 100 years.
She asked that the Council recognize their historic presence and their significant
contribution to the common good of this City by approving their Master Plan and
allowing them to continue to serve the people of San Rafael.
Mayor Boro asked if Sister Kristin would care to answer the question raised by
Councilmember Thayer regarding the funding of Phases I and II. Sister Kristin
replied that Alice Barkley could answer.
Ms. Barkley explained that the Phase I and II construction costs in the EIR do not include
site preparation or development costs such as the money which has been spent in the
process up to this point, or the architectural or other design professional fees.
She stated that when we begin to look at the estimated costs presented in the EIR for
the Mother House renovation, and for St. Thomas Hall, those costs do not include
contingencies for construction, or development costs and design fees. The total cost
would be much higher. The EIR consultant focused on construction and nothing else.
She added that there is enough money to finish the first phase, and perhaps even some
money left over toward the second phase, but it is very doubtful that there would be
sufficient money for both phases, and that is why Phase II is being put far into the
future when they will have the money to proceed.
Councilmember Thayer inquired what will happen to the Sisters if Phase II cannot be built
for a while. She noticed that some of it was for living quarters. Ms. Barkley
replied that the reason why Phase I and Phase II are divided the way they are is that
in Phase II, the building which is the 24 -Sister residence is a single story resi-
dence so that as the Sisters get older and more often cannot climb the stairs, that
is when the need for that will come. At this point, the Lourdes facility, which is
directly across the street, is able to meet the needs of the older Sisters who have
extreme difficulty in moving about and need some assistance. She added that this
Plan is very carefully thought out so it meets their needs in stages. She noted that
some of the Sisters are presently elsewhere, but as time goes on, they will be
returning.
Councilmember Thayer noted that this project exceeds the cost of the insurance, and asked
where the additional money will come from to build Phase II? Ms. Barkley explained
that the Phase II cost could come from a variety of places. She noted the Sisters
are very careful with their money. She explained that they put money aside to take
care of themselves, and though they have a shortfall at present, they feel they will
be able to make it up by managing their money wisely. She noted there are assets
such as the piece of property they own, which is identified in the EIR, and if
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 15
necessary, they can sell the piece of property for residential development. There
are also other resources in place, which they are carefully managing now, for that
eventuality.
Kate Bolton, landscape architect with Eldon Beck Associates in San Rafael, who has worked
on the landscape plan for the Master Plan, stated she would like to address three
items: 1) The basic landscape concept; 2) Reuse of historical elements taken from
the Mother House; and 3) Comments in the EIR about the impacts of the proposed
landscape plan. She noted that Sister Joan Hanna has a drawing on the overhead on
which she will show the audience the same drawing the Council will be shown.
Ms. Bolton described the site, and pointed out the gymnasium and pool, which are not
proposed for change at this time. She noted that the landscape concept is similar to
that of a private home, with a front yard and a back yard. In this case, the front
yard is the crescent driveway area fronting on Grand Avenue. Because of its neighbor-
hood context and historical significance, it will be essentially the same, with minor
changes due to horticultural and safety considerations, but otherwise it will be
essentially the same. She described the courtyard, which transitions into the back
area which contains the private gardens of the Sisters. Also, on the side there is
another enclosed garden area. She noted that the hedge and fence which are around
most of the property will be extended to be continuous all along the back area of the
property. There will not be any around the front crescent, only the back. She added
that they will preserve the large trees on the side as much as possible during the
construction period. They will also preserve the grove of large Redwood trees and
Deodar Cedar in the front area.
Ms. Bolton noted a number of historical items being taken from the Mother House to be
reused, and she will explain about the ones in the landscaping plan. She referred to
the chart with pictures of the artifacts. The finial posts existing at the base of
the Mother House steps will be kept in approximately the same location, at the path
leading up to the community buildings. The Corinthian columns, currently at the top
of the Mother House steps will be used in the private back garden area to create a
Memorial Garden. The ceremonial bell which was used in the Mother House to call to
prayers, and also at funerals, will be in the garden. A couple of garden benches
will be used in the front circle, and the hitching post which is currently near the
Mother House will be returned to its historical location near the circle.
