HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1988-03-17 @ 7:30SRCC MINUTES (Special 3/17/88 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ON THURSDAY, MARCH 17,
1988 AT 7:30 PM.
SPECIAL MEETING
San Rafael City Council Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
Albert J. Boro, Councilmember
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City
Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) - SAN RAFAEL
GENERAL PLAN 2000 - File 115
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened, stating this is the
first public hearing held to consider aspects of parts of the General
Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. He noted that tonight's meeting
is to discuss the EIR, a companion to the General Plan that lists the
impacts of the various plans and alternatives within the Draft Plan that
suggest policy steps to be taken should the proposed General Plan be adopted.
He indicated that discussions would be on the adequacy of the EIR, and
stated that all commentary received tonight will be responded to in writing.
Mayor Mulryan mentioned the following who have sent in written commentaries
indicating they will have written responses sent to them: Canal Community
Alliance, Sierra Club Marin Group and Zack Cowan (Sierra Club Marin Group).
STAFF PRESENTATION - Jeff Baird, Planning Consultant for Proposed Draft
General Plan
Jeff Baird stated the staff report provides a chronology of events which
have occurred up to this point. The environmental analysis in the EIR
was prepared concurrently with the development of the Plan so staff could
integrate environmental analysis, data collection and other factors into
the Plan.
He stated the first Draft EIR was published in November, 1986, when the
first Draft Plan was released. Based on public comments, Planning Commission
review and staff analysis, an EIR Addendum was prepared that went into
additional environmental analysis. Once the Planning Commission completed
its review and changes to the Draft General Plan which occurred over a
one year time period between November 1986 and November 1987, the Planning
Commission directed the Planning staff to prepare and re -circulate a revised
Draft EIR that would evaluate the Planning Commission recommended Draft
General Plan. The revised DEIR was released for public review on February
5, 1988 and public review period within which public comments would be
received ends March 21, 1988.
Staff will respond to comments from tonight's meeting and any written
comments received /sent by March 21, 1988, and a response to "comments
document" will be prepared. This document and the Draft EIR will comprise
the Final EIR which will be considered for certification by the City Council
at a noticed public meeting.
Mr. Baird stated the EIR is an informational document intended to inform
the public and decision makers of the significant environmental effects
of the Planning Commission recommended Draft Plan. It identifies ways
to minimize significant effects and describe reasonable alternatives.
Much of the background in the Plan is incorporated into the Draft EIR,
and many of the Plan policies provide nearly all of the mitigation measures
called for in the EIR.
Mr. Baird stated the alternatives in the EIR are intended to test a variety
of different development approaches. These alternatives evaluate impacts
relative to whether they are more or less severe than the Draft Plan,
and they also identify major policy options.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Special., 3/17/88 Page 2
Mr. Baird stated in terms of the approach in the EIR, the Planning Commis-
sion recommended draft Plan is the "project".
Mayor Mulryan called for public comments.
Zack Cowan, Attorney, representing Marin Group of the Sierra Club, 66
Mint Street, San Francisco, 94103.
Mr. Cowan submitted his comments to the Planning staff.
Mr. Cowan stated the EIR is biased in favor of the Planning Commission's
recommended Plan and against Environmental Protection alternative. It
starts out with overbroad comments about what the City can and cannot
do and ignores the fact that the City can legally prohibit development
on land if it is unsafe and not appropriate for development. He indicated
by setting the stage, the EIR pre -supposes that the Maximum Environmental
Protection alternative will cost the City millions of dollars, and stated
this is not so.
He said "holding capacity" numbers in the DEIR are not justified, and
makes the Maximum Environmental Protection alternative look ridiculously
small and that it isn't necessarily. He indicated that by looking at the
Maximum Environmental Protection alternative in a very inflexible way
and by not suggesting obvious mitigation measures, the Maximum Environmental
Protection would not produce enough density to allow for good transit
service. He said the DEIR does not mention the mitigation of permitting
further density in some areas of downtown and Bay mud "to the extent density
is appropriate there". He said there are confusing comments about the
fiscal impacts of the alternatives which imply that the Draft General
Plan would be fiscally feasible although it does not mention over what
period of time the Plan would have negative fiscal impacts, and a couple
of pages later it admits it would not, therefore it is confusing.
