HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Dominican Sister Lourdes Convent AppealSAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
Agenda Item No: 6.a
Meeting Date: May 15, 2017
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: Paul A. Jensen, City Manager Approval:
Community Development Director
TOPIC: DOMINICAN SISTERS LOURDES CONVENT — TRANSITIONAL HOUSING USE
SUBJECT: 77 Locust Avenue (Lourdes Convent) — Appeal of the Planning Commission's
action: a) denying two appeals; and b) upholding the Zoning Administrator's
action to approve a Use Permit Amendment to Lourdes Convent, to permit the
conversion of the 1,995 -square -foot "yellow hallway" area of the convent facility
to a single, residential unit for transitional housing. Use is proposed for two years;
APN: 015-112-23; PD (Planned Development) District; Sisters of Third Order of St.
Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust,
applicant/owner; Christopher Dolan, appellant; Case Number(s): UP16-057, AP17-
003.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Lourdes Convent, which is owned by the Sisters of Third Order of St. Dominic Congregation of the
Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust (Dominican Sisters) is a 16,450 -square -foot convent
retirement center located at 77 Locust Avenue. The retirement center operates under Use Permit
(UP79-18) approved by the City in 1979. The 2.1 -acre property is located within the PD (Planned
Development) District and is bordered by single-family residences (to the north, west and east and the
Dominican Sisters' "Mother House" convent and residence (to the south). A Use Permit Amendment
has been filed by the Dominican Sisters (UP16-057) to convert a 1,995 -square -foot portion of the
retirement center (referred to as the "yellow hallway" area) to a single, residential unit for "transitional
housing" (short-term residency). The single, residential unit would be made available to be shared by
two single women and their children. The Use Permit Amendment request proposes that the
transitional housing would be available for two years following occupancy and would "sunset" after two
years.
On January 28, 2017, the Zoning Administrator approved the Use Permit with conditions. This action
included a response to 17 questions and concerns raised in the public hearing and correspondence
received by the Community Development Department. Two separate appeals of the Zoning
Administrator action were filed by neighboring residents, Christopher Dolan (AP17-001) and Gary
Scholick (AP17-002). On March 14, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.: 273
Council Meeting: 05/15/2017
Disposition: Resolution 14329
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
appeals. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission voted (6-0-1 vote) to deny the appeals
and uphold the Zoning Administrator's action.
On March 21, 2017, Christopher Dolan filed a timely appeal action with the City Clerk. The written
appeal (Attachment 3) raises nearly all of the same points raised in Mr. Dolan's appeal to the Planning
Commission. Several additional appeal points have been raised, which are addressed below. Staff
finds that there is no merit to the other appeal points presented by the appellant. Therefore, it is
recommended that the appeal be denied and Planning Commission's action to uphold the Zoning
Administrator approval of the Use Permit Amendment be upheld.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
a. Open the public hearing, take public comment and close the public hearing; and
b. Adopt the attached resolution denying appeal AP17-003, upholding the Planning Commission's
action to uphold the Zoning Administrator's January 28, 2017 conditional approval of Use Permit
Amendment (UP16-057).
BACKGROUND:
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property consists of approximately 90,000 square feet (approximately 2.1 acres) of level
land located at 77 Locust Avenue (APN 015-112-23). The property is owned by the Sisters of Third
Order of St. Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust (Dominican
Sisters) and is developed with a one-story, 16,450 -square -foot convent retirement center (which
includes congregate care unit) for up to 32 residences (retired nuns), and a chapel.
The facility, which is known as the Lourdes Convent, is designed around a courtyard garden and is
surrounded by landscaped grounds. Two off-street parking lots border the Locust Avenue street
frontage. One of the lots is along the western border of the property and contains 14 parking spaces.
The second lot is located near the northeast border of the site and contains four parking spaces.
The property is located in the Dominican neighborhood, which is primarily characterized by single-
family residential homes (many on larger lots) and the expansive Dominican University campus. For
this reason, there is some variation in the City zoning and General Plan land use designations for the
properties. The San Rafael General Plan 2020 designates the Lourdes Convent property as
Public/Quasi-Public. Properties west, north and east of the subject property are designated in the
Large Lot Residential land use category, while the Sisters of St. Dominic residence campus and the
Dominican University are designated in the Public/Quasi-Public land use category.
With regard to property zoning, the 2.1 -acre Lourdes Convent site is located within the Planned
Development (PD) District. The PD District was adopted for this property in 1992 because of its size
and unique use. The PD District replaced the former "U" (Unclassified) District zoning. In 1979, the City
issued a Use Permit for the Lourdes Convent (UP79-18) permitting the retirement center use. As the
subject property was developed and operating under Use Permit UP79-18 at the time the City adopted
the current PD District, it does not have benefit of an approved Development Plan. However, the PD
District zoning is intended to promote a comprehensive planning for the site in the event the property is
redeveloped or substantially changed. As the convent facility is an established use, minor additions
and changes to the facility have been accomplished through the review and approval of individual Use
Permit Amendments and Environmental and Design Review Permits. By comparison, the neighboring
Sisters of St. Dominic residence campus to the south (the "Mother House") is within the PD -1827
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
District, which has an approved Development Plan. Properties to the west, north and east are located
with the single-family residential R -1a (single-family residential, one -acre minimum lot size) and R-20
(single-family residential, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) Districts.
Project Description
In late 2016, the Dominican Sisters filed a Use Permit Amendment application for the Lourdes Convent.
The Use Permit Amendment application proposes to convert a 1,995 -square -foot portion of the
Convent's congregate care facility (which currently contains 10 residential rooms; encompassing
approximately 12% of the facility area and referred to as the "yellow hallway") to a single -dwelling unit.
The single residential unit would contain a parlor, kitchen, bathroom and seven sleeping rooms. The
proposed floor plan of the "yellow hallway" is provided in Attachment 2 of this staff report. This single
dwelling unit would be made available for shared by two single women, each with two young children
(up to eight years in age). The shared dwelling unit is proposed to be "transitional housing," meaning
that it would provide short-term residency, transitioning to permanent housing. The use is proposed for
a period of two years following initial occupancy. At that time, the use would terminate and the Use
Permit Amendment would sunset. At present, no plans have been developed and submitted describing
what will be proposed after the two year period.
Homeward Bound of Marin, a local non-profit agency that provides shelter and services for the
homeless would manage the dwelling unit and the tenancy. Homeward Bound is proposing a list of
criteria used to screen and select potential residents and the residents must enter into an occupancy
agreement. The agreement would include, among others, the following terms:
➢ The adult tenant/occupant must be a Homeward Bound program participant.
➢ Month-to-month occupancy not to exceed 24 months.
➢ The dwelling unit can be occupied by only the program participant and the persons
noted in the agreement.
➢ Occupancy of the unit by guests cannot exceed seven (7) consecutive days. Extended
stay by guest requires the written approval by Homeward Bound staff.
➢ Subletting is prohibited.
➢ Pets are prohibited.
➢ Smoking inside the unit is prohibited.
➢ As a program participant, tenants/occupants are required to comply with a "clean and
sober environment" policy.
➢ Tenants must sign a "Code of Conduct."
The specific occupancy agreement for this project has not been drafted. However, a sample/model
occupancy agreement has been submitted by Homeward Bound ("Next Key Agreement"), which is on
file with the Community Development Department. The tenant/resident screening criteria developed by
Homeward Bound and approved by the Dominican Sisters include, among others:
➢ The adult tenant/occupant must be a single mother with children under the age of eight.
➢ The adult tenant/occupant must be six -months sober and committed to a recovery plan.
➢ The adult tenant/occupant must be working toward economic self-sufficiency.
➢ The adult tenant/occupant must be able to pay $550.00 per month for rent and utilities.
➢ If the tenant/occupant owns a vehicle, it must be registered and insured.
A copy of the tenant/resident screening criteria is attached (Attachment 4).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
Some limited exterior improvements to the Lourdes Convent facility are proposed with this request.
Specifically, the plans propose a new, uncovered redwood porch/landing and new stairs (approximately
50 square feet) at the entrance to the unit. The large landscaped area south of the unit is proposed to
be enclosed by a 36 -inch tall open redwood fence, which would provide usable and safe outdoor area
for the residents. Given the minor and incidental nature of these exterior improvements, the
Community Development Director has determined that it is exempt from an Environmental and Design
Review Permit per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.25.040D.5. Two of the existing 18 off-street
parking spaces would be reserved for use by the two adult residents.
Zoning Administrator Hearing & Action on Use Permit Amendment
On January 4, 2017, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to present the proposal and to
obtain public comment. The Zoning Administrator hearing was attended by approximately 50 people
that included the applicants and neighboring residents. Approximately 20 people spoke in both support
and opposition to the proposed project. Those meeting attendees expressing opposition to the project
presented a list of the following questions and concerns:
1. Adequacy of off-street parking. The capacity of the current parking lot is often exceeded
causing spillover parking off-site.
2. What regulations or restrictions are proposed for "guests" or residents?
3. The proposed use would change the nature and character of the property use introducing
residential activities such as BBQs, parties and an outdoor playground, which presently do not
occur on the convent property.
4. The proposal could facilitate an expansion into a larger scale multi -family transitional housing
development, which would not be consistent with the character and uses in the neighborhood.
5. No proposal has been presented which describes what happens after two -years of operation.
6. The proposal violates the Fair Employment Housing Act as the tenancy/occupancy is limited to
single women. The Fair Employment Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on
marital status. Therefore, this law would prevent the Sisters/Homeward Bound from prohibiting
the tenants from moving their spouse or domestic partner into the residence.
7. Concern with tenant oversight and what happens if the tenant gets married during occupancy.
8 Questions about the long-term intentions of the program, as well as the long-term plans for the
convent property.
9. Consideration should be given to relocating this proposal to the "Mother House" (across Locust
Ave).
Following public comment, the applicant and Zoning Administrator provided verbal responses to a
number of the concerns listed above. The Zoning Administrator indicated that a decision on the
application would be made by January 28, 2017, following a review and consideration of all public
testimony.
On January 28, 2017, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the Use Permit Amendment.
The action was presented in letter form ("Notice of Zoning Administrator Action"), which included and is
supported by the following:
➢ A description of the proposed use and analysis of use consistency with the San Rafael General
Plan 2020, Zoning and State laws applicable to transitional housing;
➢ The tenant/resident screening criteria;
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
➢ A detailed response to the comments and concerns raised at the hearing and in
correspondence received by the City. The Zoning Administrator compiled and organized 17
questions and comments (mostly concerns summarized above). A detailed response to each
question/comment was prepared. The responses to questions and comments were considered
in making findings to support and condition the approval. The Response to Questions and
Concerns Raised by the Public (January 23, 2017) is provided as an attachment to this staff
report (Attachment 6);
➢ Required findings and conditions for the Use Permit Amendment; and
➢ Zoning Administrator meeting minutes, January 4, 2017.
The Notice of Zoning Administrator Action can be accessed and viewed at the following link (scroll
down past the Zoning Administrator Meeting Agenda):
httr)://citvofsanrafael.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.r)hr)?file=citvofsanrafael 61 d848da072a2c0cddee
26e808143d53.pdf&view=1
Planning Commission Review of Appeals
Two appeals of the Zoning Administrator action were filed with the Community Development
Department. On February 3, 2017, a timely appeal was filed by Christopher Dolan, neighboring
resident of 1 Locust Avenue (AP17-001). On February 6, 2017, a second timely appeal was filed by
Gary Scholick, neighboring resident of 141 Locust Avenue (AP17-002).
On March 14, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing to review and
consider the two appeals. The Community Development Department staff presented a written report to
the Planning Commission, which included a response to ten appeal points. The Planning Commission
staff report and correspondence received to that point can be accessed at the following links:
httr)://citvofsanrafael.granicus.com/MetaViewer.r)hr)?view id=38&clip id=1112&meta id=104176
httr)://citvofsanrafael.qranicus.com/MetaViewer.r)hr)?view id=38&clip id=1112&meta id=104177
A lengthy presentation was given by one of the appellants (Christopher Dolan), who provided a
summary of his appeal points. In addition to this summary, Mr. Dolan reported that he filed a Public
Records Request with the City, acknowledging that he received and reviewed the City's permit record
files and correspondence. Mr. Dolan expressed concerns about the email exchange and
communications between the City and applicant representatives during the permit process, as these
email communications had not been printed and included in the City files. As a result, Mr. Dolan
reported that the permit process was flawed demonstrating a bias to the applicant. The second
appellant (Mr. Scholick) did not provide a presentation to the Planning Commission.
Public testimony was provided by 20 speakers. Nineteen of the speakers spoke in favor of the
proposed Use Permit Amendment and one person spoke in favor of the appeals. Following public
testimony and deliberation, on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Paul absent), the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution 17-02, denying the two appeals and upholding the Zoning Administrator's action
approving the Use Permit Amendment (see Attachment 6). As part of this action, the Planning
Commission approved an amendment to permit condition #7, which addresses the two year time limit
for the proposed use. Approved condition #7 reads as follows:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
7. This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance date of
Certificate of Occupancy. At the end of the two year period, the Use Permit Amendment shall
terminate. At that time, the kitchen facility shall be removed and the area returned to its current
use as residential convent rooms. If at the end of the two year period the property owner
decides to retain the kitchen and re -purpose the yellow hallway area, City approvals will be
required.
Condition #7 had initially been drafted to provide the applicant with mandatory options to pursue
following termination of the two-year operation. This initial condition was opposed by the two
appellants and was one of the points in both appeals. Staff agreed that the appellants concerns about
the initial language of condition #7 were legitimate and that it undermined the agreement that was
reached between the applicant and the neighbors. For this reason, condition #7 was revised.
The Planning Commission meeting is available for streaming video review at the following link:
htti)://citvofsanrafael.aranicus.com/MediaPlaver.r)hr)?view id=38&clip id=1112
Appeal of Planning Commission Action
On March 21, 2017, Christopher Dolan filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission action with the
City Clerk. Mr. Dolan's written appeal is attached (Attachment 3). Nearly all of the appeal points
presented in Mr. Dolan's February 3, 2017 appeal letter to the Planning Commission are presented and
included in this latest appeal. Mr. Dolan has raised several other new points, which are summarized
and addressed in the Analysis section of this report, below. In considering the appeal, the Council
should review the evidence de novo and either approve, modify, or overturn the findings and decision of
the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
Analysis of Use Permit Amendment
In considering action on a Use Permit or an amendment to such permit, the City must determine if the
proposal is consistent with the General Plan, zoning and other applicable laws. The actions on this Use
Permit Amendment by the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator were based on the
following analysis and findings:
Consistency with San Rafael General Plan 2020
Overall, the proposed use is consistent with pertinent goals, policies and programs of the San Rafael
General Plan 2020. A summary of the key policies and programs is provided as follows:
Land Use Element- Public/Quasi-Public Land Use Designation. This designation permits a
variety of public and quasi -public land uses including residential use.
Response: Consistent. The residential unit is allowed under this designation.
• Housinq Element- Policv H-9 (Special Needs). Encourage a mix of housing unit types
throughout San Rafael, including very low- and low-income housing for families with children,
single parents, students, young families, lower income seniors, homeless and the disabled.
Accessible units shall be provided in multi -family residential developments consistent with State
and Federal law.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
Response: Consistent. The project proposes transitional housing for lower-income single
mothers and their children.
• Housing Element- Policv H-10 (Innovative Housing Approaches). Provide opportunities and
facilitate innovative housing approaches in financing, design and construction of units to
increase the availability of low- and moderate -income housing and especially for housing that
meets the City's housing needs.
Response: Consistent. The project proposes to re -purpose space from one residential
housing type to another, which would accommodate transitional housing for special needs.
• Housing Element- Policv H-11 (House Sharinq). Support organizations that facilitate house
sharing, linking seniors and small households with potential boarders to more efficiently use
existing housing stock.
Response: Consistent. The project proposes the sharing of a single dwelling unit between
two single parents and their children.
It should be noted that the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Housing Element Background Report
acknowledges that in 2011, San Rafael had 2,004 female -headed families with 1,182 such families with
children under the age of 18. The Background Report states that in this family category, there is a
need for transitional and emergency housing. San Rafael provides at least 45% of the transitional
housing in Marin County.
Consistency with Zoning and State Laws Applicable to Transitional Housing
As noted above, the property is located within the PD District. The Planning Commission concurred
with the Zoning Administrator finding that the proposed use, which involves the conversion of 10
residential rooms within the Convent facility to a single, residential dwelling unit, would be consistent
with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. One of the purposes of the PD District is to
accommodate various types of compatible and complimentary uses within a development. The
Lourdes Convent serves as a residence and retirement center for the Dominican Sisters; the proposed
single dwelling for transitional housing would be compatible and complimentary to the convent use and
operation.
Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.07.020 (Land use regulations for PD Districts), a Master
Use Permit or individual Use Permit may be required to establish specific uses on the property
consistent with the General Plan and parking standards. The Use Permit Amendment is specific to the
current proposal and the use is proposed to "sunset" after two years. The conversion of the "yellow
hallway" to a single, residential dwelling unit would be compatible with other uses on the subject
property, as well as neighboring residential land uses. At present, full use of the yellow hallway area
would be occupied by 10 residents (retired nuns). Replacing this occupancy with two adult women and
their children would not change the character of the use; both are residential in nature. In addition, as
demonstrated in the findings made by the Zoning Administrator and upheld by the Planning
Commission, the use would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
In approving this Use Permit Amendment, the City must determine that the use meets the parking
standards set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.19 (Off -Street Parking). The City Code
does not include a specific parking standard for the convent use as a retirement center. In such cases,
parking is determined based on a study. The Lourdes Convent site provides a total of 18 off-street
parking spaces, which is approximately one parking space per 900 square feet of the convent area
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
(16,450 square feet/18 parking spaces = 913 square feet). The subject "yellow hallway" is 1,995
square feet, so 2.18 parking spaces are provided for this area. The conversion of this area to a single
residential unit would require 2.2 off-street parking spaces (based on the proposed unit type/number of
bedrooms + guest parking). Therefore, adequate parking is provided by the current supply to meet the
City Code. It should be noted that parking standards for uses are based on averages, meaning that
spiked periods of parking demand are averaged with low periods of demand.
A study of the existing parking capacity was also completed by the Zoning Administrator to assess
existing conditions and parking demands of the existing use. A survey of the two parking lots was
conducted over a one week period to assess parking use and demand. The survey was conducted
during both weekdays and weekends, during varying times of the day to assess usage. The results of
this survey find that parking supply exceeds demand. The details of the survey and these results are
included in the Responses to Comments and Questions Raised by the Public, which is provided in
Attachment 6 of the Planning Commission staff report (link provided above).
The City must follow State law mandating provisions and allowances for transitional housing. California
Government Code Section 65583 requires that local jurisdictions must treat transitional housing as a
residential use only, subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other housing of the same type in
the subject zoning district. Because of the PD District zoning, a Use Permit would be required to
convert the "yellow hallway" to a dwelling unit for any other equivalent residential use (manager's
residence; caretaker's residence or separate dwelling for the Dominican Sisters). If Homeward Bound
were to lease or rent an existing single-family residence in the adjacent Dominican neighborhood (or
any residential neighborhood in San Rafael) that is located in a residential zoning district (e.g., R1 a
District, R-20 District, etc.) the proposed transitional housing would be permitted by right, meaning no
Use Permit or discretionary review by the City would or could be required.
Summary of and Responses to Appeal AP17-003
Mr. Dolan's appeal letter (Attachment 3) presents an introductory summary of the property zoning
history followed by a number of appeal points. The history and appeal points are summarized below
and are followed by a response. Please note that the appeal letter and points are generally the same
points that were presented in his appeal to the Planning Commission. Therefore, most of the summary
and responses to the appeal points below are the same as those presented to the Planning
Commission. However, there are new points that are relevant to the Use Permit Amendment process,
City/applicant communications, and a perceived bias by City staff in taking action on the application.
These additional points are summarized followed by a response.
Summary — History of Current Zoning
The appellant notes that the Dominican Sisters received special treatment in the zoning
of the Lourdes Convent property because the property was a part of and there was an
affiliation with Dominican College (now Dominican University). The appellant
summarizes that the rezoning of the property in 1979 to U (Unclassified) District was
intentionally done because of the convent's affiliation with Dominican University and the
fact that the college and other Dominican Sisters property holdings were also located in
the U District. It is noted that the subsequent rezoning to PD District was done for the
same reason.
The appellant notes that the 1979 action considered an R-3 District zoning to be
inappropriate for this property. The appellant states that there is no information
available as to whether a hearing or process was involved in the 1979 and later PD
District rezoning actions, and that the 1979 Use Permit appeared to have been granted
without any public notice.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9
The appellant notes that the Dominican Sisters are requesting a use (transitional
housing) that is not related to the continued affiliation with Dominican University as the
relationship between the two parties has ceased.
Lastly, the appellant notes that the General Plan 2020 land use map shows a
[public]quasi-public land use designation, "that seems to be a leftover from the unity of
the Dominican Sisters and Dominican College" as it conflicts with the Municipal Code's
Zoning Ordinance."
Response: As reported to the Planning Commission, staff agrees with much of the property zoning
history summary provided by the appellant. Staff has reviewed the 1979 rezoning file (File No. Z79-5).
On March 27, 1979, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on both the rezoning and the Use
Permit (UP79-18); two separate reports were prepared. The 1979 report to the Planning Commission
acknowledged that the retirement center was nonconforming under the then -applicable property zoning
(R1 -B2 District) and that such uses are typically permitted in R-3 (Multiple -Family Residential) Districts.
At that time, City staff indeed reported that an R-3 District property zoning was not appropriate and
recommended that the property be rezoned to U (Unclassified) District. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of both applications to the City Council. On May 7, 1979, the City Council
adopted the rezoning and approved the Use Permit. File Z79-3 includes the public notice of the
hearings, a publication of the notice in the Marin Independent Journal, as well as a list and map of the
property owners within 300 feet of the Lourdes Convent site that were notified of the public hearings.
In 1992, the City completed a comprehensive update of all the zoning districts in the City, which
resulted in a rezoning of many properties throughout the City, including the subject property. The
resulting Zoning Ordinance update and accompanying rezoning actions underwent a major public
process that included community outreach, public hearings and property owner notifications. As part of
this process, the U (Unclassified) District, which had been broadly applied to many larger properties
throughout the City, was phased out. For the subject property, it was replaced by the PD (Planned
Development) District. The purpose behind the adoption of the PD District for the Lourdes Convent
was not solely because of its affiliation to Dominican College. Many larger properties in San Rafael
were rezoned from U to PD District. The PD District was adopted for the Lourdes Convent site for
several reasons: a) the convent was part of a handful of collective property holdings owned by both the
Dominican Convent and Dominican University (then Dominican College) in the neighborhood and all of
these property holdings were rezoned to PD District; and b) the purpose of applying the PD District to
the Lourdes Convent and these other collective holdings was to encourage comprehensive, master
planning when properties propose to redevelop. For example, the PD District was also adopted for the
Dominican Sisters' Santa Sabina Center property at 25 Magnolia Avenue. At that time, none of these
holdings had been master planned nor had the City approved a specific, approved Development Plan
adopted with the PD District.
Since 1992, a comprehensive master plan (approved Development Plan) was approved for both the
Dominican University holdings (PD -1884 District, initially adopted as PD -1730 District, August 17, 1998)
and the main Sisters of St. Dominic resident campus (Mother House) to the south (PD -1827 District,
initially adopted as PD -1656, December 6, 1993). The master plan process for both the Dominican
University and the Mother House were individually initiated by the property owners to facilitate major
redevelopment and reuse on those sites.
In the staff -prepared Response to Comments and Concerns Raised by the Public (Planning
Commission Staff Report Attachment 6, #2, page 1), it is noted that Dominican Sisters have severed
their affiliation with Dominican University, but the operation of the Lourdes Convent continues as a non-
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10
commercial retirement center and residence for the Sisters. We have received an update regarding
this matter. The relationship and affiliation between the Dominican Sisters and Dominican University
has not ceased. Please see the attached letter from Gary Ragghianti, attorney at law representing the
Dominican Sisters (see Attachment 5 of the Planning Commission report; link provided above). Mr.
Ragghianti provides a detailed explanation on the history of this affiliation and how this affiliation has
morphed over decades. Regardless of this affiliation, the property zoning runs with the land. The
conditions of the 1979 Use Permit UP79-18 for the retirement center are active and in -force. Use
Permit condition (a) limits the retirement center to its operation so long as the ownership and operation
is by "affiliation with Dominican College and is not a private commercial facility." At minimum, any
change with this affiliation would require an amendment to the current Use Permit and any major
change to the use, facility or property would necessitate a rezoning.
Lastly, the General Plan 2020 land use designation for the site (Public/Quasi-Public) is not in conflict
with the Zoning Ordinance. The PD District zoning is a "customized" zoning for larger sites and has
been applied citywide in many forms representing varying land uses. The best examples are the
adopted PD Districts for the neighboring Dominican Sisters Mother House (convent residential use) and
Dominican University (educational institution). The General Plan 2020 also designates these properties
in the Public/Quasi-Public land use category.
Appeal Point #1:
The proposed use would necessitate a rezoning. The proposed use will constitute a
residential, multi -family use.
Response: The Planning Commission confirmed the Zoning Administrator's findings and disagreed
with this appeal point for the following reasons:
a. Given that the proposal maintains the basic residential use of the yellow hallway area, is limited
in size and would not result in any expansion to or substantial physical changes to the property,
a property rezoning or amendment to the current PD District is not warranted. The specific
purposes of the PD District are set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section
14.07.010. The specific purposes encourage master planning for the development of large site
primarily to promote, among others, clustering, innovate design, protection of open space, and
allowances for deviations in conventional zoning standards. A rezoning or amendment to the
PD District would be warranted if the property were to be redeveloped or if there were a major
re -purposing or reuse of the existing retirement center facility.
SRMC Section 14.07.020 set forth the process for Land Use Regulations in the PD District.
Sub -section 14.07.020D addresses temporary uses. Temporary uses are short-term. As the
proposed conversion of the yellow hallway area would sunset/terminate after two years, it is
arguably a temporary use. The provisions of this code section apply to PD Districts (with or
without a valid or approved Development Plan), requiring approval of a Zoning Administrator -
level Use Permit.
c. Approval of the Use Permit amendment would allow the conversion of an existing 1,995 square
foot area to a single, residential dwelling unit. This area was developed for and has been used
as a retirement residence; the proposed change maintains the basic residential use. Further,
the yellow hallway area represents 12% of the overall convent facilities, which is a minor portion
of the retirement center use.
d. As discussed above, the Lourdes Convent retirement center operates under a current and valid
Use Permit (UP79-18) that pre -dates the current PD District property zoning adopted for the site
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 11
in 1992. The Use Permit Amendment is the best and most appropriate zoning tool to address
the proposed use as it is short-term. The Use Permit Amendment allows the City to condition
the approval to sunset in two years.
e. The proposal involves the conversion of the "yellow hallway" to a single residential dwelling unit
with a single kitchen. The single residential dwelling unit would be shared by two women and
their children. The arrangement does not constitute a multiple -family residential use. Rather, it
represents a single, shared household of two single women and their children residing in a
single dwelling. The San Rafael Municipal Code (SMRC Title 14, Zoning) defines a multiple -
family residence as three or more individual, attached residential dwelling units on a single site.
Appeal Point #2:
The current PD District zoning does not permit the proposed use.
Response: The Planning Commission confirmed the Zoning Administrator's findings and disagreed
with this appeal point. As noted in response to Appeal Point #1 above, the property and current land
use are governed by an active and valid Use Permit (UP79-18), which pre -dated the current zoning.
The current PD District does not include an approved Development Plan, which would set forth specific
land use allowances/limitations and development standards. Therefore, using this argument, nothing is
permitted on the Lourdes Convent property. SRMC Section 14.07.035 sets forth the following
provisions in the event a PD District contains no development standards or regulations:
a. Sub -section 14.07.035A states that when the PD District does not include site-specific
regulations or spatial standards, the Community Development Department shall determine,
based on development characteristics, use and density, and the contiguous zoning districts, a
zoning district adopted within this title that is most compatible with the PD District. The property
is bordered by the R1 a (north, west and east), R-20 (north) and the PD1827 (south- Mother
House convent property) Districts. If the R1 a and R20 Districts are used as a default, the
proposed transitional housing would be permitted by -right with no Use Permit requirement. The
neighboring PD1827 District includes an approved Development Plan and a list of adopted land
use provisions and development standards. As the PD1827 District specifically includes
residences, it can be argued that the transitional housing would be permitted by right. However,
since all uses in a PD District are memorialized by a Master Use Permit, it could also be argued
that a Use Permit Amendment would be needed to approve the proposed use.
Sub -section 14.07.035C states that the Community Development Director shall determine if the
improvements are major or minor. Improvements determined to be major shall require an
amendment to the PD District. Improvements determined to be minor shall not require an
amendment to the PD District. As discussed above, staff determined that the proposed use
change and improvements are minor.
The approval of a Development Plan and amendment to the current PD District would be triggered
when or if the property is redeveloped or if there were a major re -purposing or reuse of the existing
retirement center facility. The continued operation of the existing use is governed by Use Permit UP79-
18. As noted above, minor changes in the existing use are typically processed and permitted through a
Use Permit Amendment.
As reported to the Planning Commission, there are a number of developed properties in San Rafael
that are within a PD District, which do not have an approved Development Plan. The current uses of
these properties either operate by right or are regulated by a Use Permit. Until such a time when
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 12
redevelopment or significant changes in use is proposed, the shell PD zoning with the approved Use
Permit may remain in effect,
Appeal Point #3:
The proposal constitutes an amendment to the PD District zoning and should require a
new zoning application. The appellant notes that Zoning Ordinance Section 14.07.150 states
that "requests for changes in the contents of approval of a PD District zoning and Development
Plan shall be treated as a zoning amendment (rezoning). "
Response: The Planning Commission agreed with the Zoning Administrator's finding regarding this
point. The establishment of a new or an amendment to an existing PD District requires approval of a
Development Plan and a zoning amendment (rezoning) action. However, when minor changes in use
are proposed to an existing, developed site that is zoned PD District, they are typically processed as a
Use Permit or Use Permit Amendment. See response to Appeal Points #1 and #2, which explain why a
Use Permit Amendment was required and a rezoning is not necessary.
The City's application of the Use Permit process for minor use changes in a PD District is not
uncommon. This approach has been taken by the City on a number of other properties located in PD
Districts. Two examples are as follows:
➢ 1600-1650 Los Gamos Road (Marin Commons Office ComDlex). This office complex is located
in a PD1590 District, which is exclusively approved for general and administrative office. In
2008, the City processed and approved a Use Permit (UP08-029) to allow the establishment
and operation of a child care center. The center occupies a small portion of the office complex
and was determined to be a minor change offering a use that is supportive to the primary office
use and therefore considered ancillary.
➢ 111 McInnis Parkwav (Office Buildinq). This office building is located in the PD1488 District,
which is approved for office use. In 1996, the City approved a Use Permit (UP96-14) to allow
the establishment and operation of a health club, which was determined to be a compatible use
to the primary office use.
If the project proposed a major change in the use of the Lourdes Convent facility (e.g., a commercial
retirement center) or if the facility was demolished and the site was proposed for redevelopment, a
zoning amendment to the PD District and a Development Plan would be required.
Appeal Point #4:
The proposal is non-compliant with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.115 as the City has
zoned GC and L11O Districts in other areas of the City for shelters for families. The
proposal does not meet the Performance Standards of this ordinance section.
Response: The Planning Commission confirmed the Zoning Administrator's findings and disagreed
with this appeal point. San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.115 is not relevant or applicable to
the proposed project. This section of the zoning ordinance is specific to the establishment and
operation of emergencv shelters not transitional housing_. The project proposes transitional housing.
The root of this zoning ordinance section (14.16.115) is Senate Bill 2 (SB2), which amended the State
Housing Element law (Government Code Sections 65582, 65583 and 65584). SB2 was approved and
signed by the Governor in 2007 establishing local land use mandates regarding emergencv housing,
transitional housing and supportive housing_. The law sets forth the following mandates for each local
jurisdiction:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 13
a. The local jurisdiction must establish a "zone" or an area of the jurisdiction where an emergency
shelter can be approved without a Use Permit, subject to specific performance and operational
standards. In response to this mandate, in 2011, the City adopted an "overlay zone" in
Southeast San Rafael area to allow emeraencv shelters "by right" (no Use Permit required),
subject to compliance with specific standards. The overlay zone is what is referenced in the
appeal letter. The overlay zone is not applicable to transitional housina, which is what is
proposed for the "yellow hallway."
The local jurisdiction must treat and zone for transitional housina. and supportive housina. as a
residential use only, subject to only the same restrictions that would apply to other housing of
the same type in the subject zoning district. In response to this mandate, in 2011 the City: 1)
adopted specific definitions for transitional housing and supportive housing; and b) amended the
definitions for "Residential, Single -Family," "Residential, Duplex" and "Residential, Multifamily" to
include households for transitional and supportive housing.
Appeal Point #5:
Objective studies conducted pursuant to statutory mandate, show that homelessness
among the population of families with children has decreased. Therefore, the stated
urgent need is not supported by the empirical evidence.
Response: The San Rafael General Plan 2020 Housing Element Background Report acknowledges
that in 2011, San Rafael had 2,004 female -headed families with 1,182 such families with children under
the age of 18. The Background Report states that in this family category, there is a need for transitional
and emergency housing. San Rafael provides at least 45% of the transitional housina in Marin Countv.
Much of this housing already exists in residential neighborhoods. The appellant presents more recent
findings of the 2015 Marin Point in Time Homeless Census and Survey noting that the need for
sheltering families experiencing homelessness has been reduced.
There is nothing in the action of the Use Permit Amendment by the Planning Commission or Zoning
Administrator that cites or implies that there is urgency in approving this proposal. The application for
the Use Permit Amendment was not promoted or prompted by the City; rather, the City is responding to
an application filed by the Dominican Sisters, no different than any other application filed with the City
for a Planning permit process. Regardless of the matter of urgency, the Planning Commission
confirmed the Zoning Administrator's finding that there is a need for housing in general. Regarding
housing need, the General Plan 2020 Housing Element (page 42) explicitly identifies: a) a broad list of
those that need housing (which includes very low-income households including those without a place to
call home); and b) the kind of housing that is needed.
Appeal Point #6:
The Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator demonstrated bias in the handling
of the [Use Permit Amendment] and in his [Zoning Administrator's] participation in the
Planning Commission's [decision]. Therefore, the decisions made incorporating said
bias should be overturned. The appellant notes that materials submitted to the City during the
permit review process were shared with the applicant and their attorneys but the same benefit
was not afforded to the appellant. Further, it is argued that the Zoning Administrator did not
provide notice of the Use Permit Amendment action to the appellant. Lastly, the appellant noted
that the Zoning Administrator was biased in approving Use Permit Amendment condition #7,
which initially set four mandatory options for the applicant to pursue following termination of the
two-year operation period.
Response: Staff respectfully disagrees with this appeal point and provides the following response:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 14
a. There has been nothing unusual or out -of -the ordinary in the processing of this Use Permit
Amendment request that is different than all other similar permit applications processed by the
Community Development Department. As part of the permit review process, it is standard
practice for staff to share with the applicant and their consultants all materials and
correspondence submitted to the City. Very often materials and correspondence are submitted
from, among others, the public, another agency or a neighborhood organization. It is common
that these submittals include requests for additional information or clarification, or raise an issue
that requires input from the applicant. Staff shares these requests with the applicant so that
questions can be answered and issues can be resolved.
The exchange of email correspondence has become an expected practice during the permit
process and in efficiently getting work completed. Email exchanges that occur as part of the
daily permit processing is a standard practice and not all such emails are printed in hardcopy
form and placed in the project file. Email correspondence from the public that includes
comments or opinions regarding the permit or proposed project are printed, and placed in the
file, and ultimately are forwarded to the decision -makers as part of the public comment record.