Ms. Bolton briefly summarized the gardens, and noted that it was suggested in the EIR that
the existing separation between the front and rear gardens be maintained, to create
some sort of barrier where the Mother House stood. She noted that separation of the
front and rear gardens is really an artifact of the structure which will no longer be
there, and the Sisters do not want to create or force a new barrier there. They
would like to have a landscape which meets their current vision and needs, so the
idea would be to create something which she calls "Incremental Relationship Access".
She explained that visitors will be allowed access to the various gardens according
to their relationship with the Sisters. The public will be welcomed at the front
door, and some would be invited into the chapel and parlor, and closer family and
friends would be invited into the interior communal rooms. She is trying to create
the same thing in a landscape so that the front portion would be for the public to
enjoy, visually and functionally. The landscape then starts to close down the
access, commencing with the pergola between the two buildings. The courtyard would
be for invited guests, and the most restricted area would be in the back of the
property in the Sisters' private gardens. She stated there will be a separate
identity between the front and rear gardens, physically, functionally and horticul-
turally.
Ms. Bolton noted the EIR states that the front crescent area should remain as it was
historically. However, it has changed over time, and there used to be an orchard in
the southern portion. Also, a number of trees have been allowed to grow up, from
volunteer seedlings, and were not part of the original plan. She noted there had
been a hedge and fence originally, around the whole front area, and it was removed in
1919. The basic point is, there is no particular time to which the garden could be
restored because it has been changing over time. She noted that the EIR states that
a new axis should not be created, going from the circular drive back to the Summer
House. She explained we are not creating an axis, but the elements which create the
axis are already here, and described the features on the plan. She noted that it
goes through the Olive grove and terminates at the Summer House. She noted the only
thing added, with the Mother House gone they have put in a courtyard to make the
transition.
Ms. Bolton reported that the Olive grove was planted about 75 years ago. Normal Olive
trees will grow in an umbrella type form, and the canopy will typically extend at
least 15 feet across. These trees were planted much closer than that, a minimum of
10 feet apart, so instead of having the normal tree form for an Olive, they have a
vase -like form where they have grown up. The canopy is now high up, and they do not
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 16
have the normal form of an Olive tree. They also are in poor condition. At this
point, two landscape architects, one botanist and two separate arborists have looked
at these trees and all have confirmed they are in poor form, poor health and poor
condition. Some trees have broken limbs, and others have "crotch rot". A number of
the Sisters suffer from allergic reaction to the pollen, and the fruit falling on the
paths has been identified as a maintenance concern because of slippery conditions.
She stated the trees are not work keeping. There are other trees among the Olive
trees which are in somewhat the same condition, but they are a different species, and
if the Olive trees are allowed to be removed, these trees could spread their canopies
and there could still be shade and mature trees back there.
Peter Walz, of Treffinger, Walz & MacLeon, architects for the project, stated he feels it
is the best they have ever done. He explained he will talk about the buildings in
general, stating there are actually five buildings. He noted that seven buildings
are referred to, but that includes the two buildings in Phase II, which is in the
future and may be 20 or 25 years from now, and maybe never. We do not know. He
explained that at the future date when the College is not using the gymnasium and
pool, they would like the freedom to be able to build on that general area. At that
time, they would consider doing a second 8 -Sister residence, with a 24 -Sister
facility for the elderly Sisters. He stated we are really looking at Phase IA and IB
as a realistic program for construction over the next two years. There will be two
buildings built as part of Phase A. The 22 -Sister residence, which is on the north
side of the site, is 15,924 square feet, a two-story wood frame building, and is
essentially a house for 22 women. There will be a chapel, a kitchen, community and
workrooms, and will be essentially like a big home. In the center is a landscaped
garden open to the sky, and connecting to the south with the covered trellis, will be
a building with multiple functions. He pointed out the gathering space, to be used
for a variety of purposes, both for social and church purposes. He indicated the
public access, and the Sisters' entry from the back side. He explained this building
is related to the other strictly as an architectural consideration for massing. The
other end of the building, which is the administrative area, is really the largest of
the spaces, and takes the place of what the Sisters are presently using at St. Thomas
Hall for office spaces. This building is wood frame, one story in height, and also
has a feature of a display space. The Sisters wanted to have a room where they could
have scholars come in and examine some of the history of the Order, and they might
have things on exhibit which relate to the Mother House, such as photographs.