Mr. Cowan said the impression is that the EIR does not favor the Maximum
Environmental Protection alternative and this is a fairly serious flaw.
Mr. Cowan stated it ignores mitigations involving lower growth, either
the Level of Service C plan or Maximum Environmental Protection plan.
He said the DEIR identifies impacts and mitigations from the preferred
Plan; demands for greater sewer capacity, greater water supply, water
quality, impacts for building on steep slopes, air quality from general
growth, exposure to geological hazards from building on steep slopes and
below them and proposes some mitigations. He said they are not altogether
effective and refuse to admit the possibility of less growth as a mitigation
that could be included in the Plan. He said the DEIR ignores growth inducing
impacts and mitigations.
Mr. Cowan stated the EIR identifies so called mitigations for Wetlands
but they are not complete. It points out that other agencies such as Fish
and Wild Life and the Corps of Engineers will take care of Wetlands and
the City does not have to worry about it. He said that is not the case;
Wetlands can under certain circumstances be developed. He said if the
City wants to take care of that problem and address it in the context
of its Plan it will have to do so, and the EIR should recognize that and
recommend realistic mitigation measures. He said the mitigation measures
that are recommended are over -general and vague and in some cases impracti-
cal, leaving the question open as to what is going to happen. He said
it does not address not building on Wetlands.
Regarding water, water supply and sewer capacity; the only mitigation
is that, "we will just have to get some water", which ignores all the
growth inducing impacts of building more capacity or getting more water
supply.
On the whole, Mr. Cowan stated the EIR addresses lots of issues but he
can trace the bias all the way through.
John Holtzclaw, representing Marin Group of the Sierra Club, 1508 Taylor,
San Francisco
Mr. Holtzclaw spoke on the EIR's adverse impacts of the Draft General
Plan 2000, including loss of Diked Wetlands, Riparian Lands, threats to
endangered species inhabiting those lands, loss of agricultural lands,
traffic congestion, energy consumption, air pollution, water pollution,
compromised water supply, exceeding sewage capacity, seismic flooding
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Specia 3/17/88 Page 3
and toxic threats to workers' and residents' safety. Also, he pointed
out that the most important asset in San Rafael is its excellent natural
environment and the biggest problem is traffic congestion. He felt the
EIR/Plan should improve San Rafael's important assets and solve or not
make worse the traffic problems.
He suggested that the Minimal Growth, Maximum Environmental Protection
alternative in the DEIR be modified in the following ways: Alternative
Section 1) Allow development above .2 units per acre ori areas underlain
by Bay mud; 2) Consult with local neighborhoods before approving specific
development proposals; 3) light rail vehicles, (street cars) on the North-
west Pacific Right -of -Way; 4) Impose strict limits on development until
101 Cooridor Condition report is completed and guidelines for Development
and Transportation Improvements have been established, 5) Phase transitway
and highway construction to meet Level of Service "C" traffic on local
roads; 6) Adopt additional safety provisions to retain trees, reduce rain
runoffs and flooding hazards, and to protect people from toxic releases
from development on polluted sites.
He said these suggestions were made earlier but except for one not named
on this list, the recommendations were not made. He said this Maximimum
Environmental Protection proposal would better preserve Wetlands, Seasonal
Wetlands, Diked Wetlands, and would therefore better protect the nine
endangered or threatened species the EIR identifies as residing in San
Rafael Wetlands and Riparian Lands, among others that are not idendified.
He indicated we have already lost over 90 percent of Wetlands in the Bay
Area and cannot afford to lose more; that when these lands are gone the
species on these lands are also lost. He suggested because of some confusion
of what is actually Wetlands and what is not, what is protected by Fish
and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers and what is not, that the staff,
members of the Council, Sierra Club, Corps of Engineers and the Fish and
Wildlife get together and tour these lands with the owners of the lands
in question: Silveira, St. Vincent, Marin Ranch Airport and lands in East
San Rafael to identify which lands are Wetlands and protected by the Corps
of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife, so the owners of those lands are not
misled by putting money into developing plans and not being able to do
so. The Sierra Club volunteered to help in arranging such a meeting.