Staff's handling of emails is consistent with the requirements of the Public Records Act.
In response to the appellant's Public Records Request, the appellant was provided hard copies
of all email exchanges that occurred during the permit review process. Many of these emails
were not printed in hard copy or placed in the file for the reasons stated above.
At the January 4, 2017 Zoning Administrator hearing, the Zoning Administrator reported that
attendees who provided an email address on the meeting "sign -in" log would be sent a copy of
the Zoning Administrator action. The Zoning Administrator's action on January 28 was
distributed via email to all persons who provided an email address on the "sign -in" log, which
included the appellant. The appellant contacted staff several days later, and reported that he
had not received the email or confirmation of the Zoning Administrator action. At that time, it
was discovered that the appellant's email address provided on the "sign -in" log was not correct,
and a different address was provided by the appellant. There was nothing in this transaction or
action that indicated a bias in connection with the application or any intended impediment to the
appellant.
c. The initial language of Use Permit condition #7 approved by the Zoning Administrator is as
follows:
7. This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance
date of Certificate of Occupancy. At the end of the two year period, the Use Permit
Amendment will terminate. At that time, the project proponent shall be required to proceed
with one of the following for the "yellow hallway.-"
a. Request an extension to this Use Permit Amendment to continue the transitional housing
use for a term period of in perpetuity;
b. Re -purpose the single residential dwelling unit to another residential use such as for a
manager's/caretaker unit or for convent use; or
c. Remove the kitchen facility and return the area to its current use as residential convent
rooms.
As discussed above, Use Permit condition #7 was revised by the Planning Commission.
Regarding the initial language of condition #7, it was not the intent of staff to facilitate or
promote the approval of the use for more than two years, or to establish a permanent use that
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 15
would deny the public of its right to due process. The purpose of the initial language was to
forcefully require that the Dominican Sisters plan for use of the yellow hallway area following. the
two year period. Because the project proposes and requires phvsical improvements to the
yellow hallway, the mere "sunset" of the use after two years does not address what will happen
to the physical space and these improvements. If it is the intent of the Dominican Sisters to
return the yellow hallway to the current use, then the City will require that the kitchen be
removed. If, at that time it is the intent of the Dominican Sisters to request an extension to the
current proposal or to re -purpose the space in a different way, the City will need to know so that
the Use Permit for the Lourdes Convent is amended and consistent with the future purpose and
use of the space improvements.
When the appellant questioned the initial condition #7 language and requested that it be revised
after the permit action by the Zoning Administrator, staff declined this request. Staff was
advised by the City Attorney's Office that such a request should be addressed as part of an
appeal of the action, as the permit action had already been taken. Following the filing of the two
appeals to the Planning Commission, staff contacted the appellants and reported concurrence
with their concern. Staff indicated that a revised condition #7 would be recommended to the
Planning Commission, which occurred.
Appeal Point #7:
If the Planning Commission's action is upheld, any change in zoning/use should have a
condition to run with the land that if the [Dominican] Sisters ever transfer title to the
property, whether it be by sale or gift, the transitional housing must terminate.
Response: With the inclusion of approved Use Permit condition #7 (cited above and in the draft
resolution [Attachment 1]), the proposed use would terminate two years following unit occupancy.
Therefore, this suggested recommendation by the appellant would no longer seem necessary.
Appeal Point #8:
Should the Planning Commission's decision be upheld, there should be a moratorium of
three months following the expiration of the two-year amended Use Permit so that those
within the affected community can reflect upon and discuss the appropriateness of any
future amendment to the change in use.
Response: In consultation with the City Attorney's office, staff has reviewed this request and finds
that a moratorium following the termination of the use is not necessary or warranted. If approved, the
transitional housing use would be in operation for two full years following occupancy of the yellow
hallway area. The two years of operation will provide the City and the neighborhood an opportunity to
review the operations and gauge conditions and potential issues. Second, as proposed Use Permit
condition #7 (as revised by the Planning Commission) provides an automatic termination date, any
request to extend the use or re -purpose the yellow hallway area would require a new Use Permit
Amendment application. Applications for Use Permit requiring Zoning Administrator approval are
typically processed to action in three months (sometimes less). Therefore, the time period to reflect on
the appropriateness of a requested extension of the use or other future use will be afforded. Lastly,
moratoriums are imposed when there is a current and immediate threat to the public safety, health and
welfare. As supported by the findings that are made for the Use Permit Amendment, the proposed use
would not impact the public safety, health or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or the
community.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 16
Appeal Point #9:
Should the Dominican Sisters cease to use the Lourdes Convent for convent use, the PD
District should be abolished and the property should revert back to the R1 a District.
Response: Staff disagrees with this recommendation. As discussed above, property zoning runs
with the land, not with the property owner or tenant. In the event the convent use would cease to exist,
any re-purposing/re-use of the existing convent facilities, or redevelopment of the site would have to be
reviewed on its merits for consistency with the General Plan and zoning. Any change in the property
zoning, even an action to revert back to a prior zoning district must follow a public process, which
includes public hearings and action by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Conclusion:
Staff finds that there is no merit to the points presented by the appellant. It is recommended that the
appeal be denied and that the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit Amendment UP16-057 be
upheld based on the findings and subject to conditions set forth in the attached draft resolution
(Attachment 1).
Environmental Determination:
The project proposes a repurposing of existing, developed space within the Lourdes Convent facility.
This activity is deemed to be categorically exempt from environmental review per California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
Notice of the City Council hearing, as well as the previous Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Commission hearings were provided in accordance with the noticing requirements contained in Chapter
14.29 (Zoning- Public Notice) of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The notice of the public hearings was
mailed to 23 property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site and to the pertinent
neighborhood association (Dominican/black Canyon Neighborhood Association). For the City Council
and Planning Commission hearings, the noticing list was expanded to include those that attended the
Zoning Administrator hearing and provided their mailing address. The public hearing notice for the City
Council meeting and the mailing list are attached (Attachment 7).
The City has received many letters and emails with comments of support and opposition to this
proposal and the appeals. Correspondence received through the March 14, 2017 Planning
Commission hearing is provided in the following link:
httr)://citvofsanrafae1.granicus.com/MetaViewer.r)hr)?view id=38&clip id=1112&meta id=104177
Correspondence received since the March 14, 2017 Planning Commission hearing are provided in
Attachment 8 of this staff report (under separate cover).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Review and action on this appeal has no fiscal impact on the City of San Rafael.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution as presented to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission's action to uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Use Permit
Amendment.
2. Adopt a modified Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action
to uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Use Permit Amendment, with modifications,
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 17
changes or additional conditions of approval.
3. Uphold the appeal and deny the Use Permit Amendment. If the Council chooses this option, it
should articulate the evidence and reasoning supporting the action, and staff will return at a later
Council meeting with a revised resolution for approval.
4. Continue the matter to address comments of additional information requested by the City
Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity/Location Map and Reduced -size Plan Set of Lourdes Convent
3. Letter of Appeal of Planning Commission Action from Christopher Dolan; March 21, 2017
4. Tenant/Resident Screening Criteria
5. Letter from Gary Ragghianti, Attorney representing Dominican Sisters; May 1, 2017
6. Planning Commission Resolution 17-02, adopted March 14, 2017
7. City Council public notice and mailing list
8. Public Correspondence received after March 14, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 14329
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
DENYING APPEAL AP 17-003 AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A USE
PERMIT AMENDMENT (UP16-057) TO PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF
THE 1,995 -SQUARE -FOOT "YELLOW HALLWAY" AREA OF
THE LOURDES CONVENT TO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT
FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS
77 LOCUST AVENUE
(APN 015-112-23)
WHEREAS, the Sisters of Third Order of St. Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy
Name Support Charitable Trust (Dominican Sisters) own and occupy the "Lourdes Convent"
located at 77 Locust Avenue. The 2.1 -acre property is developed with a 16,450 -square foot
convent facility that houses a retirement center with congregate care unit for retired nuns; The
retirement center and ancillary uses operates under a Use Permit (UP79-18) that was issued by
the City in 1979. The Lourdes Convent property was rezoned from the U (Unclassified) District
to PD (Planned Development) District in 1992; and
WHEREAS, in late 2016, the Dominican Sisters filed an application to amend the
Lourdes Convent Use Permit (UP16-057)to convert a 1,995 -square -foot portion of the retirement
center ("yellow hallway" area) from residential rooms to a single, residential unit with a kitchen
for transitional housing. In partnership with Homeward Bound, the residential unit would be
made available to two single women and their children as a shared residence. The shared unit
would be for "transitional housing" for the residents. The Use Permit Amendment request is for
two years following unit occupancy; and
WHEREAS, following City staff review of the proposal, the Use Permit Amendment
application was scheduled for review and action by the Zoning Administrator. On January 4,
2017, the Zoning Administrator held a noticed public hearing on the Use Permit amendment
application. The Zoning Administrator hearing was attended by approximately 50 people that
included the applicant and neighboring residents. Approximately 20 people provided public
testimony expressing both support and opposition to the proposal. Following public testimony,
the Zoning Administrator: a) closed the public hearing; b) indicated that all concerns and
comments would be reviewed, addressed and considered in an action on the application; and c)
reported that a decision on the Use Permit Amendment application would be issued by January
28, 2017; and
WHEREAS, following the January 4, 2017 hearing, the Zoning Administrator compiled
and organized 17 questions and comments presented at the hearing and in correspondence
submitted to the City. A detailed response to each question and comment was prepared and
considered in the findings for action on the Use Permit Amendment;
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2017, the Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Action
conditionally approving Use Permit Amendment UP16-057. The approval action was: a) based
on facts and findings and supported by the response to comments and questions raised by the
public; and b) subject to conditions of approvals included in the Notice of Action; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to review and consider Appeals AP 17-001 and AP 17-002 to the Zoning Administrator's
approval of Use Permit Amendment UP16-057, and considered all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2017, the Planning Commission, on a 6-0-1 vote
(Commissioner Paul absent) adopted Resolution No. 17-02 denying Appeals AP 17-001 and AP -
002 and upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit UP 16-057. As part of this
action and at the recommendation of staff, the Planning Commission amended Use Permit UP 16-
057 condition #7, which addresses the two-year term of the Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2017, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission action
(Appeal AP 17-003) was filed by Christopher Dolan. The written appeal was appropriately filed
with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing to consider
Appeal AP 17-003, take public testimony, consider the evidence in the record, and review the
findings and decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the project has deemed to be exempt from environmental review per
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities);
and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department. The records of
proceedings include the "Notice of Zoning Administrator Action" with attachments dated January
28, 2017, the Planning Commission staff report with attachments dated March 14, 2017, the City
Council staff report with attachments dated May 15, 2017, and all correspondence received to
date on this matter by the City of San Rafael.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies Appeal
AP17-003 and upholds the Planning Commission's March 14, 2017 action to uphold the Zoning
Administrator's January 28, 2016 approval of Use Permit Amendment UP16-057. The City
Council finds and determines that points of Appeal AP17-003 cannot be supported for the
following reasons:
Findings for Denial of Anneal AP 17-003
Appeal Point #1:
The proposed use would necessitate a rezoning. The proposed use will constitute a residential,
multi family use.
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. The City Council finds that the
proposed use would not necessitate a rezoning in that it: a) maintains the basic residential use of
the yellow hallway area; b) is a minor re -use of an existing development portion of the existing
retirement center; and c) is considered a temporary use as the Use Permit Amendment is term -
based (two-year approval). Further, the City Council finds that the proposal would result in a
single, residential dwelling unit with a single kitchen that would be shared by two single women
and their children. The arrangement does not constitute a multiple -family residential use. The
San Rafael Municipal Code (SMRC Title 14, Zoning) (the "Zoning Ordinance") defines a
multiple -family residence as three or more individual, attached residential dwelling units on a
single site.
N
Appeal Point #2:
The current PD District zoning does not permit the proposed use.
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. The City Council finds that the
proposed use would not violate or be prohibited by the current PD District adopted for Lourdes
Convent. The City Council acknowledges that the current PD District does not have an approved
Development Plan, which sets forth land use regulations and development standards for this
district. However, the City Council finds that per San Rafael Municipal Code Section
14.07.035C, the improvements and use are minor and do not require an amendment to the PD
District. The approval of a Development Plan and amendment to the current PD District would
be triggered when or if the property is redeveloped or if there were a major re -purposing or reuse
of the existing retirement center facility. The continued operation of the existing use is governed
by Use Permit UP79-18. Minor changes in the existing use are typically processed and permitted
through a Use Permit Amendment.
Appeal Point #3:
The proposal constitutes an amendment to the PD District zoning and should require a new
zoning application. The appellant notes that Zoning Ordinance Section 14.07.150 states that
"requests for changes in the contents of approval of a PD District zoning and Development
Plan shall be treated as a zoning amendment (rezoning)."
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. The City Council finds that the
project does not require an amendment to the PD District and that the processing and issuance of
a Use Permit Amendment is the appropriate process for this request. As noted in the response to
Appeal Points #1 and 2 above, the project proposes a minor change to the existing residential use
of the yellow hallway area. Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.07.035C, the
improvements and use are minor and do not require an amendment to the PD District. The City
Council finds that this approach has been taken on minor use changes for other properties located
in the PD District, including 1600-1650 Los Gamos Road (Marin Commons) and 111 McInnis
Parkway (office complex). The City Council finds that if a major change in the use of the
Lourdes Convent facility (e.g., a commercial retirement center) were proposed or if the facility
was demolished and the site was proposed for redevelopment, a zoning amendment to the PD
District and a Development Plan would be required.
Appeal Point #4:
The proposal is non-compliant with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.115 as the City has zoned
GC and LI/O Districts in other area of the Cityfor shelters for families. The proposal does not
meet the Performance Standards of this ordinance section.
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. The City Council finds that San
Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.115 is not relevant or applicable to the proposed project.
This section of the zoning ordinance is specific to the establishment and operation of emer2encv
shelters not transitional housing. The project proposes transitional housing. The City Council
confirms that since this code section is not relevant or application to the proposed transitional
housing use, the require performance standards of this code section are not applicable.
Appeal Point #5:
3
Objective studies conducted pursuant to statutory mandate, show that homelessness among the
population of families with children has decreased. Therefore, the stated urgent need is not
supported by the empirical evidence.
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. The City Council finds there is
nothing in the approval of the Use Permit Amendment that cites or implies that there is urgency
in approving this proposal. The City Council acknowledges that the application for the Use
Permit Amendment was not promoted or prompted by the City; rather, the City is responding to
an application filed by the Dominican Sisters, no different than any other applicant to the
Planning permit process. Regardless of the matter of urgency, there is a need for housing in
general. San Rafael General Plan 2020 Housing Element (page 42) explicitly identifies: a) a
broad list of those that need housing (which includes very low-income households including
those without a place to call home); and b) the kind of housing that is needed.
Appeal Point #6:
The Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator demonstrated bias in the handling of the
[Use Permit Amendment] and in his [Zoning Administrator's] participation in the Planning
Commission's [decision]. Therefore, the decisions made incorporating said bias should be
overturned The appellant notes that materials submitted to the City during the permit review
process were shared with the applicant and their attorneys but the same benefit was not afforded
to the appellant. Further, it is argued that the Zoning Administrator did not provide notice of the
Use Permit Amendment action to the appellant. Lastly, the appellant noted that the Zoning
Administrator was biased in approving Use Permit Amendment condition #7, which initially set
four mandatory options for the applicant to pursue following termination of the two-year
operation period.
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. As presented in the report, the
City Council finds that: a) there has been nothing unusual or out -of -the ordinary in the processing
of this Use Permit Amendment request that is different than all other similar permit applications
processed by the Community Development Department; b) there is nothing in the information
that has been presented to conclude that there was a bias toward the applicant; and c) there is
nothing in the information that has been presented to conclude that the appellant was denied due
process or access to public records.
Appeal Point #7.
If the Planning Commission's action is upheld, any change in zoning/use should have a
condition to run with the land that if the [Dominican] Sisters ever transfer title to the property,
whether it is by sale or gift, the transitional housing must terminate.
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. As included in this resolution,
Use Permit Amendment Condition #7 requires that the proposed use terminate two years
following unit occupancy and the permit amendment will sunset at that time. Therefore, this
suggested recommendation by the appellant is no longer necessary.
Appeal Point #8:
Should the Planning Commission's decision be upheld, there should be a moratorium of three
months following the expiration of the two-year amended Use Permit so that those within the
affected community can reflect upon and discuss the appropriateness of any future amendment
to the change in use.
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. The City Council has
considered the input and recommendations of staff and the City Attorney, and finds that a
moratorium following the termination of the use is not necessary or warranted. If approved, the
transitional housing use would be in operation for two full years following occupancy of the
yellow hallway area. The two years of operation will provide the City and the neighborhood an
opportunity to review the operations and gauge conditions and potential issues. As supported by
the findings that are made for the Use Permit Amendment, the proposed use would not impact the
public safety, health or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or the community.
Appeal Point #9:
Should the Dominican Sisters cease to use the Lourdes Convent for convent use, the PD
District should be abolished and the property should revert back to the RI a District.
The City Council has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this appeal point
presented in the Report to the City Council dated May 15, 2017. The City Council finds that
should the Dominican Sisters cease to use the convent the property as a convent the current PD
District would not be abolished or automatically be rezoned to the Rla District as suggested by
the appellant. Given the property size (over two acres), a rezoning of the PD District to
incorporate an approved Development Plan would likely be recommended. Any change in
property zoning requires a public process, which is set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code
Chapter 14.27 (Amendment). The public process requires public hearings with the Planning
Commission and City Council. Any major re -use of the existing convent facilities or
redevelopment of the property would require a property rezoning.
The City Council finds that property zoning must be consistent with the San Rafael General Plan
land use designation. The property land use designation for the subject property is Public/Quasi-
Public. While this land use designation permits residential use, its primary purpose is to
accommodate public and quasi -public uses and facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies Appeal AP17-003 and
upholds the Planning Commission's action to uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use
Permit Amendment UP16-057 based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings for UPI 6-057
As proposed and conditioned, the use is in accord with the General Plan 2020, the
objectives of the City Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the PD (Planned
Development) District in that:
a. The General Plan 2020 Land Use Element land use map designates Lourdes Convent
for public/quasi-public use. This land use designation permits residential use. The
current use, the Lourdes Convent, is a residential use. The proposed transitional
housing is also a residential use and is therefore consistent with the allowances of this
land use designation.
b. The proposed use is consistent with General Plan 2020 Housing Element Policy H-9,
which recognizes special needs. Policy H-9 encourages a mix of housing unit types
throughout San Rafael, including housing for very low- and low-income families with
5
children and single parents. As proposed, the residential unit would provide
transitional housing for two single mothers with their children living as a single
household.
c. Consistent with General Plan 2020 Housing Element Policy H-10, the proposed use
represents an innovated housing approach that supports the financing, design and
construction of a residential unit that increases the availability of low-income housing.
d. The proposed use would create a shared household of two single parents with children,
which would be consistent with General Plan 2020 Housing Element Policy H-11
(House Sharing).
e. The proposed use is consistent with one of the objectives of the PD (Planned
Development) District, which is to accommodate various types of compatible and
complimentary uses within a development. Lourdes Convent presents a setting of
compatible residential uses.
f. The approval of a Use Permit Amendment for the proposed use is appropriate in that it
would allow the re -purposing of existing building area for a two year period. Given the
limited scope and timeframe of this project, it would not result in a substantial change
to the property or use that would necessitate or mandate a comprehensive, long-term
master plan for Lourdes Convent.
2. As proposed and conditioned, the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the
general welfare of the City in that:
a. The project will not result in new development, additional building area or major
physical changes to the Lourdes Convent property; it proposes the conversion of
existing residential rooms, the "yellow hallway," to a single dwelling unit for a shared
household. Further, the "yellow hallway" represents a small percentage (12%) of the
overall Lourdes Convent facility.
b. The project would re -purpose an existing 1,995 square foot area of the convent to a
single residential unit which will not result in an increase in traffic that would change
or exacerbate existing traffic patterns or conditions, or increase safety hazards along the
local street system.
c. As demonstrated by a one-week parking survey conducted at the project site, the
existing parking supply exceeds the demand, thus there is adequate off-street parking to
serve the proposed use without impacting properties in the vicinity.
d. The project would not impair or reduce safety to the residents of the convent facility or
to surrounding residents in that the single residence is set back from the public street
and the outdoor yard area would be fenced and screened with vegetation. Further, to
maintain a line of sight for safe vehicle back -out along Locust Avenue, it is
recommended that the heavy vegetation located east of the informal, gravel parking pad
be trimmed back.
e. The exterior improvements proposed for the project are limited to the creation of a
fenced yard area, which is currently fenced and well screened from the public street by
heavy vegetation. These improvements will not result in a noticeable change to the
property conditions and would not be injurious to properties or improvements in the
area.
f. As proposed, Homeward Bound will provide residency oversight to ensure that
residents are properly screened and meet the criteria for residency. This oversight will
ensure that the proposed use is properly managed to ensure the safety and welfare of
the residents and the surrounding neighborhood.
Co
As proposed and conditioned, the use complies with each of the applicable provisions of
the City Zoning Ordinance in that:
a. As required by the provisions of the PD District, the proposed transitional housing use
is a residential use that is compatible with retirement center use. Further, the processing
and approval of a Use Permit Amendment is consistent with the requirements of the PD
District to ensure that all uses on one site are compatible and complimentary.
b. There is adequate parking to meet the City Code. Further, it has been demonstrated by
the one-week parking survey conducted at the subject property that the existing parking is
adequate to meet the City Code. A study of the parking found that the existing parking
exceeds the demand.
4. The proposed use meets the City Zoning Ordinance definition for transitional housing,
which complies with State law. Per California Government Code Section 65583,
transitional housing must be treated as a residential use only, subject to only the same
restrictions as other housing of the same type in the subject zoning district. The sole
requirement for the approval of a Use Permit Amendment is that Lourdes Convent is
located within a PD District. A Use Permit Amendment would be required for other similar
residential uses proposed for the "yellow hallway" such as a manager's or caretaker
residence.
Conditions of Annroval for UPI 6-057
1. Except as modified by the conditions of the Use Permit Amendment, all conditions of
approval for Use Permit UP79-18 relating to the use and operation of the Lourdes Convent
are unchanged and shall remain in effect.
2. This Use Permit Amendment approves the conversion of the 1,995 square -foot "yellow
hallway" area of the convent to a single residential dwelling unit (including a kitchen) for
transitional housing. As proposed, the residential dwelling unit is approved for a shared
household.
3. As the primary tenant of the "yellow hallway," Homeward Bound is responsible for
managing the oversight of unit residency and operation. As presented in the Use Permit
Amendment application, unit residents must be participants in the Homeward Bound
program, meet the screening criteria for occupancy, enter into an occupancy agreement and
comply with the Code of Conduct for residency.
4. Prior to any and all construction, a building permit is required and shall be secured for this
project. Upon completion of the construction and City inspection process, a Certificate of
Occupancy will be issued by the City.
5. Along the Locust Avenue frontage adjacent to the main driveway is an informal, gravel -
surfaced parking pad, which is located within the public right-of-way. In order to provide a
line of sight for safe vehicle back-up, the heavy vegetation located east of this pad shall be
trimmed back to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The vegetation trimming
shall be completed prior to the occupancy.
6. The application for a building permit will require review and approval by the Fire
Department. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the
California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and amendments. An upgrade to the
7
existing fire alarm and sprinkler system serving the "yellow hallway" may be required as
determined by the Fire Department.
7. This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance date
of Certificate of Occupancy. At the end of the two year period, the Use Permit Amendment
shall terminate. At that time, the kitchen facility shall be removed and the area returned to its
current use as residential convent rooms. If at the end of the two year period the property
owner decides to retain the kitchen and extend the Use Permit Amendment or re -purpose the
yellow hallway area, City Council approval will be required.
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk if the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 15th day of May 2017.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
jet, -r
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
LOURDES
, CONVENT ATTENUE
77 Locust Ave — Vicinity Map
U P16-057
ACACIA Ayg. /
!�r
RVIM
1
,1
1
1
1
1'
,1
i
i
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
• � 1
C aE0W[E
CHRISTOPHER B DOLAN ESQ D
1 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL, CA, 94102 MAR 21 2017 J
Chris(atdolanlawfirm.com
415-421-2800 C TY CLERK'S OFFICE
Mardi 21, 2017
San Rafael City Counsel
CO/City Clerk
1400 Fifth Ave.
San Rafael, Ca 94901
RE: Appeal of Plaruring Commission Decision Concerning Action UPI 6-057
77 Locust Ave. (Lourdes Convent) APN 015-112-23
Dear Esteemed Members of the City Counsel,
I hereby file an appeal from the Decision of the Planning Commission concealing the granting of
an Amended Change of Use, UP16-057, for the property located at 77 Locust Ave. (Lourdes
Convent) APN 015-112-23. 1 have standing to file this appeal because I have previously
appealed to the Planning Commission and such Appeal was denied. This Appeal is timely filed
within 5 business days from the decision of the Planning Commission entered on March 14,
2017.
INTRODUCTION
I am the owner of 1 Locust Avenue, a contiguous neighbor to 77 Locust Ave, Lourdes Convent,
owned by The Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name
Support Charities Trust ("the Sisters"). The Sisters already have many of their congregation
living at Lourdes Convent. The Sisters have lived in harmony with their- neighbors, including
myself, for years while operating Lourdes as a Convent for those nuns who are retired and/or
recovering from surgery or illness. The Sisters now want to change the use of the properly,
fundamentally, by becoming landlords. They wish to enter into a master lease with a separate
corporation (Homeward Sound of Marin) that then will rent/sub-lease space as part of a
commercial enterprise to two families. The Sisters would be turning over total operation and
control of the ]eased facilities to Homeward Bound_
A P 13 - OC)3
The lease would be for a newly created living twit which will contain: a separate entrance, 10
rooms, two full bath.roorns, a kitchen, laundry room, and a designated fenced in yard. To
undertake the project, the Sisters will engage in significant expense associated with creating the
new entrance and kitchen, some interior remodeling, as well as locked doorways to isolate the
unit from the rest of the convent.
Much has been made of this project based on the proposed intended use: transitional housing, for
up to two years, for two women, each with one child, The intentions of the Sisters, while
laudable, I are not what should be driving this decision: indeed, it seems that the: biased Decision
of the Planning Commissioner/ Acting Zonuig Administrator and the subsequent biased analysis
presented by him to the Planning Commission was reverse engineered so as to validate a
conclusion based on social policy rather than sound planning and existing zoning policy.
There is no argument here that the Sisters are good, pious, holy, people of charity and good
works. They have been, and I hope will continue to be, friends and neighbors. We are of similar
faith and values.
There is no argument that homeless people should not be assisted to stand on their own two feet
and re-enter mainstream society, to have dignity and an opportunity for betterment.
There is no argument that children, victims of circumstances beyond their own control, who are
impoverished, destitute and homeless, should not be cared for and offered stability.
There is no argument with the stated intentions for this Application for an Amended Conditional
Use Permit. There is opposition to its application at 77 Locust Ave. based on the history behhid
and the limitations in place under the current Conditional Use Permit. This body will
undoubtedly be besieged with many who extoll the Sister's virtue, longstanding ties to the
community, their religious mission, and their charitable works. This is legally and factually
irrelevant to the legal decision to be made by this body. This body is being asked to permit the
possessor of the cutient Conditional Use Permit, a corporation formed by Catholic Sisters to own
and operate as a convent, to become a landlord thereby turning over operation mid control of
approximately 2,000 sq. feet of space to a separate, unaffiliated corporate entity (meaning not a
subsidiary or parent corporation) to operate be rented to families as commercial residential
housing. This is not appropriate or permissible given the Conditions which govern the
Conditional Use Permit -and the PD zoning.
Below I will, as required, elucidate my points for appeal. T am not versed in planning and zoning
law so excuse me if I am not familiar with the nuances of the terminology. To be as specific as
possible I will provide citation to the applicable sections of the California Government Code,
The City of San Rafael's Municipal Code / Zoning Ordinance, the City's Master Plan for 2020,
and the 2011, 2013 and 2015 Marin Point -In -Time Homeless Census and Stu-veys.
i The Sisters, responding to a call from the Pope to provide shelter to refugees and see this project as a way to fulfil
that calling as their ministry. It is not this intention which is challenged but, Instead, the proposed execution, In
short, it's the execution of a righteous Intention In the wrong place and manner which has spawned this conflict.
While the subject of homelessness is interjected by the nature of the proposed use, this august
body must not give that factor any additional consideration or weight in coming to a decision
concerning the Sisters' application. California Government Code Section 65583 (7)
unambiguously states that "Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a
residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other
residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone." The Sisters' application must be
considered as if it were any other residential dwelling. The Sisters received special treatment in
the zoning of this property when it was part of, and because of their affiliation with, the
Dominican College. (Now the Dominican University.) This application and appeal must be
treated as if it were being made by a secular entity. The piety of the applicants should play no
role in the consideration of this application as to do so would discriminate on the basis of
religion and might expose the City to being leveraged, and/or to civil liability, if and when a non-
sectarian applicant makes a similar request,
HISTORY OF CURRENT ZONING AND CONDITIONS OF USE
History of 77 Locust Ave., Lourdes Convent.
The history of Lourdes Convent and Retirement Center (Lourdes) at 77 Locust Ave is
summarized below.
Lourdes is a 2.1 acre parcel, located where Locust Ave turns from an east -west heading to a
north -south heading at the intersection with Magnolia. The parcel, were it not originally
affiliated with the Dominican University and the Dominican Sisters, would be restricted to
residential use and to no more than two residential dwellings. It is in that context that the
Commission should begin its analysis. The Sisters' application requests an atypical use for this
area.
The City of'San Rafael General Plan 2020 characterizes the Dominican -Black Canyon
neighborhood as follows:
The Dominican -Black Canyon neighborhood is primarily developed with single-family homes, a
number of which are historic and unique in character ...
Aside from the Convent on the South side of Locust (on Grand between Locust and Acacia) all
other parcels on Locust are zoned for residential use. Starting in 1951, 77 Locust had been
designated as R-1 B-2 (residential). In the late 1950's, early 60's, part of the existing structure
was moved to the cui7ent site by the Dominican College which was, then, operated by
Dominican Sisters before it was transferred to a separate entity, now Dominican University. The
structure had operated as an intizmmy, student health center, and retb,ement facility for the
Sisters.
In 1979 a rezoning was sought by the Dominican Sisters to change tine zoning from R1 B-2
(residential) to U, and later to the current, modem, designation of PD Planned Development.
There is no evidence or inforTnation available as to whether there was arty hearing or process
involved in this designation. Unlike the parcel containing the Sisters of Saint Dominic
Residence Campus, located on the site of the former "Mother House" specialty zones as PD -
1827, there is no master/general plan designation number associated with the site, It appears that
the pen -nit was granted without any notice or hearing and 77 Locust Ave has operated Colder a
Use Permit, UP79-18, since 1979.
In 1979 The San Rafael Planning Department (Staff), as Part of the rezoning request, considered
whether it would be appropriate to change the zoning to R-3 (multi -family use), but did "not
consider an R-3 type zone appropriate for the neighborhood." The Staff recommended
rezoning to a U District, whieb was, at that time, the zoning classification for the rest of the
Convent and the DomL�ican College property. Because Lourdes was re-classified as a U -District
upon which "controls wid limitations could be placed on its use through a conditional use
permit" the Staff indicated that such a use permit would assure that the association with
.Dominican College could be continued. (Appellant requests that the Commission take notice of
the files maintained by plari iag commission on the subject property. Sec March 27, 1979 City
Staff; Report, item 279-5. Emphasis added. These documents will be provided by request to the
email above.) This condition is key, the only reason that Lourdes was originally zoned PD
was, because of its affiliation with Dominican College. The use permit wars granted because
of, and to assure, the continued cfJiliation with the College.
The March 27, 1997 Staff Report found that "the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan designation for residential use and will not result in development which will
adversely affect adjacent or vicinity properties." (Id., emphasis added.) At the same time The
Sisters sought to build an addition to Lourdes. The Staff recommended Conditional Approval.
City Staff Review stated:
"An important consideration in Staff and Commission determination that the existing use is
appropriate in the neighborhood is its relationship to Dominican College. Staff would question
the compatibility of a private commercial retirement center in this location. For that reason, it is
important that the use permit be limited to the ownership/operation of Dominican College
affiliated Corporations."
The Conditional Approval read:
"Findings:
"Continuation of the Lourdes Retirement Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as
its facility remains affiliated with Dormini,cau College and is not a private commercial
facility."
"Conditions of Approval:
(a) This rrse permit is limited to theLouedes Retirement Center so long as ownership
anrUor operation remain an affiliate of Dominican College.
(b) No future expansion of the use other tliwi that currently under consideration shall take
place without the modification of the current use permit."
(Ibid. emphasis added.)
It is these conditions which the Sisters now seek to alter, in order to permit their intended use for
transitional housing. That use certainly is not related to the contLinited affiliation with Dominican
College as that relationship between the Sisters, and this property, has ceased.
In 1990 the historic Mother Housc burned in a tragic -fire. The Sisters relocated while a new
convent was designed and built. When the housing they had purchased as temporary housing to
be used during reconstruction was no longer needed, it is reported that they sought to donate it to
Homeward Bound but the endeavor resulted in significant neighborhood opposition so the Sisters
sold the property acid donated the proceeds to Homeward. Bound instead. The Sisters have a
strong affiliation with Homeward Bound not only because of their mission to help the greater
community but, also, because of the fact that the Executive Director, Mary K Sweeney, PhD, is a
former nun with the Sisters of Mercy. Therc is much concem from the neighbors, including this
,appellant, that a similar strategy may be developing here and that this request for an Auuended
Use Permit is but a step towards homeless housing being established here in perpetuity. (See
section below re objection to Acting Zoning Administrator's January 2$, Notice of
Administrators Action which recommends a future potential change of use to permit this use, "in
perpetuity. ")
In 1992 the Sisters made an application for a building permit to expand Lourdes. The Sisters
sought to add seven bedrooms, each with a private en -suite bathroom, and expand the dining
room and chapel. As part of the expansion the Sisters sought to add 5 additional parking spaces
(in addition to the 10 existing spaces). (See February 12, 1992 letter from architect Peter Walz
to City Planner Shelia Dclimont re TWM x#91-121.)
At that time the Sisters indicated that the chapel was used by residents only and that it was being
enlarged to accommodate the extra space required by Sisters in wheelchairs and walkers. The
facility was identified as a "strictly private- facility" that should not be subject to parking or
other requirements that might apply to a public facility. (1d., emphasis added.) Zoning
Administrator Jensen has indicated that the facility has been designated for public/quasi-public
use. This may have originally been the case when Lourdes was part of the Dominican College,
but, as is clearly stated in the 1992 letter, it has been strictly private since no later than that date.
Additionally, as portrayed below in the legal analysis section, the trap within the 2020 General
Plan may, by green dots, reflect that this is quasi -public use, that seems to be a left over from the
unity of the Sisters with Dominican College as it conflicts with the Municipal Code's Zoning
Ordinance.