Mayor Boro noted that in a preliminary plan at a neighborhood meeting, the architects
talked about that space being created architecturally in a different mode than the
rest of the space. Mr. Walz stated that at one time they had thought about doing
that, and were going to give that portion of the administrative wing very special
treatment. He noted they have 16 glass windows which came from the East side of the
Mother House, four from the sacristy and two from the big corridor which adjoined it.
They are very beautiful and will fit perfectly. The display area has been designed
in such a manner that those windows will all be in use. There are three pairs, so
each facade has two of them. To answer Mayor Boro's question, he explained they had
considered using horizontal siding as an echo of the Mother House, but they later
agreed that it looked better as a part of the entire complex, so they changed their
plans.
Mr. Walz gave a summary of the size of the complex, stating that the 22 -Sister resi- dence
is about 16,000 square feet. The gathering and office building, including the
display space, is a grand sum total of 13,500+ square feet. The 8 -Sister residence,
which is a two-story building, is 4,600 square feet, and the maintenance building is
1,850 square feet and is a one-story structure. That is part of Phase IB which will
be about a year from now. The recreation/storage building, which is the last of the
five, is a little less than 3,000 square feet. The grand sum total of all of these
buildings is a little over 38,000 square feet. The Mother House and St. Thomas
together, were close to 100,000. He noted the space needs are quite modest.
Mr. Walz noted one question which came up was, how do they preserve the landscaping and
still put all of these buildings on the site? He stated they wanted to preserve as
many trees as possible, and they have put the two major structures, Phase IA, in the
center, where the Mother House once stood. He noted that as Ms. Bolton mentioned,
they are making use of the two finial posts at the bottom of the stairs, in approx-
imately the same location. They will mark the entrance to the complex and the trellis
which joins the two major buildings.
Mr. Walz showed the elevations of the buildings and described them as red cedar side wall
shingles for the wall surfaces and a composition shingle for the roof. There will be
a stucco base at the bottom, because it is more durable than the shingles and does
not show water marks as badly. He stated the style of the architecture has been
described as Craftsman. He showed where they had picked up some of the design detail
reminiscent of the Mother House, and first showed the illustration of the Della
Robbia reproductions and stated one will be mounted at the entry point of the 22-
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 17
Sister residence. The other Della Robbia will be at the end of the trellis where
there is a focus point. He also pointed out the entry arch over the big double doors
at the Mother House entry. It will be used in the display space building at the
entry point, and will be visible to the public. He stated that the object of these
buildings is not to compete with the College. These are residential scale buildings
and will have an elegance and simplicity to them, and will not be imposing or
institutional in character.
Alice Suet Yee Barkley, attorney for the Dominican Sisters, stated that Mr. Pendoley has
given the Council a very quick run-through of the requirements on how they arrived at
their decision. He took the Council through the step-by-step Planning Commission
process. She noted the Council has a document before them which is a certified EIR,
and their task is to look at each and every mitigation and alternative proposed and
decide about the feasibility. She stated that after some careful financial consider-
ation, the Council has it within their power to also consider social and economic
factors so their decision does not rest on financial feasibility alone. She noted
that in her letter addressed to the Planning Commission, she outlined a number of
additional considerations the Council can look at, and must look at. She stated
these relate to the age of the Sisters, and the kind of needs they have. She noted
we are talking about a religious community, where there is a difference between
public and private situations, such as when visitors come, they can be invited into
the other spaces when appropriate. When we get to the bed chambers of the Sisters,
it is a truly private space.