Mr. Holtzclaw stated without Wetlands the Bay could become a dead polluted
body of water. Protecting and recovering Wetlands would reduce runoff
of polluted water from impervious surfaces into streams and the Bay and
would also reduce additional pollution from traffic created by development
on those lands. He said the Maximum Environmental Proposal would allow
development on infill sites underlain by Bay mud. Infill development on
such sites at densities identified in the Plan with the advice of the
neighborhood seems appropriate and would allow enough growth within the
City and would improve Marin's environment. He said infill growth at densi-
ties encouraging walking and transit use near downtown or other employment
centers has lower impact on traffic, air pollution and loss of natural
land than sprawl growth does. He said compact growth and a downtown pedes-
trian mall could enchance San Rafael's small town pedestrian nature and
increase shopping convenience. He stated such quality growth on Bay mud
would allow San Rafael to remain a Regional Service Center, thereby elimi-
nating the eighth assumption of Alternative I, that it would no longer
be a regional service center. He said buildout to the Draft General Plan
limit is not necessary to San Rafael's economic health; infill and innova-
tive revitalization of existing commercial areas can provide an adequate
tax base and Regional Service Center diversification.
Referring to Page 56, he said the Bay Area has not reached the air quality
standards of the Clean Air Act, but, in fact, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District projects that as traffic grows in the future that
air pollution will get worse after the year 2000, so one cannot say that
we are going to allow continued sprawl growth that will increase traffic
congestion. He said limiting future auto mileage increases could improve
Regional and Local Air Quality.
Mr. Holtzclaw stated at the growth levels of the Maximum Environmental
Protection Alternative, water and sewerage treatment requirements are
lower than those of Draft General Plan 2000. He said the EIR documents
the recent lack of success of water conservation while citing the need
for a 15 percent reduction of total water consumption in the next five
years, (page 114). He said the holding capacity of the Planning Area with
and without water conservation should be carefully re-evaluated and develop-
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 4
ment should be limited to present system capacity with strong conservation
measures implemented. He said the EIR should document these water conserva-
tion measure and their impacts.
He stated the Maximum Environmental Protection Alternative would limit
traffic buildup on local streets and provide more transit and pedestrian
opportunities than the same level of development at lower densities, but
the proposed improvements to Highway 101 will not reduce traffic congestion
because of latent demand. There are many people willing to move further
away from work and shop further away from where they live to keep the
traffic congestion at the level it is now on the freeway, because it is
an acceptable level to many people. If it was not, they would either live
closer to work or take transit. He said since Highway 101 would remain
congested, adequate 101 bypass improvements and transit must precede the
approval of projects generating additional traffic. He stated light rail
transit operating on the Northwest Pacific Right -of -Way would offer a
new north/south transit alternative to people who do not want to be stuck
on the freeway; would be quieter, less polluting and more energy conserving
than the busway as well as having a higher capacity and being less threaten-
ed by conversion to a highway in the future.
He recommended new legislation to prevent development from reducing foliage
cover on hillsides to reduce rain run-noff and flooding hazards. He said
an ordinance to prohibit the removal of trees without City approval would
also retain rain run-off as well as preserving the natural environment.
He recommended a new ordinance requiring firms to divulge what toxic or
flammable materials exist on their site to enhance the safety of citizens
and firefighters. He also recommended removal of toxics on sites before
construction to protect future residents, workers or shoppers on those
sites.
Mr. Douglas Colbert, Member,Board of Directors, Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary
District
Mr. Colbert stated input from government agencies has not been considered
or at least not addressed adequately. He referred to a letter of September
11, 1987 which he indicated was not responded to. He stated comments from
the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District were sent to the City in Septem-
ber 1986 and staff responded in June 1987. He said the Board carefully
reviewed and disagreed with many of the comments made by City staff. He
stated comments made by the Board were disregarded and concluded in most
cases, "no recommended change". The Board then evaluated each of the City's
responses carefully and recognized that some of their comments were not
fully explained, and many were not adequately addressed. The Board then
drafted and restructured the comments for inclusion into the final EIR
and General Plan, which he had with him. He indicated the report was sent
to the Mayor and Chairman of the Planning Commission because they thought
their comments were important and would be taken seriously, but stated
it appears their comments were ignored a second time.