Indeed, during the 1992 permitting process, The City indicated that it did not have a current
description of the facility at Lourdes. The Sistcrs indicated that the facility was neither senior
housing nor a residential care facility: it was described as "a convent," (Id.) At that time the
Sisters indicated that Lourdes was no longer of lliatedl in any way with Dominican College
then describing the current use as follows: "Lourdes Convent is a residence for the Dominican
Sisters of San Rafael." Al. that time there were 10 units (dormitory type rooms), two of which
were occupied by Sisters who were administrators of Lourdes. They stated that they had "25
Sisters residing at Lourdes most of whom were retired and unable to live in their other residences
because they were unable to climb stairs and need some level of assistance in their daily
routines." (The Mother House's cur -Tent design has the majority of living quarters located on
ground level.) It was indicated that occasionally `other Sisters resided. at Lourdes if they were
recovering from surgery or illness." The Sisters stated that "Lourdes Convent is not a public
facility but is a traditional convent to which sisters are assigned by the administration of
the congregation." Additional assurance was given that there were no on -sight health care
providers living in the facility; it was for the Sister's only,
Clearly when the affiliation with'the Dominican College ended, the quasi -public nature of the
property ended as well. Indeed, as referenced above, by the Sisters' own admission and
designation to the City, Lourdes ceased to have any public/quasi-public function yet, for some
reason, that was not changed on the General Plan Land Use Map (where Mr. Jenson appears to
have gotten his information on public/quasi-public use as nowhere else in the over 500 page
document is this addressed). Based on the original Use Permit, which was never amended once
Lourdes was no longer affiliated with Dominican College, Lourdes should have lost its general
PD status and, most appropriately, should have been incorporated into the PD -1827 District
fon-ned by the Sisters when they re -zoned the site of the Mother -louse, which had also separated
from Dominican College. Had the Planning Department and Zoning Commission done this, the
authorized uses of the land would now be governed by that Planned Development but, instead,
the land's conditional use remained contingent on its ongoing affiliation with Dominican
College. Since this affiliation had by then ended, the Use Permit, as a matter of the terms of the
Conditional Use Permit, and pursuant to a breach of the condition, should have expired.
In 1993 and 2010 Lourdes underwent remodeling and expansion, each time maintaining that the
same, exclusive, use would continue to be a convent.
REOU E ST FOR CHANGE OF USE
According to the Sister's Website, htto://saiiraf'aelon.orVJ�N ho-we-are/concrrc,,ational-iiiston,/ at
its height in 1965, the congregation numbered 376. Presently there are 77 sisters remaining:
primarily in California and Nevada. In short, as stated in their Application, their census is down;
and they have extra space in Lourdes Convent across the street from their main convent. The
facts show that the vacancy will continue to expand, not contract, as women are not entering
religious life.
The location of Lourdes is depicted below:
1 177 Locust Ave— Lourdes Convent
61 -TF- LOCATOM LOU0.DF-5 RETIREMENT "RTME
pRapdq.m ppatA ft -a -a To U.
Z 7.9-5 ]a A" AAnAQTA P"MNIMM, -m-A-p""'my I Z 79-5
Although the Sisters indicate that there would be "very minor modifications" to a "very small
portion" of the Convent, the project seeks to create a new entry way, a 1,995 sq. foot living unit
consisting of 13 rooms including a kitchen., sitting room, six bedrooms, and a fenced -in yard with
an outdoor playground.
Locust Ave
(facing Dominican)
Locust to Gold Hill Grade
The average sized home in San Rafael is 2,133 sq, feet. litti)://www.mai-inmodern.coin/San-
Rafael-Real-Estate.nhp. Therefore, although relative to the overall space available in Lourdes,
this proposal is only 12% of the total facility, this space is not "very small" relative to residential
dwelling sizes in Marin.
THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NECESSITATE A RE -ZONING
The proposed use wilt constitute a residential multi -family use
Throughout the process, which has unfoMtnately been divisive, it has been clear that neighbors
have well founded concerns about this change and its effect on the character of the neighborhood
which is predominantly zoned R -1a, R20 and R-5 (single family homes), Indeed if Lourdes was
to be converted into single family residences, the FD zoning would cease and only two homes
would be able to be built on the site as it would be zoned R-1 a.
Many in opposition, including the Appellant, question "how this could be accomplished without
a zoning change?" I and others are concerned that change in use will ultimately lead to the
Sisters or future lessors/owners "backing into" a rezoning of the parcel at some future point so as
to conform to the changed use which, if this erroneous Administrative Action is not reversed
through this appeal, it is quite probable that this fear will materialize. Indeed if the
Administrative Action is upheld and the use of the property is changed, it should have to be re-
zoned as it will meet the definition of "Residential, Multifamily Housing" under Title 14 of the
San Rafael Municipal Code, (hereinafter the Zoning Ordinance "ZO") Section 14.03.030, which
reads as follows;
DEFINITIONS:
"Residential, multifamily" weans medium nn.d high density residential development,
including a "transitional Housing development" or "supportive housing" as defined
under State Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 (and subsequent amendments),
containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units in one (1) or more structures located
on a single parcel or common lot.
The relevant part of California Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 reads as follows;
(h) "'Transitional housing" and "transitional housing development" means buildings
configured as rental housing developments, but operated wider program requirements
that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another
eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no
less than six months.
The Sisters and Homeward Bound have characterized this proposed use as "transitional
housing," which will be rented for up to 2 years. This new space should he characterized as two
units as there are two farm ly units which will be occupying the space sharing a kitchen.
Additionally, there are numerous Sisters living on the property, along with caregivers, frill time.
These individual units have their own en -suite bathrooms which are similar to SRO units. Thus,
by application of ZO Section 14.03.030 and Health and Safety Code Section 50675.21, this will.
be facto residential multi -family housing. As in any zoning determination, one looks at the use to
see if it is conforming to the zoning applicable to the land and not try to conform the title
assigned to use so as to arrive at a desired objective. Neighbors are justly concerned that If this
project proceeds pursuarit to the Zoning Administrator's Decision, the Sisters, or their successors
in interest, will seek to have the property "spot zoned" for a non -conforming use, in perpetuity.
Therefore the Decision should be reversed and this Appeal granted.
The Current PD Zoning does not Permit the Proposed Use
When the property was zoned PD it was because of its affiliation with the Dominican College, an
educational institution. Lourdes has a PD zoning designation without an approved Master Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance shows that the current use would violate a PD designation. As such, the
zoning should revert back to what it was, R I a (2 lots of 2.05 acres each).
An examination of Title 14, Section 14.04.020, Land Use Regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD)
demonstrates that a 77 Locust is now, and has been since it was disassociated from Dominican
College, a religious institution: a Catholic Convent .2
Section 14.04.020 contains an illuminating table, Table 14.04.020, which clearly states that
Religious Institutions would be prohibited in both R (residential) and PD zoning districts.
14.04.020- Land use regulations (R, DR, MR, HR PD)
P: 1jel l'111EEed by riohi' C: Cor,daion.DI life petlllll; A- Adoln j3r.j bwl ill
Mink: Not all(Mfe
Type of laird Use R
Public and Quasi -
Pu bl ic
uashPublic Uses
Table 14.04.020
OR W I-il< PO Additional
Use
Regulations
2 As stated supra, the U (later PD) designation was chosen so that 'controls and limitations could be placed on its
use through a conditional use permit" the Staff Indicated that suck a use permit would assure that the association
with Dominican College could be continued. (See March 27, 197 1
City Staff R -port, Item 279-5)
Religious r'. r `Pichil►Ited In
Institutions Izza, Rla arld
PD•Irillsule
district-- -4nd
R?n 1 ullsirlp
I r?SICI�•Ill'�r11
IQt�
Emergency
shelters for the
horneless
Permanent C See
standards.
ruo
14-16.11
Therefore, a plain reading and application of the Land Use Regulations demonstrates that the
proposed use is not allowed and, indeed, is prohibited. Therefore the Decision should be
reversed and the Appeal granted.
The Proposal Constitutes an Ammendment to the PD Zoning and Should Require a New
Zoning Application
The current PD use is as a private convent and/or a retirment community, depending on which
title has been affixed to the PD use at Lourdes. ZO 14.07.150 states that "requests for changes
in the contents of approval of a PD zoning and development plan shall be treated as a
zoning amendment (rezoning). Rezonings shall be heard and decided by the city council (sic).
The procedures for filing and processing a rezoning shall be the same as those established for an
initial PD zoning and development plan application." Therefore, pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance, this application should not be handled as a Change in Use but, instead should be
handled as a zoning arnmendment. The procedure which has been employed is improper and
inappropriate and, therefore, the Decision should be rejected.
The Proposal is Non -Compliant with ZO 14.16.115- The City has Zoned GC and LI/O
Districts for Shelters for Families.
As part of the justification for the application, and the Zoning Administrator's Action, there is a
stated need for additional shelter for families with children to meet the requirmeents of
Government Code Section 65583.
14.16.115 reads as follows:
A. Purpose. This section establishes standards for location and operation of a permanent
emergency shelter for homeless populations in compliance with California Government
Code Section 65583, including allowing shelters as a permitted use in some commercial and
industrial district locations. This section is not applicable to temporary emergency shelters
established by the city in response to an emergency event.
B. Applicability. Emergency shelters to provide temporary housing and assistance for families
and individuals who are homeless shall be permitted as of right in the GC and LIIO districts
generally bounded by Bellarn Boulevard and I-580, consisting of those shaded parcels within
this area, as shown on Map 14.16.115, and at other locations where conditionally permitted by
the land use tables of this title. However, the total number of beds provided within the area
shown on Map 14.16.115 shall only be permitted by right as necessary to meet the local housing
need established by the General Plan 2020 Housing Element (reflecting regional housing needs
assessment (R -HNA) projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments and
based on the state housing and community development department needs assessment at the time
of adoption of the most current housing element). A conditional use permit shall be required to
provide additional facilities withia this area in excess of. the RHNA needs assessment identified
in the General Plan 2020 Housing Element, All facilities shall be operated in compliance with
the provisions herein. (Emphasis added.) There has been no showing that the current use is
actually needed to meet the regional housing need in the General flan 2020 instead, we are going
on the assumption that this is housing actually needed to meet a need which has never been
objectively demonstrated so as to meet San Rafael's obligation. Indeed, many expressed concern
that this housing may be actually directed at families living outside of San Rafael. As no need
has been demonstrated, aside from the presumption that such housing is needed, this appeal
should be granted and the Descision should be overturned.
Map 14.16.115
-7r. Z'—..
Map 14.16.115
t;C
J
�r
C"
1
rl I I
r:atcsl ��.
Af
The Proposal is Non Compliant for Failure to Meet Performance Standards
14.16.115 D An emergency shelter shal I meet the following development and performance
standards:
1. On-site management and on-site security shall be provided during hours when the emergency
shelter is in operation...
6 (c). The provider shall have a written management plan including, as applicable, provisions for
staff training, neighborhood outreach, security, screening of residents to enstire compatibility
with services provided at the facility, and for training, counseling, and treatment programs for
residents.
This Shelter has no on site management or on-site security and no management plan that satisfies
Section D(6)(c). The only thing that has been provided is a document relating to the screeing
criteria. Therefore the Decision should be overturned and the Appeal should be granted.
San Rafael has, consistent with the General Plan and Govenu-nent Code Section 65583,
designated proper zones for this type of transitional housing.
Objective Studies, Conducted Pursuant To Statutory Mandate, Show that Homelessnes
Amoung the Population of Families with Children Has Decreased Therefore the Stated
Urgent Need is not Supported by the Empiricle Evidence.
Every two years Marin is obligated to conduct a homeless census. In that regard, since 2009, the
Marin Point -In -Time Homeless Census and Survey has been recorded. The census, done under
contract with the County of Marin, by Applied Survey Research out of Watsonville, shows that
there has been a downward trend in the need for housing for families with children.
In 2011, in Marin, there were 155 households with children counted as homeless. In 2013 that
number had dropped to 99.
The 2015 Point -In -Time Census stated that: "very few families experiencing homelessness are
unsheltered. Public shelters typically serve around 90% of homeless families in the United
States, a significantly higher proportion of the population compared to other subpopulations,
including unaccompanied youth."
The following table from the 2015 study illustrates the statistics on homelss farniles in Marin.
FIGURE 34, HOMELESS MNIIE.IES WITH CH11,111REN 1101IMMION ES'Y1W11'FS
TOTAL POPOIATIONOFFAMMIS ST TAfAIEIES4iIINIOdfAf�lll86!EIlOEA$
11 'Id -1 lit
96'Ie sI1owou .�ffl 41L (Jr+he"11
NIJOOEfitIl110N A huusi>Iudtl ttiR1�,A 1h,iN nu{� adult msudu•� Ip�ascus 1flt�i uili�!OdrU Aa Ira•,t anr,inhi wc•rnh!r hia:cri:
undor 18)
.tiUWer:A111tho,l)•wl•rvRr-tits, h.hl,uIII 4'mililtibwi.fl,..•I's inu•iri•:yuwr• W111-14nwl►1 VA
Therefore, the need is not as great as stated such that a residential area, and a PD zoning district
for a convent, should be adapted to accommodate the stated, yet unsupported need. Other areas
in San Rafael are zoned for this use/need.
While the demand for housing is low, the risks of this proposal are high. The Domincan is an
area of families with small children and young students. A large dorm and the cafeteria are on
the north side of the campus near Lourdes. The following table shows that 68% of the 19
homeless families surveyed in Marin in 2015 suffered from either drug or alcohol abuse or
psychiatric conditions that contributed to their homelessness. Another 26% suffered from PTSD.
Therefore 94% are suffering from illnesses and conditions which require treatment.
HLALIH LONOITilms Ainkr;i, 1-10015US5 rA1411IES 1vT{1 r1iIIORI.-N
tight of the 19 family members reporicti suffering from psychiatric or mental problems.
FIGURE 37. 1f1;AI.TFI CONDITIONS AN1 10% 1101-IF,IXSS, rAhf II,IB WITII011LDRFN
Ill lig U1 +IIU11111111141p,' II 111 I',\1111111111' I'l rIl1V1U11 loll I Prnlil tom-, ri.l j, flimm1 Ill Ilir,Il'11+11' 11:1'!, 151+1'1 rit11111J11/
511c�.1)LrndrrlNf;;i1)!111'I,t'h+111111111,+IIH1u1dd1nl,n 1'l 1'11nu1hrtil hn11►Ih11n1yi1:1►,111USJ1111 rrlulrJ
n R.
}111111 r 11111,Uc11 tiu►1.1 t Ilr,1,+1I I+ (,f111•i!. 11x1 u1 t'aunl v thnnl'I1•.+�In rl t' t11+h11n1�d11. C1
Despite the evidence showing that this constituency suffers a disproportionately high set of
mental/emotional health illnesses and conditions, NO SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED TO
THOSE LIVING AT LOURDES.
THE PLANNING COMM ISSIONER/ZONING COMMISSIONER DEMONSTRATED BIAS
IN HIS HANDLING OF THE APPLICATION AND IN HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE
PLANNING COMISSION'S — THEREFORE THE DECISIONS MADE INCORPORATING
SAID BIAS SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.
Documentation received thgrough a California Public Records Act request, made by petitioner,
demonstrated that Mr. Jensen, the Planning Commissioner/Acting Zoning Administrator
demonstrated a bias in favor of the applicant.
Evidence of Mr. Jensen's bias is demonstrated by the includion of Condition 7
The documentation revealed that Mr. Jensen wouldl take materials sent from Appellant to the
Planning Commissioner/Acting Zoning Administrator was shared with the Applicants and their
attorneys but Applicant was not provided the same benefits. Indeed there is evidence of
significant ex -parte communication between the Planning Conunissioner/Zoning Administratror
and the Applicants demonstrating that he had a bias in favor of the applicants. Said information
will be presented to the City Counsel prior to the hearing on this appeal.
a1
W A
4
ill, 11 0%
I11119 a1
pgrtI Ill,
I'hyyt)I ('u'•1-11 L.'Ir.t1 111,9111C 11t'il'II f1,lUllltllr, AI0511111'
pkol:01111111ae
in I w du1r.11
IYswlulq( SIr1 r, Ulbolu v Ploulernr, l]r,1u11npn1 kr1,HeJ
Carculwus
J{1 f 5U1
Ill lig U1 +IIU11111111141p,' II 111 I',\1111111111' I'l rIl1V1U11 loll I Prnlil tom-, ri.l j, flimm1 Ill Ilir,Il'11+11' 11:1'!, 151+1'1 rit11111J11/
511c�.1)LrndrrlNf;;i1)!111'I,t'h+111111111,+IIH1u1dd1nl,n 1'l 1'11nu1hrtil hn11►Ih11n1yi1:1►,111USJ1111 rrlulrJ
n R.
}111111 r 11111,Uc11 tiu►1.1 t Ilr,1,+1I I+ (,f111•i!. 11x1 u1 t'aunl v thnnl'I1•.+�In rl t' t11+h11n1�d11. C1
Despite the evidence showing that this constituency suffers a disproportionately high set of
mental/emotional health illnesses and conditions, NO SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED TO
THOSE LIVING AT LOURDES.
THE PLANNING COMM ISSIONER/ZONING COMMISSIONER DEMONSTRATED BIAS
IN HIS HANDLING OF THE APPLICATION AND IN HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE
PLANNING COMISSION'S — THEREFORE THE DECISIONS MADE INCORPORATING
SAID BIAS SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.
Documentation received thgrough a California Public Records Act request, made by petitioner,
demonstrated that Mr. Jensen, the Planning Commissioner/Acting Zoning Administrator
demonstrated a bias in favor of the applicant.
Evidence of Mr. Jensen's bias is demonstrated by the includion of Condition 7
The documentation revealed that Mr. Jensen wouldl take materials sent from Appellant to the
Planning Commissioner/Acting Zoning Administrator was shared with the Applicants and their
attorneys but Applicant was not provided the same benefits. Indeed there is evidence of
significant ex -parte communication between the Planning Conunissioner/Zoning Administratror
and the Applicants demonstrating that he had a bias in favor of the applicants. Said information
will be presented to the City Counsel prior to the hearing on this appeal.
An example of the bias can be demonstrated by the fact that Appelant was not given notice of the
Administrator's Proposed Decision despite the Administrator having all .of Applicant's contact.
Apparently, Appellant was the only one who suffered this mistake.
Mr, Jensen, the assigned City Planner and Acting Zoning Administrator, demonstrated his bias
when lie went beyoind what the Petitioners had asked for, an Ammended Conditional Use Permit
to expire in two years and stated that one of the three things the sisters would have to do (shall)
at the end of the two year period was to apply for an extension of the Ammended Conditional
Use Permit in perpetuity. In the Decision, advanced to the Planning Commission for approval,
under Conditions of Use, Paragraph 7, Mr. Jensen stated the following:
This Use Permit Amendment Is approved for Iwo (2) years commencing on the issuance
date of Certificate of Occupancy, At tha end of the Iwo year period, the Use Permit
Amendment will terminate. At [hat time, the project proponent shall be required to
proceed with one of the following for the ' yellow hallway;"
a, Requesl an exlenslon to this Use Permit Amendment to continue the translhonal
Nous}ng use for a term period of In perpetuity,
b. Re -purpose the single residential dwelling unit to anolher residential usa such as for
a manager's/caretaker unit or for convent use', or
c. Remove the kitchen facility and return the area to Its current use as residential
convent rooms.
This reveals a bias, When Mr. Jensen was asked to correct the Condition as an oversight in
direct contradiction to the application and all of the time spent by the neighbors in coming upO
with the 2 year sunset clause, he originally refused only assenting to do so after the Applicants
asked him to do so. This clearly shows a bias and the whole process has been tainted.
When, as is the case here, there is evidenc of bias on behalf of a decisionmaker, or one who
stands in a unique position as a public se>vent to influence the decisiomnaker, .in the process fair
process is denied the panty against whom the bias is found and the decision affected by such bias
should be overturned. That is the case here.
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS RULING IS UPHELD, ANY CHANGE IN
ZONING/USE SHOULD HAVE A CONDITION TO RUN WITH THE LAND THAT IF
THE SISTERS EVER 'TRANSFER TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE BY
SALE OR GIFT, THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING USE MUST TERMINATE
,lust as the PD zoning was allowed to remain as long as the Convent remained associated with
the Dominican College, so as to assure that the College would have oversight and the community
could be assured of continuity and a stable custodian, if the Sisters leave, that is stop utilizing the
facility, sell it, gift it or dthervAse dissacociate from Lourdes, the Anunended Conditional Use
should immediately terminate and the property revert to a R -la zoning district. Park of
what is relied upon by the Zoning Administrator is the reassurance that he believes exists given
the fact that the Sisters will live in close proximity, in residence, at Lourdes. If that safeguard no
longer exists, the transitional housing relationship should automatically expire.
SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISION'S DECISION BE UPHELD THERE SHOULD
BE A MORITORIUM OF 3 MONTHS FOLLOWING THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2
YEAR AMENDED USE PERMIT SO THAT THOSE 'WITHIN THE AFFECTED
COMMUNITY (who have indicated concern — and those indicating support) CAN HAVE,
TIME TO REFLECT UPON AND DISCUSS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY
FUTURE AMMENDMENT TO THE CHANGE IN USE
This application has resulted in a significant amount of public debate, concern and rancour
relating to the perceived impact that the Ami-nended Conditional Use inay have on the
neighborhood. Admiditedly this concern is somewhat speculative. 'Should the winds continue to
blow in the direction they are blowing, and The Counsel deny the Appeal, The Counsel, in its
role of fostering community cohesion should impose an additional condition on the Permit to
foster community dialogue and decisiownalcitig in light of what will then be "track record" of
operation. Specifically The Counsel should require that following the expiration of tate 2 years it
is the intent of the Applicants to re -apply for a continuation of the Ammended Conditional Use
Permit, there be a 3 month moratorium before any such permit be submitted, or considered, and
the Applicant's should be instructed to hold a noticed community meeting, giving notice through
the Black Canyon Neighborhood Association, to review with their neighbors and community the
performance of the program, and concerns that either side may have after the program has been
in effect,
Miscelanious Concerns re 77 Locust and Lourdes
Given that the whole purpose behind die creation of PD special zoning for this address was
because of the Convent and/or the property's affiliation with Domenican College, should the
Sisters cease using this as a convent, the PD district should be abolished and the property should
revert back to the R-1 a residential zoning and its use be in character with the surrounding single
family residential neighborhood.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons the appeal should be granted and Zoning Administrators Action,
and Planning Commission's Decision overturned. This is a rezonning, and as such a much
more formal and deliberative process should be Luidertaken so as to reevaluate the appropriate
zoning
Christopher 13, Dolan Esq.
ATTACHMENT 4
TENANT/RESIDENT SCREENING CRITERIA
Criteria for selection of families moving into Dominican Sisters'
Housing Opportunity:
Single parent (mom) family with younger children (e.g. 2 - 8)
*Mom -must be working toward more economic self-sufficiency and
open to career planning
•6 month's sobriety and committed to recovery (has a plan)
-bNo other housing options available at.,the time of application
* VJ.ds in Head Start, child care, or public school
•Transitional Housing; up to 2 years
sWanting' and needing services, understanding that it is a program
sWillingness to meet with Homeward Sound staff on a regular basis
Ability to cook meal for themselves
*Upholds the no smoking polidy on campus
*Agreement to sign a Code of Conduct
' *Agreement to share progress and.status updates
*Ability to pay 5 b for RENT / Utilities / sign a rental agreement
Master lease is in Homeward Bound's name
•1f owning a car, it must be registered and insured
RD 7-28.16
ATTACHMENT 5
LETTER FROM GARY RAGGHIANTI, ATTORNEY AT LAW
REPRESENTING DOMINICAN SISTERS
1
IL
Ragghianti IFreitaS LLP
GARY T. RAGGHIANTI
GTRAGGS® RF LAW LLP.CO M
May 1, 2017
San Rafael City Council
c/o City of San Rafael Community Development Department
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915
Dear Mayor Phillips and Members of the Council:
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1101 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901.2903
TELEPHONE 415.453.9433
FACSIMILE 415.453,8269
WWW. RFLAWLLP.COM
I represent the Dominican Sisters and submit this response to the appeal filed from the
March 14, 2017, decision of the San Rafael Planning Commission upholding the Zoning
Administrator's approval of a Use Permit Amendment for the applicant's Lourdes Convent
property located at 77 Locust Avenue in San Rafael.
In general the purpose of seeking the use Permit Amendment was/is to provide safe,
adequate, temporary housing for two families, each consisting of an unmarried mother and 2
young children ages 2-8, intended to provide them with the opportunity to live independently
and be self-sufficient with an adequate measure of privacy to hone their skills to transition to
full independence when leaving Lourdes.
For the third time the Dominican Sisters are required to revisit the identical arguments
advanced by a single neighbor in opposition to the grant of a Use Permit Amendment for the
Lourdes Convent property.
The objections interposed were considered and rejected after the preparation of
comprehensive staff reports and the conduct of public hearings both before the Zoning
Administrator (Paul Jensen) in January and the Planning Commission in March 2017. The
application before you complies in every respect with every applicable development policy of
the City, the zoning ordinance and the General Plan. The findings required to be made to
grant the use permit amendment are easily made, if not compelled, on the record before you
as both the Zoning Administrator and a unanimous Planning Commission have determined.
On the last day to appeal, minutes before expiration of the filing deadline appellant filed the
instant appeal. It contains nothing new and continues to be based on legally flawed
arguments, irrelevant assertions and vague and conjectural musings having absolutely
kF
Ragghianti I i'C>. Ca.S LLP
PACE 2OF4
nothing to do with the standards against which the City must conduct its analysis and
determine whether to issue the requested permit.
By way of brief background
In November of 2016 the applicant filed an application seeking an amendment to a Use
Permit it has held since 1979 to allow the conversion of a 1,995 square foot area of the
LOURDES CONVENT to a transitional housing unit that would be shared by two unmarried
mother's each of whom has two young children ages 2-8 years.
Lourdes is a 90,000 square foot property of approximately 2.1 acres. It is developed with a one
story 16,450 Square foot convent retirement center for Dominican Sisters
The area in question is a long narrow hallway painted yellow and referred to by the Sisters
over the years as "the yellow hallway". Only minor alterations to the structure are proposed
and they involve no expansion of the building or footprint.
In years past the yellow hallway area served as a place of occupancy for up to 10 Dominican
Sisters. Over time the population of Sisters has declined and this hallway space has become
available. For sometime it has been unused. The present population of Lourdes is
approximately 15-17 Sisters. The Sisters, in combination with Homeward Bound, seek to
provide safe, adequate, temporary housing for these two families which will provide them with
the opportunity to live independently, become self-sufficient and transition to permanent
housing after leaving Lourdes.
On January 4, 2017, the City's Zoning Administrator conduced a public hearing in connection
with the Sisters application. The Zoning Administrator (ZA) determined to issue the permit
after an exhaustive report detailing the proceedings which occurred at the public hearing and
after review and critique of the appellant's objections in light of applicable City land use
policies.
The determination to issue the Use Permit Amendment (UPA) by the ZA was supported by a
comprehensive written analysis of the application resulting in a determination that the
application was consistent with the Land Use and Housing elements of San Rafael General
Plan 2020 (SRGP 2020) as well as with the Housing Element Background Report to the
General Plan pointing out the need in San Rafael for the very type of transitional housing that
this application seeks to provide. The ZA also found that the application was consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance and with its objectives and the stated purposes of the PD zone in
which the subject property has been so long situated as well as with the State law applicable
to transitional housing (Gov't Code section 65583). It was determined that the application
kf
Ragc,hi anti I.Frei taS LLP
PAGE 3OF4
was categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Moreover and finally it was determined that the application, as proposed and conditioned
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to
properties in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City,
Two appeals to the Planning Commission were filed by two (2) neighbors, each of whom
reside directly adjacent to the Convent at Lourdes. Following the Planning Commission's
unanimous denial of both appeals only a single appellant remains, Mr. Dolan.
The applicant respectfully invites the Council's attention to the January 3, 2017 letter to the ZA
from the undersigned, the January 4, 2017 Background/ Facts document prepared by the ZA
for the public hearing conducted on January 4, 2017, the Notice of Zoning Administrator
Action and attachments dated January 28, 2017, the March 06, 2017 letter from the
undersigned to the Planning Commission, and the Resolution of the San Rafael Planning
Commission Denying Appeals and Upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of a Use
Permit Amendment adopted following conclusion the appeal hearing at the Planning
Commission conducted on March 14, 2017.
The arguments previously made by the applicant to the objections of the appellant are all set
forth in these documents will not be repeated here. The undersigned's letters dated January 3
and March 6, 2017 are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 & 2 and incorporated. It's anticipated
that the other referenced materials will be submitted to the Council by staff In connection with
the record in this proceeding.
A comparison of the letter submitted to the Planning Commission by the appellant and that
submitted to the Council demonstrates that there are no new arguments, not previously made
and soundly rejected by both the ZA the Commission. Indeed this appeal, like the other has
little to do with land use at all.
Unable to advance a single cogent legal reason for the denial of the requested CUPA the
appellant has chosen to rely on a suggestion that there might be "bias" on the part of the
City's staff and some sort of favoritism shown to the applicant over the appellant. Of course
there is absolutely no support for such an assertion and raising it is simply a smokescreen to
cloud the failure of all of the appellant's assertions. Rejection of the appellant's assertions in
this proceeding hardly constitutes bias. Rather, it should have been expected. The City's
rejection of appellant's constitutes the studied response of staff and the Commission to
appellant's failed logic and legal arguments, assertions and his completely irrelevant positions
that are founded on surmise and conjecture. For example, the appellant suggests that a
principal reason to deny the applied for permit is that someday, some future nun(s) may
decide that the congregation no longer needs Lourdes any longer and might sell it ... to some
Ragghiantl I pi is LLP
PACE 4OF4
presently unknown thing with the site, thus changing its present use to another. This
amounts to an absolutely irrelevant factor in making the determination that the permit should
be granted under City's applicable land use regulations.
The folly and lack of substance of these assertions are clearly displayed by their simple
recitation.
The appellant's arguments fail both legal and logical scrutiny. The reasons offered by him to
deny the application for a Use Permit Amendment do not intersect with either reality or the
law.
It is respectfully requested that the appeal be denied.
Very my your
J
Pry . Ra g ianti
GTR/jlp
Enclosures
cc: Chris Dolan
r,"*
L x h flo b
R,,agghiantilFreim LLP
GARY T. RAGGHIANT1
GraAGGs@FtFiAVVLLP.coM
January 3, 2017
Paul A, Jensen, AICP
Community Development Director
City of San Rafael
1400 Sth Ave, 3{a Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: 77 Locust, Lourdes Convent
Dear Paul:
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1101 FVFTN AvENug, Su rB 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901.2903
TELRPHONE 415.453..9433
FAMWLe 415,453.8269
W WW.RFLAW LLP.COM
I wish to submit this in response to the Chris Dolan missive that was provided to me recently,
My clients (Dominican Sisters) filed an application in November of 2016 seeking an
Amendment to a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 1995 square foot area of the
LOURDES CONVENT located on Locust Avenue to a transitional housing unit that would be
shared by two unmarried mother's each ofwhom has two young children ages 2-9 years.
The area in question is a long narrow hallway painted yellow and referred to by the Sisters
over the years as "the yellow hallway". Minor alterations to the structure are proposed and
involve no expansion of the building or footprint.
At one time the yellow hallway area served as a place of occupancy for up to 10 Sisters. Over
the years the population of Sisters has declined and space has become available that has been
for some time unused. The present population of Lourdes is approximately 15-17 Sisters, The
Sisters, in combination with Homeward Bound, seek to make this area avai{able to assist the
individuals making the journey to Independence and self-sufficiency by providing to them a
place of short term residency allowing transitioning to permanent housing.
The individuals who will occupy the proposed transitional housing are not homeless.
R
f
RagghiantilFreitaS LLP
PAGE 2orb
The Sisters making this application deem its purpose to be consistent with and at the heart of
their mission as a religious congregation as well as a direct response to the call of Pope
Francis to use, if available, places of religious occupation to allow persons exactly like those
proposed here to be helped and housed. This use fts squarely within the protections afforded
by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
In general the purpose is to provide safe, adequate, temporary housing for these two families
which will provide them with the opportunity to live independently and be self-sufficient with
an adequate measure of privacy to hone their skills to transition to full Independence when
leaving Lourdes.
The Dominican Sisters no longer have a building that we refer to as our "Mother House" as
we did in the past. They have Convents/residences and Administration and Gathering
building (one of the goals after the fire was to separate the functions of the former Mother
House which was very inconvenient for both the Sisters In residence and the Administration
of the Congregation).
The point of the Lourdes project is that there is a contiguous space currently unused that will
not disrupt the current residents at Lourdes and require only minor expense to modify for the
proposed project; there is neither the space nor would the expense be as relatively minor to
make a similar space for the proposed use in another Convent on the south side of Locust.
in looking through the attachments to Mr, Dolan's packet of materials i wish to comment as
follows:
1. This is an application seeking issuance of an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit
analyzed and cited upon In connection with a review of the City's General Plan and
other pertinent development policies.
2. The application submitted is consistent with the Land Use Element of the City's
General Plan.
3. The application is consistent with the Housing Element ofthe General Plan (see in
particular HE POLICY H-9 (Special Needs), H-10 (Innovative Housing Approaches),
and H-11 (House Sharing) which encourages a mix of housing types including
housing for individuals precisely like those proposed to occupy the space here.
4, The Background Report to the City's General Plan 2020 recites that in single women
head of household families there exists a shortage of just the type of transitional
housing being applied for here.
S. This property Is not zoned U. Rather it is zoned PD and the application submitted is
consistent therewith.
RagghiandIFteitaS LLP
PACE 3OF6
6, Tile City has determined due to the very minor nature of the improvements proposed
to be made to Lourdes that the application is categorically exempt under CEQA
Guideline section 15301.
7, The City has property noticed all who they were required to provide notice to in
compliance with applicable local requirements,
8. The Use Permit Amendment, at the request of the applicant will sunset 2 years after
issuance.
I would like to briefly respond to the arguments set forth in Mr. Dolan's packet commencing
on page 5:
A. The Sisters with the approval of the trustees of the Support Charitable Trust as owners
of Lourdes propose to enter into a lease for the area in question with Homeward
Bound. Homeward Bound will enter into occupancy agreements with the individuals
who are selected to reside at Lourdes. The residents will be unmarried. Mr. Dolan has
raised the issue of marriage by one or both of the occupants as somehow implicating a
discrimination claim based on marital status if a husband is refused occupancy at
Lourdes with his wife.
Several responses are appropriate here. First neither Me, Dolan nor anyone else
(although no one else to my knowledge has raised this issue) has standing to assert
such a claim. Additionally there is no factual basis for such a claim that may now be
made, Moreover there is no basis for making a claim that is purely speculative and
may happen or may not. Finally there is no regulation that allows the CITY to deny an
Amendment to the Use permit because a user of the facility permitted may at some
unknown time in the future whilst the permit is In effect marry and seek to have a
husband join them in occupancy. It is simply an extraneous and irrelevant speculative
suggestion that adds nothing to the issues involved in considering this Use Permit.
The claim of need for increased parking is completely unsupported but for conclusory
statements that suggest an "attached photo" somehow demonstrates that "parking at
Lourdes" frequently exceeds capacity", The photo fails to include all of the other
available parking at Lourdes as well as a short distance away across Locust, In addition
the photo depicts vehicles parked on Lourdes property not on the street. In addition
this project is categorically exempt from environmental review and there exists no
evidence to support the need for a parking study.
C. The claim that allowing the proposed use will somehow lead to a substantive change
in the character of Lourdes as well as In the surrounding neighborhood also falls to
survive scrutiny. The proposed project is consistent with both the General Plan and the
zoning as specified above. !-low a residential use of the premises by these 2 women
®f
Ragghianti lFreitaS LLP
PAGE 4 of 6
and their children in the same building used for residential purposes by the Sisters
which is then surrounded by residential uses adjacent to and near the premises
constitutes a change in the character ofthe neighborhood or somehow places Lourdes
and the neighborhood on a path leading to such a substantive change is hard to
understand. And for good reason. It isn't that the proposed use will change the
character of the neighborhood. Rather it is Mr. Dolan's opinion that allowing it will
make it somehow easier to someday change the use to non-residential or multi -family
or something more intensive. Mr. Dolan claims that he is concerned someday Lourdes
may be sold. This is simply unknown and certainly undecided at this time The Sisters
are engaged in a long term planning endeavor that will address the needs and desires
of the Congregation over the long term. He Concludes by advancing a unique
proposition applicable to the City's review of this or any like Use Permit, "Therefore the
current application must be viewed not only as to the immediate planned use but aho with
an eye as to how It may affect the future use."