Ms. Barkley stated that when talking about adaptive use of either the Mother House or St.
Thomas Hall, you must give consideration to the kind of living arrangements and
intrusion into the privacy of the Sisters. She referred to a letter of November 26,
1993 from Dominican College President Fink, which puts to rest once and for all,
whether or not the College is interested in using St. Thomas Hall or the Mother
House, or is interested in any kind of exchange.
Ms. Barkley informed the Council that once they have decided about feasibility, they must
find the overriding benefits and balance them against the overriding adverse impacts
of the project. She noted the Sisters are not saying the project will not have an
overriding impact. It will. They studied the adapting of the buildings for two
years and rejected it. She noted the Sisters have been in these buildings for over
100 years, and it is not an easy decision for them to make, nor is it for the
Council. She stated she hopes the Council will approve the project as proposed.
Ms. Barkley stated that in response to the question by Councilmember Thayer as to whether
this Master Plan has been revised, it was in response to comments by the Design
Review Board. It had originally called for demolition of the Summer House and was
changed to preserve it.
Mr. Wayne Lechner, a San Rafael resident and community organizer, stated he is not a
preservationist. He stated he got involved in this proposal when a friend took him
to a Planning Commission meeting. He was impressed by Dolores Rogers' group and has
tried to help them. He stated that the Sisters have a well -organized and financed
campaign and asked the Council to give it a fair hearing.
Steve Patterson, a resident of Gerstle Park, stated he lives in a historic house and cares
abut historic structures in San Rafael. He noted he has organized and led historical
tours in San Rafael. He stated that the Mother House is a good example of an
historical institution. The Sisters have changed their mission and have no further
need of it. It is a San Rafael treasure, and we just cannot give it away. He stated
that owners of buildings like this become more than caretakers, and there is
insurance money which could be used to save these buildings. He stated that these
replacements do not make any kind of statement.
Mr. Patterson noted that the Councilmembers have served on the Council for varying periods
and two are quite new. He stated that this Council can shape the future, step back
from this fray and ask how this decision will be viewed ten years from now, and how
will they? He asked how many buildings in the future will be put at risk because the
mission of the owner has changed? He stated he hopes there will be none. He stated
that a decision to demolish these buildings would be very sad and would lack any
vision.
Mr. Lionel Ashcroft, member of this historic community, stated he considers the
preservation of historic resources in this community. He stated we are actually
putting out money to have the historic Boyd Gate House repainted and support the
preservation of Falkirk. He added he went through the Mother House building very
carefully and has taken photographs of it. He is also a qualified engineer from both
England and Canada and has worked on buildings up to 150,000 square feet. He stated
that the first time he heard the Sisters' plans was in December of last year, and
since then, he has attended many meetings. He has come to realize, and has become
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 18
quite sensitive to, the opposition to demolition. He stated he values others'
opinions, especially those who are professionals in the business. He noted we have
moved through the certification of the EIR and have come to a larger issue.
Mr. Ashcroft stated the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of any group to pursue
their belief. He noted that the Sisters cannot continue to meet the needs of the
community under the present conditions. He added Mr. Patterson feels that the
building transcends the needs of the Sisters, and he feels the opposite. The Sisters,
who are the historic resource of the community, transcend the need of a building,
especially a building which is as badly damaged as this. He urged the Council to
allow the Sisters to proceed with their Master Plan as proposed.
Jim Finkelstein, a citizen of San Rafael, stated the Sisters did not ask for this property
to burn down, and we would not be here if it had not burned down. He noted that what
we read in the historical journals is about people, not buildings. He added that St.
Thomas Hall is not feasible nor accessible, and we are bringing it into the public
domain. He stated he cannot stand in judgment of the Sisters and is not sure anyone
can. He recommended looking at what they have done over the years. He stated that
the two new members of the Council should join in showing we can make progress and
let these Sisters move forward.