Mr. Colbert said the most serious concerns in their report related to
building on Bay mud and an odor easement. He stated that building on Bay
mud brings up serious problems. He indicated that staff responses to their
original comment was that there are engineering solutions to building
on Bay mud, stating that they do not always work and cited Santa Venetia
as an example. He stated this week the Board of Directors was notified
of a new problem at Captain's Cove indicating that at the time Captain's
Cove was getting its sewer system, the Board decided it should be a private
system because eventually it would fail and it is starting to fail. So
it is only a matter of time for sewer failure in Bay mud.
He stated another concern is the Odor Buffer which is not addressed in
the EIR, and that an easement is what the Board prefers. Mr. Colbert stated
a solution could be a wide road with a planted border going around the
plant. He understood that a road is being planned around the plant.
He stated that should the City fail to include the Las Gallinas Sanitary
District's recommendations in the EIR and General Plan, the Board would
be obligated to take action to protect the District and taxpayers from
future lawsuits.
SRCC MINUTES (Speciall 3/17/88 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Specia 3/17/88 Page 5
Councilmember Frugoli, referring to the buffer zone, stated that CEQA
-makes certain that when a sewer agency is planned, a buffer zone is a
part of it. He also stated that the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District
would have to maintain the buffer zone.
Mr. Colbert responded he was not certain whether they were required to
purchase a buffer zone, indicating many other sewer districts do not have
one. He said if there is a requirement the Districts are not going according
to the law. He said they would insist that a buffer zone or something
be included in the DEIR Plan.
Mayor Mulryan stated the City cannot mandate that the District buy land
for a buffer zone.
Senior Planner Freitas added that the land adjacent or near the plant
is not proposed for development within the time frame of the Plan.
Ms. Shirley Fischer, 19 Cermenho Ct., San Rafael
Ms. Fischer stated there is a substantial amount of confusion about the
appropriateness of what kind of input goes where in this hearing process.
Her understanding is that to certify the EIR, it must describe the Environ-
mental Impacts of the Plan, and asked what happens if the Plan is changed,
indicating the EIR would need to be revised to cover any changes made.
Mayor Mulryan responded that the EIR has various planned alternatives
within it and attempts to address within each of those alternatives, the
impacts of the alternatives if that were the version to be passed.
Ms. Fischer spoke on policy C-2 under Circulation which describes the
standard of traffic for peak hour traffic at major roads and intersections
in San Rafael. She said Policy C-2 sets mid -Level "D" as the Level of
Service standard of traffic. She pointed out that a new provision has
been added to this policy since the last revision of the Plan. The policy
now states that it allows the City to "consider accepting the bottom of
Level of Service "D" on an interim or longer basis for projects which
provide a high percentage of units of affordable to lower moderate income
households, high tax generating uses or needed neighborhood service uses.
Many of the projects being proposed would fit into one or more of those
categories; essentially this provision gives the City the descretion to
decrease the Standard Level of Service of Traffic from mid -D to lower
D at their descretion. She said the bottom of Level of Service "D" is
virtually indistinguishable from the top of Level of Service "E" so in
essence we have a Plan which says the standard can be lower Level of Service
"D"/upper Level of Service "E" rather than mid -Level of Service "D". She
said the EIR, which describes the impacts of an alternative with a mid -Level
of Service "D" Standard of Traffic is not adequate because it does not
describe what this additional provision includes in the Plan. She mentioned
that this is a very significant policy change in the Plan and cited Alter-
native 3 which discusses a plan based on the Level of Service "E" traffic.
She said Alternative 3 identifies numerous negative impacts on the quality
of life and on the business community; she said several statements come
to the conclusion that if you set a lower level of service standard, such
as Level of Service "E" - in the future it may be impossible to raise
the level of traffic to a better level because the cost of the additional
traffic improvements would be prohibitive for new development beyond that
time. She indicated the EIR no longer describes what the Plan is saying
as it is not adequately describing impacts of this provisions; also, this
provision is in opposition to what the general trend for the General Plan
has been in the two years she has been following it. She asked Council
to seriously consider this provision and recommended that it be eliminated
because the descretion to lower the level of traffic service does not
give any kind of cushion to traffic projections being inaccurate or any
of the other things that may crop up in the years this Plan is implemented.