There exists no legal or other basis whatsoever for engaging in this type of speculative
examination. Nor do the regulations governing the issuance of a Use Permit in San Rafael
allow anything remotely close to permitting it. A Use Permit allowing 2 mothers' and their
children to reside in an unused portion of Lourdes convent is a Use Permit for that, nothing
more, nothing less. Any expanded or future use would necessarily require an all new
application and planning process,
Finally on this topic it is probative that Mr. Dolan who raises these issues is willing to forego
advancing all of them if the Sisters simply move the proposed use across Locust onto their
lands.
The Use Permit Amendment will sunset after 2 years. This condition agreed to by the Sisters
attempted to assuage Mr. Dolan and several other neighbors' concerns. Apparently it was not
sufficient. Mr. Dolan insists that the Sisters must agree now not to seek a new Use Permit
after the expiration of this one. They have declined this demand not because they intend to do
so but because it is the exclusive prerogative of the Sisters to make those decisions when and
as they wish to do so. Not Mr. Dolan's or anyone else's. If the Sisters intended to renew the
Use Permit Amendment after its expiration I suggest they wouldn't have proposed a 2 year
expiration period. The fact that an application could possibly be made to continue the use
(despite the applicant's indication that it has no such intention) after Use permit expiration is
an improper basis on which to analyze a Use Permit application.
It is also requested that the improvements be removed after the Amendment to the Use
Permit expires. WHY? it is the occupants that seem to bother the neighbors not the
improvements. When the occupants are gone the Sisters can utilize the space for their own
use as you will hear at the hearing.
IF
Ragghianti FreitaS LLP
PAGE 5 OF 6
Mr. Dolan next states that "Given the population to be served there exists concern over who w41
enforce policies regarding occupancy". What exactly is the population being served that requires
this different and heightened scrutiny and enforcement? And precisely what causes the
concern that they may need monitoring? Is it that they might be homeless? They are nat. Is it
that they may be victims of domestic abuse? They will not be and Homeward Bound does not
offer programs for such individuals. Mary Kay Sweeney (Mr. Dolan incorrectly indicates Mary
Kay is a former Dominican nun. This is untrue.) will be present to address any questions
regarding how the occupants will be chosen (Homeward Bound and the Sisters will
collaborate on selection criteria and a list of such criteria has previously been provided to Mr.
Dolan acid is in the packet he prepared), 2) what code of conduct and related rules the
occupants must follow, and 3) and how any violations will be handled. To assume that these 2
single women and their children will abuse their stay and violate rules imposed by both
Homeward Bound and the Sisters is to necessarily and wrongfully focus on their status.
After almost 40 years devoted to land use issues and law and having attended literally
hundreds of local agency permit entitlement hearings I am reminded once again that we
simply don't count hands to see how many approve and oppose a proposal and then act
accordingly. if that were the process why have a General Plan, a Zoning Ordinance, or a
Community Development Department? One is required to examine the application in light of
applicable development policies of the City and State law and apply the policies and law to the
application received and facts presented. AND to follow the regulations and law.
Surmise, conjecture, unsupported conclusory statements of opinion and use of inaccurate
facts are strangers to the process of land use application processing and are to be rejected.
And they should be here.
In this matter the analysis of the Use Permit Amendment application must be conducted
according to the applicable provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code and pertinerit
provisions of the California Government Code that prohibit the City from treating transitional
housing different than traditional residential housing. The Sisters are more than content with
such an analysis.
The Zoning Administrator is entitled to issue an Amendment to the Use Permit if the findings
are made that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance and that the use proposed with any conditions applicable is not deleterious to the
neighborhood or city. There is no legal requirement or any reason at all to consider the
expressed concerns of a particular neighbor, or any person for that matter seeking to prevent
OF
Ragghianti IFreitaS LLL,
PAGE 6 or 6
this proposal from being approved when the reasons put forward do not intersect with reality
or the law.
It is submitted that the findings can and should be made to approve this Amendment to the
Use Permit application.
Ily su
ry T. Ragghianti
GTR/jlp
Exhibit 2
GARY T. RAGGHiANII
GTRACGS(3)RFLAW LLP.CO M
Ragg liand IFfe3taS LLP
March 06. 2017
Sa-n R,afaol P1anning.Comm,ission
c/o City .of Sael 'Rafael Cb.m-munity Development Department
P.O. Box 151550
San Rafael, CA 94915
Dear Chairman Schaefer and Members of the Commission:
ATTORNEYS AT i.Aw
1101 FIFTH AvENuE,'SU)TE 1O0
SAN RAFAELr CA 94901-29,03
YIMCPH-QNE 415.453.9433
PACSI Mi.L'E'415.45M.269
WWW,RFLAWLLPXOM
I represent the Domin Ican Sisters of San Rafael (The Sisters) .and submit this lever in
response,to the two appeals Filed from the determination of Zoriirlg Administrator (ZA)
issued on January 28, 2017 granting a Use Permit Amendment (UPA) for the 51ste-rs' Our
lady of Lourdes Convent (Lourdes) property located at 77-LocastAvenue.
The Sisters filed an application in November 2016 seeking an Amendment to a U's -e P'errnit
Lourdes presently holds to allow the conversion of a 1995 Square foot area of the Lourdes
Convent for use as transitional housing to be shared by two urimarried mothers, each of
whom.'h'as two young children ages 2-8. years.
The-a,rea in question is a long narrow hallway painted yellow and referred ,w by the Sisters
over the years as "the yellow ha,liway". Minor alterations to the structure are proposed and
involve no expansion of the building of footprint.
At one time the yellow hallway area served as a place of occupancy for up to 10 Sisters. Over
the years the population of Sisters has declined and unused space has become available, The
present papulation of Lourdes is approximately 1 S.17 Sisters. At its highest occupancy 35
Sisters resided there. The Sisters, in collaboration with Homeward Bound, seek to make this
area available to assist these two single parent famllies who .are making the'jourhey to
independence and self-sufflclency. By providing there short tetm residency the families will
have the opportunity to transition to permanent housing.
The point of the Lourdes project is to address, albeit modestly, the dire housing, crisis by
utilizing a space currently unused in the Gonveht that will not disrupt the current residents at
Lourdes. The conversion will require only, minor modifications at Lourdes. There is neither the
Ragghiant i I FrCitaS LLP
PAgE 2 of ii
space nor would the expense be minor to create similar space for the proposed use In another
Convent on the south side of Locust,
The determination to issue the. U PA by the ZA was supported by a comprehensive written
analysis of the application resulting In a determination that the application was consistent
with the- Land Use and Housing elements of San Rafael General Plan 1020 (SRGP 2020) as
well' as with the Housing Element Background Report to the General Pian, pointing out the
need in San Rafael for the very type of transitional housing, that this application seeks to
provide. The ZA also found that the application was consis.tentwith the Zoning Ordinance
and with its objectives and the stated purposes of the PD zone in which the subject property
has been so long situated as well as with the State law applicable to transitional housing
(Gov't Code section 65583). It was determined that the application was categorically exempt
from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15341 (Existing Facilities). Moreover and finally itwas
determined that the.application, as proposed and conditioned would not be -detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity or to the
general welfare of the City.
The appeals are flied by two (2) neighbors, each of whom are located directly adjacentto the
Convent at Lourdes. The appeal of Mr. Scholick focuses on the subject of traffic on and -
around the Locust Avenue area where the Convent -is situated. He asks ,that a traf k study be
performed before a decision on issuing the permit Is made by the .City. The other appellant
advances a litany of objections purportediy based on certain provisions of the San Rafael
Municipal Code and related development policies. It is respectfully suggested that the
Planning Commission reject both appeals for the reasons set forth'-hereln and based upon the
evidence contained In the record of proceedings in this matter.
The appeals will each be addressed separately.
The Dolan Appeal
This, appeal has little to do with the application of land use reguiations to this application..
one need only look at the statements contained both in the appellant's submittal to the ZA
and to the Commission in his February 3, 2017, letter -to discern the overriding concern of this
appellant,
In Mr. Dolan's submittal. to the ZA he stated as follows: "Open the population to be served
there exists concern over who will enforce policies regarding occupancy".
Ragghianti IF rei tas 1_I.P
PACs 3 OF It
What exactly is it, about these two women and their young children that retiuires this different
and heightened scrutiny and enforcement? And precisely what causes the cona6rn that they
may need monitoring? It is that they are curtently in a program operated by Homeward
Bound that fuels this type of response?
in his submittal to the Commission (the pages are not numbered) he states the following;
"In 1"0 the historic Mother House burned in a tragic fire ... When the housiq they had
purchased a� temporary -housing... was no longer needed, it is reported'that they sought to
donate it to Homeward Bound. but the endeavor resulted in .significant neighborhood
opposition so the Sisters sold the property and donated the proceeds to Homeward Bound
instead." Mr. Dolan goes on to state, "The Sisters have a strong afllation with Homeward
Bound not only because of their mission to help the greater community but also because of
the fact that the, Executive Director, Mary Kay Sweeney, Php, is a former nun with the Sisters
of Mercy." And then "There is much concern from the neighbors, including this'Appellant, that
a similar strategy may be developing here and that this request for on Amended Use Permit it
but a step towards homeless housing being established here in perpetditV" (Emphas)s added
where shown and rninej.
These types of statements are not only regrettable in their content but also display the often
employed, "Trojan Horse" arguments used by opponents of,prpjects. In other words this
project will facilitate some type of unwanted creep and deleterious consequence that hasn't
occurred .and there is no evidence ever will occur and which is entirely unrelated to the merits
of the application being considered. It focuses instead on stigrnatizing.the proposed two
residents here simply because they may be enrolled in a program with Homeward Bound and
Were at one tune homeless.
But the actual facts concerning this apQl�at on are sufficient to -r jV—ose of such baseless and
unfounded surmise.
This UPA terminates'in 2 years by Its very terms.
This UPA will not go on "in perpetuity".
This UPA is conditioned to permit only these two women and their young children to live i,tt a
small area unit where previously up to 10'Sisters load resided.
This UPA permits no expansion of the'hallway area where the transitional housing will be
located during the two year period of the UP.
Ragghia,nti1preltas L' LP
PACEq OF 1i
This 'UPA prohibits any more than -the two mothers and their children to occupy the hallway
area.during the two year period of the UP.
The examination of the history of the zoning of the Lourdes Convent property is well set out in
the ZA's determination, In reviewing that history this appellant argues ghat since the legal
disassociation of the University from the Congregation the UP granted to the Sisters in 1979
otrgh't to have failed and the underlying zoning (PD) changed to that across the street at the
Sisters residency structure and administrative offices (PD 1827).
The conditions imposed in the 1979 UP were imposed where the then existing U zoning
designation was changed to the present PD. The staff report does reflect a then existing
planning concern that the Lourdes convent facility not be allowed to change into a private
rommerciol facility. Thus. the City imposed a condition that i'm,plicated the UP and required it
be tied to continuing gffiliatiom with the then College.
In the findings made at .the time the 1979 UP was granted it Is stated that. "Continuation of
the Lourdes Retirement Center Is appropriate in this neighborhood so long, as its facility
remains affiliated with Dominican College AND IS' NOTA COMMERCIAL FACiLIry ". As we
will argue the affiliation of the Sisters with the now University has survived their legal
corporate separation and the facility has not morphed into a commercial facility.
A brief bit of the history of the relationship between the Dominican Sisters of San Rafa6I and
the former Dominican College, now University, is instructive and demonstrates the continued
Affiliation that exists and will always exist between the Sisters. and the educational institution
they founded an the late 19th century.
The term "affiliation'" is undefined in the UP condition under discussion. It is commonly
defined to mean to associate oneself with or to be connected with. The legal separation of the
Sisters and the University did nothing to terminate the long history of'affiliation of the
congregation with the school it established. To argue otherwise is to magnify technicality at
the, expense of reason. The Sisters will forever be "affiliated" with the University. Its Sisters
have served as past presidents of the College, painted and exhibited their art and photogra-phy
on campus: and taught and continue to teach both undergraduate and graduate courses there.
The Sisters have also, served on and continue to serve on the coilege[university Board of
Trustees. Moreover the Dominican university,gymnasiurn facility bears the name of Sister
Samuel Conlan who was a former Dominican College President.
M4
Wt
RagghiantiIFrei tas up
DAC t 5 OF 11
By 1960 the business affairs of bath the Sisters and of the College had grown to the extent
that the need to separate the Sisters and the College into two corporations became evident,
The Sisters formed a new .ccwpo3ratlon, Sisters of St. Dominic, Congregation of the Most Moly
Nome. Evein though there were then two distinct corporations, the Prioress General and the
Sisters continued to govern and carry out the business of the College.
in 1969, inkeeping with the spirit of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council, the
Dominican College Board of Trustees, was ekpanded to include lay women and men. The
ownership of all property, as well as the governance acrd responsibility for the College., was
vested in the Board. In the late 70's the property held under the Dominican College title that
was used exclusively by the Sisters for their living and ministry needs was deeded back to the
Sisters.
In 2000 Dominican College became Dominican University of California. Today the riot -for-
profit independent university defines its mission and values in this manner:
Dominican educates and prepares students to be ethical leaders and socially
responsible global citizens who Incorporate the Dominican values of study,
reflection, community and service into their lives. The Uni'versity�is committed
to diversity; susUinability end the integration of the liberal arts, the sciences
and professional programs.
While the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael and DorninicaM University o.fCalifornia maintain
independence in operation and finance, it is the desire of the congregation that Dominican
values will contlnue to be'borne out in the mission and character o.f the University. Thtough
ongoing dialogue, the congregation and the University seek to be mutually supportive of each
other's mission and .endeavors.
In addition the following demonstrates that collaboration, mutual support and affiliation
continues to this day.
Four (4) Dominican Sisters of San Rafael sit on the DU Board of Trustees.
Five (5) Sisters are teaching at DU presently.
One (1) Sister (a Dom-inican Sister of Adrian) works at DU as the Director of Campus Ministry
and lives on campus.
UW
e
Ragghianti I F -re1E2.,S J.1P
PAGE 6 OF 11
Clearly "affiliation" between the Sisters and the University exists as italways has and is
ongoing, alive and well,
To illustrate the lack of necessity for a legai relatipns'hip and oillation between parties I refer
to the language used by this appellant in his appeal .letter, referring to the relationshl'p
between the Sisters acid Homeward Bound, There is no legal connection between these two
corporate entitles. Yet it is pointed out that they have a "strong affiliation" ... and they proudly
do. This affiliation need not require a legal 'relations hip but rather can and frequently does
exist independent of such relationship.
Further regarding this issue, UP's do not routinely expire automatically. Rather they run with
the land, They are either revoked or abandoned-. An exception exists when the UP clearly sets
forth an expiration date, .as it will do In the UPA applied for here,'The current UP held by
Lourdes is silll in existence and valid, the several postl979 actions taken by the City regarding
alterations to Lourdes support the fact that the City recognizes this.
Lourdes remains a private Convent operating under a valid use permit that now seeks a UPA
for the li,mlted and benign purposes of accotmodating temporary trartsitlonal housing
consistent with and at .the heart of the Sisters mission as a religious congregation as well as a.
direct response to the call of Pope Francis to use, if available, pi aces of religious uropation
to allow persons exactly like those proposed'here to be helped and housed This use fits
squarely within the protections afforded by the Religious Land Use. and Institutlonalized
Persons Act of 2000.
The proposed use will not necessitate a rezoning of the property nor will It constitute a
residt!n,tial multi -family use.
The multifamily argument of the appellant Is premised on the mistaken belief that the
occupation of the area to' be provided at the Convent constitutes two (2) womeri and their
children living in two (2) separate units, which is of course inaccurate. This argument Is an
attempt to shoe -horn the appellant's way Into a claim that the proposed housing. area in' the
Convent meets the�definitional criteria set forth in SRMC section 14.03,030 for multifamily
housing. it doesn't. One need simply read it to so conclude:.
On P, 2 of the ZA's determination under the heading PRO)ECT ()ESCRIPTION it is stated In
pertinent part that, "In partnership with Homeward Bound, the Dominican 51sters are
proposing to convert a 1,995 square foot portion of the convent's congregate tare fac)lity (10
residential rooms; 12% of the facility area) referred to as the "yellow hallway" to a single
dwelling unit ..."
Ragghlant r'reicaS LLP
Pact Tor »
Additionally section 14.03.030 provides as follows: "Residential, multifamily" means medium
and high density residential development, including a "transitional housing development" or
"supportive housing" as defined under State Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 (and
subsequent amendments), containing three (3) or move attached dwelling units in one (1) or
more structures located on a single parcel or common lot. (14. 3. 030 -Definition's)
One doesn't count the number of occupants to determine the number of units being lived in.
Nor finally do the provisions of section 50675.2 cited Ih the above SRMC section add anything
to this failed assertion. Lourdes is a convent not a part of several "buildings cohfigured as
rental housing developments...."
The next claim of this appellant is that since Lourdes is a "Catholic Convent" it is therefore a
"religious Institution" and accordingly would be prohibited from locating in the PD zoning
district under SRM.0 section 14.04,020. This section of the City's code contains a table which
does indeed prohibit religious institutions in the PD,hillside districts of the City. Lourdes isn't
located in that district.
Neither does the application propose to create an "emergency shelter" for the homeless. It
Involves two women and their children occupying currently vacant space in a convent for a
maximum of two years.
This proposal will be operated. in collaboration with Homeward Bound and will involve
restrictions and regulations placed upon the occupants which will be monitored and enforced
as needed. The occupants, members of a Homeward Bound program already, will enter into
an Occupancy Agreement with Homeward Bound which will provide that violation of the
imposed regulations will result in expulsion from the Homeward Hound program they are
enrolled in as well as removal from the facility. in addition the facility will benefit from arid'
have additional oversight by the resident Sisters who manage the Lourdes facility. In fact the
single patents who are fortunate enough to be accepted to live in this transitional area must
be accepted for residency by both the Sisters and Homeward Bound.
A final few comments on the Dolan appeal; remarks. There is no competent evidence to even.
suggest, much less support, an argument that this project is in any wJy inconsistent with
every applicable development regulation and/or policy of the City including specifically the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Ragghianti lFreit.aS LLP
PAGE a or T1
It is we suggest, very clear that:
This application is for a UPA-not a rezone.
Nothing involved in granting the requested. UPA constitutes or'impl'icates an act of zoning.
This application does not result in Lourdes becoming M.ultifamily housing.
This, application does not involve creation of an Emergency Care Facility for homeless people.
This application if granted will not result in spot zoning as a matter of law.
The current Use Permit granted to the property in 1979 remains in force and valid today.
Mr. Dolan, despite his lengthy submittal, struggles to find any legal basis upon which this
application should be denied. Rather his appeal is based on mistaken readings of City codes,
tortured analysis of the UP condi-tion relating to continued of lr cation_ of the Sisters with the
University, a failure to appreciate the legal consequences arising from receipt of a use permit
by a property owner and unsubstantiated and immaterial concerns that on some unknown
date at some unknown time in the future the Sisters may seek to change or repurpose
Lourdes since the Congregation is declining in numbers and that such happenstance may
adversely affect his property In some unspecific and unarticulated manner.
This position is advanced despite the fact that .the application or change he fears has clot been
made nor'is it the one before the Commission filed by the Sisters, The positions advanced by
this a,ppell;jnt do not take into account and simply avoid dealing with the land use realities
this application presents, i.e, the fact thatthe Sisters have voluntarily requested that the UPA
expire at the end of two -years, that two women only with two young children each will occupy
the proposed area at the Convent, that more than adequate,monitoring and supervision will
be provided by both Homeward Bound and the Sisters in residence managing Lourdes and
that the app-licatio.n comports with all pertinent land use regulations of the City..
Further confounding the. pasturing of this appeal is the curious fact that this apo Hant has
repeatedly advised the Sisters and the City that if they would, simply move their proposed site
for this transitional housing- across the street to their larger Convent he would forego his
objections and fund In part the expenses for the modifications needed to be made to that
structure to accommodate the use, This despite the fact that such a move would result in the
proposed use actually being, closer to his home. To this proposal the Sisters have consistently
Raggh ianti I Frei tas LLP
PACE9OF11
stated that such a use across the street from Lourdes would not work for the families invplved
nor for the convent which is already full to capacity. Moreover the Sisters .didn't make such an
application to -locate the transitional howsing there, It Is at Lourdes where the space already
exists to accornmodate the proposed use with minimal expense required.
The appeal of Mr. Dolan, respectfully, fails both legal and logical scrutiny. The reasons offered
by him to deny this application do not'Intersect with either reality, or the law.
The Scholick Appeal
Mr. Schoilck expresses concern that condition 7a of the ZA's determination has denied him
and his family due process since It. mentions that at the end of the two year UP period the
Sisters might request an extension to continue the transitional- housing for a term In
perpetuity,
This .language contained in section 7a was not proposed by the Sisters or their counsel and is
incoh-sistent with the position and representations mad'o to the neighbors prior to and at the
ZA hearing in January.
We attach a cony of the undersigned's email to Paul Jensen dated 2.121117 sent after reviewing
the language to which the appellants take issue here, This email makes it clear that the Sisters
are and have been content to have the UP applied for expire after two years and that it has
never been the i,ntenti-on of the Sisters to ask that the UP run with the'land in perpetuity. We
incorporate that email herein as we'll as the reply of appellant Dolan to .it.
Mr.Scholick attacks theZA's determination regarding traffic at the corner of Locust and
Magnolia and safety, concerns related thereto..He requests that "a meaningful parking, traftc
and safety investigation analyzing the number of trips that the two women and their children
would cause to occur while residing at Lourdes .be performed,
He rejects the analysis and conclusions reported in the ZA's cleterrriinatlon at findings 2 b, c,
and d. and the discussion cothcerning same thavappears on page 5.
Th -e ZA after reviewing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after.conducting a one
week parking 'survey at various times of each day and engaging, In discussion with the City's
Department of Public Works concerning the particular location opined that: the proposed
project will not result in an increase in traffic that would change or exacerbate existirig traffic
patterns or conditions or increase safety hazards; that the existing parking at Lourdes exceeds
Rag.ghfantflFr eitaS L-11'
PAGQ ip OF 11
demand and that there exists adequate off-site parking to serve the proposed use without
impacting the properties'in the vicinity.
The ZA also recommended that vegetation located east of an informal parking pad at Lourdes
be trirrrned. This latter Condition is acceptable to the Sisters and steps have been taken to
restrict the use by the installation of fencing of the informal pad parking although located
entirely o-ri the Lourdes lands.
In responding to the position espoused by this appellant I hasten to observe that the
conditions that currently exist at the location of concern exist independent of the occupancy of
Lourdes and certainly the proposed minor addition of occupants to the Convent proposed
under this application While young and exuberant university students and visitors to the
campus who speed and fail tp observe stop ,signs may create problems those issues have
no -thing -to, do with the operation of Lourdes. Other families living and using Locust a:nd
Magnolia each .day also present their own traffic load and concems.
in addition Lourdes was once occupied by 35 Sisters each of whom had family and relatives
who visited Lourdes, it is curious that the addition of two women and their young children
could' be thought to actually cause a measureable -Increase in traffic or safety concerns in the
area under discussion, This type of assertion is in stark contrast to consideration of an
u,nmiantioned by appellant fact relating to the clear.tralftc impact caused by all families with
and without children living on Locust, their visitors and.gues.ts and service providers. The
fact that this appellant believes that a problem exists that will be exacerbated by these Families
doesn't mean that his concern is accurate acid/or fact based, The Sisters ought, not to have to
bear the burden of the time and expense of a traffic study to admit this proposed small family
group Into their Convent any more than new families moving on to Locust with two or More
children ought to be subjected to such a burden.
The parking and traffic issues have also been looked at by the ZA,.and the City Department of
Public Works. No traffic concerns were found to be associated with the proposed use and/or
small number of occupants proposed here. No police or fire .personnel have come forward to
express any safety concerns or traffic issues simply due to the use of the convent by these few
persons.
It Is respectfully suggested that the concerns of this appellant while made In good faith
cannot and should not result in a requirement to prepare and pay for an expensive traffic
study in the absence of data or objective facts. that support and compel such a result. There
are no such objective facts present here and using the occupancy of a small area of the
Ragghianti l Fz utas LLP
PAGE 11 Of 11
Convent'by the proposed occupants is I suggest wholly insufficient to require the study
sought.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein and based upon the evidence contained In the record of
peoceedi,hgs hert-in it is respectfully requested that the appeals filed be dented.
Very u y your
Cary T. Ragghianti
GTR/)Ip
Enclosure
Gary Raghiantl
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Gary Ragghianti
Tuesday, February 21, 2017 8:17 PM
McInerney Maureen; Simpson Patricia; rayaop@juno.com; hanna joan;
cartaoposanrafaefop.otg; salibrittonQsanrafaefop.org; Henderson Diane; Sweeney Mary
Kay
Fwd: Lourdes
From: Chris Dolanit
Date: February 21, 2017 at 8:39:48 PM NIST
To.-aa�sl5Gary giAllfi <'t$Ei'?[!ftd 4e c tgij>, Mary Scholick<g.* i i 5 >
Subject: Re: Lourdes
Gary,
Thanks for clearing that up and for standing behind the good word of both you and the sistexs.
Chris
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Gary Ragghianti <gLvgj�, �' i�s� t%. � ►> wrote:
Dear Paul: I would like to briefly comment with regard to your email of 2/14/17
addressed to Mr. Dolan And Scholick.
As i thought was clear in their application and at the ZA hearing last month it is
not now nor has it ever been the Sisters .intention to seek a VPA here that was to
run, with the land in perpetuity. We made it clear we were content to have it
terminate after 2 years and that is precisely what we applied for.. That has always
been our position and remains our position with regard to the application.
a-
1
"�[oI lawTlTj1-4
RESOLUTIONPLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTE
MARCH 14,2017
DENIAL OF APPEALS AND UPHOLDING
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION
RESOLUTION NO. 17-02
RESOLUTION OF TI-fE SAN RAFAE.L PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING APPEALS API 7-001 AND A.P17-002 AND UPHOLDING TI -E ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (UP 16-057) TO
PERMIT TI -IE CONVERSION OF THE 1,995, -SQUARE -FOOT "YELLOW HALLWAY"
ARCA OF THE LOURDES CONVENT TO A SINGLE R.r~SIDENTIAL UNIT
FOR TRANSITIONAL iOUSING FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS
77 LOCUST AVENUE
(APN 0 15-1 1 I -23)
WHEREAS, the Sisters of Third Order of St, Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy
Name Support Charitable Trust (Dominican Sisters) own and occupy the "Lourdes Convent"
located at 77 Locust Avenue. The 2.1 -acro property is developed with a 16,450 -square foot
convent facility that houses a retirement center with congregate care unit for retired nuns; The
retirement center and ancillary uses operates under a Use Permit (UP79-18) that was issued by
the City in 1979. The Lourdes Convent property was rezoned from the U (Unclassified) District
to PD (Planned Development) District in 1992; and
WHEREAS, in late 2016, the Dominican Sisters filed an application to amend the
Lourdes Convent Use Permit (UP16-057) the convert a 1,995 -square -foot portion of the
retirement center ("yellow hallway" area) from residential rooms to a single, residential unit with
kitchen for transitional housing. In partnership with Homeward Bound, the residential unit would
be made available to two single women and their children as a shared residence. The shared unit
would be for "transitional housing" For the residents, The Use Permit Amendment request is for
two years following unit occupancy; and
WHEREAS, following City staff review of the proposal, the Use Permit Amendment
application was scheduled for review and action by the Zoning Administrator, On January 4,
2017, the Zoning Administrator held a noticed public hearing on the Use Permit amendment
application. The Zoning Administrator hearing was attended by approximately 50 people that
included the applicant and neighboring residents. Approximately 20 people provided public
testimony expressing both support and opposition to the proposal. Fallowing public testimony,
the Zoning Administrator; a) closed the public hearing; b) indicated that all concerns and
comments 'would be reviewed, addressed and considered in an action on the application; and c)
reported that a decision on the Use Permit Amendment application would be by January 28, 2017;
and
WHEREAS, following the January 4, 2017 hearing, the Zoning Administrator compiled
and organized 17 questions and comments presented at the hearing and in correspondence
submitted to the City. A detailed response to each question and comment was prepared and
considered in the findings for action on the Use Permit Amendment;
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2017, the Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Action
conditionally approving Use Permit Amendment UP16-057. The approval action was based on:
a) facts and findings and supported by the response to comments and questions raised by the
public; and b) subject to conditions of approvals included in the Notice of Action; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed.publie
hearing to review and consider Appeals AP 17-001 and AP 17-002 to the Zoning Administrator's
approval of Use Permit Amendment UP16-057, and considered all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the project has deemed to be exempt from environmental review per
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities);
and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department, The records of
proceedings include the "Notice of Zoning Administrator Action" with attachments dated January
28, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby
denies Appeals AP17-001 and AP17-002 and upholds the Zoning Adminish-ator's January 28,
2016 approval of Use Permit Amendment UP16-057. The Planning Commission finds and
determines that with the exception the appeal point(s) related to Use Pen -nit Amendment
Condition 7, the points ofthe appeals cannot be supported .tor the following reasons:
Findings for Denial of Appeal AP 17-001
Appeal Poinl Q:
The proposed use would necessitate a rezoning. The proposed use mill constitute a residential,
marlti family use.
The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees With the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2017. The,
Planning Commission finds that the proposed use would riot necessitate a rezoning in that it: a)
maintains the basic residential use of the yellow hallway area; b) is a minor re -use of an existing
development portion of the existing retirement center; and c) is considered a temporary use as the
Use Permit Amendment is term -based (two-year approval). Further, the Planning Commission
finds that the proposal would result in a single, residential dwelling unit with a single kitchen that
would be shared by two single worsen and their children. The arrangement does not constitute a
multiple -family residential use. The San lkafael Municipal Code (SMRC Title 14, Zoning) defines
a multiple -family residence as three or more individual. attached residential dwelling units on a
single site.
Appeal Point #2:
The current PD District zoning does not permit the proposed use,
The Planning Comrhission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2017. The
Planning Commission finds that the proposed use would not violate or be prohibited by the
current PD District adopted for Lourdes Convent. The Planning Commission acknowledges that
the cun-ent PD District does not have an approved Development Pian, which sets forth land use
regulations and development standards for this district. However, the Planning Commission finds
that per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.07.035C, the improvements and use are minor
and do not require an amendment to the PD District. The approval of a Development Pian and
amendment to the current PD District would be triggered when or if the property is redeveloped
or if there were a major re -purposing or reuse of the existing retirement center facility, The
continued operation of the existing use is governed by Use Permit UP79-18. Minor changes in
the existing use are typically processed and permitted through a Use Permit Amendment.
2
Appeal Point #3:
The proposal Constitutes an amendment to the PD District zoning and should require a new
zoning application. The appellant notes that Zoning Ordinance Section 14.07.150 states that
"requests for changes in the contents of approval of a PD District zoning and Development
Plan shall be treated as a zoning amendment (rezoning)."
The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff' response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to tl►e Planning Com►nission dated March 14, 2017. The
Planning Commission finds that the project does not require an amendment to the PD District and
that the processing and issuance of a Use Permit Amendment is the appropriate process for this
request. As noted in the response to Appeal Points #1 and 2 above, the project proposes a minor
change to the existing residential use of the yellow hallway area, Per San Rafael Municipal Code
Section 14.07.035C, the improvements and use are minor and do not require an amendment to the
PD District. The Planning Commission finds that this approach has been taken on minor use
changes for other properties located in the PD District, including 1600-1650 Los Gamos Road
(Marin Commons) and 1 I I McInnis Parkway (office complex). The Planning Commission finds
that if a maior change in the use of the Lourdes Convent facility (e.g., a commercial retirement
center) were proposed or if the facility was demolished and the site was proposed for
redevelopment, a zoning amendment to the PD District and a Development Plan would be
required.
Appeal Point #4:
The proposal is non-compliant with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.115 as the City has zoned
GC and LI/O Districts in other area of the City for shelters_for families. The proposal does not
meet the Performance Standards of this ordinance section.
The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2017. The
Planning Commission finds that San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.1 15 is not relevant or
applicable to the proposed project. This section of the zoning ordinance• is specific to the
establishment and operation of emergency shelters not transitional housing. The project proposes
transitional housing. The Planning Commission confirms that since this code section is not
relevant or application to the proposed transitional housing use, the require performance
standards of this code section are not applicable.
Anneal Point #5:
Objective studies conducted pursuant to statutory mandate, show that homelessness among the
population of families with children has decreased Therefore, the stated urgent need is not
supported by the empirical evidence,
Tile Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2017. The
Planning Commission finds there is nothing in the approval of the Use Permit Amendment by the
Zoning Administrator that cites or implies that there is urgency in approving this proposal. The
Planning Commission acknowledges that the application for the Use Permit Amendment was not
promoted or prompted by the City; rather, the City is responding to an application filed by the
Dominican Sisters, no different- than any other applicant to the Planning permit process.
Regardless of the matter of urgency, there is a need for housing in general. San Rafael General
Plan 2020 Housing Element (page 42) explicitly identifies: a) a broad list of those that need
3
housing (which includes very low-income households including those without a place to call
home), and b) the kind of housing that is needed.
Appeal Point #6.-
The
6:The decision inCludes recommendations for future use which are inappropriate and go far
beyond the application. These recommendations demonstrate that the neighbor's concerns for
their community and are well justlf ed. The appellant opposes Use Permit Condition #7, which
addresses the term limits of the Use Permit Amendment and the options that required at the
time the permit amendment terminates/sunsets.
The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2017. The
Planning Commission finds that the appellant's point is legitimate and that a revision to
Condition 47 is warranted. The Planning Commission acknowledges that the Dominican Sisters
have worked closely with their neighbors through the Use Permit Amendment process. In doing
so, there is an agreement and commitment by the Dominican Sisters to a two year sunset period
for this use. The Planning Commission finds that the turns and conditions of the Use Permit
Amendment should not undermine this commitment or prejudge future use of the yellow hallway
area. Condition #7 has been revised and is presented below.
Anveal Point V.
If the .honing Administrator's action is upheld, any change in zoningluse should have a
condition to run with the land that ifthe (Doinlnicannj Sisters ever transfer title to the property,
whether It is by sale or gift, the transitional housing must terminate.
The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2017. As the
Planning Commission's action includes a revision to Use Permit Amendment Condition 47, the
proposed use would terminate two years following unit occupancy. Therefore, this suggested
recommendation by the appellant is no longer necessary.
Appeal Point 48:
Given that the whole purpose behind the PD special zoning for this address was because of the
Convent and/or the properties affiliation with Dominican College, should the Sisters cease
using this as a convent, the PD District should be abolished and Lite property should revert
back to the Rla residential zoning and its rise be in character with the surrounding single-
family residential neighborhood.
The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2017. The
Planning Commission finds that should the Dominican Sisters cease to use the convent the
property as a convent the current PD District would not be abolished or automatically be rezoned
to the Rla District as suggested by the appellant. Given the property size.(over Nvo acres), a
rezoning of the PD District to incorporate an approved Development Plan would Likely be
recommended. Any change in property zoning requires a public process, which is set forth in San
Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.27 (Amendment). The public process requires public hearings
with the Planning Commission and City Council. Any major re -use of the existing convent
facilities or redevelopment of the property would require a property rezoning.
The Planning Commission finds that property coning must be consistent with the San Rafael
General Plan land use designation. The property land use designation for the subject property is
Public/Quasi-Public. While this land use designation permits residential use, its primary purpose
is to accommodate public and quasi -public uses and facilities.