Mrs. Elissa Giambastiani, a 28 -year resident of San Rafael, stated she supports the
Planning Commission decision to allow the Sisters to demolish the Mother House and
St. Thomas Hall. She added they have dedicated their lives to this community and did
not make their decision to demolish these buildings lightly. They are trying to make
the best decision to allow them to continue their service to the community into the
next century. She stated she truly believes that St. Thomas cannot be adapted to
fulfill the future needs of the work life, the home life and the spiritual life of
the Sisters. She noted that facilities which were appropriate decades ago are not
necessarily appropriate into the '90s. She added that St. Thomas was designed to be
a school, and was not designed to be a home, or office building, or a chapel. She
stated she has been to many meetings here and at the County, where one segment of the
population is often telling other people what to do with their property. She
believes that the Sisters have been dealing with the alternatives more fairly than
anyone could possibly be. They have sensitively designed a beautiful complex which
will fit into the Dominican neighborhood and will not detract from the property
values of their neighbors. She stated they have a right to create their future home
as they envision it, as long as it benefits and does not detract from the community.
She stated this design would truly be beneficial to the community, and she urged the
Council to approve the Master Plan.
Mr. Frank Keaton stated he was born and raised in San Rafael and attended St. Raphael's
School where he was taught by the Dominican Sisters, for which he will ever be
grateful. He stated that as he watched the fire engulf the convent, he was reminded
of another fire, a little over two blocks away, on a Sunday in July of 1928, at the
magnificent Hotel Rafael which had been built in 1888. It was not rebuilt after the
fire, because times had changed and it could no longer function as it had. He stated
he believes the Sisters face the same challenge today. Times have changed and the
Mother House does not answer their needs today. He stated, consider the cost of $12
million for the Mother House, $8 million for St. Thomas. He asked, could we put such
a burden on the Sisters when it will not serve their needs? He stated the Sisters
have been separated from their home for 3-1/2 years. You can give them a wonderful
Christmas gift and help our City. Allow them to proceed with their Master Plan, and
the Sisters then can return home to be together and carry out their vows of their
community support. Mr. Keaton said he believes the neighbors, historical groups, and
citizens will point with pride when they drive up Grand Avenue and say that is the
new Mother House of the Dominican Order.
Monsignor Richard Knapp, paster of St. Raphael's Church and responsible for the
maintenance of Mission San Rafael Archangel, stated he does not have the expertise
regarding historical buildings which some others have expressed this evening, but in
his 38 years as a priest, he has spent 28 of them assigned to a parish which was a
Historical Landmark and still is. He noted he had served at St. Patrick's in San
Francisco and was pastor of Mission Dolores for ten years. He stated he has par-
ticipated in efforts to preserve St. Patrick's Church after a major fire at a
neighboring building and improvements at Mission Dolores. He stated he mentioned
those facts to show his interest in the historical buildings in the Bay Area. How-
ever, he has seen situations in which circumstances dictated against the preservation
of buildings of some historical value. He stated that, as the consultants have
pointed out this evening, each case must be handled on an individual basis. In the
situation now under consideration, he does not believe that the circumstances warrant
the expenditure which would be required to rebuild the Mother House or retrofit St.
Thomas Hall, especially when it would involve bringing both buildings up to Code. He
stated the Final EIR which the Council certified this evening seems to bear this out.
He added that the Sisters have made it clear that for them the restoring of the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 19
Mother House and retrofitting of St. Thomas Hall is not financially feasible. They
consider that such an expenditure, even if it were all donated, would be contrary to
their Christian and Catholic mission, a mission that places the priority, if it must
be placed, on saving human beings and saving souls, rather than saving buildings.
Monsignor Knapp stated that the priests of St. Raphael's go to St. Thomas Hall on a daily
basis to celebrate Mass with the Sisters, as they had done at the Mother House for
decades before the disastrous fire. He stated the priests can testify to the
difficult living conditions of the Sisters at St. Thomas Hall, especially the
climbing up and down two long flights of stairs any number of times each day. Also,
their makeshift chapel, a classroom adapted for this purpose, hardly offers the
atmosphere of prayer that they experienced in the Mother House chapel, and that they
look forward to their new proposed living area. He stated that, taking all of these
things into account, he encourages the Council to vote in favor of the Sisters'
Master Plan.