She said another item has to do with the continuing refusal to include
in the Plan, any standards for non -peak hours of service. She stated that
Associate Civil Engineer -Traffic Rumsey has stated that the second busiest
hour of traffic is already at 90-95 percent of the peak hour volume. The
Plan itself and the EIR state that the peak traffic time in San Rafael
is 2.5 to 3 hours. She said the Plan advocates Transportation Management
Systems which would increase non -peak hour traffic and advocates retail
development which has large amounts of noontime and other non -peak hour
traffic. She said the EIR does not adequately describe the impact of this
SRCC MINUTES (Special0 3/17/88 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Specia_ 3/17/88 Page 6
Plan on traffic in San Rafael by describing the impact on one hour of
'traffic a day. She said there must be standards in the Plan for non -peak
hours and the EIR must analyze the effect on non -peak hours for it to
be an adequate EIR. She indicated the counter argument that there is no
precedent to non -peak standards does not "hold water" when you consider
the impact of the possibility of congested traffic throughout the day
which this Plan would allow. She stated citizens of San Rafael would find
it acceptable to have traffic congestion for one hour per day but not
for prolonged periods of time during the day. She said there are no safe-
guards in this Plan to prevent that and in fact, the Plan encourages increase
of traffic at non -peak times.
Her third point referred to the DEIR's inadequacy in describing the impact
on water resources in San Rafael and Marin County and the State of Califor-
nia.
Ms. Fischer indicated the Plan and EIR state that the amount of develop-
ment projected to the year 2000 will not bring the Marin Municipal Water
District beyond its net safe yield level, which is the amount of water
you can use up within one year and still have enough left for drought,
but are based on two erroneous assumptions. She said it assumes nobody
else in the area served by the Marin Municipal Water District will build
anything by the year 2000. However, she said the District includes Hamilton
Air Force Base and all the eastern Marin cities south of Novato. She said
this analysis also includes an assumption that the citizens of the Marin
Municipal Water District who have increased their water consumption annually
as much as 2 and 3 percent for the last 10 years, will all of a sudden
stop increasing their consumption and in fact decrease it. She stated
these are erroneous assumptions and said the analysis is also based on
a conservation program by the Water District to decrease consumption by
15 percent over the next five years -She referred to a newspaper article
dated February 29, 1988, where the Board of the Water District stated
they have given up on their conservation program because they find it
unrealistic for residential users who compose 77 percent of their consumers.
She said the District is now seeking additional water supplies for existing
and projected development in San Rafael and other areas they serve. There-
fore, the idea that we will not be needing new water resources during
the life of this Plan is a myth and the EIR is incorrectly stating the
situation. She said it is projected that the cost of the new resources
will be $30/$35 Million which will increase the cost of water to San Rafael
residents by 40 percent. Ms. Fischer stated the cost to residents and
the City needs to be analyzed in the EIR. She stated another item that
also needs to be analyzed in the EIR is what it means for us to be dependent
on water resources outside of Marin County, and what our increased consump-
tion will mean to water resources outside of Marin County, because the
State Water Resources Board recently issued a projection saying by the
year 2010 the entire State of California will be facing water shortages,
and that the already overdrafted ground water supplies will need to be
relied on even more heavily. She indicated the City should look into being
tied to a shortage situation that will be Statewide. She asked what the
increase in consumption will do if we buy up farms in the Central Valley
or wherever we want to trade for water. She stated that impacts overall
need to be a part of the EIR, because we affect the rest of California
as much as Los Angeles affects Mono Lake. She stated the EIR needs to
include a mitigation measure or a consideration of an alternative of limit-
ing development according to the constraint on water resources as much
as traffic resources.
Ms. Fischer stated that for these reasons stated, the EIR is not adequate
for the San Rafael Plan, and offered her time as well as other people
in the community who would be happy to meet with Council for discussion
on the comments made.