Findinus for Denial of Athoeal AP 17-002
Appeal Point #1:
Use Perrnit Condition of Approval #7a Is a denial of due process and fundatnental. fairness, is
arbitraty and capricious and is entirely lacking in evidentiary support. The appellant is
specifically concerned that. a) the condition is inconsistent with the agreenteni reached
between the Dominican Sisters and the neighbors (two year Hind on use); and b) the condition
invites or encourages the proposed use "in perpetuity" or as a permanent use without the
opportunity of due process to the public,
The Planning Commission has rev iewed,'considered and agrees with the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning; Commission dated March 14, 2017. The
Planning Commission confirms that this appeal point is also made in the first appeal tiled by
Christopher Dolan (AP17-001). See Appeal Point #6, above for a response to this issue. As
summarized in the above response, the appellant's concerns regarding condition are legitimate
and the Planning Commission finds that it warrants a revision to this condition. As discussed
above a revision to Condition 7 is approved with action on this resolution.
Appeal Point #2;
The Acting Zoning Administrator's conclusions concerning traffic and safety are not based on
facts but speculation. The appellant argues that projected traffic and safety impacts of the future
residents have not been fully analyzed assuming multiple daily trips to -and --from the site. The
appellant states that the Public Works Department conceded that it never actively monitors the
Intersection of Alagnollo elvenuelLocust Avenue. Further, the appellant nates that the review of
parking relies on a one-week survey of the existing parking which does not factor the parking and
access impacts of the future residents of the yellow hallway area.
The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered and agrees with the staff response to this
appeal point presented in the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 2017, The
Planning Commission disagrees with this appeal point and finds that there is adequate
information in the Use Permit Amendment documents and record to address and confirm that the
project will not exacerbate existing traffic conditions, road safety and parking demand.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning
Administrator's approval of Use Permit Amendment UP16-057 based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findings for UPI 6-057
As proposed and conditioned, the use is in accord with the General Plan 2020, the
objectives of the City Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the PD (Planned
Development) District in that:
a. The General Plan 2020 Land Use Element land use map designates %ourdes Convent
for public/quasi-public use, This land use designation permits residential use. The
current use, the Lout -des Convent is a residential use. The proposed transitional housing
is also a residential use and is therefore consistent with the allowances of this land use
designation.
5
b, The proposed use is consistent with General Plan 2020 -Housing Blement Policy 11-9,
which recognizes special needs. Policy H-9 encourages a mix of housing unit types
throughout San Rafael, including housing for very low- and low-income families with
children and single parents. As proposed, the residential unit would provide
transitional housing for two single mothers with their children living as a single
household,
c. Consistent with General Plan 2020 Housing Element Policy H-10, the proposed use
represents an innovated housing approach that supports the financing, design and
construction of a residential unit that increases the availability of low-income housing.
d. The proposed use would create a shared household of two single parents with children,
which would be consistent with General Plan 2020 Housing Element Policy H -I I
(House Sharing).
e. The proposed use is consistent with one of the objectives of the PD (Planned
Development) District, which is to accommodate various types of compatible and
complimentary uses within a development. Lourdes Convent presents a setting of
compatible residential uses.
f. The approval of a Use Permit Amendment for the proposed use is appropriate in that it
would allow the re -purposing of existing building area for a two year period. Given the
limited scope and timeframe of this project, it would not result in a substantial change
to the property or use that would necessitate or mandate a comprehensive, long-term
master plan for Lourdes Convent.
2, As proposed and conditioned, the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in l.he vicinity, or to the
general welfare of the City in that:
a. The project will not result in new development, additional building area or major
physical changes to the Lourdes Convent property, it proposes the conversion of
existing residential rooms, the "yellow hallway" to a single dwelling unit for a shared
household. Further, the "yellow hallway" represents a small percentage of the overall
convent facility (12%) of the Lourdes Convent facility.
b. The project would re -purpose an existing 1,995 square foot area of the convent to a
single residential unit which will not result in an increase in traffic that would change
or exacerbate existing traffic patterns or conditions, or increase safety hazards along the
local street system.
c. As demonstrated by a one-week parking survey conducted at the project site, the
existing parking supply exceeds the demand, thus there is adequate off-street parking to
serve the proposed use without impacting properties in the vicinity.
d. The project would not impair or reduce safety to the residents of the convent facility or
to surrounding residents in chat the single residence is set back from the public street
and the outdoor yard area would be fenced and screened with vegetation. further, to
maintain a line of sight for safe vehicle back -out along Locust Avenue, it is
recommended that the heavy vegetation located east of the informal, gravel parking; pad
be trimmed back.
e, The exterior improvements proposed for the project are limited to the creation of a
fenced yard area, which is currently fenced and well screened from the public street by
heavy vegetation. These improvements will not result in a noticeable change to the
property conditions and would not be injurious to properties or improvements in the
area,
F. As proposed, Homeward Bound will provide residency oversight to ensure that
residents are properly screened and meet the criteria for residency. This oversight will
R
ensure that the proposed use is properly managed to ensure the safety and welfare of
the residents and the surrounding neighborhood.
3. As proposed and conditioned, the use complies with each of the applicable provisions of
the City Zoning Ordinance rn that:
a, As required by the provisions of the PD District, the proposed transitional housing trse
is a residential use that is compatible with retirement center use. Further, the processing
and approval of a Use Permit Amendment is consistent with the requirements of the PD
District to ensure that all uses on one site are compatible and complimentary.
b. There is adequate parking to meet the City Code. Further, it has been demonstrated by
the one-week parking survey conducted at the subject property that the existing parking is
adequate to meet the City Code. A study of the parking found that the existing parking
exceeds the demand.
The proposed use meets the City Zoning Ordinance definition for transitional housing,
which complies with State law. Per California Government Code Section 65583,
transitional housing must be treated as a residential use only, subject to only the same
restrictions as other housing of the same type in the subject zoning district. The sole
requirement for the approval of a Use Permit Amendment is that Lourdes Convent is
located within a PD District, A Use Permit Amendment would be required for other similar
residential uses proposed for the "yellow hallway" such as a manager's or caretaker
residence.
Conditions of At)Droval for UPI 6-057
1. Except as modified by the conditions of the Use Permit Amendment, all conditions of
approval for Use Permit UP79-18 relating to the use and operation of the Lourdes Convent
are unchanged and shall remain in effect.
2, This Use Permit Amendment approves the conversion of the 1,995 square -foot "yellow
hallway" area of the convent to a single residential dwelling unit (including a kitchen) for
transitional housing. As proposed, the residential dwelling unit is approved for a shared
household.
3. As the primary tenant of the "yellow hallway," Y iomeward Bound is responsible for
managing the oversight of unit residency and operation. As presented in the Use Permit
Amendment application, unit residents must be participants in the Homeward Bound
program, meet the screening criteria for occupancy, enter into all occupancy agreement.and
comply with the Code of Conduct for residency,
4. Prior to any and all construction, a building permit is required and shall be secured for this
project. Upon completion of the construction and City inspection process, a Certificate of
Occupancy will be issued by the City.
5. Along the Locust Avenue frontage adjacent to the main driveway is an informal, gravel -
surfaced parking pad, which is located within the public right-of-way. In order to provide a
line of sight for safe vehicle back-up, the heavy vegetation located east of this pad shall be
trimmed back to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The vegetation trimming
shall bre completed prior to the occupancy.
7
6. The application for a building permit will require review and approval by the Tire
Department. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the
California fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and amendments, An upgrade to the
existing fire alarm and sprinkler system serving the "yellow hallway" may be required as
determined by the Fire Department.
7, This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance date
of Certificate of Occupancy. At the end of the two year period, the Use Permit Amendment
shall terminate. At that time, the kitchen facility shall be removed and the area returned to its
current use as residential convent rooms, if at the end of the two year period the property
owner decides to retain the kitchen and re -purpose the yellow hallway area, City approvals
will be required.
The foregoing resolution was at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting
held on the 14th day of March 2017.
Moved by Commissioner Schafer and seconded by Commissioner Loughran.
AYES: Chairman Belletto, Davidson, Loughran, Lubamersky, Robertson, Schafer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Paul
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: 0�"a "/--
Paul A. Jense ecretary Frerald -ellen., Chairman
r_lvg7r-,To.q►1
PUBLIC CIOTICE
MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL PUBLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER/RESIDENT NOTICE
Marin Independent Journal
4000 Civic Center Drive, Suite 301
San Rafael, CA 94903
416-382-7335
legais@rnarinij.com
2070419
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL Legal No. 0005939543
CITY CLERK, ROOM 209 Clint onSAN 1tAM£L
1400 FIFTH AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL. CA 94901 NtmCEOFPutsttt HIAIrNa
You are Invited to att nit the Mt� council
SAN RAFAEL, CA '94915-15110 hearing an me rollowrno proioc .
PAOJIM n unmet Avenue (laordae
Carmnt) - Apoeal of the piann)ng cammrssro-
WIN MUM 14,2017 aetlon denjing oppeols(s) of
PROOF OF PUBLICATION Ihp7oningArmin(11151av'sa ti andapprov-
log a use PoYnFrI (UP16-067) to allow th@ tort`
,+ Y°F3IOR ar a 1995 square -foot area or the
(20 1 5.5 C.C.P.) Taut l"i convent rri sn tongl•egate housinngg
{{Oaminican 51slzrs) t4 a single dwelling unit
fa transitlonel housing proposed to he ehareQ
Dy !wa adult Women atxf [heir ehfltlren Tile
tine Permit is proposdtl to Aulhotue the Iransr-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA tfane+housingunit I- atemporary ve let two
years APN: IL•112.2]; Plan ed Development
tPD) Zoning 114irlti; Appellant: Chrislanher
County of Marin Da'en; ConbrepHilan at Ir,t maty awn r
SU rt ciifLNICG Tl usl, prapar! owner Ap.
To Na: AP17. ?
AS requirkdby stale raw, fire gooloe4S poten-
tial emikomni4r5tat inipati6 0Ja bowl As-
Ct d. S off oamm a n
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the ��qi'„°i$eCEO;o)�o,ena4nr�p� onta aa�+�
County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and ECrX1vlrAruttontat" uelOyAct �(CE the undo mis
not a gaily to or interested in the above matter, i am the PaNrtn�11C ?�Qi�atn"'�En Flex11°�'�,�iif Ve
prinolpai clerk of the printer of the MARIN INDEPENDENT mro I undiodnmbybe rtqu I i(tnil ivd °r°"'
JOURNAL, a newspaper of general circulation, printed andFtEAplNO DATF+
published daily in the County of Marin, and which Idanday,MA F45,2ottet740P.K
newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general 10n��°City t+an-r�tnrcou�,alChnmhors
circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Marin, aarao�ca�$9S�" 3troo
State of California, under date of FEBRUARY 7, 1955, ATWILL HAPPEN if �y
CASE NUMBER 25566; that the notice, of which the ou ";p anao dtconIl a�i,ItFmgct r+Thter and
annexed Is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than acl�awhathortoapprovcorfonySOappeat
nonpareil), has been published In each regular and entire I vOucA)U(4T!(TTENDr
oumagg w encorroopanda�ceby maR
Issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement Fit ° a roes a ar b past tits o
thereof on the following dates, to -wit: ymuln CC�A 0 o I. Yo a a a P`�do veoi.
g iWiaet CA 9Qlnv'ou 1` A4d fP,lap
Dar to Uta action dote.
0412712017 FOR MORE N�F8RMA710N
Carn tnct Pou 1anlen, rni 4 Pl n"' t 419)
I85'6DG4 or poul,lim n racy an aa�.a
you Gan ais0 co a to i elan 1n9 pfvb)on oT•
Fi loaatod lit City No .140D IRri Aveni,e, to
a d the file for the proposed pmject. The
atrlcfs on hom 6r3DD a to 6••00 ppp�m. on
Mangay ursda rd0 t° 12 -AS
p.m. an yyetdwqy� Wepy��—m a andFridsy. You
can a v( w the staff rt ofttar 6106 p.m, on
t{h° Pn ay �+rtare the meet g akk
h"or/ rwyI.cltyoSsartrnfao�orr�/tneetings.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the SAN RAFAMCM COUNCIL
foregoing Is true and correct, /s< Mm r 6eime
Esthor B, rns
CITY CLERK
Dated this 27th day of April, 2017. At thq above tlri�e and acs, au v e orre
spantlenc rmelNedtvl�ibetioteJelnd 9 11tef-
esieeda es will be h ord, l you c env n
ppotin e matter described e, you may
Ilmlte to misln only those Ss J" ou or
somas sn raised st the puh is �earirrpi t
sir vthisnotice.orinIVfrt{cncarresparfd-
ance d�u'
d at, a prior MIX abotre rrrfvr
e as�i5 p �earinDaovamment Co a sec•
topI t) tt)�. a av _W an ad n st ttv dadsion of
iiia city Council must le wl iiia Coun
r AA f n not later ric th r la i. f Ie0 the date
of the later
than
's f�eaLslan. ` e W PC t P date
dUrp Section I040.6)
i(J) 510n Liv�pual0e an Intarpr tattoo and
a53i5tive Ilstenlnpp dev a ay ce r4quested
6y calling (415) 4dS 691 vrWrf[e) or (113) Ig5
Signature 3190 (TDD)
it
was 72 h0y15lti advanto. toles
of documents area =21.2. n accesslh�e or•
mets upon request
ppubile 1mnspof atkm to CIty kali Ia avadahie
throw h a Iden ¢ 1 1Yatti;l �Ina�yyr 27.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION Pa,a•rans tlaavalra�leby�ItngWhisttestap
V1AeeC,a, dttyy)44409�a
To ali4p,1w I ndtvlttdu ala wi��tmhh essrlulr��totyynmenutt illness
maetlnalheiii no Iefn ndlviduaiisvaea requeesteed tttoo
> i
r� SAN RAFAEL
1 � r�Fcnvw�TcinMissioN NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING —CITY COUNCIL
You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project:
PROJECT: 77 Locuat Avenue (Lourdes Convent) —Appeal of the Planning Commission's March 14, 2017 action denying appeals(2) of the Zoning
Administrator's action, and approving a Use Permit (UP16-057) to allow the conversion of a 1,995 -square -foot area of the Lourdes Convent from congregate
housing (Dominican Sisters) to a single dwelling unit for transitional housing to be shared by two adult women and their children. The Use Permit is proposed to
authorize the transitional housing unit as a temporary use for two years. APN: 015-112-23; Planned Development (PD) Zoning District; Appellant: Christopher
Dolan; Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust, property owner; Appeal File No: AP17.003.
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends o finding that this project will nol have a
significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under 14 CCR Section
15301 (Existing Facilities). if the Planning Commission delermines that this project Is In an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required,
MEETING DATEiTIMEILOCATION: Monday, May 15, 2017, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Paul Jensen, Project Planner at 415-485-5064 or Paul.iensent&citvofsanrafael.ora. You can also come to
the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after
5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.citvofsanrafael.orq/meetings
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or
deny the application.
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT: You can send written correspondence by emall to the address above, or by post to the Community Development
Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, 1400 511h Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, You can also hand deliver it prior to the action date.
At the above lime and place, all written correspondence received will be noted and all Interested parties will be heard. If you challenge In court the matter described above, you may be
limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or In written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced
public hearing (Government Code Section 85009 (b) (2)).
Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be fried with the Court not later than the 901" day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.8)
Sign Language and interpretation and asslslive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 465.3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Caples of
documents are available in accessible formals upon request.
Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gale Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistleslop Wheels at (415) 454-0964,
To allow lndlvlduals with environmental illness or multlpla, chemical sensitivity to aftend the meetingmearing, Individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products,
12(1312016
4• XI
Legand
O San Rafael
agerGroup
Sufkr Layer
O Query_Rssu ft
Query Results
EOC
Cj GRIDS
0 PERmrrs
LJ PwAcT%TriEs
SURVEY BENCHMARKS'
L6crryuvj-rscy
0 ADDRESS
mAjwrmmCE GROUPS
A CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Ll ADA Ramps 1 /C\ `
Wj INFRASTRUCTURE 4.
Ej PAYEMENT MANAGMENT
Crl HIGHWAYS
Z57l t /
X. -, Y-. — .
htb:fds.citv.locaUsanrafaeV
No sekction.
SanRafael
v V
rl/
ACACIA
n- ll,-\
is 121&5.0131 1
AVENUE
O785
'Z _50
PROP—ID
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
015-061-14
ALIOTO 1993 TRUST ETAL
110 LINDEN LN
SAN RAFAEL
015-081-10
QUIROS IRREVOCABLE TRUST 2013 ETAL
205 'LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-081-30
Occupant
197 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-081-30
SAMMIS ANNE E TRUST
197 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-081-31
CADDEN HUGH J /TR/ &
201 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-02
Occupant
1554 GRAND AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-02
SHOEN CLAIRE B
1554 GRAND AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-04
EMRICH PETER M & LINDA M REVOC LIVING TRL 14 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-04
Linda McLean Emrich
14 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-06
CelebriDucks
28 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-06
WOLFE CRAIG 'REVOC LIVING TRUST
28 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-212-07
BOKAIE MICHAEL D &
30 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-09
SCOTT E GRIMM 2012 TRUST ETAL
109 LOWELL AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-10
Occupant
20 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-10
THOENI RUEDI F &
PO BOX 2829
SAN FRANCISCO
015-112-11
BIDDLE TRUST 2001 ETAL
38 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-12
DOLAN CHRISTOPHER B 2012 TRUST
1 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-12
Occupant
1 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-13
FLAMING DALE G /TR/
102 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-1.12-13
Occupant
102 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-16
HAGGiN JEFFREY B 2012 REVOCTRUST
120 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-18
Independent Employment Counsel
141 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-18
SCHOLICK GARY TR &
141 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-19
TOBIN MICHAEL & ANN B
145 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-20
KOENIG KIMBERLY.A & MERCER DONALD W LIV
' 149 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-20
Occupant
149 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-21.
Bristol Group Ltd., The
2399 PO BOX
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-21
HARRIS PETER R /TR/ &
155 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-112-23
SISTERS CHARITABLE TRUST FUND
CONGREGATION OF MOST HOLY NAME SAN RAFAEL
015-112-24
ROELL FAMILY TRUST ETAL
110 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
SAN RAFAEL
015-121-11
CARLSTON DOUGLAS G TR
PO BOX 9151
SAN RAFAEL
015-121-12
CARLSTON DOUGLAS G TR
PO BOX 9151
.SAN RAFAEL
015-121-13
CARLSTON DOUGLAS G TR
PO SOX 9151
SAN RAFAEL
015-142-02
Joanne Cullimore
1520 GRAND AVE
015-142-02
SISTERS OF SAINT DOMINIC
1520 GRAND AVE
015-142-02
Sisters Of St_ Dominic
1520 GRAND AVE
015-142-03
DOMINICAN COLLEGE OF SAN RAFAEL
50 ACACIA AVE
Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood
A! Cheryl Douglas
P.O. Box 151702
Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood
At Cheryl Douglas
P.O_ Box 151702
Paul Jensen, Community Development
Del City of San Rafael
1400 5th Avenue
Gary Ragghianti
Ragghianti-Freitas, LLP
1101 Sth Ave, Suite 100
Diane Henderson
DMH Land Use Planning
980 5th Avenue
John Contini
311 Locust Ave.
Heather Stewart
363 Locust Ave.
Kathleen Bestor
31 Glenaire Drive
Jacquelyn Urbani
School of Education and Counseling Psychology 150 Acacia Ave.
Howard and Eileen Lee
49 Palm Ave.
Diane Suffridge
5 Pine Tree Court
Barbara Killey
7 M -Liss Lane
Barbara George
536 Las Colindas Road
Gail Lester
37 Broadview Drive
Sharon and Ed Cushman
249 Devon Drive
Dottie and Dick Breiner
43 St. Francis Lane
Dashiell Stander
64 Martens Boulevard
Christine Johnson
116 Jewell Court
Claire Murphy
Instructional Resources Coordinator
40 Acacia Avenue
Laura Stivers
Professor of Ethics Dominican University
50 Acacia Avenue
Richard Kalish
Kalish Nexon, LLP
1108 Fifth Avenue, Suite 320
Tim and Ann Dale
15 Palm Avenue
Dave Coury
P.O. Box 278
Alan Hayakawa
221 Belle Avenue
William and Katherine Harrison
254 Mountain View Avenue
Frank and Marie Marino
7 Mountain View Avenue
Tony Franco
Z19 Glen Park Avenue
Robert Pendoley
31 Tan Oak Circle
Nancy Nall Bennett
268 Mountain View Ave.
Matthew White
297 Locust Avenue
SAN RAFAEL
SAN RAFAEL
SAN RAFAEL
SAN RAFAEL
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
Corte Madera
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
San Rafael
Paula Doubleday
246 Linden Lane
San Rafael
Susannah Malarkey
1540 Grand Avenue
San Rafael
David Wolfensperger
250 Locust Ave.
San Rafael
Jane Kroesche
170 Palm Avenue
San Rafael
Joan Cardeau
37S Locust Ave
Sar} Rafael
Laura Merlo
297 Locust Avenue
San Rafael
Paul Fordham
1385 N. Hamilton Parkway
Novato
Jamie Pera
1610 Grand Avenue
San Rafael
Kathy Lovold
64 Dominican Drive
San Rafael
Jeff Lovold
64 Domincan Drive
San Rafael
Patty Garbarino
19 Palm Avenue
San Rafael
Paul Cohen
23 Chestnut Ave
San Rafael
Scott Quinn
1510 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael
Tom Gable
265 Arias St.
San Rafael
Dennis Gilandi
250 Hawthorne Ave
Larkspur
Greg Brockbank
35 St. Francis Lane
San Rafael
Salem Ka.ridveh
7 meridiarn lane
San Rafael
Wayne Hubert
21 Convent Court
San Rafael
Karen McCarthy
1443 Woodside Circle
Petaluma
Carmen Parent
205 Locust Ave.
San Rafael
Linda Jackson
111 Belle Ave.
San Rafael
Kathy Geary
1330 Fourth Street
San Rafael
Resident
1105 5th Ave
San Rafael CA
Don Dickenson
327 Jewell Street
San Rafael CaA
Jacqueline Cantrell
50 Acacia St
San Rafael
Christine Kim
50 Acacia St
San Rafael
Bethany Wothensperger
250 Locust Ave.
San Rafael
STATE ZIP4
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94903
CA
94901
CA
94126
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94912
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94912
CA
94912
CA
94912
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
94901
94901
94901
94901
94915
94915
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94903
94901
94903
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94901
94976
94901
94901
94901
94901
94903
94901
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
-CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
CA
94901
ATTACHMENT R
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AT AND SINCE THE
MARCH 14, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Paul Jensen
From:
Katherine Crawford
Sent:
Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:44 PM
To:
Paul Jensen
Cc:
Kat C
Subject:
Lourdes/housing
Hi Paul,
I am a neighbor in the Dominican area and have been for almost 30 years. I read the proposal re Lourdes and the
transitional housing. I
do feel that this is a great idea I If I understand the project it sounds like Dominican/Lourdes community is providing a
part of Lourdes
that will be converted into transitional housing for 2 women and their kids. This is an expression of the idea or spiritual
value of helping
out, serving others, being generous and showing loving kindness and compassion and, In a world of isolation and
disconnection THIS
IS PART OF THE ANTIDOTE I
The only thing that wasn't mentioned was the number and ages of the children and how long they would be there. It
said 2 years but if
the kids are older this could mean more traffic. Just a thought. if they are young children of course that is not an issue.
I am for this project as long as everyone at Lourdes?Dominican Is in favor of It. There may be factors of which I am not
aware.
Thank you very much,
Kat Crawford
1
Paul Jensen
From: Paul Jensen
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:01 AM
To: Anne Derrick
Subject: Fwd: Dominican Housing for two mothers and cildren
Get Outlook for 10S
From: Yvonne Postelle
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 8:32:52 AM
To: Paul Jensen
Subject: Dominican Housing for two mothers and cildren
I live in the adjacent neighborhood and I support the Sisters in their project
Yvonne Postel -le
385 Mountain View Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901 .
May 2, 2017
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MARIN COUNTY
LEAGUE SUPPORTS THE LOURDES CONVENT HOUSING REQUEST
To: Mayor Gary Phillips and Members of the San Rafael City Council:
The League of Women Voters of Marin County strongly supports the San Rafael Planning
Commission's unanimous approval of transitional housing for two homeless women and their small
children at Our Lady of Lourdes Convent on the Dominican University Campus.
The Dominican Sisters have been working in partnership with Marin's foremost provider of services
to homeless families, Homeward Bound, to remodel a small section of their convent. Homeward
Bound will select and supervise the families, and, after the families have lived there for two years, it
will help them move into permanent housing;
The plight of those who find themselves homeless in Marin is well known. When women with small
children are part of that group, it Is vital that they are given a decent shelter. We believe that a
family shelter, with caring nuns nearby, would be the best possible kind of assistance and
encouragement for a homeless family.
We urge San Rafael to support this attempt by Dominican to show the way to provide that
environment to those in need. We ask the City Council to do just that by denying the appeal and
supporting the Planning Commission's approval of the Dominican Sisters' praiseworthy plan.
Sincerely,
7,An-ne Chentock,
V -Anne Chernock
President
4340 Redwood I Iighway, Suite P-133, San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone; 415-507.0824 Website: marinlwv.org Email: lwvmcOmarinlwv,org
Kathleen A. Bestor
31 Glenaire Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
kathleenbestor(Lcomcast.net
415 479-7834
April 7, 2017
Mayor Gary'Phillips
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Mayor Phillips,
am writing in support of the Dominican Sisters' proposal to provide transi-
tional housing at Lourdes Convent. I know you are more aware than most
of us of the significant shortage of housing in Marin County for moderate
income individuals. This is a very small step toward resolving that problem
and I hope you will support the sisters' proposal.
I have lived in San Rafael/Marin County for most of the 50+ years since
first came to Dominican College in 1965. It is heartbreaking that our neigh-
bors who have so much are trying to deny assistance to those who have so
little. It is hard to imagine that the presence of these single mothers and
their children will have even a minimal negative impact on the neighbor-
hood.
Thank you for the work you do for our city.
Please approve the sisters' request.
Thank you,
Kathleen A. Bestor
Efixabet� 9l. Puree(I
170 Reservoir Road
San RafaeC, Ca( forma 94901
San Rafael City Council
1400 Fifth Avenue, Room 203
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: Lom•des Convent Transitional Housing
Dear Members of the City Council;
The Dominican Sisters of San Rafael have plans to provide housing for two women
and their children. This should surprise no one. It fits perfectly with their mission to "bring
the Gospel to bear with depth and compassion on the critical issues of our times." The
Planning Commission approved their plans. A couple of hard-hearted, self-interested,
privileged neighbors have appealed that decision.
What kind of community are we if we refuse to care for the "least among us?" I am a
graduate of Dominican University. I am a resident of San Rafael. I ask that you deny these
neighbors' appeal on both its lack of merit AND on its humanitarian grounds.
To use a religious allusion in this Easter time, let us live up to the name of our city --
the name of one of the brightest angels -- the Archangel Rafael who defended Tobias against
the demons.
Sincerely,
EIiz f urcell
Planning Commission Public Hearing — 14 March 2017 � f' + [1 VV
i
Support for the Dominican Sisters MAR 14 2017
This is a letter of strong support for the sisters in their propos &Ni����PARTIUIENT
women and their four children in part of their building on Loc&C}A°venrxF
I have lived about a'block away in that neighborhood for 45 years enjoying both
the grace and wit of some of the sisters, and sharing the .seasons and the
changes over the years. I have been part of the neighborhood long enough to
know the traditional Christmas Caroling that brought sisters and students up the
front walk; to experience the Marin Symphony playing Tchalkovsky's Overture of
1812 complete with canons on the weekend nearest July 4 on the lawn at
Caleruega; and l was also there on the terrible -day when the old convent was
destroyed by fire.
Throughout this history the nuns have always pursued what we now call
''purpose driven lives"- teaching, and caring for the sick. In this latest move they
are practicing their faith in what is known as Corporal Works of Mercy, helping
those less fortunate, foundational principals in Judeo-Christianity,
Especially in this moment in which our nation is sliding backward from our
traditional American values of welcoming everyone and supporting those most in
need, this is a chance for our local community to stand up to those who would
exploit anxieties and fears to exclude those who need our support. Let's lead the
way and support our neighbors in their efforts to show that love trumps hate
every time.
I bless them for reaching out and I have offered to help in whatever way I can to
make this time welcoming for the families.
Peggy Woodring
Currently residing 260 Locust Avenue
For 34 years owner and resident of
Magnolia House, 226 Magnolia Avenue
Peggy Woodring AIA
P O Box 150807
San Rafael, CA 94915
Cel 415-717-1850
Fax 815-301-3711
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MAR1N COUNTY
March 8, 2017 MI A R .I 4 2.017
P L A N N,! a Ni G
LEAGUE SUPPORTS THE LOURDES CONVENT HOUSING REQUES'r
To: Ban-ett Schaefer, Chair, San Rafael Planning Commission
The League of Women Voters of Marin County strongly supports the San Rafael Zoning
Adm.inistrator's approval of transitional housing for two homeless women and their small children at
Our Lady of Lourdes Convent on the Dominican University Campus.
The Dominican Sisters have been working in partnership with Marin's foremost provider of services to
homeless families, Homeward Sound, to remodel a sinal! section of their convent. Homeward Bound
will select and supervise the families, and, after the families have lived there for two years, it will help
them move into permanent housing.
The plight of those who find themselves homeless in Marin is well known. When women with small.
children are part of that group, it is vital that they are given a decent shelter. We believe that a family
shelter, with caring nuns nearby, would be the best possible kind of assistance and encouragement for
a homeless family. '
We urge San Rafael to support this attempt by Dominican to show the way to provide that
environment to those in need. We ask the Planning Commission to do just that by supporting the
Zoning Administrator's approval of the Dominican Sisters' praiseworthy plan.
Sincerely,
�/- rlklt,�
V -Anne Chernoek
President
4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F-133, San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415-507-0824 Website: marinlwv.org Email: lwvinc@a}narunlwv.org
Paul Jensen
From: Michele Ginn on behalf of Community Development
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 4:58 PM
To: Paul Jensen
Subject: Fw: Lourdes Convent
From: Mary Jane Burke <miburke(Mmarinschools.ore>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:03 PM
To: planning
Subject: Lourdes Convent
Dear Planning Commission,
Asa graduate and Trustee of the Dominican University of California, I am writing to express my support for the
transitional housing permit at the Dominican Sisters' Lourdes Convent. While attending Dominican University, I had the
privilege of receiving direct support, kindness and encouragement from the Dominican Sisters in my pursuit of an
education and career path—one that ultimately led to public service on behalf of the more than 35,000 students of
Marin County. As a result of their compassion and goodwill, I have an inherent belief in the importance of offering
support to those in need.
The pian for the Lourdes Convent is to offer a safe shelter to two single women and four children who are working their
way out of homelessness. This is an opportunity for these families'to build a successful life thanks to the good will and
service of the Sisters. As a lifelong educator and an advocate for children and families, I wholeheartedly believe that this
will change the trajectory for these women and children offering them the chance .to lead positive, fulfilled lives and
become contributing members of our community in the future.
In my experience as an educator, I have seen the impact that homelessness and trauma can have on children. But I have
also seen the incredibly positive things that happen when someone cares enough to act. Think of the positive impact
that stable housing will have on the four children who are currently living in a homeless shelter. These children will have
a space to call home ... and their mothers will have the opportunity to focus on ways that they can support their family
and become self-sufficient. Your decision will undoubtedly change the lives of these families and others who In the
future may find themselves being served by the Dominican Sisters.
I urge the Commission to grant the use permit for transitional housing to send the message that the community of San
Rafael believes in the importance of second chances, community service and good will toward others. It would also set
an example for the rest of Marin. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Mary Jane
Mary Jane Burke
Marin County Superintendent of Schools
(415),499-5801
@Burkemaryjane
March 10, 2017 , \�.I ,N
Community Development Department Planning Division
Ctty of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Project: 77 Locust Ave., San Rafael, CA 94901 (Lourdes Convent)
File No. UP-] 6-057
I, Barry Gilbert, wish to speak at the Public Hearing -Planning Commission meeting on
Tuesday, March 14, 2017, 7p.m., City Council Chambers.
Sincerely,
Barry Gilbert
1604 Grand Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
David P. Freitas
Patty Garbarino
19 Palm Ave
San Rafael, Ca 94901
March 13, 2017
Honorable Members,
San Rafael Planning Commission
City of San Rafael
1400 51" Ave, Ca 9491
Re: 77 Locust, Lourdes Convent
Dear Commission Members,
My wife, Patty Garbarino, and I have lived in the Dominican area of San Rafael for
many years. We have enjoyed many years of walking along Locust Avenue and
have become very familiar with the area near and around Lourdes. We now come
to voice our support for the Dominican Sisters pending application seeking an
amendment to a use permit.
I moved into the Dominican neighborhood in 1975 and practiced law in San Rafael
for 40 years. However, in matters of land use planning, I defer to my wife who
---- -spent eight -years on -the -Mar -ire -County Pl�a.nning-Commission-(two year-s-as-Cha.i,r-).
In reading Mr. Dolan's papers we both note he provides no real legal objections.
Rather, he simply objects to having this laudable use next to his very beautiful and
expensive home. If that were to be the stuff decisions were made of we would
have no need for a General Plan, a Zoning Ordinance or Community Development
Department. Rather, your analysis of the Sister's Application according to the
applicable provision and of the San Rafael Municipal Code and pertinent
provisions of the California Government Code (requiring transitional residential
housing to be treated the same as traditional residential) calls out for granting the
Sister's application.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
ofp~�S `ti{/I�r
ri "4-i l H
Barrett Schaefer, Chair
City of San Rafael Planning Commission
1400 Fifth Avenue
San'Rafaei, CA 94901
Dear Mr. Schaefer:
1 am a resident of Marin County and I work in San Rafael. I am writing in support of the Dominican
Sisters' proposal to provide housing to two women with children to share their home on Locust St.
We are all very much aware of the exorbitant cost of living in Marin County and the dearth of affordable
housing. This is particularly difficult for single moms and/or dads, and even more so for women who are
working towards recovery. What an incredibly generous and brilliant idea for the sisters to see
themselves as a support for these familiesl And to open their community to them with love, respect,
and joy. The outlandish assumptions I have seen in some of the objections from a few of their neighbors
are full of misinformation and, frankly, of ignorance and even hate. There is no credible evidence in any
community which has provided shelter/housing for recovering women and their children, or victims of
domestic violence (who are often one and the same) of an increase in crime, drug trafficking, or any of
the other activities these neighbors have posited. Such assertions are really quite outlandish.
As for a concern about zoning, this residence is already comprised of unrelated members. Certainly they
share many commitments, ideas, etc. but they are, in fact unrelated. Choosing to include, in space now
empty, additional residents in their community seems, at least to me, to be no violation. Rather, It
would appear to be their choice, They are not "renting out the rooms"; they are, in fact, providing a
home and security for two families.
I would hope that the Commission sees the benefits to the entire community of the Sisters' proposal
and votes to approve it.
Sincerely yours,
W
Amy L. Reisch
917 San Anselmo Ave #4
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Hugh and Luanne Cadden
201 Locust Avenue
San Rafael, California 94901
SENT BY EMAIL ONLY
March 14, 2017
Planning Commission
City of San Rafael
c/o Paul Jensen
Zoning Administrator
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: 77 Locust Avenue — Use Permit UP -15-057
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Ro
W
My wife and I have lived on Locust Avenue near the Lourdes property for the past twenty-one
years. We, like many of our neighbors, support the Sisters' efforts to use some of their excess space to
provide transitional housing to two single mothers and their children on a temporary basis. However, as
discussed below, the Sisters' proposed project, as currently structured, goes far beyond that objective
and must be denied. At the same time, we believe that the Sisters, working with the neighbors, can
achieve their stated objective with a different, simple approach.