Ms. Dolores Rogers stated she wanted to remind the group before the decision is made that
you have a building which was badly damaged by fire, and the costs involved which
were in the EIR you evidently did not want to explore. She stated that St. Thomas
Hall is a building in perfect condition and very sturdy. It needs seismic retro-
fitting, and it seems a shame for it to be a parking lot, which is where it is
headed. She stated that the mention of heating and other necessities for comfort
being too costly, are all covered in the line items in the report. Also, the
adaptive use of St. Thomas Hall would necessitate an additional building or two, and
there is no reason she can think of why the extra building could not be the
administrative building. She noted that two members of the Planning Commission did
not approve the Master Plan, and she would hate to see this happen so quickly when
the adaptive uses were not given full consideration.
Sister Patricia Lyon, a resident of San Rafael for her entire religious life, stated she
has had the privilege of educating many of Marin's prominent citizens and many of
their children, both at St. Raphael's School and the Dominican Garden School. She
stated she is certain the Council realizes the devastation the Sisters felt when they
suffered the ravages of the fire that destroyed the Mother House, along with the
inconveniences and the suffering they have endured these past 3-1/2 years living in a
converted school building, namely St. Thomas Hall. She noted that incidentally,
there is a notice on two entrances, placed by the City, reading "St. Thomas Hall is
potentially hazardous because it is partially or totally constructed of unreinforced
masonry. Enter at your own risk." It is signed, City of San Rafael, Ordinance No.
1587.
Sister Patricia noted that Dominican Sisters have served Marin County's residents for over
100 years in various ministries. It is vital and necessary that they have adequate
living conditions in order to carry on their work for the citizens of Marin. For the
sake of all of them, Sisters and neighbors, she asked the Council to consider
seriously and with compassionate hearts, their great needs and grant them the permit
for the demolition of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall, and accept their Master
Plan as presented, which will enhance the Dominican neighborhood.
Miss Leslie Simons, a San Rafael resident, stated this has always been an either/or
situation. Either we get our Plan, or we leave. She stated she wishes all of the
alternatives could be explored, but it is too late for that. She stated Dominican
has many land holdings in the area. She stated that the use of Forest Meadows has
not been explored. She stated that twenty years from now this action will be
considered a folly of the worst kind. She noted that St. Thomas Hall was forgotten
in the historic building survey conducted some time ago. She stated she would
suggest saving St. Thomas Hall, and building a multiple functional building on the
site of the Mother House.
There being no further public input, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing and called for
Council discussion.
Councilmember Cohen stated this has been a difficult and painful decision making process
for the Council, as it was for the Sisters. He stated he is a carpenter and takes
pride in his craft, and has abiding interest in the type of buildings we no longer
get to construct. He stated the Mother House was a marvelous example, and it was a
tragedy for all of us when it was lost, and we now have to make a decision about how
we go forward. He stated he would love to find some alternative and not be faced
with making a choice, but the reality is that we are faced with making a choice. He
stated he has read all of the material and has listened carefully and met with
advocates for preserving the structures at almost any expense. In the final
analysis, he was swayed by the notion that there are competing historic values in
this decision. He noted that Mr. Patterson spoke about whether we would allow the
owner of any historic building to come in and say they changed their mind and did not
want to use it this way so they were going to tear it down. He stated that if the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 20
original owner of an historic building were to come in and say he has been in this
building for over 100 years and through a tragic event it no longer meets my needs
and I cannot afford to rebuild it, that is the situation we are faced with tonight.
We have an historic owner who has served San Rafael and our larger community for
many, many years and desires to continue to do so, in light of today's realities.
Placed against that, we have the historic value of the buildings. He stated he
wishes he did not have to make this choice, but he is going to have to choose for the
living, and not for the buildings.