Mr. Bob Casper, with the Terra Linda Homeowners Association, San Rafael
Mr. Casper submitted a letter to Mayor Mulryan, and stated that the Terra
Linda Homeowners Association was inactive for awhile but has become active
once again because of the building proposals causing them some concern
in the EIR. He mentioned from the letter, that residents are concerned
about the impact of traffic spilling over into their neighborhood; that
side streets are being frequently used because the main roads are now
overcrowded. They ask that no further projects be approved until this
problem is mitigated. They endorse Level of Service "C" and stated that
Level of Service "D" is unacceptable.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Specia. 3/17/88 Page 7
Mr. Casper indicated they would like to be considered when these proposi-
tions and meetings are held so they can be represented because they would
probably have the most direct fallout from any development in Terra Linda.
Ms. Edith McKenna representing the owners of the Northwest Corner of Lucas
Valley Road and Highway 101 (Daphne-Bacciocco Property)
Ms. McKenna submitted a letter to Council, stating that her comments refer-
red to page 170 of the Alternatives of the Draft EIR, under Daphne-Bacciocco
Property, middle of page. She indicated the comments she was to speak
of were written by Mr. Pfanner of the Courtland Group who was unable to
be present this evening. They felt that information under the Comparison
Section in the Alternatives Section was misleading because it states that
a mixed use office/residential land use would be... "signficantly more
traffic intensive and office development could adversely affect operation
of Lucas Valley Road, 101 Interchange and could adversely affect construc-
tion of interchange improvements". She stated in the updated traffic assess-
ment for the property prepared by traffic consultants DKS Associates and
entered into the public record of the Planning Commission hearing on the
Proposed General Plan, this proposal can be mitigated to insure that impacted
intersections not exceed Level of Service "D". She said the revised Draft
EIR mixed use office/residential is significantly more traffic intensive
than residential; however, traffic caused by the project is within the
acceptable standards established for the region. Her second point is that
the conclusions reached regarding the alternative rely heavily on the
word "could", and stated that these conclusions do not recognize that
improvements have been identified to mitigate any adverse impact at this
interchange. She stated they therefore find the language stating office
development could adversely affect the operation of the interchange to
be inconclusive and misleading and further, it is unclear as to what is
meant by the statement that office development could adversly affect con-
struction of interchange improvements.
Ms. McKenna asked why this language is included, since in their submitted
plan they take the interchange construction into consideration, and asked
for clarification.
Traffic Engineer Rumsey stated that the Daphne application shows a driveway
coming out of one of the office components which is in the middle of where
it is planned to place the new southbound on-ramp. He indicated he and
Caltrans staff do not feel that driveway is a safe operating driveway
and he has informed DKS Associates of their concern.
Ms. McKenna stated her concern was about the construction of the interchange
and Mr. Rumsey responded that they do not see a good access into that
office component without it affecting the loop on-ramp.
Ms. McKenna stated she did not feel her concern was addressed and let
it go at that.
Another point she mentioned in the Daphne-Bacciocco Property, the top
box speaks of 143 units with 122 trips and the lower box refers to 117
units with 99 trips; and she could not see any connection between this
statement and the "impact" and asked that this be clarified.
Mr. Michael Marovich, General Director of Youth Activities, CYO (Parent
Organization for St. Vincent's School for Boys)
Mr. Marovich stated the progress of the Draft General Plan update is extreme-
ly important to the St. Vincent's School for Boys' property as relates
to their future options. He indicated they realize the complexity, level
of detail and thoughtfulness required as evidenced by the weight of the
documentation, and hoped that Council had some understanding as to their
ability as an individual landowner to respond to a document of this magni-
tude.
Mr. Marovich stated that the St. Vincent School site is a property discussed
in detail with regard to slopes, soil, views, wetlands, traffic, special
plants and birds but indicated there is no mention of St. Vincent's mission
or its special children, its vitality or the integration of this institu-
tion into the community of San Rafael. He stated it is important for the
community to understand that there is a special natural resource which
has been an integral part of this environment for the past 132 years,
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Specie 3/17/88 Page 8
the thousands of children and youths whom they have served and played
mother and father to since 1855. They feel that the General Plan has to
recognize this in a much more formal way.