Should the Planning Commission approve this temporary use, we request that such approval
expressly state that this temporary use approval shall not be considered as precedent for futures uses of
the Lourdes property.
Our comments follow:
1, The Lourdes Convent property at 77 Locust Avenue Is expressly conditioned and limited to the
Lourdes Retirement Center that is owned and operated by the Sisters.
The current proposal must be considered in the context of this property's unique zoning history.
In short, the zoning files related to this property indicate that in 1974 the City on its own initiative
changed the zoning of the Lourdes Convent property from its original 111132 status to a "U" (Unclassified
District). This change was necessitated by the Sister's request to expand their convent retirement
facility and the fact that the facility was a R182 non -conforming use at that time. At that time the
planning staff considered whether it would be appropriate to change the zoning to R3 (multi -family use)
but did not consider an R3 type zone appropriate for the neighborhood. In changing the zoning and
approving the Sisters requested expansion, the Planning Commission recognized the single family nature
of the area, the singular use as the Lourdes Retirement Center and the unique ownership and control
relationship by the Sisters; and it expressly limited the use of this property to the Sisters' Convent
Retirement Center use. The conditions established by the Planning_ Commission which were agreed to
by the Sisters provide:
"Conditional Approval
Findings:
Continuation of the Lourdes Retirement Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as
its facility remains affiliated with Dominican College and is not a private, commercial facility.
Conditions of approval:
(a) This use permit is limited to the Lourdes Retirement Center so long as ownership and/or
operation is by an affiliate of Dominican College.
(b) No future expansion of the use other than that currently under consideration shall take
place without modification of the current use permit.
(c) This approval is pending City Council approval of rezoning." (Z79-5; UP79-18;£D-7)
In the early -mid 1990's the City again on its own initiative replaced the "U" classification with PD
when it did away with the "U" classification district, It is important to note that from 1974 until today,
these limitations on the use of the property have been in place and complied with. During the past 42
years, the Sisters have received approval from the City for various remodels, additions and expansions
to the Lourdes property. These included such things as storage space addition, a temporary kitchen, a
single story addition, a second story addition and various remodels. In every instance, these actions
were limited to the Convent use at the Lourdes Retirement Center owned and operated by the Sisters,
We, like others, relied upon the Planning Commission's limitations when buying our property and we
have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with the Convent and Sisters over the years. it is special and
unique to our neighborhood,
2. The proposed project Is inconsistent with and violates the specific conditions attached to the
Lourdes property by the Planning Commission when it changed the zoning from R1132 to "U."
The current proposal calls for the conversion of part of the property to a multi-famlly residential
housing unit to be leased by a non-affiliated third party entity who in turn will rent the property to
Individual tenants. in short, this violates the original restrictions set by the Planning Commission In
every regard: the use is not Convent use; it is not operated by the Sisters or an affiliate; and it is not
under the control or operation of the Sisters. The fact that the proposed use is temporary or that it
sunsets in two years or that it only involves part of the property does not change the outcome. This
proposal is a zoning and use change plain and simple and cannot be approved without violating the very
conditions attached to this property.
It must be remembered that the City rezoned this property in 1974 from 111131 stating that "(a]n
important consideration in staff and Commission determination that the existing use is appropriate in
the neighborhood is its relationship to Dominican College. Staff would question the compatibility of a
private, commercial retirement center at this location. For that reason, it is important that the use
permit be limited to the ownership/operation of Dominican College affiliated corporations."
These conditions are clear and unique to this property. While the Sisters can make changes,
expand or remodel the Lourdes Retirement Center property by means of the use permit process, the
Sisters cannot use the use permit process to change the Planning Commission's foundational use
limitation to the Lourdes Retirement Center which must be under the ownership and/or operation of
the Sisters. In short, this limitation is unambiguous, runs with the land and cannot be negated or
ignored or changed by administrative, general use permit processing. In fact, in my opinion, the
limitations in place are so integral to the initial rezoning that when the Sisters' Lourdes Retirement
Center use ceases and/or it sells the property the zoning must revert to R1132.
3. The Sisters, working with the neighbors, can achieve their objective by restructuring their
proposal,
The stated objective of the Sisters is to make some of their excess space available for
transitional housing for two single women each with two children under the age of eight. This can easily
be accomplished by seeking a permitted use for two non -congregation members and their children as
residents for a temporary period. There is no need to have a master lease with Homeward Bound,
Homeward Bound can deliver its services pursuant to a management agreement. There is no need to
create a multi -family residential unit. Working with the neighbors to hammer out mutually agreeable
details, the Sisters could be providing this housing in a matter of a month or so. Instead of the extensive
proposed permanent Improvements, improvements can be scaled way back, for example, using a
portable modular in law kitchen unit and so on. In short, the proposed project far exceeds the stated
objective and there is a simple approach right In front of us. It causes me to ask "why?"
In closing, in terms of the "why," it has been represented that the Sisters are formulating a long
term plan for the subject property. As such, it is Imperative that should the Planning Commission
approve this short term use that it expressly state that this temporary use approval shall not be used as
precedent for any future uses.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter and for your thoughtful consideration
of the issues this application presents.
Very truly yours,
Hugh i. Cadden
*4+" tsn�t�� �;,g
{n {x Howl.
SOW
1�:a1 1wt hww l�lc@�
aPRlled �s�lacle ,� "a tu�"
6��,5 bew t
��r Wrw.+?vj Pa
Pul
*ire 20 %W "le, t
f`4
toy we4po
etOpp o st "Cl 141t,
we, w"Jo,01, itve*:�
m R a
CITY -
MAYOR
ALBERT J.13ORU
OF
COUNCIL M FUBERS
DOROTHY L, BREiNM
PAUL.M.COHM
SAN I AFA E L
JOAN BL A. SHIPPEY
UAN C. 7HAYER
9400 FWH AVFNUZ P.O. BOX 151W, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3100/FA?C (415),159-2242
March 9, X992
Kristin Wombacher, O.P., Prioress General
Sisters of St. Dominic
Congregation of the Most Holy Name
1526 Grand Ave.
Sart .Rafael, CA. 94901
Dear Sister Kristin;
Thank you for your note on the rely tionslup between the Dominican Sisters
and the College. We understand that the Organizations are separate and that it
would not be appropriate to require that the Lourdes parcel lie incorporated
into the Dominican College master plan. With that said, I think there .is stilt
some potential for confusion on this point. Could you send me a map of the
Congregation's properties so that we can get our records straight? It may be
more convenient for both of us to meet with Peter Walz in the Planning
Department. We have maps with property lines shown which could be the
easiest way to bring us up to date with the ownership patterns.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you; I can be reached at 485-3085.
Sincerel
o ert J. Pendoley
Plashing Director
cc. Peter Walz
ROUTING SLIP / APPROVAL FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Use this cover sheet with each submittal of a staff report before approval
by the City Council. Save staff report (including this cover sheet) along
with all related attachments in the Team Drive (T:) --> CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEMS 4 AGENDA ITEM APPROVAL PROCESS 4 [DEPT -
AGENDA TOPIC]
Agenda Item #
Date of Meeting: 5/15/2017
From: Paul Jensen
Department: Community Development
Date: 5/3/2017
Topic: Dominican Sisters Lourdes Convent (77 Locust Avenue) - Request for Transitional
Housing Use.
Subject: 77 Locust Avenue (Lourdes Convent) — Appeal of the Planning Commission's action: a)
denying two appeals; and b) upholding the Zoning Administrator's action to approve a Use Permit
Amendment to Lourdes Convent, to permit the conversion of the 1,995 -square -foot "yellow hallway"
area of the convent facility to a single, residential unit for transitional housing. Use is proposed for two
years; APN: 015-112-23; PD (Planned Development) District; Sisters of Third Order of St. Dominic
Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust, applicant/owner; Christopher Dolan,
appellant; Case Number(s): UP16-057, AP 17-003.
Type: ® Resolution ❑ Ordinance
❑ Professional Services Agreement ❑ Other:
APPROVALS
® Finance Director
Remarks: MM- approved 5/2/2017
® City Attorney
Remarks: LG -Approved 5/8/17
® Author, review and accept City Attorney / Finance changes
Remarks: City Attorney edits reviewed and accepted. Ready for City Manager review. Please
note that all attachments (except Attachment #1) have been collected, but am still waiting for one more
letter. Once received, a .pdf will be uploaded in the item folder.
M City Manager
Zai11MWi
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.:
Council Meeting:
Disposition:
CHRISTOPHER B DOLAN ESQ
1 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL, CA, 94102
Chris@dolanlawfirm.com
415-421-2800
May 10, 2017
San Rafael City Counsel
CO/City Clerk
1400 Fifth Ave.
San Rafael, Ca 94901
RE: Supplemental Letter Brief Regarding Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision Concerning Action UP 16-057 77 Locust Ave. (Lourdes Convent) APN
015-112-23
Dear Esteemed Members of the City Counsel,
I hereby file a Supplemental letter in support of my Appeal from the Decision of the Planning
Commission concerning the granting of an Amended Change of Use, UPI 6-057, for the property
located at 77 Locust Ave. (Lourdes Convent) APN 015-112-23. Since my previous submission
lodged on March 21, 2017, I have undertaken a thorough review of the zoning and permit history
of Lourdes and said review has provided additional reasons for denial of the Application for and
Amended Change of Use Permit.
INTRODUCTION
I wish to thank Mr. Paul Jensen, Ms. Anne Derrick and other employees Planning Department in
of the City of San Rafael for providing me access to the applicable files. The files were quite
voluminous going back to 1978. The official records demonstrate the following:
1) 77 Locust Ave, APN 015-112-23, was never properly rezoned from R-1 B-2 to
Unclassified (U) and, therefore, any subsequent rezoning from U to Planned
Development (PD) is without force and effect. The property remains legally zoned R-1
B-2 and not only is the current Application inappropriate, Lourdes is currently an
unauthorized non -conforming use.
2) If the original defective zoning ordinance is ignored and the Council considers Lourdes to
haven been properly rezoned U, then PD, and the Conditional Use Permit permitting
Lourdes to operate as a non -conforming use is, therefore valid, that Conditional Use
Permit has, pursuant to its conditions expired and should be considered terminated. The
Appeal should be granted and the owners of 77 Locust (the Sisters) to apply for an
entirely new conditional use permit, not an amendment as sought at this present time.
3) The zoning for 77 Locust is not, and has never been, zoned for public/quasi-public use.
Therefore the Appeal should be granted as the Zoning Administrator's decision relied
upon such a determination.
Argument and Evidence in Suauort Anneal
1) 77 Locust Ave, APN 015-112-23 is zoned R-1 B-2 and the Proposed Amended
Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate
On February 27, 1979, The Planning Commission on its own initiative (Item 2-79-5) applied for
a zoning change ostensibly for APN 15-112-23. At the time the property was zoned in
conformity with the surrounding parcels as R-1 B-2, residential, and, given the property size and
zoning classification, only 2 homes could have been built on the property. I say ostensibly
because the process did not actually involve APN 15-112-23 which indisputably is Assessor
Parcel Number (APN) 15-112-23. (APN 15-112-23 was confirmed by Mr. Jensen to be the
actual parcel number for 77 Locust Ave.) Below, as Exhibit A, is the "Processing Checklist"
which is on the front of the zoning file.
EXHIBIT A
PROCESSING CHECKLIST
ITEM NO. 2r %47.S SUBMISSION SEQUENCE NO.
DATE ACCEPTED f-_e�b 27, /9 7 9
uM,/0ZT/_h�
I. ADDRESS 7? abMOICOn &162e� . API Is rU-23
From the start, the process was defective. AP# 15-111-23, which was the subject of the Zoning
Change/Ordinance, was not and is APN 15-112-23. This is not a trivial error as Zoning changes
are a imposed through the democratic process and, specifically, by vote of the City Council
which results in a law being passed, in this case, as to a specific legal parcel. (The bounds of the
propety at 77 Locust are not referenced in the 79 process.) The entire process in 1979 was related
to AP# 15-I11-23. APN 15-112-23 has never legally been rezoned from R-1 B-2.
As shown by Exhbit B, below, On May 2, 1979, The City Council passed Zoning Ordinance
1332 "An Ordinance Ammendina the Zoning Man of The Citv of San Rafael California Adopted
by Reference by Section 14.15.020 of the Municipal Code of San Rafael so as to Reclassifv
Certain Real Propertv From R-1 B-2 (Simile Familv Residential. Minimum Buildine Site Area
10,000 Square Feet) District to U (Unclassified) District" reclassifing APN 15-111-23 from R-1
B-2 to U. The Ordinance became final, and law, on May 21, 1979. APN 15-111-23 was rezoned,
APN 14-112-23 was not.
I0.14C110.3W
AN ORDINANCE AMBNDINO
TBE iiQly NG W" OF TBE CITY
Or RANRAFALrI., CALIFORNIA,
ADOPT® BY REFEREMC6 BY
ARMON 14 AW OF TBE
MMOPAL CODS OF UN
RAFMM 80 AB TO RSCLM WY
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
FROM R -I1" f8INt9LE FAJMY
U
WIT of SAN RAFAEL DO OR-
DAIN A5 FOLLOWS:
DIMON 1. The Zoning Map of
theadopted
C a Of Sa ieRafa e, bCalif California,
Section
14.1b= ei the Munidpal Code Is
�tu�ended by m1wifft the fol-
1U' —" AA "1° nuu�g Site
�i� Dietricare h Salted prop.
' m mdudfle(l Is located at 77
A""'
1ki
�10Pn10,u.
161
°ball be published oace�ian fuu
before its final pgassage in a news-
paper circulation Vat-
� pubAlehed, and circulated Vat-
.
CI of San Rafael, and shall be in
full force and effect thirty MD) days
after its final paesa e.
let LAWRENCE E.
MULRYAN
(SEAL) Mayor
Id JEANNE M. LEONCM
City Clerk
The foregoing Ordinance No. 1932
was read and introduof the Ciced at a
coun
Of the City regular meetiSan Rafael held on
the 7th day of May, 1979, and
ordered passed to print by the
following
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Breiner,
Jensen. Miskimen, Nixon and May.or Man COUNCILMEN: None
SENT: COUNCILMM: None
and will come up for adoption as an
atregulrdi of the ar me City Of San Rafael
to
f the cotm(S be held on st Mday of ay,
la/ JEA LXONCIM
NO. ft- May 18,1879
No valid ordinance has been passed rezoning APN 15-112-23 from R-1 B-2 to U or PD. If the
Sisters wich to continue to operate Lourdes they should apply for a re -zoning. In consideration of
whether the property should be re -zoned (PD or otherwise) the sisters should have to submit a
development plan so the affected neighbors/community can see what the long term development
plan is for this property and have an opportunity to participae through meetings, hearings and
public process, in the proper zoning and development of this property.
111
2) Should the Council disregard the fact that the Zoning Map has not been changed
for APN 15-112-23, the Application for an Ammended Use Permit should be
denied as the conditions for the PD zoning are no longer met.
As set forth in the Appeal filed on March 21, 2017, The Conditional Use Permit for Lourdes was
limited and conditional upon Lourdes raminaing affiliated with The Dominican College. The
Conditions of approval ar set forth below in Exhibit C.
EXHIBIT C
CITY STAFF REPORT MARCH 27, 1979
UP79-18 RETIREMENT CENTER IN A U DISTRICT; 77 Locust Avenue; Dominican Coll
owner; Jack S. Johannes, AIA, rep.; AP 15-111-26; CEQA: Neg. Dec.
ISSUE:
Which limitations are appropriate for the retirement center associated with
Dominican College?
FACTS:
Refer to rezoning Staff Report.
CITY STAFF REVIEW:
An important consideration in staff and Commission determination that the
existing use is appropriate in the neighborhood is its relationship to
Dominican College. Staff would question the compatibility of a private,
commercial retirement center in this location. For that reason, it is
important that the use permit be limited to the ownership/operation of
Dominican College affiliated corporations.
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
Conditions of approval:
(a) This use oermit I� limited to the Lourdes Retirement Center so long as
ownership and]or operation is by an affiliate of Dominican College.
(b) No future expansion of the use other Than that currently under considera-
tion shall take place without modification of the current use permit.
(c) This approval is pending City Council approval of rezoning (279-5).
In 1992, when The Sisters sought a building permit to expand Lourdes to accommodate
additional sisters, the City indicated that it did not have a current description of the facility at
Lourdes. The Sisters replied that they were no longer affiliated with Dominican College. They
indicated that the facility was neither senior housing nor a residential care facility: it was
described as "a convent" stating that "Lourdes Convent is not a public facility but is a traditional
convent to which sisters are assigned by the administration of the congregation."
On September 8, 1992, a Special Hearing for the City Council to receive Public Testimony on
the Draft Zoning Ordenance (P1) — File 10-3 x 9-3-17 -was held. As Exhibit D shows, on page
18 of the minutes of that hearing the following was recorded as being said by then Planning
Director Mr. Robert Pendoley:
EXHIBIT D
Nr. Pendoley added that, for the record, staff promised the Dominican Sisters faithfully
that they would not in the future state that their property is owned by Dominican College,
and that, in fact, it is owned by the Dominican Sisters.
The current Application makes it clear that the Sisters wish to rent approxinmately 2,000 sq feet
of space to Homeward Round for them to operate a transitional housing program as the Master
Tenant thereby entering into leases with subtenants. This is in direct violation of the Conditions
of Use that require that the operation of Lourdes to be by an affiliate of Dominican [College]
University.
The legal affiliation between Lourdes and Dominican [College] University ended before 1992.
The Conditions of Use stated that "This use permit is limited to the Lourdes Retirement Center
so long as ownership and/or operation is by an affilate of Dominican College." Counsel for
The Sisters tries to side-step the sister's written admission that they are "no longer affiliated
with Domincan College" by using a common definition of "affiliated" claiming that since some
nuns provide pastoral counseling or teach religion at Domenican, Lourdes is being owned and
operated by a Dominican College "affiliate." This is a failing argument as it is clear that Lourdes
is not owned by, nor is it being operated by, an affiliate of Domincan [College] University. The
Conditions of Use do not permit the type of use which is proposed and, therefore, as of 1992 the
conditions of the Use Permit had been breeched and the Conditiona Use Permit expired by its
terms. The Sisters should be required to apply for re -zoning and submit a development plan for
77 Locust to determine, through the appropriate public process, the future use of the property.
3) APN 15-112-23 has not been, and is not, zoned as Public/Quasi Public space
Review of the Marin Municipal/Zoning Code shows that PD Zoning is not the same as P/QP
Zoning. Municipal Code Section 14.04.020 sets forth land use regulations for PD Zones while
Section 14.07.030 is specific to Public/Quasi Public Zoning.
Througout the planning process, and at various hearings and public forums, APN 15-112-23 has
been described as being zoned PD, Public/Quasi Public space in support of the Am -mended
Conditional Use Permit. This, in an apparent attempt to justrify the Ammended Change of Use
as apartments for families by saying that is consistent with the public/quasi public zoning. This is
a significant departure from using the facility as a private convent for retired nuns. Not only did
the Sisters say, quite clearly, in their 1992 Permit Application that "Lourdes Convent is not a
public facility but is a traditional convent to which sisters are assigned by the administration of
the congregation" the Zoning Maps demonstrate that Lourdes has never been zoned P/QP
(Emphasis added.)
A Zoning Map of the area, Exhibit E, shows that while the Campus of Dominincan [College]
University is P/QPD, 77 Locust has not, and is not. Therefore, as the Zoning Administrator has
pbased his reccomendation on this misclassification, the Decision to grant the Amended Use
Permit should be overturned on this appeal.
EXHIBIT E
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons the appeal should be granted and Zoning Administrators Action,
and Planning Commission's Decision overturned. As APN 15-112-23 has never been properly
zoned PD and even if it had the Conditions of Use requiring Lourdes to be operated by an
"affiliate" of the Domenican [College] University have not been met since at least 1992. This
action requires re -zoning of APN 15-112-23 and as such a much more formal and deliberative
process should be undertaken so as to reevaluate the appropriate zoning for this parcel and create
a long-range development plan.
Regards,
Christopher B. Dolan Esq.
APPEAL OF ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S JANUARY 28,
2017 APPROVAL
•EACH SIDE SHOULD HAVE A FULL AND
FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
SISTERS HAVE A RIGHT TO APPLY
NEIGHBORS HAVE A RIGHT TO OBJECT
AND APPEAL
BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE TREATED FAIRLY
AND RESPECTFULLY
NO FA VORA TISM OR BENEFIT SHOULD
BE AFFORDED ONLY TO ONE SIDE
GARY RAGGHIANTI ESQ*
Formev Citas Attorney of San
Rafns�; Belvedere; Tiburon anl*
Corte Madera
CALIFORNIA PUBLRC RECORDS ACT
CA GOVT,. CODE SECTRONS 6250-6276.48
In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature stated
that access to information concerning the
conduct of the public's business is a
"fundamental and necessary right for every
person in the State."
It's primary purpose is to give the public an
opportunity to monitor the functioning of their
government.
The greater and more unfettered the public
official's power, the greater the public's interest
in monitoring the governmental action.
kmal DDIAM q:Chr @dow firm bom3-
sw may Manch U 2DI7 3:12 Pki
TN mb.epsteir &*fTmraklwg Paul n; GLiIlumm m�ii1% Esft, Wine
DaMNIA017
Em odm CIly ICTI.
PAW Jam, At Ong Zoo i -mg Aid m ini NmW
1406 51h &md San RaW Coifoda
Rc- Nb.IW Rmwds ASI Requo
Nine, h a. Ern ak Jena,
- � ._.�_ 4�a g .,.tea �..�+_-•�. xy�•� �w', ��'.��i �-�17.
RKY � i '� Y Y� •�' � �r.
r X916Jbix `
Vii;
1. L
3
Yy
W
N
ar- mi
d
DF
Ratyalli fir'
, n 41 1
Freltas LIT
4 �
SAN RAFAEL
TI IE C iTy" 'vV I T I I /"k h -,l I SI0; ,-1
1�
11
k-17 1 v
ound
"Il
Paul Jensen
From: Jackie Schmidt
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 12;26 PM
TO: Paul Jensen
Subject: Dominican/Lourdes/Homeward Bound issue
Attachnwnts: The history of Lourdes Retirement Center-2.docx
Paul - I presume you have seen this, but here it is just in case - the tom tom drums are active in Dominican.
Jackie
On ]an 9,X011, at Ply, 'rob easteinlawyer,com" rob(@epsteinlawyer,com wrote:
Hi Gary, would appreciate any comments you might have on Dolan's email to Paul
below,
Robert F. Epstein
Epstein Lave Firm
------ Original Message-----M--
Sub]ect: Re: [FWD: FW: Lourdes - Marital Discrimination]
From: Gary Ragghianti <atragas rflawllp.com
Gate: Mon, January 09,, 2017 9:37 prn
To: "rob epstei nla yer. cora" <rob(@eDsteinlawver.com
Will ado so Rob
Am finishing an arbitration award so
Hope that time frame works for you.
Gary
likely won't be until Thursday.
from. Gary Ragghianti <gtraggs@Mawllp.com>
Sent Thursday, January 12,2017 9:03 AM
To; Rob Epstein; Lisa Goldfien" Paul Jensen
Subject: fwd:
Atta(liments: docO5792320170111170332.pdf, ATTOOOCIAm
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status., Flagged
Dear Rob & Lisa & Paul: attached is my memo responding to the recent email from Dolan to Paul.
From
Gari Ragghianti <gVagg rf1awl1p com>
S"t
Thursday, Januar 12, 201712:33 PM
To;
Rob Epstein,- visa Golden; Paul Jensen
Subject
additional response to Dolan
Attachments.
Puns. HaukMEMORANDUM 1,12,17,docx
WOW Up nag:
Flog Saito:
Dear Rob Lisa & Paul: I was working on thisissue at the time that I sent my memo this, AM.
finished what I was looking at after and submit it to you in further response to Dolan's
assertions,
From. Casey Epp [mailto:casev@fairhousingnorcal.org]
Sent; Monday, January 23, 2017 2:33 PM
To: Mary Kay Sweeney <mksweenev@hbofm.orR>; Paul Fordham <pfordham hbofm.or >
Cc. Caroline Peattie <peattie@fairhousingnorcal.orR>
Subject; Re; Lourdes- Marital Discrimination
Hello, Mary Kay and Paul,
Please see the summary below regarding state/federal fair housing law coverage for the
proposed transitional housing groqram, As I mentioned earlier, Caroline and I have
Frani Paul Fordham (rnaIlt .pfordham@- ,bcf orQ1
Sift Mon*, January 23, 2017 2:44 P
To: Pauln; Gary Ragghianti; Sister Cada Kowk (carlaop gmail.gn Patricia
Cc lq Kay Spey
Baby ; Lourdes - Marital UkriminaVon
He Id o Pa ul! Gaiy, Sister Ca rla a nd Sister Patricia,
Please see the email below from Fair Housing regarding the claims of discrimination. It is very helpful,
I am not sure that I have copied everyone who would like to see this email, so please circulate ft to other
people as appropriate,
With best regards,
Paul
Paul Fordham
Deputy Executive Director- Homeward Bound of Marla
IAA F I IM -N IMkP'%-. 0%..01 .....-.. 1.L _t._ - .— &b d .a. L — -
From:
Sent;
To;
subject:
Paul,
FAIR AND EQNOTRCE
Chris Dolan <chris@dolanlawfirm.com>
Sunday, January 29, 201710:10 PM
Paul Jensen
Lourdes
I head from my neighbors that an approval in the amended change of use for Lourdes was announced on Friday. I
searched my email and could not find any notice sent tome. Did it come from an email other than yours?
Can you please send it to me along with the rules and regulations regarding appeals.
Regards,
Chris Dolan
From;
Gary Ragghlanti <gtraggs@rflawllp.corn>
Sent
Friday, February 17, 2017 4:51 PM
To:
Paul Jensen
Cc
Chris Dolan; gscholick@gmail,com
Subject:
Lourdes
Dear Paul; t would like to briefly comment with regard to your email of 2/14/17 addressed to
Mr. Dolan And Scholick,
As I thought was clear in their application and at the ZA hearing last month it is not new nor
has it ever been the Sisters intention to seek a UPA here that was to run with the land in
perpetuity. We made it clear we were content to have it terminate after 2 years and that is
precisely what we applied for. That has always been our position and remains our position
with regard to the application,
From.
Sent
To:
Subject
Paul 1ensen
Tuesday, February 14, 201i 3.:43 PM
'Chris Dolan'; Gary Scholick
Lourdes
Convent Use Permit Condition 7
RH IN Am, I will pe wommliol a revii1oo to Coilim 7 to N PIniq Commissim i�o z'ljcd
Vditimwlli eM'mipafethethreeMion i� f
Ust Permit Amdmt, tht NmIhOp i'lstus repot to the City oA how thiy'Omd on using the yellow
hallway area, pt that fimg it will be determinRd how or if Crty use approval is reQui�d,
COUNCILMEMBhK
Board Aide to Supervisor Damon Connolly
County of Marin
January 2015 — Present (2 years 3 months)
From: Christopher Callaway
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 3:17:33 PM
To: Kate Colin
Subject: Sad Moment
Kate,
Writing you on my private time as a private citizen, as a voter in San Rafael, and someone who takes a lot of
pride in the community I grew up in.
I have no context for how this is being approached by your board, or the nature of the considerations in
general and whether they're being entertained as legitimate, but this article is possibly the most embarrassed
I've ever been of Marin or San Rafael.
Objections around parking for two people? Questions around change of use to allow for short-term residence
in a college neighborhood? Suspicion of the nuns? Am I taking crazy pills? Truly an all-time low, and it literally
makes me feel sick.
I hope that these concerns are taken with the seriousness they deserve, and that your board is not bullied on
this one.
Thanks for your representation across the board,
Chris
From; Kate Colin
Sent; Monday, January 9, 20113;33 Pfd
To: Christopher Callaway
Subject: Re; Sad Moment
Hi Chris - Yes, that article turned my stomach too but you should gnaw that the opposition is coming from a
handful of neighbors and, I don't think/hope, it reflects San Rafael as a whole, This will be reviewed at the
administration level (by staffs first. If it approved and is appealed by any neighbors, it will go to the Planning
Commission for discussion. If it's approved by the PC and then appealed, then it will go to the Council for
review,
In my years on the Planning Commission, I've seen excellent common-sense decisions made in regards to
' controversial' proposed projects and I have confidence that the process will ultimately brink forward a project
we can all be proud of
Kate
SUBSTANCE
The location of Lourdes is depicted btlow:
r ti61;4 - LOUIROMS R"Ag"UT
-u st Ave —Lourdes Co nve n t
•
t a
' ` ,... ..
c fj
1 c s
16 AIR
O + H
'■F ' C�krueqa lip, I ng{
1At
� f
ti
p
" mimcanUniversity_
Y ••.k � 1
of Ga,li rnla
T
5 ry�
l � h. •}3 �T � sfi >
AA
m T
W 1
■n5
w
SAN RAWA GENERAL
P 2020
THE CIT`r" :'�/ITH :a t.S155t0('1
"The Dominican -Black Canyon
neighborhood is primarily developed
with single-family homes, a number
of which are historic and unique in
character."
1951, 77 Locust had been designated
as R-1 B-2 (residential)
In the late 1950's, early 60's, part of the
existing structure was moved to the
current site
In 1979 a rezoning was sought by the
Dominican Sisters to change the
zoning from R1 B-2 (residential) to U
fist
118111&1
o In 1979 The San Rafael Planning
Department (Staff), as Part of the
rezoning request, considered whether
it would be appropriate to change the
zoning to R-3 (multi -family use), but did
" not consider an R-3 type zone
gjppropriate for the neighborhood."
H11 S �� f0 LT, � r
"An important consideration in Staff and
Commission determination that the
existing use is appropriate in the
neighborhood is its relationship to
Dominican College. Staff would question
the compatibility of a private commercial
retirement center in this location. For that
reason, it is important that the use permit
be limited to the ownership/operation of
Dominican College affiliated
Corporations."
THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL READ:
"Findings:
= "Continuation of the Lourdes
Retirement Center is appropriate in this
neighborhood so �ong as 'Ps fqc'HoKy
College and'�'s no� a pT'�va�a
commercla� fac'flKy, )I
TSE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL READ:
"Conditions of Approval:
(a) This use permit is limited to the
Lourdes Retirement Center so long as
ownership and/or operation remain an
affiliate of Dominican College.
1992 BUILDING PERMIT
The Sisters sought to add seven
bedrooms, each with a private en -
suite bathroom, and expand the dining
room and chapel.
The facility was identified as a " strictly
private facility."
1992 BUILDING PERMIT
The City indicated that it did not have
a current description of the facility at
Lourdes.
Sisters stated that they were no longer
affiliated with Dominican College
1992 BLJILDING PERMIT
The Sisters indicated that the facility
was neither senior housing nor a
residential care facility: it was
described as " a convent."
The Sisters stated that "Lourdes
Convent aILS' ac. g1 i 4 b E iia
assigned byMeMe
CASE NUMBER UP16-057
You Qprojoce
77 Lacw rt Avenue OAmwiS.: co-w-ey0 - CM nr%4� of a uoo P+oem It to a% w Vpo +oonworrlon off a 1.v95-
o OF the Lour+daa Conwom front cmwVffmgmft toouWyEp (Ckmvdnkmn Simms) is a aurdwoonva houOM fookdenbM a nk Omm. wouW
Me shom,d by two edl It Women and al"do clwkWom, T%O t1J00 Ps"rok is *d So raaturi2m• thaw wonefton0l lh lq UMM me arr & t -, . jraa
W two years. APIN: 015-112_ Pkwwwd va+op t m it ") m twat; C . ` . , liars o f W" iM� t1 �
Trust., �owrmr. Gary a. m AFB* t*.: i1 F4G-05T_
• (�
As mad ib!" a+lafs Sow, 0- nomflr NFUNSrMr &&w 80,E A AAddk ret. arty a a ~ aft p�rq and wo Rod
.a�ct a ,Wl nr aver h. '� � � �.� or r�QaralrlS,r,�4dl 1 wrSr
M1l.dwrr raa�r aerallir Fae�r � illb r a. jn %ra rasa, a�raarofto .be hh
a - - - P TM -:IN!. VWgm*wf1%P. January +fL. =M.'20:40 a..i. C4wmrrMArWf ENP.4psowrwd It CoorwWwwwo Rocak. 114M
txiM CANVoma Plato IL. t } .WMIMW 44 "1, 0) 44"D,409m" rllF MOM rWft P"O
oo.a Mbar tt � COMM. toMn city "". 'JAW PHL% Aw•wo. to kMk aA HW Mw *W nrrr . „-. sWWM#MCL 7r40 ofAm is CWHW,
fawn a.-30 a,rn. tis 6.00 R.n L on Nkw dayr and Thursday NmA 13:90 &6M io 1=+16 pj!t ,. an -rr. VWgw*wo"y and IFrlcloV_
' A4ATVf . L. HAP M -. Ycru oar+ omwnwft an tt-#* prc@ m
im orrl..*Jithe w43pWm=tllftm
and 4 11- vmtmMtw
IF Y043 ail AJMT 1t Y� mer otnd +rwrtt on ,.. p . - . acv to ow , -d 4w bV pc al to me commxffft
ommoogwu mom, 0 _, . . - . II mPtawwdno t7tA*Mn„ +Gley► of Sm. I%mr(io% 1 Avagnpe. Tkohm rl, C D400'i. You can aft* hand deMvw IN pwk-
to &w ocUon baba.
owo�.ir.amom bbtw,h gel and +M rnred,�� PM4uiesVM be r•P�.'r Vw, MIA"
�wuera rls�lo�a �ar•..1� resR
tir rtri. �r� rl�r alwF �vw � �
P,=-Nwm� � rr fimAfi Verr or in i i im WEBB" of �� w
Pl�I�e- a0morld b► dwo *mow w rn , • . +�1 eq, or IMI+ rte. woo �Mm � PS14Fv
;::% �A c00000m Yeo* czw
My WMNP at prpa- , -.nil ow I%&zwoo ' b• w= pofted� ch . Mf1tE bo �4�! 41►mkw m eo— wwwomw it lws•�
•q+d *m rgf" �r„p r3r.�r¢.1w she
1n1 rr , t'�regwm � *own a aw" 4rom d %I,-? I ta�G Goot " it 9 W **ft
ans rrrp�+rr�wan�M +�+�rr+n+.pars�r�u i*+*�u� 4 �Ptirog409-do 9 4wmljw+pts'OPPOV 9A*AMM=rrtnombmadr.e.taa mew
twrs,1A5*4f0&7* &*&*ow + a+s. �.�a+Mlrr �rrw l� Tr> . i�.�rg+w ��4 �" + IV-
VFWr
ft w
Locust Ave
(facing Dominican)
_ CO �9
f
Locust to Gold Hill Grade
on
California Government Code
Section 65583 (7) unambiguously
states that "Transitional housing
and supportive housing shall be
considered a residential use of
property, and shall be subject only
to those restrictions that apply to
other residential dwellings of the
same type in the same zone."
IF LOURDES WAS NOT A PD ZONE IT
WOULD SUPPORT 2 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
TITLE 74 OF THF SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL
CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION
14.03.030
"Residential, Multifamily Housing"
DEFINITIONS:
"Residential, multifamily" means medium
and high density residential development,
including a "transitional housing
deveDopmeff' or "su sportive housing" as
defined under State health and Safety
Code Section 50675.2 (and subsequent
amendments), containing three (3) or
more attached dwelling units in one (1) or
mope structures located on a single parcel
or common lot.
TITLE 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL
CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION
14.03.030
a "Residential, Multifamily Housing"
- DEFINITIONS:
"Residential, multifamily" means medium
and high density residential development,
including a 9ransifflonal houso��
developmen?' or "su :por$ove housing" as
defined under State health and Saf
Code Section 50675.2 (and subsequent
amendments), con�m"nang ,�hree (3� oT
mom aNached dwMDonu�o�� aQ�� ��� ) oT
more s��uctures locategon a single parcel
or common lot.