Councilmember Zappetini stated his family has been in San Rafael since 1860, and they have
seen a lot of changes. He believes, in listening to all of the testimony and reading
the record, that the good outweighs the bad, and that the only real good will be to
take the buildings down and build a new facility.
Councilmember Thayer agreed with Councilmember Cohen, that it is a tragedy that we lost
the Mother House. She stated it is as difficult a decision for the Sisters as it is
for the Council. She stated there is more to the character of a building than just
its architecture. The character of a building is shown by its history, by its use,
and by the people who inhabit it. She stated the most valuable thing we are left
with after these two tragedies are the wonderful women out there who inhabit its
buildings. She stated she would like to do something for them. She feels the new
plan is very aesthetically pleasing, and also utilitarian. This Master Plan is one
which will serve the Sisters well and take them into the future. Therefore, she is going
to approve this project.
Councilmember Heller noted it was mentioned that a couple of Councilmembers are new, and
she is new on the Council; however, she has sat through meetings on this proposal for
many months on the Planning Commission and it has been interesting to hear new points
each time. She stated she thinks these hearings are very good even though they are
time consuming. She stated that what we all need to remember is that the Sisters
were brought to this point through two tragic events, an earthquake and a fire. She
agrees with the Planning Commission findings that the proposed Master Plan is
generally consistent with the General Plan of San Rafael. She stated she has heard
that the Sisters are caretakers only, and she is sure that they would have continued
to be wonderful caretakers of these buildings except for the two events which
happened. She stated the Sisters have worked with the community, and have gone out
and talked with the community, and she certainly was overwhelmed with the evidence
when she received a total of 2,135 pieces of paper in their favor. She stated she
feels the neighbors are supportive of the changes in the Sisters' lifestyle and their
plan to rebuild their lives. She feels the buildings should be demolished to allow
the Sisters to move forward with their Master Plan and with their lives.
Mayor Boro stated he agrees with all of the comments by the Council. He stated the issue
is that during the time the Sisters have been present in this building, they have
maintained it and that in past years before the fire, they maintained it even though
it was not meeting their needs, but they maintained it because they knew it meant so
much to the community. He stated the event we all talked about tonight was something
which was not caused, but something which happened, and we have to react to it. He
stated we need to react to the changes before us. Their mission has not changed, but
has always been the same. The circumstances changed, and now they are trying to
reconfigure where they are going to go. He stated he lives in the Dominican
neighborhood, and he thinks it is interesting that there was no one here tonight who
stated they lived in Dominican and were opposed to the proposal. He stated he had
received one call from a Dominican neighborhood resident who was opposed. He noted
that the Sisters have talked to their neighbors, and the neighbors approved the plan.
Mayor Boro stated that when he was reading the staff report, he studied the over- riding
findings and found that the most significant one was the first. It states, "Approval
of the project will allow the Sisters to continue their presence in San Rafael at the
same location which has been their home in San Rafael for 100 years." He stated he
thinks it is important to find a way to preserve the presence of the Sisters in our
community, and he thinks that is what this action will do. He asked if a
Councilmember would like to make a motion.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to first add a comment. He noted there were a
number of people who commented on the potential for adaptive reuse of St. Thomas
Hall, and that merits some recognition by the Council. He knows we have all weighed
it and considered it, and he is convinced by the evidence in the record, which is
fairly clear, on the difficulties of providing for adaptive reuse of St. Thomas Hall
for the Sisters. He noted that one speaker commented that there had not been suffi-
cient discussion of alternative locations or property exchange. He does not think
that relocating this Order to preserve that building is not a balance which he could
strike. To him, the importance of allowing the Sisters to remain on the same property
and continue to carry out their mission, outweighs the value of St. Thomas. He does
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 21
not believe that St. Thomas was left off the historic registry through some ulterior
motive when the survey was done. He noted it was not really a community resource
until it came into focus as a result of this process. He stated he had carefully
considered that, but was not swayed by it.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution
approving the Sisters of Saint Dominic Master Plan, including the demolition of the
Mother House, St. Thomas Hall, and all other existing ancillary buildings except for
two garages; 1520 Grand Avenue.