He referred to the criteria for the Urban Service Area Extension that is the
availability of infrastructure. He indicated that a portion of the St. Vincent's
site and for that the matter the Silveira property, should be included
within the Urban Services Area. He stated that the interchange at Marinwood
is presently at Level of Service "A" and the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary
District can increase its present capacity with minor modifications to
its plant. He said the CYO feels strongly that the availability of this
infrastructure qualifies a portion of their property for inclusion in
the Urban Services Area.
Mr. Marovich pointed out that in several locations in the EIR, the eastside
arterial weaves across the Northwest Pacific Right -of -Way, stating this
Plan alignment has several significant negative consequences for the future
land use of their property and the Silveira property. He recognized that
there is a Joint Powers Agreement between the County, City and Novato,
and stated they hoped to be active in participating in looking at the
various alignment options because of the negative aspects in relation
to their property.
He called attention to the EIR Summary Statement indicating that some
development at Silveira/St. Vincent's is possible prior to improvements
at Marinwood Interchange. They felt this observation supports the extension
of the Urban Service Area on a portion of St. Vincent's site. He said
the discussion of the Northwest Pacific transitway indicates that St.
Vincent/Silveira should remain outside the Urban Service Area until that
time as decisions regarding the transitway are made, and stated this is
likely to continue for many years into the future. He said they feel that
St. Vincent's should not be held hostage to that planning effort. Linking
St. Vincent's to infrastructure such as interchange capacities and waste-
water treatment is reasonable and understandable in the planning sense,
however, upholding the Urban Services Area designation on the basis of
regional transit planning, they feel is unreasonable. He said the Summary
also indicates that vehicle trips should be assigned to parcels in the
north San Rafael area, among others, however, he stated the traffic section
of the report and the appendices do not identify this apportionment or
how it was derived as it relates to St. Vincent's property.
Mr. Marovich indicated they are in general agreement with the housing
goals of the Plan update, however, they believe the goal is overstated
for St. Vincents/Silveira neighborhood. He said the complimentary goal
of maintaining a balance and diversity in land uses within the community
should extend to this neighborhood as well. A review of the housing projects
provided in the Summary EIR indicates that St. Vincent's/Silveira will
absorb a significantly greater amount of housing than any other neighborhood
within the Planning area. He said the area is planned to be uniformly
residential with a small area of local serving commercial. He stated St.
Vincent's plans include a continuation and extension of the school and
the establishment of office/commerical uses to balance the residential
uses, buffer residential areas from Highway 101 noise impacts and support
funding of future infrastructure and contribute to their work of serving
children and youths.
Mr. Gil Deane, 1530 Vista DelMar, San Rafael
Mr. Deane referred to page 146 of Alternative 1, last sentence first para-
graph. He said the statement refers to the Maximum Environmental Protection
Alternative which provides for a blanket prohibition against development
in "certain areas" whether or not engineering and building standards could
mitigate the hazards implied. He requested clarification re what the "certain
areas" are. He stated it seems that engineering and building standards
might mitigate against certain kinds of hazards but engineering and building
standards could not be related to traffic problems or the loss of agricul-
ture lands or the risk of flooding or potential increase of toxic runoffs
into the Bay itself.
Further down page 146 under the heading of ... Description of this Alternative
from a Citywide perspective, first sentence states,..."Many of the implica-
tions of adopting this alternative would not be readily visible". He stated
the implication is that there are some things that are going to happen
that citizens do not know about. The next sentence reads..."San Rafael
would look at the end of the planning period much the way it does now".
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Specia:. 3/17/88 Page 9
Mr. Deane stated the phrase re whether the implications would be visible
or not seems to have some contradiction with the next sentence.
Referring to page 148, under the paragraph headed "Circulation", Mr. Deane
stated it reads that ..."traffic congestion would be the same as or worse
than now as no major road improvements proposed in this alternative due
to lack of funding". Again, he stated there is an implication in that
sentence that there are no other ways to improve traffic except by road
improvements; he added that someplace in this alternative there is specific
reference to light rail system. Therefore, it has a loaded implication
in that sentence.