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 50675.2
(h) "Transitional housing" and
"transitional housing development"
means buildings configured as rental
housing developments, but operated
under program requirements that ca01
for the termination of assistance and
recirculation of the assisted unit to
another eligible program recipient at
some predetermined future point in
time, which shall be no less than six
months.
I&MIM M�'
From; Gary Ragghianti <gtraggs@rflawllp.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 6:36 PM
To: Paul Jensen
Ce: Diane Henderson; Mary Kay Sweeney
Subject: Re: Lourdes Project - 77 locust Ave., File No. UP -16-057
Y .. pe' ---'i_ _e 1
ar h
Paul• the structure of the tenant would be as the owner o
f Loin � pro ossto ease the a w t
Lourdes described on the application t ; Homeward'Bound- H8 is" tenant. �, t will place suitable candidates
enrolled in their program into Lourdes pursuant to an agreement between HB and the occupants,
I will ask Mary Kay to respond further on the claim asserted in Chris's email,
If he wrote a brief on this subject I ask that he share it with us so we might respond.
This is an application that is and remains entirely benign.
Gary
> > > Diane Henderson 12/28/20169:34 ASI > > >
Good morning, I knew that many of you are away and not working this week; i ani not working, but received an email
from San Rafael Community Develooment Director Raul Jenjen wh ' paring for our hearing next week and had a
couple of questions, if one of you can clarify the highlighted areas below would you kindly respond all with your
answer? I will then respond to Paul. If we are unable to ,get him this info until next week, that is OK, also; I just
The property is owned by the Dominican Sisters (Dost Holy Name Support Charitable Trust) and is
developed with a one-story,16,4%square-foot convent retirement center (which includes congregate care
unit) for 37 residences (retired nuns) and a chapel.
I suggest you amend the description to 32 residents as the listing of 37 was done before several rooms were turned into
offices, storage areas or
two larger rooms from two small ones,
Sr. Patricia Boss
THE CURRENT PD ZONING DOES NOT
PERMIT TIDE PROPOSED USE
Title 14, Section 14.04.020, Land
Use Regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD)
Table 4',PA Win
Type of Land Use R DR MR HR PD Additional
Use
Regulations
Public and Quasi -
Public Uses
Religious C* C C C C* *Prohibited in
institutions R2a, R3 a and
PD -hillside
districts, and
R20 hillside
residential
lots.
A
Emergency
shelters for the
horneless
Permanent
C
E
See
standards.,
S(7J-ti " ys
1 1 1-
s,
A plain reading and application of the Land
Use Regulations demonstrates that the
proposed use is not allowed and, indeed, is
prohibited.
THE PROPOSAL CONSTITUTES AN AMENDMENT
TO THE PD ZONING AND SHOULD REQUIRE A NEW
ZONING AI'I'LICATION
The current PD use is as a private convent
u ng /oe, a �e� r� ', community, depending
on which title has been affixed to the PD use
at Lourdes.
ZO 14.07.150 states that "requests for
changes in the contents of approval of a PD
zoning and development plan shall be
treated as a zoning amendment (rezoning).
Rezoning's shall be heard and decided by
the city council (sic)."
THIS IS A SIGNIFICAN'g' CHANGE IN USE
o CONVENT - RETIREMENT HOME NUNS
RENTAL HOUSING CONTROLED BY AN
ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN THE
SISTERS
THE DECISION INCLUDES
RECCOMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE USE
WHICH ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND GO
FAR BEYOND THE APPLICATION. THESE
RECCOMENDSATIONS DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS FOR
THEIR COMMUNITY ARE WELL JUSTIFIED
7. This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance
date of Certificate of Occupancy. At the end of the two year period, the Use Permit
Amendment will terminate. At that time, the project proponent shall be required to
proceed with one of the following for. t '11
a. Request an extension to this Use Permit Amendment to continue the transitional
housing use for a term period of in perpetuity;
D. Ke- purpose the single residential dwelling unit to'another residential use such as for
a manager's/caretaker ung or for convent use; or
c. Remove the kitchen facility and return the area to its current use as residential
convert rooms.
CONCERNS RE CRITERIA
AND WARRANTIES
FEHA AND TEMMANT. IGHTS
PACMt>RAXI M
TCC RFVIAWJ
tt-Vm rA= swbors- PYttkm 1`raar rn ttoftr m Ad
B*TR: W.T157
T}iaeo m&m adgkuum Uu ■pph"t#+ inn af®aletiatn rnavdtxn SlAutvt m Ad 1+lT4r s�
b,�Glal+�xrs$gl � Ttit �4rLd815ifi Fi}Lf5 le�rt�� �e [�ar�4n�� � lzdop�rd ma+ln6ar'rti��Mr�
Nd�,ha� ] w�n�i Launiaa[orrwaT� �rara{cr�r thut•tado•gora.. T3tF8at�md'raardarm
htofI&W* n,acQtfm'Mf%kl pff2a WW th® �r�€tonel i*ilnrr�LaclblL [ly9 cltTi i@tts�s'u
engf4!0mAWco-m IfTheftrdtl rtiAdfnm I5 mWed iY
mooAlinaor K, us c.y ]tm-LkV. Tha cartwrl eppUcsti imft UP.16rs3ttki pa m dh
ltft udb liditalTharm4fem Shicii Nth bamW Wkh cu leis
k+mmt rmenkw-,SeA'D ,' uTatats" Mm Wftmtetet.lm tre�aPl+�a�.
l pd& ffwotn*iui7iL eddy iuidt2+b pth 0i1'3iL�h vPitf �c
N Ir d nrrrdl rt t Sin 5� > + tp t rR }pn 171'la.rn f9rifermta aP a °�mp�
�cvarrrrsttrt9 ManMG nei: f75� ttve tia=t nratrtit>ae aaaaa�ar'f1a�a rtatd fries tast�al � t� rrar�rrt
rx&MV 141 Wit J;hMFJI.
(n.in*h R hitr irp tw m to PIMA ■ppt.ao to
FEt6t mW tdn.fe7Ww,tltnl(d Elt+rrMaadaa
MW on m#M4 t v" .5nrtbA fa irf motri—riA W#pAqCw- C199RI'IT. •CxLdrh 71AI.
In lalm rekdW of rem trvm,l OHmoFl sr4*rg m ref•relloisbelePdw-
.two a knia moon m m., Tha ;Lmkh C h% dm&vkgm m kHdlpn l bMi,m tineverr•adrrEmr, urriar
lP Llft -k PffW'Mi=Tpt*d*um Un tzad#ra krwmwW be.ftM&' 1714th hurOm nggFag m a
Mil"beWrWW (hM to I Ph hp �v RLW-3Pld'@:131 dM tRPPIW41FOWoo rd4WrMKOe
xkH=vL%•hal# M'ih*tEin*rrad-p wWa ual mmTleFbwdmn haattataafiaTar, in cNH a=Frt,l*attp
ifOTAAM and iod Aul Its lantpedam Inaf.fta Aarmrr eLn*Akd#ftdrdtrl z IEaL' t} n ai'
7*b*fL181 tits f *erMO,&lSph Wrdtsraa[d Df 4 U81i@ kVfa+rBrnlWn OWIL-Tt'
Twoom rttt95t#duat AAa d> mfttr'tw lbndihtatn-m ft Ffg bea tkp tyr cfi ULL Wd F, oula Aft
"Alf-gn ow4m I±r ft"I-mw tmr.N+ otiY+m" N-tz r, Hftl*'r, rtb curl tsrrebrn mgt Tt�p
srrrrdaffxraBwdwm raar'.ut hada M I LnMamr bncm mhmcmid LW 1 kfr =nmE-drip n3p:nM
�"tnitf ,M W rrr+raatap.Y"n
Tb* Cant aha cmuxhvmd dm hrf dwd aftwrCemtwraaareid lamdord tadhatefkwe v ®arid laaadan
Lei` riFtlL ttsiliirt�ul t#rMnUin tlatilitt ol'Uft"lk a'ltwtLM Iddilrtr5d attl4[tmW
MEMORANDUM
TO: FBF E'/LAG/-PJ
FROM: GTR
RE:. Dominican Si e rs — Religious Freedom Restor-atTon Act
DATE: 1/12/17
This memorandum addresses the application of the federal Religbus Freedom, Restoration Act (42 U.S.C.,
2000bb et seq) to the applications of FEHA regarding the mInican Sisters proposed collaboration wfth
HB to house 2 women at Lourdes Convent for no longer than two, years.. The Religious Freedom
Restoration Act the "RF S) provides that the "government shall not substantially burden a p r en's
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in
subdivision (b)" (42 U.S.C. § 2000-1(x)). The current applkation for UP Amendment to permit. this
temporary use Is directly borne of the Sirs falth based beliefs concerning being of service to less
fortunate members, of our common y who find themselves in need of housing*
Under subdivision b, of the Act "Wovernment may substantially burden a person'5exerclse of rellgton
only if It demonstraW that appliWion of the burden to the person (1) its in furtherance of a cora pell1ing
government Interest; and: (2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that cornpelling, governrnent
Interast.m (42 U.S.C, § 2000(b)),
However, the Sinith,Couffs reasoning supports the application of the R RMn this case to exempt the
Dominican Sisfierftransitionai housingplan from FEHA's burdens. As to the Dominican Sisters,, FE H, A's
burdens fall an their siricerely held religious belief that It is their duty to extend ars opportunity to
selected indMduals who art on a path toward achieving self•su�Ocwency and finding permanent housing
for themselves and their children. The burden is substantial because It would preven, t them frim
carrying out these duties of their ostler and prevent them from complying with Pope Wncis' direction
to open their convent, whkh has spate availlable, in service to these in need of housing support In the
COmrnUnRy,
THE NEED FOR A MASTER
PLAN FOR LOURDES
GARYT. RAGGHIANTI
GTRAGGS @ RF LAW LLP.CO M
r_)'s.
JI
RagghiantilFreitaS LLP
May 1, 2017
San Rafael City Council
c/o City of San Rafael Community Development Department
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915
Dear Mayor Phillips and Members of the Council:
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1101 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901-2903
TELEPHONE 415.453.9433
FACSIMILE 415.453.8269
WWW.RFLAWLLP.COM
I represent the Dominican Sisters and submit this response to the appeal filed from the
March 14, 2017, decision of the San Rafael Planning Commission upholding the Zoning
Administrator's approval of a Use Permit Amendment for the applicant's Lourdes Convent
property located at 77 Locust Avenue in San Rafael.
In general the purpose of seeking the use Permit Amendment was/is to provide safe,
adequate, temporary housing for two families, each consisting of an unmarried mother and 2
young children ages 2-8, intended to provide them with the opportunity to live independently
and be self-sufficient with an adequate measure of privacy to hone their skills to transition to
full independence when leaving Lourdes.
For the third time the Dominican Sisters are required to revisit the identical arguments
advanced by a single neighbor in opposition to the grant of a Use Permit Amendment for the
Lourdes Convent property.
The objections interposed were considered and rejected after the preparation of
comprehensive staff reports and the conduct of public hearings both before the Zoning
Administrator (Paul Jensen) in January and the Planning Commission in March 2017. The
application before you complies in every respect with every applicable development policy of
the City, the zoning ordinance and the General Plan. The findings required to be made to
grant the use permit amendment are easily made, if not compelled, on the record before you
as both the Zoning Administrator and a unanimous Planning Commission have determined.
On the last day to appeal, minutes before expiration of the filing deadline appellant filed the
instant appeal. It contains nothing new and continues to be based on legally flawed
arguments, irrelevant assertions and vague and conjectural musings having absolutely
RagghiantilFreitas LLP
PAGE 2OF4
nothing to do with the standards against which the City must conduct its analysis and
determine whether to issue the requested permit.
By way of brief backLyround
In November of 2016 the applicant filed an application seeking an amendment to a Use
Permit it has held since 1979 to allow the conversion of a 1,995 square foot area of the
LOURDES CONVENT to a transitional housing unit that would be shared by two unmarried
mother's each of whom has two young children ages 2-8 years.
Lourdes is a 90,000 square foot property of approximately 2.1 acres. It is developed with a one
story 16,450 Square foot convent retirement center for Dominican Sisters
The area in question is a long narrow hallway painted yellow and referred to by the Sisters
over the years as "the yellow hallway". Only minor alterations to the structure are proposed
and they involve no expansion of the building or footprint.
In years past the yellow hallway area served as a place of occupancy for up to 10 Dominican
Sisters. Over time the population of Sisters has declined and this hallway space has become
available. For some time it has been unused. The present population of Lourdes is
approximately 15-17 Sisters. The Sisters, in combination with Homeward Bound, seek to
provide safe, adequate, temporary housing for these two families which will provide them with
the opportunity to live independently, become self-sufficient and transition to permanent
housing after leaving Lourdes.
On January 4, 2017, the City's Zoning Administrator conduced a public hearing in connection
with the Sisters application. The Zoning Administrator (ZA) determined to issue the permit
after an exhaustive report detailing the proceedings which occurred at the public hearing and
after review and critique of the appellant's objections in light of applicable City land use
policies.
The determination to issue the Use Permit Amendment (UPA) by the ZA was supported by a
comprehensive written analysis of the application resulting in a determination that the
application was consistent with the Land Use and Housing elements of San Rafael General
Plan 2020 (SRGP 2020) as well as with the Housing Element Background Report to the
General Plan pointing out the need in San Rafael for the very type of transitional housing that
this application seeks to provide. The ZA also found that the application was consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance and with its objectives and the stated purposes of the PD zone in
which the subject property has been so long situated as well as with the State law applicable
to transitional housing (Gov't Code section 65583). It was determined that the application
Q�w
RagghiantilFreitaS LLP
PAGE 3OF4
was categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Moreover and finally it was determined that the application, as proposed and conditioned
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to
properties in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City.
Two appeals to the Planning Commission were filed by two (2) neighbors, each of whom
reside directly adjacent to the Convent at Lourdes. Following the Planning Commission's
unanimous denial of both appeals only a single appellant remains, Mr. Dolan.
The applicant respectfully invites the Council's attention to the January 3, 2017 letter to the ZA
from the undersigned, the January 4, 2017 Background/ Facts document prepared by the ZA
for the public hearing conducted on January 4, 2017, the Notice of Zoning Administrator
Action and attachments dated January 28, 2017, the March 06, 2017 letter from the
undersigned to the Planning Commission, and the Resolution of the San Rafael Planning
Commission Denying Appeals and Upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval of a Use
Permit Amendment adopted following conclusion the appeal hearing at the Planning
Commission conducted on March 14, 2017.
The arguments previously made by the applicant to the objections of the appellant are all set
forth in these documents will not be repeated here. The undersigned's letters dated January 3
and March 6, 2017 are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 & 2 and incorporated. It's anticipated
that the other referenced materials will be submitted to the Council by staff in connection with
the record in this proceeding.
A comparison of the letter submitted to the Planning Commission by the appellant and that
submitted to the Council demonstrates that there are no new arguments, not previously made
and soundly rejected by both the ZA the Commission. Indeed this appeal, like the other has
little to do with land use at all.
Unable to advance a single cogent legal reason for the denial of the requested CUPA the
appellant has chosen to rely on a suggestion that there might be "bias" on the part of the
City's staff and some sort of favoritism shown to the applicant over the appellant. Of course
there is absolutely no support for such an assertion and raising it is simply a smokescreen to
cloud the failure of all of the appellant's assertions. Rejection of the appellant's assertions in
this proceeding hardly constitutes bias. Rather, it should have been expected. The City's
rejection of appellant's constitutes the studied response of staff and the Commission to
appellant's failed logic and legal arguments, assertions and his completely irrelevant positions
that are founded on surmise and conjecture. For example, the appellant suggests that a
principal reason to deny the applied for permit is that someday, some future nun(s) may
decide that the congregation no longer needs Lourdes any longer and might sell it ... to some
D�
D
Ragghianfi Freitas LLP
PAGE 4OF4
presently unknown thing with the site, thus changing its present use to another. This
amounts to an absolutely irrelevant factor in making the determination that the permit should
be granted under City's applicable land use regulations.
The folly and lack of substance of these assertions are clearly displayed by their simple
recitation.
The appellant's arguments fail both legal and logical scrutiny. The reasons offered by him to
deny the application for a Use Permit Amendment do not intersect with either reality or the
law.
It is respectfully requested that the appeal be denied.
Very my your
7ry T. Rag ianti
GTR/jlp
Enclosures
cc: Chris Dolan
Exhibit 1
Ragghianti Freitas LLP
GARY T. RAGGHIANTI
GTRAGGS @ RFLAW LL P.CO M
January 3, 2017
Paul A. Jensen, AICD
Community Development Director
City of San Rafael
1400 Sth Ave, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: 77 Locust, Lourdes Convent
Dear Paul:
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1101 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901.2903
TELEPHONE 415.453.9433
FACSIMILE 415.453.8269
WWW.RFLAW LLP.COM
I wish to submit this in response to the Chris Dolan missive that was provided to me recently.
My clients (Dominican Sisters) filed an application in November of 2016 seeking an
Amendment to a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 1995 square foot area of the
LOURDES CONVENT located on Locust Avenue to a transitional housing unit that would be
shared by two unmarried mother's each of whom has two young children ages 2-8 years.
The area in question is a long narrow hallway painted yellow and referred to by the Sisters
over the years as "the yellow hallway". Minor alterations to the structure are proposed and
involve no expansion of the building or footprint.
At one time the yellow hallway area served as a place of occupancy for up to 10 Sisters. Over
the years the population of Sisters has declined and space has become available that has been
for some time unused. The present population of Lourdes is approximately 15-17 Sisters. The
Sisters, in combination with Homeward Bound, seek to make this area available to assist the
individuals making the journey to independence and self-sufficiency by providing to them a
place of short term residency allowing transitioning to permanent housing.
The individuals who will occupy the proposed transitional housing are not homeless.
D
1
Ragghiantif FreitaS LI.P
PAGE 2 Of 6
The Sisters making this application deem its purpose to be consistent with and at the heart of
their mission as a religious congregation as well as a direct response to the call of Pope
Francis to use, if available, places of religious occupation to allow persons exactly like those
proposed here to be helped and housed. This use fits squarely within the protections afforded
by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
In general the purpose is to provide safe, adequate, temporary housing for these two families
which will provide them with the opportunity to live independently and be self-sufficient with
an adequate measure of privacy to hone their skills to transition to full independence when
leaving Lourdes.
The Dominican Sisters no longer have a building that we refer to as our "Mother House" as
we did in the past. They have Convents/residences and Administration and Gathering
building (one of the goals after the fire was to separate the functions of the former Mother
House which was very inconvenient for both the Sisters in residence and the Administration
of the Congregation).
The point of the Lourdes project is that there is a contiguous space currently unused that will
not disrupt the current residents at Lourdes and require only minor expense to modify for the
proposed project; there is neither the space nor would the expense be as relatively minor to
make a similar space for the proposed use in another Convent on the south side of Locust.
In looking through the attachments to Mr. Dolan's packet of materials I wish to comment as
follows:
1. This is an application seeking issuance of an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit
analyzed and cited upon in connection with a review of the City's General Plan and
other pertinent development policies.
2. The application submitted is consistent with the Land Use Element of the City's
General Plan.
3. The application is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Pian (see in
particular HE POLICY H-9 (Special Needs), H-10 (Innovative Housing Approaches),
and H-11 (House Sharing) which encourages a mix of housing types including
housing for individuals precisely like those proposed to occupy the space here.
4. The Background Report to the City's General Plan 2020 recites that in single women
head of household families there exists a shortage of just the type of transitional
housing being applied for here.
5. This property is not zoned U. Rather it is zoned PD and the application submitted is
consistent therewith.
IF
IL
RagghiantilFreitaS LLP
PAGE 3OF6
6. The City has determined due to the very minor nature of the improvements proposed
to be made to Lourdes that the application is categorically exempt under CEQA
Guideline section 15301.
7. The City has properly noticed all who they were required to provide notice to in
compliance with applicable local requirements.
8. The Use Permit Amendment, at the request of the applicant will sunset 2 years after
issuance.
I would like to briefly respond to the arguments set forth in Mr. Dolan's packet commencing
on page 5:
A. The Sisters with the approval of the trustees of the Support Charitable Trust as owners
of Lourdes propose to enter into a lease for the area in question with Homeward
Bound. Homeward Bound will enter into occupancy agreements with the individuals
who are selected to reside at Lourdes. The residents will be unmarried. Mr. Dolan has
raised the issue of marriage by one or both of the occupants as somehow implicating a
discrimination claim based on marital status if a husband is refused occupancy at
Lourdes with his wife.
Several responses are appropriate here. First neither Mr. Dolan nor anyone else
(although no one else to my knowledge has raised this issue) has standing to assert
such a claim. Additionally there is no factual basis for such a claim that may now be
made. Moreover there is no basis for making a claim that is purely speculative and
may happen or may not. Finally there is no regulation that allows the CITY to deny an
Amendment to the Use Permit because a user of the facility permitted may at some
unknown time in the future whilst the permit is in effect marry and seek to have a
husband join them in occupancy. It is simply an extraneous and irrelevant speculative
suggestion that adds nothing to the issues involved in considering this Use Permit.
B. The claim of need for increased parking is completely unsupported but for conclusory
statements that suggest an "attached photo" somehow demonstrates that "parking at
Lourdes" frequently exceeds capacity". The photo fails to include all of the other
available parking at Lourdes as well as a short distance away across Locust. In addition
the photo depicts vehicles parked on Lourdes property not on the street. In addition
this project is categorically exempt from environmental review and there exists no
evidence to support the need for a parking study.
C. The claim that allowing the proposed use will somehow lead to a substantive change
in the character of Lourdes as well as in the surrounding neighborhood also fails to
survive scrutiny. The proposed project is consistent with both the General Plan and the
zoning as specified above. How a residential use of the premises by these 2 women
0
ILF
Ragghianti IFreitaS LLP
PAGE 4 OF 6
and their children in the same building used for residential purposes by the Sisters
which is then surrounded by residential uses adjacent to and near the premises
constitutes a change in the character of the neighborhood or somehow places Lourdes
and the neighborhood on a path leading to such a substantive change is hard to
understand. And for good reason. It isn't that the proposed use will change the
character of the neighborhood. Rather it is Mr. Dolan's opinion that allowing it will
make it somehow easier to someday change the use to non-residential or multi -family
or something more intensive. Mr. Dolan claims that he is concerned someday Lourdes
maybe sold. This is simply unknown and certainly undecided at this time The Sisters
are engaged in a long term planning endeavor that will address the needs and desires
of the Congregation over the long term. He concludes by advancing a unique
proposition applicable to the City's review ofthis or any like Use Permit, "Therefore the
current application must be viewed not only as to the immediate planned use but also with
an eye as to how it may affect the future use."
There exists no legal or other basis whatsoever for engaging in this type of speculative
examination. Nor do the regulations governing the issuance of a Use Permit in San Rafael
allow anything remotely close to permitting it. A Use Permit allowing 2 mothers' and their
children to reside in an unused portion of Lourdes convent is a Use Permit for that, nothing
more, nothing less. Any expanded or future use would necessarily require an all new
application and planning process.
Finally on this topic it is probative that Mr. Dolan who raises these issues is willing to forego
advancing all of them if the Sisters simply move the proposed use across Locust onto their
lands.
The Use Permit Amendment will sunset after 2 years. This condition agreed to by the Sisters
attempted to assuage Mr. Dolan and several other neighbors' concerns. Apparently it was not
sufficient. Mr. Dolan insists that the Sisters must agree now not to seek a new Use Permit
after the expiration of this one. They have declined this demand not because they intend to do
so but because it is the exclusive prerogative of the Sisters to make those decisions when and
as they wish to do so. Not Mr. Dolan's or anyone else's. If the Sisters intended to renew the
Use Permit Amendment after its expiration 1 suggest they wouldn't have proposed a 2 year
expiration period. The fact that an application could possibly be made to continue the use
(despite the applicant's indication that it has no such intention) after Use Permit expiration is
an improper basis on which to analyze a Use Permit application.
It is also requested that the improvements be removed after the Amendment to the Use
Permit expires. WHY? It is the occupants that seem to bother the neighbors not the
improvements. When the occupants are gone the Sisters can utilize the space for their own
use as you will hear at the hearing.
RagghiantiiFreitaS LLP
PACE 5 OF 6
Mr. Dolan next states that "Given the population to be served there exists concern over who will
enforce policies regarding occupancy". What exactly is the population being served that requires
this different and heightened scrutiny and enforcement? And precisely what causes the
concern that they may need monitoring? Is it that they might be homeless? They are not. Is it
that they may be victims of domestic abuse? They will not be and Homeward Bound does not
offer programs for such individuals. Mary Kay Sweeney (Mr. Dolan incorrectly indicates Mary
Kay is a former Dominican nun. This is untrue.) will be present to address any questions
regarding how the occupants will be chosen (Homeward Bound and the Sisters will
collaborate on selection criteria and a list of such criteria has previously been provided to Mr.
Dolan and is in the packet he prepared), 2) what code of conduct and related rules the
occupants must follow, and 3) and how any violations will be handled. To assume that these 2
single women and their children will abuse their stay and violate rules imposed by both
Homeward Bound and the Sisters is to necessarily and wrongfully focus on their status.
After almost 40 years devoted to land use issues and law and having attended literally
hundreds of local agency permit entitlement hearings I am reminded once again that we
simply don't count hands to see how many approve and oppose a proposal and then act
accordingly. If that were the process why have a General Plan, a Zoning Ordinance, or a
Community Development Department? One is required to examine the application in light of
applicable development policies of the City and State law and apply the policies and law to the
application received and facts presented. AND to follow the regulations and law.
Surmise, conjecture, unsupported conclusory statements of opinion and use of inaccurate
facts are strangers to the process of land use application processing and are to be rejected.
And they should be here.
In this matter the analysis of the Use Permit Amendment application must be conducted
according to the applicable provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code and pertinent
provisions of the California Government Code that prohibit the City from treating transitional
housing different than traditional residential housing. The Sisters are more than content with
such an analysis.
The Zoning Administrator is entitled to issue an Amendment to the Use Permit if the findings
are made that the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance and that the use proposed with any conditions applicable is not deleterious to the
neighborhodd or city. There is no legal requirement or any reason at all to consider the
expressed concerns of a particular neighbor, or any person for that matter seeking to prevent
Ragghianti l Freitas LLP
PACE 6OF6>
this proposal from being approved when the reasons put forward do not intersect with reality
or the law.
It is submitted that the findings can and should be made to approve this Amendment to the
Use Permit application.
Ily sub
GIry T. Raiighianti
GTR/11P
Exhibit 2
GARY T. RAGGHIANTI
GTRAGGSQRFLAWLLP.COM
Ragghianti I F r (�it2S LLP
March 06, 2017
San Rafael Planning Commission
c/o City of San Rafael Community Development Department
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915
Dear Chairman Schaefer and Members of the Commission:
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
1101 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 100
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901-2903
TELEPHONE 415.453.9433
FACSIMILE 415.453.8269
WWW,RFLAWLLP.COM
I represent the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael (The Sisters) and submit this letter in
response to the two appeals filed from the determination of the Zoning Administrator (ZA)
issued on January 28, 2017 granting a Use Permit Amendment (UPA) for the Sisters' Our
lady Of Lourdes Convent (Lourdes) property located at 77 Locust Avenue.
The Sisters fled an application in November 2016 seeking an Amendment to a Use Permit
Lourdes presently holds to allow the conversion of a 1995 square foot area of the Lourdes
Convent for use as transitional housing to be shared by two unmarried mothers, each of
whom has two young children ages 2-8 years.
The area in question is a long narrow hallway painted yellow and referred to by the Sisters
over the years as "the yellow hallway". Minor alterations to the structure are proposed and
involve no expansion of the building or footprint.
At one time the yellow hallway area served as a place of occupancy for up to 10 Sisters. Over
the years the population of Sisters has declined and unused space has become available. The
present population of Lourdes is approximately 15-17 Sisters. At its highest occupancy 35
Sisters resided there. The Sisters, in collaboration with Homeward Bound, seek to make this
area available to assist these two single parent families who are making the journey to
independence and self-sufficiency. By providing them short term residency the families will
have the opportunity to transition to permanent housing.
The point of the Lourdes project is to address, albeit modestly, the dire housing crisis by
utilizing a space currently unused in the Convent that will not disrupt the current residents at
Lourdes. The conversion will require only minor modifications at Lourdes. There is neither the
Ragghianti (Freitas LLP
PAGE 2 OF 11
space nor would the expense be minor to create similar space for the proposed use in another
Convent on the south side of Locust.
The determination to issue the UPA by the ZA was supported by a comprehensive written
analysis of the application resulting in a determination that the application was consistent
with the Land Use and Housing elements of San Rafael General Plan 2020 (SRGP 2020) as
well as with the Housing Element Background Report to the General Plan pointing out the
need in San Rafael for the very type of transitional housing that this application seeks to
provide. The ZA also found that the application was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
and with its objectives and the stated purposes of the PD zone in which the subject property
has been so long situated as well as with the State law applicable to transitional housing
(Gov't Code section 65583). It was determined that the application was categorically exempt
from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Moreover and finally it was
determined that the application, as proposed and conditioned would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity or to the
general welfare of the City.
The appeals are filed by two (2) neighbors, each of whom are located directly adjacent to the
Convent at Lourdes. The appeal of Mr. Scholick focuses on the subject of traffic on and
around the Locust Avenue area where the Convent is situated. He asks that a traffic study be
performed before a decision on issuing the permit is made by the City. The other appellant
advances a litany of objections purportedly based on certain provisions of the San Rafael
Municipal Code and related development policies. It is respectfully suggested that the
Planning Commission reject both appeals for the reasons set forth herein and based upon the
evidence contained in the record of proceedings in this matter.
The appeals will each be addressed separately.
The Dolan Appeal
This appeal has little to do with the application of land use regulations to this application.
One need only look at the statements contained both in the appellant's submittal to the ZA
and to the Commission in his February 3, 2017, letter to discern the overriding concern of this
appellant.
In Mr. Dolan's submittal to the ZA he stated as follows: "Given the population to be served
there exists concern over who will enforce policies regarding occupancy".
r -t
'wIL
Ragghianti l -Freie:. S LLP
PACE 3OF11
What exactly is it about these two women and their young children that requires this different
and heightened scrutiny and enforcement? And precisely what causes the concern that they
may need monitoring? It is that they are currently in a program operated by Homeward
Bound that fuels this type of response?
In his submittal to the Commission (the pages are not numbered) he states the following;
"In 1990 the historic Mother House burned in a tragic fire ... When the housing they had
purchased as temporary housing... was no longer needed, it is reported that they sought to
donate it to Homeward Bound but the endeavor resulted in significant neighborhood
opposition so the Sisters sold the property and donated the proceeds to Homeward Bound
instead." Mr. Dolan goes on to state, "The Sisters have a strong affiliation with Homeward
Bound not only because of their mission to help the greater community but also because of
the fact that the Executive Director, Mary Kay Sweeney, PhD. is a former nun with the Sisters
of Mercy." And then "There is much concern from the neighbors, including this Appellant, that
a similar strategy may be developing here and that this request for an Amended Use Permit is
but a step towards homeless housing being established here in perpetuity". (Emphasis added
where shown and mine).
These types of statements are not only regrettable in their content but also display the often
employed "Trojan Horse" arguments used by opponents of projects. In other words this
project will facilitate some type of unwanted creep and deleterious consequence that hasn't
occurred and there is no evidence ever will occur and which is entirely unrelated to the merits
of the application being considered. It focuses instead on stigmatizing the proposed two
residents here simply because they may be enrolled in a program with Homeward Bound and
were at one time homeless.
But the actual facts concerning_ this application are sufficient to dispose of such baseless and
unfounded surmise.
This UPA terminates in 2 years by its very terms.
This UPA will not go on "in perpetuity".
This UPA is conditioned to permit only these two women and their young children to live in a
small area unit where previously up to 10 Sisters had resided.
This UPA permits no expansion of the hallway area where the transitional housing will be
located during the two year period of the UP.
Ragghianti I F re tt2.S LLP
PAGE 4 OF 11
This UPA prohibits any more than the two mothers and their children to occupy the halfway
area during the two year period of the UP.
The examination of the history of the zoning of the Lourdes Convent property is well set out in
the ZA's determination. In reviewing that history this appellant argues that since the legal
disassociation of the University from the Congregation the UP granted to the Sisters in 1979
ought to have failed and the underlying zoning (PD) changed to that across the street at the
Sisters residency structure and administrative offices (PD 1827).
The conditions imposed in the 1979 UP were imposed when the then existing U zoning
designation was changed to the present PD. The staff report does reflect a then existing
planning concern that the Lourdes convent facility not be allowed to change into a private
commercial facility. Thus the City imposed a condition that implicated the UP and required it
be tied to continuing affiliation with the then College.
In the findings made at the time the 1979 UP was granted it is stated that: "Continuation of
the Lourdes Retirement Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as its facility
remains affiliated with Dominican College AND IS NOTA COMMERCIAL FACILITY ". As we
will argue the affiliation of the Sisters with the now University has survived their legal
corporate separation and the facility has not morphed into a commercial facility.
A brief bit of the history of the relationship between the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael and
the former Dominican College, now University, is instructive and demonstrates the continued
Affiliation that exists and will always exist between the Sisters and the educational institution
they founded in the late 191h century.
The term "affiliation" is undefined in the UP condition under discussion. It is commonly
defined to mean to associate oneself with or to be connected with. The legal separation of the
Sisters and the University did nothing to terminate the long history of affiliation of the
congregation with the school it established. To argue otherwise is to magnify technicality at
the expense of reason. The Sisters will forever be "affiliated" with the University. Its Sisters
have served as past presidents of the College, painted and exhibited their art and photography
on campus and taught and continue to teach both undergraduate and graduate courses there.
The Sisters have also served on and continue to serve on the college/university Board of
Trustees. Moreover the Dominican university gymnasium facility bears the name of Sister
Samuel Conlan who was a former Dominican College President.
4
R,
RagghiantiIFrQitaS LLP
PAGE 5OF11
By 1960 the business affairs of both the Sisters and of the College had grown to the extent
that the need to separate the Sisters and the College into two corporations became evident.
The Sisters formed a new .corporation, Sisters of St. Dominic, Congregation of the Most Holy
Name. Even though there were then two distinct corporations, the Prioress General and the
Sisters continued to govern and carry out the business of the College.
In 1969, in keeping with the spirit of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council, the
Dominican College Board of Trustees was expanded to include lay women and men. The
ownership of all property, as well as the governance and responsibility for the College, was
vested in the Board. In the late 70's the property held under the Dominican College title that
was used exclusively by the Sisters for their living and ministry needs was deeded back to the
Sisters.
In 2000 Dominican College became Dominican University of California. Today the not-for-
profit independent university defines its mission and values in this manner:
Dominican educates and prepares students to be ethical leaders and socially
responsible global citizens who incorporate the Dominican values of study,
reflection, community and service into their lives. The University is committed
to diversity, sustainability and the integration of the liberal arts, the sciences
and professional programs.
While the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael and Dominican University of California maintain
independence in operation and finance, it is the desire of the congregation that Dominican
values will continue to be borne out in the mission and character of the University. Through
ongoing dialogue, the congregation and the University seek to be mutually supportive of each
other's mission and endeavors.
In addition the following demonstrates that collaboration, mutual support and affiliation
continues to this day.
Four (4) Dominican Sisters of San Rafael sit on the DU Board of Trustees.
Five (5) Sisters are teaching at DU presently.
One (1) Sister (a Dominican Sister of Adrian) works at DU as the Director of Campus Ministry
and lives on campus.
I --I
DCF_!
Ragghianti i Fof t'2 -S LLP
PAGE 6OF11
Clearly "affiliation" between the Sisters and the University exists as it always has and is
ongoing, alive and well.