Mayor Boro noted that includes the section of the Resolution with the overriding
considerations.
RESOLUTION NO. 9075 - APPROVING THE SISTERS OF SAINT DOMINIC MASTER PLAN APPLICA-
TIONS, INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE MOTHER HOUSE, ST.
THOMAS HALL, AND ALL OTHER EXISTING ANCILLARY BUILDINGS
(EXCEPT FOR TWO GARAGES), 1520 Grand Avenue; Sisters of St.
Dominic, Owners; Peter Walz/TWM Architects, Representatives;
AP 15-142-02.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT
TO THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (RE: Z92-2, SISTERS OF ST. DOMINIC MASTER
PLAN, 1520 GRAND AVENUE, AP 15-142-02)"
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading
of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter
Ordinance No. 1656 to print by the following vote, to wit:
(City Attorney Ragghianti stated there is a correction to be made. The last paragraph on
the first page should read, "...made and set forth in Resolution No. 93-10 of the San
Rafael Planning Commission...") The motion makers accepted the change.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
14.PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5, TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, TO ADD TRIP
REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND REQUIREMENTS (Pl) - File 11-1 x 11-11
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened.
There being no public input, the Public Hearing was closed.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5, TRAFFIC
REGULATIONS TO ADD TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND REQUIREMENTS."
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading
of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter
Ordinance No. 1657 (as required by Proposition 111), to print by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
15a.CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (CC) - File 9-1
Mayor Boro asked for a motion for Vice -Mayor of the City Council.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to nominate Council -
member Joan Thayer as Vice -Mayor.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 22
Mayor Boro then asked for nominations of Chair and Vice -Chair of the Redevelopment Agency,
to be reaffirmed at the Annual Redevelopment Agency meeting.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to nominate Mayor Boro as
Chair of the Redevelopment Agency.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to nominate Councilmember
Thayer as Vice -Chair of the Redevelopment Agency.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro then read the following appointments to Boards and Committees which were
discussed and approved by the Council:
City/School Liaison Committee
League of California Cities
North Bay Division
City Representative to Association of Bay Area
Governments
County Priority Setting Committee
(Re Community Development Block Grant
Funds - CDBG)
San Rafael Sanitation District
Countywide Planning Agency
Mobile Homeowners Associations Liaison
Marin County Waste Management Advisory Committee
Re AB 939
Advisory Committee for the County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan Liaison
101 Corridor Action Committee
CATV (Cablevision Joint Powers Authority)
East San Rafael Neighborhood Task Force
St. Vincent DePaul Advisory Committee
San Rafael Business Issues Committee
22
Albert J. Boro
Joan Thayer
Paul Cohen (Alt.)
Barbara Heller
Joan Thayer (1st Alt.)
Albert J. Boro (2nd Alt.)
Barbara Heller
Albert J. Boro (Alt.)
Joan Thayer
(Robert Roumiguiere)
Albert J. Boro
Paul Cohen
Barbara Heller (Alt.)
Albert J. Boro
Paul Cohen (1st Alt.)
Joan Thayer (2nd Alt.)
Joan Thayer
Joan Thayer
Joan Thayer
Fire Chief Robert Marcucci,
Staff Liaison
Albert J. Boro
Paul Cohen (Alt.)
David J. Zappetini
Albert J. Boro
Suzanne Golt, Staff Liaison
(until June, 1994)
Paul Cohen
Barbara Heller
Albert J. Boro
David J. Zappetini
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page 23
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
RE: HEARING ON COUNTYWIDE PLAN - File 191 x 10-2
Councilmember Cohen reminded the Councilmembers about the hearing on the Countywide Plan
before the County Board of Supervisors tomorrow, December 7, 1993, at 3:00 PM and
asked if any Councilmember could attend. It was agreed that Principal Planner Jean
Hasser would be asked to attend. Councilmember Thayer stated she would try to
attend.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1994
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/6/93 Page
23