Mr. Deane felt that on page 149, the second paragraph under "Natural Envi-
ronment Health and Safety", should be clarified. He felt it was trying
to tell him that this alternative would result in improved air and water
quality but he was not clear if this sentence stated that.
In conclusion, Mr. Deane stated he supported the statement that Alterna-
tive I is a Maximimum Environmental Protection Alternative and would have
fewer impacts on the environment than any of the other alternatives includ-
ed in the Draft General Plan, indicating they could not find fault with
that.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Mayor Mulryan stated they have written comments that amplify the verbal
comments received tonight. He stated that both the oral testimony heard
tonight and any written comments received up to March 21, 1988, will be
responded to in writing. EIR comments received at a later time will be
considered but may not be responded to in writing.
Councilmember Frugoli referred to comments made on Level of Service into
the neighborhoods, stating that Levels of Service "C" or "D" should not
impact the neighborhoods and indicated this should be looked into so the
Level of Service does not go below this.
Councilmember Thayer stated that many excellent comments were made regarding
the apparent deficiencies in the EIR, referring to the point made by Ms.
Fischer that the EIR is deficient since it does not address the traffic
impacts of the Plan on non -peak hours. She felt this should be incorporated
into the EIR. Mrs. Thayer felt that the EIR is difficult to look at without
looking at the Plan. She said the DEIR is inadequate when addressing the
impact of the Plan on infrastructure or the potential for infrastructure
to deteriorate rapidly in Bay mud. She added that the DEIR also does not
adequately address wetlands.
Councilmember Boro commented basically that input from Ms. Fischer and
the letter received by the Canal Community Alliance speak to the off-peak
period traffic not only in the neighborhood but including key intersections.
He suggested this impact should be looked at throughout the City.
Councilmember Breiner recommended that new mitigation measures be added
on page 105 and page 9 relating to flooding as detailed in her written
comments.
She specifically asked that an addition be made to require the City to
monitor the rate of settlement at strategic locations within the flood
zones on Bay fill on an annual basis and that the rates be compared with
the previously established projections of settlement. If it is determined
that settlement is occurring faster than anticipated, revisions to the
City's Title 18 Flood Protection Standards and possible Land Use Designa-
tions would have to be considered by the Council. She stated she does
not think that the Plan takes into consideration the combination of the
rising sea level with possible subsidence.
On page 124, Councilmember Breiner cited a "typo" that the hotel to be
built in the Civic Center area would be 4 stories and not 5. Staff was
directed to correct 5 stories to 4 stories.
On page 40, Risk Matrix, she stated the DEIR speaks to having an area
that could be considered to be "l", i.e., the safest most stable area,
but states that it could have a landslide in it. Councilmember Breiner
wanted to feel secure that they would not be allowing someone to build
in an area that is dangerous.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Specia.L) 3/17/88 Page 10
Councilmember Boro referred to a point made by Mr. Holtzclaw as to which
lands are truly protected by the various State and Federal Agencies, stating
that an answer to this question would be important. He suggested that
all lands in the City that are under contention be listed and definitively
state which ones are protected. For example, he understood that all the
lands of Silveira/St. Vincent's east of the railroad tracks fall under
the jurisdiction of State and Federal Agencies and are protected.
Senior Planner Freitas responded that those lands are potentially under
the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers but there has never been a
determination by the Corps that it actually is or is not. She stated the
property owner has to request that there be a Corps' jurisdiction deter-
mination as was done for the Marin Ranch Airport site.
Councilmember Boro suggested that staff at least state what the assumptions
are in the Plan so this could be reacted to.
Mayor Mulryan announced future meeting dates as follows:
March 21, 1988 at 8:00 PM on the Natural Environmental Section of the
Plan.
April 4, 1988 at 8:00 PM on the Health and Safety Section of the Plan.
April 20, 1988 at 7:30 PM on the Community Development Section of the
Plan.
Mayor Mulryan stated additional public hearings may be held when and if
needed, indicating a date is not set for a hearing on the final EIR.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
�
JEANNE fd.LEONCINI,ty Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/17/88 Page 10