To illustrate the lack of necessity for a legal relationship and affiliation between parties I refer
to the language used by this appellant in his appeal letter, referring to the relationship
between the Sisters and Homeward Bound. There is no legal connection between these two
corporate entities. Yet it is pointed out that they have a "strong affiliation" ... and they proudly
do. This affiliation need not require a legal relationship but rather can and frequently does
exist independent of such relationship.
Further regarding this issue, UP's do not routinely expire automatically. Rather they run with
the land. They are either revoked or abandoned. An exception exists when the UP clearly sets
forth an expiration date, as it will do in the UPA applied for here. The current UP held by
Lourdes is still In existence and valid. The several post1979 actions taken by the City regarding
alterations to Lourdes support the fact that the City recognizes this.
Lourdes remains a private Convent operating under a valid use permit that now seeks a UPA
for the limited and benign purposes of accommodating temporary transitional housing
consistent with and at the heart of the Sisters mission as a religious congregation as well as a
direct response to the call of Pope Francis to use, if available, places of religious occupation
to allow persons exactly like those proposed here to be helped and housed This use fits
squarely within the protections afforded by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000.
The proposed use will not necessitate a rezoning of the property nor will it constitute a
residential multi -family use.
The multi -family argument of the appellant is premised on the mistaken belief that the
occupation of the area to be provided at the Convent constitutes two (2) women and their
children living in two (2) separate units, which is of course inaccurate. This argument is an
attempt to shoe -horn the appellant's way into a claim that the proposed housing area in the
Convent meets the definitional criteria set forth in SRMC section 14.03.030 for multifamily
housing. it doesn't. One need simply read it to so conclude.
On P. 2 of the ZA's determination under the heading PRO)ECT DESCRIPTION it is stated in
pertinent part that, "In partnership with Homeward Sound, the Dominican Sisters are
proposing to convert a 1995 square foot portion of the convent's congregate care facility (10
residential rooms; 12% of the facility area) referred to as the "yellow hallway" to a single
dwelling unit..."
R
Ragghianti I FreitaS LLP
PACE 7OF11
Additionally section 14.03.030 provides as follows: "Residential, multifamily" means medium
and high density residential development, including a "transitional housing development" or
"supportive housing" as defined under State Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 (and
subsequent amendments), containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units in one (1) or
more structures located on a single parcel or common lot. (14. 3.030 -Definitions)
One doesn't count the number of occupants to determine the number of units being lived in.
Nor finally do the provisions of section 50675.2 cited in the above SRMC section add anything
to this failed assertion. Lourdes is a convent not a part of several "buildings configured as
rental housing developments...."
The next claim of this appellant is that since Lourdes is a "Catholic Convent" it is therefore a
"religious institution" and accordingly would be prohibited from locating in the PD zoning
district under SRMC section 14.04.020. This section of the City's code contains a table which
does indeed prohibit religious institutions in the PD -hillside districts of the City. Lourdes isn't
located in that district.
Neither does the application propose to create an "emergency shelter" for the homeless. It
involves two women and their children occupying currently vacant space in a convent for a
maximum of two years.
This proposal will be operated in collaboration with Homeward Bound and will involve
restrictions and regulations placed upon the occupants which will be monitored and enforced
as needed. The occupants, members of a Homeward Bound program already, will enter into
an Occupancy Agreement with Homeward Bound which will provide that violation of the
imposed regulations will result in expulsion from the Homeward Bound program they are
enrolled in as well as removal from the facility. In addition the facility will benefit from and
have additional oversight by the resident Sisters who manage the Lourdes facility. In fact the
single parents who are fortunate enough to be accepted to live in this transitional area must
be accepted for residency by both the Sisters and Homeward Bound.
A final few comments on the Dolan appeal: remarks. There is no competent evidence to even
suggest, much less support, an argument that this project is in any way inconsistent with
every applicable development regulation and/or policy of the City including specifically the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Ragghianti vreitaS LLP
PAGE 8 O 11
It is we suggest, very clear that:
This application is for a UPA-not a rezone.
Nothing involved in granting the requested UPA constitutes or implicates an act of zoning.
This application does not result in Lourdes becoming Multifamily housing.
This application does not involve creation of an Emergency Care Facility for homeless people.
This application if granted will not result in spot zoning as a matter of law.
The current Use Permit granted to the property in 1979 remains in force and valid today.
Mr. Dolan, despite his lengthy submittal, struggles to find any legal basis upon which this
application should be denied. Rather his appeal is based on mistaken readings of City codes,
tortured analysis of the UP condition relating to continued affiliation of the Sisters with the
University, a failure to appreciate the legal consequences arising from receipt of a use permit
by a property owner and unsubstantiated and immaterial concerns that on some unknown
date at some unknown time in the future the Sisters may seek to change or repurpose
Lourdes since the Congregation is declining in numbers and that such happenstance may
adversely affect his property in some unspecific and unarticulated manner.
This position is advanced despite the fact that the application or change he fears has not been
made nor is it the one before the Commission filed by the Sisters. The positions advanced by
this appellant do not take into account and simply avoid dealing with the land use realities
this application presents, i.e. the fact that the Sisters have voluntarily requested that the UPA
expire at the end of two years, that two women only with two young children each will occupy
the proposed area at the Convent, that more than adequate monitoring and supervision will
be provided by both Homeward Bound and the Sisters in residence managing Lourdes and
that the application comports with all pertinent land use regulations of the City.
Further confounding the posturing of this appeal is the curious fact that this appellant has
repeatedly advised the Sisters and the City that if they would simply move their proposed site
for this transitional housing across the street to their larger Convent he would forego his
objections and Fund in part the expenses for the modifications needed to be made to that
structure to accommodate the use. This despite the fact that such a move would result in the
proposed use actually being closer to his home. To this proposal the Sisters have consistently
Ragghianti I Frei taS LLP
PACE 9OF11
stated that such a use across the street from Lourdes would not work for the families involved
nor for the convent which is already full to capacity. Moreover the Sisters didn't make such an
application to locate the transitional housing there. It is at Lourdes where the space already
exists to accommodate the proposed use with minimal expense required.
The appeal of Mr. Dolan, respectfully, fails both legal and logical scrutiny. The reasons offered
by him to deny this application do not intersect with either reality or the law.
The Scholick Appeal
Mr. Scholick expresses concern that condition 7a of the ZA's determination has denied him
and his family due process since it mentions that at the end of the two year UP period the
Sisters might request an extension to continue the transitional housing for a term in
perpetuity.
This language contained in section 7a was not proposed by the Sisters or their counsel and is
inconsistent with the position and representations made to the neighbors prior to and at the
ZA hearing in January.
We attach a copy of the undersigned's email to Paul Jensen dated 2/21/17 sent after reviewing
the language to which the appellants take issue here. This email makes it clear that the Sisters
are and have been content to have the UP applied for expire after two years and that it has
never been the intention of the Sisters to ask that the UP run with the land in perpetuity. We
incorporate that email herein as well as the reply of appellant Dolan to it.
Mr.Scholick attacks the ZA's determination regarding traffic at the corner of Locust and
Magnolia and safety concerns related thereto. He requests that "a meaningful parking, traffic
and safety investigation analyzing the number of trips that the two women and their children
would cause to occur while residing at Lourdes be performed.
He rejects the analysis and conclusions reported in the ZA's determination at findings 2 b, c,
and d. and the discussion concerning same that appears on page 5.
The ZA after reviewing the evidence presented at the hearing, and after conducting a one
week parking survey at various times of each day and engaging in discussion with the City's
Department of Public Works concerning the particular location opined that, the proposed
project will not result in an increase in traffic that would change or exacerbate existing traffic
patterns or conditions or increase safety hazards; that the existing parking at Lourdes exceeds
V
Raggh'Eand IF-r LltaS LLP
PAGE TO OF 11
demand and that there exists adequate off-site parking to serve the proposed use without
impacting the properties in the vicinity.
The ZA also recommended that vegetation located east of an informal parking pad at Lourdes
be trimmed. This latter condition is acceptable to the Sisters and steps have been taken to
restrict the use by the installation of fencing of the informal pad parking although located
entirely on the Lourdes lands.
In responding to the position espoused by this appellant I hasten to observe that the
conditions that currently exist at the location of concern exist independent of the occupancy of
Lourdes and certainly the proposed minor addition of occupants to the Convent proposed
under this application While young and exuberant university students and visitors to the
campus who speed and fail to observe stop signs may create problems those issues have
nothing to do with the operation of Lourdes. Other families living and using Locust and
Magnolia each day also present their own traffic load and concerns.
In addition Lourdes was once occupied by 35 Sisters each of whom had family and relatives
who visited Lourdes. It is curious that the addition of two women and their young children
could be thought to actually cause a measureable increase in traffic or safety concerns in the
area under discussion. This type of assertion is in stark contrast to consideration of an
unmentioned by appellant fact relating to the clear traffic impact caused by all families with
and without children living on Locust, their visitors and guests and service providers. The
fact that this appellant believes that a problem exists that will be exacerbated by these families
doesn't mean that his concern is accurate and/or fact based. The Sisters ought not to have to
bear the burden of the time and expense of a traffic study to admit this proposed small family
group into their Convent any more than new families moving on to Locust with two or more
children ought to be subjected to such a burden.
The parking and traffic issues have also been looked at by the ZA, and the City Department of
Public Works. No traffic concerns were found to be associated with the proposed use and/or
small number of occupants proposed here. No police or fire personnel have come forward to
express any safety concerns or traffic issues simply due to the use of the convent by these few
persons.
It is respectfully suggested that the concerns of this appellant while made in good faith
cannot and should not result in a requirement to prepare and pay for an expensive traffic
study in the absence of data or objective facts that support and compel such a result. There
are no such objective facts present here and using the occupancy of a small area of the
Ragghianti I Frei taS LLP
PAGE 11 OF 11
Convent by the proposed occupants is I suggest wholly insufficient to require the study
sought.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein and based upon the evidence contained in the record of
proceedings herein it is respectfully requested that the appeals filed be denied.
Very u y your
Gary T. Ragghianti
GTR/jip
Enclosure
Gari Rahianti
From: Gary Ragghianti
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 8:17 PM
Tb:
Kay
Subject: Fwd: Lourdes
FYI
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Dolan
Date: February 21, 2017 at 8:39:48 PM MST
'_... �
Gary,
Thanks for clearing that up and for standing behind the good word of both you and the sisters.
Chris
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Gary Ragghianti <
wrote:
Dear Paul: I would like to briefly comment with regard to your email of 2/14/17
addressed to Mr. Dolan And Scholick.
As I thought was clear in their application and at the ZA hearing last month it is
not now nor has it ever been the Sisters intention to seek a UPA here that was to
run with the land in perpetuity. We made it clear we were content to have it
terminate after 2 years and that is precisely what we applied for. That has always
been our position and remains our position with regard to the application.
Gary
DAVID I! ItI HAS
PATTY GARBARINO
SAN RAPAM , CA, 94901
May 12, 2017
San Rafael City Council
1400 Fifth Ave
San Rafael, Ca 94901
Re; Lourdes Matter
Dear Honorable Council,
My wife, Patty Garbarino, and I have lived in the Dominican area for many years. We have
enjoyed many hours walking along Locust Ave near and by Lourdes. We will be out town on the
Hearing date for this matter so we write this letter in support of the Dominican Nuns effort.
Having spent 8 years at Saint Raphael's School I know the Nun's reputation for discipline is not
illusory. The Nuns have always complied with and enforced the neighborhood and City rules
and regulations. I have lived in the Dominican area since 1975 and have observed firsthand
how the Nuns, when they controlled the College, made their students comply with a variety of
restrictions to protect the quality of the neighborhood.
I practiced law in San Rafael for forty years. My wife spent eight years on the Marin County
Planning Commission (two years as Chair) and neither of us can conjure up a legitimate legal
opposition to the Nuns proposal. Some of our neighbors are understandably concerned about
their beautiful and expensive homes and are worried the Nuns will not enforce the conditions
you impose on them. This fear is not only far from a legal opposition it is historically unsound.
Please cast your vote to support the Nun's application and support their laudable proposed use
for Lourdes.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
`� Dave reitas Patty Garbarino
Dear Mr. Jensen and committee,
I regret that my husband and I will not be able to attend the hearing tomorrow, considering I have
attended the last two city meetings. But, we wanted to contact you formally to again voice our concerns
regarding the permit request made by the Dominican Sisters to provide temporary transitional housing.
As stated in my previous email, we are not in favor of the proposal due to its potential to open the
possibility for even further multifamily use. Aside from the increase in traffic and safety concerns, it is
simply inappropriate—and counter to all historical expectations—for the Dominican area to consider a
permit for rezoning that will potentially change our neighborhood indefinitely.
Why do we feel this way? There are three main reasons:
The first relates to how this process actually transpired. While notification of surrounding properties was
done according to "the letter of the law," this requirement was only to notify residents within 300 feet of
the property. Considering the size of the parcels in the area, this amounted to three residential homes, and
this seems a bit ridiculous considering the impact this permit could have on the entire neighborhood. If
the Sisters had genuine concern for the neighborhood, this spirit would have manifested as a larger radius
of public notification.
Second, when other neighbors did finally receive a notice last November, it omitted two important points
of intent: 1) the proposed residents are to be from Homeward Bound, and 2) exterior changes are to be
made in addition to the "minor" interior changes.
Third, it took up to the last appeal for the Sisters to add a "sunset clause" for this permit request, with the
need to reapply after two years. Prior to this, the intended changes could be maintained in
perpetuity. Even the Sisters' attorney mentioned that long-term plans were solely and entirely to be
decided based on the Sisters' prerogative.
Additionally, only the first of the three questions from my last email has been answered. The question of
tenant eligibility if they were to get married still seems up in the air between Mr. Dolan and Mr.
Ragghianti. And most concerning is that the Sisters have not been fully transparent with their long-term
intentions. Why go through all of this unless there is a clear intent to establish this plan for longer than
just two years? Further, the Sisters have not given any assurances that this planned housing would not
expand even further in the future. There are other examples that demonstrate the Sisters' steadfast
refusal to compromise. When asked not to charge rent (therefore allowing the residents to be considered
guests rather than tenants), or to house the tenants in the Mother Lodge for closer oversight and less
impact on the immediate neighbors, there has been nothing but flat refusal. (We believe these are two
reasonable requests to help reduce some of the neighbors' concerns.)
As you can see, there is a lot of concern we have regarding the future use of the convent, particularly
beyond the two-year mark. As I pointed out in my previous email, we moved here for the peacefulness
and safety of this neighborhood and we worked very hard to have what we have. As we all know,
unintended consequences usually occur, and these will irrevocably change this neighborhood. It bears
repeating that the streets of this immediate neighborhood were never zoned for multifamily housing. The
inevitability of unintended consequences must be kept in mind in this regard.
Unfortunately, the vocal supporters of the Sisters' plan (many of whom do not even live in the immediate
neighborhood) have managed to reconstruct this debate into that of a religious one. This misdirection has
taken the discussion from the primary issue: a zoning issue. There have been extensive negative remarks
made on social media as well as biased media articles that have left several opponents to the proposal
feeling intimidated. Their voices of opposition have been quieted because of the vitriol that has been
written with religious undertones. But it is essential to keep in mind that this is a secular issue that relates
entirely to altering zoning in a residential area. We are supporters of many charitable organizations
(including Homeward Bound in the past) and come from strong religious families. But I feel that this is
irrelevant.
My husband and I simply oppose this permit request for the reasons above.
Thank you for your consideration,
Joan Cardneau
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Joan Cardneau < wrote:
Hello Mr. Jensen,
My husband sent an email yesterday regarding his concern over the Lourdes Project and I would
also like to address some of my concerns regarding this proposal. I would like to start with the
frustration we felt when hearing that this notice was only addressed to the neighbors, I believe,
that are within 150 feet of this project when in fact this affects the entire neighborhood. We live
at 375 Locust Ave which is just up the road from the convent. Our family room faces an area
along the bank where many bikers park when frequenting the trails that lead to China camp. It is
a friendly and quiet neighborhood that we fell in love with when deciding to move here from the
city. However what I have noticed is a slight decline over the three years that we have been
here. There has been an increase in homeless people hiking and spending the nights up in the
trails, drug dealing along the bank on Locust Ave., young and older adults smoking marijuana in
their cars, young adults having sex in their cars and leaving their condoms along the side of the
road, and just the other day a man deliriously walking up Locust Avenue talking to himself and
walking in circles while I walked my dogs. Although these observations may not be considered
a direct effect of the housing transition program, based on the uncertainty the Sisters had
expressed when asked several questions by my fellow neighbors I am certain that we could
potentially see more negative outcomes from this proposal. These three questions concerned me
the most that the Sisters were not able to answer:
1. Who would be responsible for oversight of the tenants?
2. What would happen if they got married, would the spouse be able to reside with them?
3. What are the intentions of this program long term?
You can see why these are of concern to me. In addition as my husband pointed out, this could
lead to multi -family housing and it would be difficult to stop this process once started. If this
plan were to be in place we have to consider State laws that protect the tenants but do not
necessarily protect us as home owners and neighbors.
Keep in mind that we are most interested in helping our community; in fact, we fully support the
Homeward Bound program. However, the manner in which this was handled, the select
neighbors that were informed, the short timeline this has been presented, the uncertainty of the
plans and intentions are all very troubling to many of us in our neighborhood as well as our
community. We also have families here that are raising children and the safety of them as well
as ourselves are just as important, especially in an area that many of us chose to live in that
would offer us these values as well as maintain our property value.
I am strongly opposed to the Lourdes project and find it inappropriate for our neighborhood. At
the very least, I am requesting that the hearing does not result in any actions until the
neighborhood has had a chance to learn and digest this proposal. In addition, I ask that these
meetings to be offered at a time that is convenient for those who work to allow us to attend these
sessions.
Please feel free to contact me for any further questions or comments.
Thank you,
Joan Cardneau
77 Locust Ave. Correspondence
Name: Christine Tittiger
Submitted: 2017-05-15 at 9:45am
Message: Give the nuns permission to help the two single mothers and kids. There are already
17 nuns living next door to that idiot Dolan.
Name: Stanley and Sara Bailis
Submitted: 2017-05-15 at 12:30pm
Message: We have lived close to the Dominican campus for over 40 years. We would like to
express our support for the Dominican Nuns' generous offer to house two needy families. We
hope the city council will understand the opposition's conjectures for what they are and will
show its heart by voting strongly to give two families a head start toward a better life.
Dominican nuns
Give the nuns permission to help the two single mothers and kids There are already 17 nuns living next door to that idiot Dolan.
.4P Edit
Case Tags +
Details
This case is not tugged,
Case No.
49386
Assigned Users
+
Status
Open
r
00
Address
San Rafael, CA
Tasks
Priority
n1a
This case has no associated tasks
Source
Form
Constituents
Updated
34 minutes ago
-.
Created
2 hours ago
Organizations
y
CHRISTOPHER B DOLAN ESQ
1 LOCUST AVE
SAN RAFAEL, CA, 94102
March 21, 2017
San Rafael City Counsel
CO/City Clerk
1400 Fifth Ave.
San Rafael, Ca 94901
p C%GCOMG �
MAR 21 2017 „J
C TY CLERK'S OFFICE
RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Concerning Action UPI 6-057
77 Locust Ave. (Lourdes Convent) APN 015-112-23
Dear Esteemed Members of the City Counsel,
I hereby file an appeal from the Decision of the Planning Commission concerning the granting of
an Amended Change of Use, UP 16-057, for the property located at 77 Locust Ave. (Lourdes
Convent) APN 015-112-23. I have standing to file this appeal because I have previously
appealed to the Planning Commission and such Appeal was denied. This Appeal is timely filed
within 5 business days from the decision of the Planning Commission entered on March 14,
2017.
INTRODUCTION
I am the owner of 1 Locust Avenue, a contiguous neighbor to 77 Locust Ave, Lourdes Convent,
owned by The Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name
Support Charities Trust ("the Sisters"). The Sisters already have many of their congregation
living at Lourdes Convent. The Sisters have lived in harmony with their neighbors, including
myself, for years while operating Lourdes as a Convent for those nuns who are retired and/or
recovering from surgery or illness. The Sisters now want to change the use of the properly,
fundamentally, by becoming landlords. They wish to enter into a master lease with a separate
corporation (Homeward Bound of Marin) that then will rent/sub-lease space as part of a
commercial enterprise to two families. The Sisters would be turning over total operation and
control of the leased facilities to Homeward Bound.
ki4-oo3
The lease would be for a newly created living unit which will contain: a separate entrance, 10
rooms, two full bathrooms, a kitchen, laundry room, and a designated fenced in yard. To
undertake the project, the Sisters will engage in significant expense associated with creating the
new entrance and kitchen, some interior remodeling, as well as locked doorways to isolate the
unit from the rest of the convent.
Much has been made of this project based on the proposed intended use: transitional housing, for
up to two years, for two women, each with one child. The intentions of the Sisters, while
laudable, I are not what should be driving this decision: indeed, it seems that the biased Decision
of the Planning Commissioner/ Acting Zoning Administrator and the subsequent biased analysis
presented by him to the Planning Commission was reverse engineered so as to validate a
conclusion based on social policy rather than sound planning and existing zoning policy.
There is no argument here that the Sisters are good, pious, holy, people of charity and good
works. They have been, and I hope will continue to be, friends and neighbors. We are of similar
faith and values.
There is no argument that homeless people should not be assisted to stand on their own two feet
and re-enter mainstream society, to have dignity and an opportunity for betterment.
There is no argument that children, victims of circumstances beyond their own control, who are
impoverished, destitute and homeless, should not be cared for and offered stability.
There is no argument with the stated intentions for this Application for an Amended Conditional
Use Permit. There is opposition to its application at 77 Locust Ave. based on the history behind
and the limitations in place under the current Conditional Use Permit. This body will
undoubtedly be besieged with many who extoll the Sister's virtue, longstanding ties to the
community, their religious mission, and their charitable works. This is legally and factually
irrelevant to the legal decision to be made by this body. This body is being asked to permit the
possessor of the current Conditional Use Permit, a corporation formed by Catholic Sisters to own
and operate as a convent, to become a landlord thereby turning over operation and control of
approximately 2,000 sq. feet of space to a separate, unaffiliated corporate entity (meaning not a
subsidiary or parent corporation) to operate be rented to families as commercial residential
housing. This is not appropriate or permissible given the Conditions which govern the
Conditional Use Permit and the PD zoning.
Below I will, as required, elucidate my points for appeal. I am not versed in planning and zoning
law so excuse me if I am not familiar with the nuances of the terminology. To be as specific as
possible I will provide citation to the applicable sections of the California Government Code,
The City of San Rafael's Municipal Code / Zoning Ordinance, the City's Master Plan for 2020,
and the 2011, 2013 and 2015 Marin Point -In -Time Homeless Census and Surveys.
1 The Sisters, responding to a call from the Pope to provide shelter to refugees and see this project as a way to fulfil
that calling as their ministry. It is not this intention which is challenged but, instead, the proposed execution. In
short, it's the execution of a righteous intention in the wrong place and manner which has spawned this conflict.
While the subject of homelessness is interjected by the nature of the proposed use, this august
body must not give that factor any additional consideration or weight in coming to a decision
concerning the Sisters' application. California Government Code Section 65583 (7)
unambiguously states that "Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a
residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other
residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone." The Sisters' application must be
considered as if it were any other residential dwelling. The Sisters received special treatment in
the zoning of this property when it was part of, and because of their affiliation with, the
Dominican College. (Now the Dominican University.) This application and appeal must be
treated as if it were being made by a secular entity. The piety of the applicants should play no
role in the consideration of this application as to do so would discriminate on the basis of
religion and might expose the City to being leveraged, and/or to civil liability, if and when a non-
sectarian applicant makes a similar request.
HISTORY OF CURRENT ZONING AND CONDITIONS OF USE
History of 77 Locust Ave., Lourdes Convent
The history of Lourdes Convent and Retirement Center (Lourdes) at 77 Locust Ave is
summarized below.
Lourdes is a 2.1 acre parcel, located where Locust Ave turns from an east -west heading to a
north -south heading at the intersection with Magnolia. The parcel, were it not originally
affiliated with the Dominican University and the Dominican Sisters, would be restricted to
residential use and to no more than two residential dwellings. It is in that context that the
Commission should begin its analysis. The Sisters' application requests an atypical use for this
area.
The City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 characterizes the Dominican -Black Canyon
neighborhood as follows:
The Dominican -Black Canyon neighborhood is primarily developed with single-family homes, a
number of which are historic and unique in character ...
Aside from the Convent on the South side of Locust (on Grand between Locust and Acacia) all
other parcels on Locust are zoned for residential use. Starting in 1951, 77 Locust had been
designated as R-1 B-2 (residential). in the late 1950's, early 60's, part of the existing structure
was moved to the current site by the Dominican College which was, then, operated by
Dominican Sisters before it was transferred to a separate entity, now Dominican University. The
structure had operated as an infirmary, student health center, and retirement facility for the
Sisters.
In 1979 a rezoning was sought by the Dominican Sisters to change the zoning from RI B-2
(residential) to U, and later to the current, modern, designation of PD Planned Development.
There is no evidence or information available as to whether there was any hearing or process
involved in this designation. Unlike the parcel containing the Sisters of Saint Dominic
Residence Campus, located on the site of the former "Mother House" specialty zones as PD -
1827, there is no master/general plan designation number associated with the site. It appears that
the permit was granted without any notice or hearing and 77 Locust Ave has operated under a
Use Permit, UP79-18, since 1979.
In 1979 The San Rafael Planning Department (Staff), as Part of the rezoning request, considered
whether it would be appropriate to change the zoning to R-3 (multi -family use), but did "not
consider an R-3 type zone appropriate for the neighborhood." The Staff recommended
rezoning to a U District, which was, at that time, the zoning classification for the rest of the
Convent and the Dominican College property. Because Lourdes was re-classified as a U -District
upon which "controls and limitations could be placed on its use through a conditional use
permit" the Staff indicated that such a use permit would assure that the association with
Dominican College could he continued. (Appellant requests that the Commission take notice of
the files maintained by planning commission on the subject property. See March 27, 1979 City
Staff Report, item 279-5. Emphasis added These documents will be provided by request to the
email above.) This condition is key, the only reason that Lourdes was originally zoned PD
was because of its affiliation with Dominican College. The use permit was granted because
of, and to assure, the continued affiliation with the College.
The March 27, 1997 Staff Report found that "the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan designation for residential use and will not result in development which will
adversely affect adjacent or vicinity properties." (Id., emphasis added.) At the same time The
Sisters sought to build an addition to Lourdes. The Staff recommended Conditional Approval.
City Staff Review stated:
"An important consideration: in Staff and Commission determination that the existing use is
appropriate in the neighborhood is its relationship to Dominican College. Staff would question
the compatibility of a private commercial retirement center in this location. For that reason, it is
important that the use permit be limited to the ownership/operation of Dominican College
affiliated Corporations."
The Conditional Approval read:
"Findings:
"Continuation of the Lourdes Retirement Center is appropriate in this neighborhood so long as
its facility remains affiliated with .Dominican College and is not a private commercial
facility."
"Conditions of Approval:
(a) This use permit is limited to the Lourdes Retirement Center so long as ownership
and/or operation remain an affiliate of Dominican College.
(b) No future expansion of the use other than that currently under consideration shall take
place without the modification of the current use permit."
(Ibid. emphasis added.)
It is these conditions which the Sisters now seek to alter, in order to permit their intended use for
transitional housing. That use certainly is not related to the continued affiliation with Dominican
College as that relationship between the Sisters, and this property, has ceased.
In 1990 the historic Mother House burned in a tragic fire. The Sisters relocated while a new
convent was designed and built. When the housing they had purchased as temporary housing to
be used during reconstruction was no longer needed, it is reported that they sought to donate it to
Homeward Bound but the endeavor resulted in significant neighborhood opposition so the Sisters
sold the property and donated the proceeds to Homeward Bound instead. The Sisters have a
strong affiliation with Homeward Bound not only because of their mission to help the greater
community but, also, because of the fact that the Executive Director, Mary K Sweeney, PhD, is a
former nun with the Sisters of Mercy. There is much concern from the neighbors, including this
Appellant, that a similar strategy may be developing here and that this request for an Amended
Use Permit is but a step towards homeless housing being established here in perpetuity. (See
section below re objection to Acting Zoning Administrator's January 28, Notice of
Administrators Action which recommends a future potential change of use to permit this use, "in
perpetuity. ")
In 1992 the Sisters made an application for a building permit to expand Lourdes. The Sisters
sought to add seven bedrooms, each with a private en -suite bathroom, and expand the dining
room and chapel. As part of the expansion the Sisters sought to add 5 additional parking spaces
(in addition to the 10 existing spaces). (See February 12, 1992 letter from architect Peter Walz
to City Planner Shelia Delimont re TWM #91-121.)
At that time the Sisters indicated that the chapel was used by residents only and that it was being
enlarged to accommodate the extra space required by Sisters in wheelchairs and walkers. The
facility was identified as a "strictly private facility" that should not be subject to parking or
other requirements that might apply to a public facility. (Id., emphasis added.) Zoning
Administrator Jensen has indicated that the facility has been designated for public/quasi-public
use. This may have originally been the case when Lourdes was part of the Dominican College,
but, as is clearly stated in the 1992 letter, it has been strictly private since no later than that date.
Additionally, as portrayed below in the legal analysis section, the map within the 2020 General
Plan may, by green dots, reflect that this is quasi -public use, that seems to be a left over from the
unity of the Sisters with Dominican College as it conflicts with the Municipal Code's Zoning
Ordinance.
Indeed, during the 1992 permitting process, The City indicated that it did not have a current
description of the facility at Lourdes. The Sisters indicated that the facility was neither senior
housing nor a residential care facility: it was described as "a convent." (Id.) At that time the
Sisters indicated that Lourdes was no longer affiliated in any way with Dominica: College
then describing the current use as follows: "Lourdes Convent is a residence for the Dominican
Sisters of San Rafael." At that time there were 10 units (dormitory type rooms), two of which
were occupied by Sisters who were administrators of Lourdes. They stated that they had "25
Sisters residing at Lourdes most of whom were retired and unable to live in their other residences
because they were unable to climb stairs and need some level of assistance in their daily
routines." (The Mother House's current design has the majority of living quarters located on
ground level.) It was indicated that occasionally "other Sisters resided at Lourdes if they were
recovering from surgery or illness." The Sisters stated that "Lourdes Convent is not a public
facility but is a traditional convent to which sisters are assigned by the administration of
the congregation." Additional assurance was given that there were no on -sight health care
providers living in the facility; it was for the Sister's only.
Clearly when the affiliation with the Dominican College ended, the quasi -public nature of the
property ended as well. Indeed, as referenced above, by the Sisters' own admission and
designation to the City, Lourdes ceased to have any public/quasi-public function yet, for some
reason, that was not changed on the General Plan Land Use Map (where Mr. Jenson appears to
have gotten his information on public/quasi-public use as nowhere else in the over 500 page
document is this addressed). Based on the original Use Permit, which was never amended once
Lourdes was no longer affiliated with Dominican College, Lourdes should have lost its general
PD status and, most appropriately, should have been incorporated into the PD -1827 District
formed by the Sisters when they re -zoned the site of the Mother House, which had also separated
from Dominican College. Had the Planning Department and Zoning Commission done this, the
authorized uses of the land would now be governed by that Planned Development but, instead,
the land's conditional use remained contingent on its ongoing affiliation with Dominican
College. Since this affiliation had by then ended, the Use Permit, as a matter of the terms of the
Conditional Use Permit, and pursuant to a breach of the condition, should have expired.
In 1993 and 2010 Lourdes underwent remodeling and expansion, each time maintaining that the
same, exclusive, use would continue to be a convent.
REOUEST FOR CHANGE OF USE
According to the Sister's Website, httD:Hsanrafaelon.ore/who-we-are/conereaational-history/, at
its height in 1965, the congregation numbered 376. Presently there are 77 sisters remaining:
primarily in California and Nevada. In short, as stated in their Application, their census is down,
and they have extra space in Lourdes Convent across the street from their main convent. The
facts show that the vacancy will continue to expand, not contract, as women are not entering
religious life.
The location of Lourdes is depicted below:
cw= r los
GrCE, LOCk'r%OM - LOURDES RETIREMENT LeRTER
MOMSED RL'ZON'MG. FROM R+13.2 TO U.
Z 79-5 I CAN RAPAUL. PL.
pw RYP" pa M,��.^�^� I7 -79-s
gust Ave — Lourdes Convent
Although the Sisters indicate that there would be "very minor modifications" to a "very small
portion" of the Convent, the project seeks to create a new entry way, a 1,995 sq. foot living unit
consisting of 13 rooms including a kitchen, sitting room, six bedrooms, and a fenced -in yard with
an outdoor playground.
!I
Locust Ave 1 _
t—
lie , ,--
(facing Dominican) i_
-- 1:a -
Locust to Gold Hill Grade
The average sized home in San Rafael is 2,133 sq. feet. httn://www.mariiunodem.com/San-
Rafael-Real-Estate.nho. Therefore, although relative to the overall space available in Lourdes,
this proposal is only 12% of the total facility, this space is not "very small" relative to residential
dwelling sizes in Marin.
THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NECESSITATE A RE -ZONING
The proposed use will constitute a residential multi -family use
Throughout the process, which has unfortunately been divisive, it has been clear that neighbors
have well founded concerns about this change and its effect on the character of the neighborhood
which is predominantly zoned R -la, R20 and R-5 (single family homes). Indeed if Lourdes was
to be converted into single family residences, the PD zoning would cease and only two homes
would be able to be built on the site as it would be zoned R-1 a.
Many in opposition, including the Appellant, question "how this could be accomplished without
a zoning change?" I and others are concerned that change in use will ultimately lead to the
Sisters or future lessors/owners "backing into" a rezoning of the parcel at some future point so as
to conform to the changed use which, if this erroneous Administrative Action is not reversed
through this appeal, it is quite probable that this fear will materialize. Indeed if the
Administrative Action is upheld and the use of the property is changed, it should have to be re-
zoned as it will meet the definition of "Residential, Multifamily Housing" under Title 14 of the
San Rafael Municipal Code, (hereinafter the Zoning Ordinance "ZO") Section 14.03.030, which
reads as follows;
DEFINITIONS:
"Residential, multifamily" means medium and high density residential development,
including a "transitional housing development" or "supportive housing" as defined
under State Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 (and subsequent amendments),
containing three (3) or more attached dwelling units in one (1) or more structures located
on a single parcel or common lot.
The relevant part of California Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2 reads as follows;
(h) "Transitional housing" and "transitional housing development" means buildings
configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements
that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another
eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no
less than six months.
The Sisters and Homeward Bound have characterized this proposed use as "transitional
housing," which will be rented for up to 2 years. This new space should be characterized as two
units as there are two family units which will be occupying the space sharing a kitchen.
Additionally, there are numerous Sisters living on the property, along with caregivers, full time.
These individual units have their own en -suite bathrooms which are similar to SRO units. Thus,
by application of ZO Section 14.03.030 and Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2, this will
be facto residential multi -family housing. As in any zoning determination, one looks at the use to
see if it is conforming to the zoning applicable to the land and not try to conform the title
assigned to use so as to arrive at a desired objective. Neighbors are justly concerned that if this
project proceeds pursuant to the Zoning Administrator's Decision, the Sisters, or their successors
in interest, will seek to have the property "spot zoned" for a non -conforming use, in perpetuity.
Therefore the Decision should be reversed and this Appeal granted.
The Current PD Zoning does not Permit the Proposed Use
When the property was zoned PD it was because of its affiliation with the Dominican College, an
educational institution. Lourdes has a PD zoning designation without an approved Master Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance shows that the current use would violate a PD designation. As such, the
zoning should revert back to what it was, R1 a (2 lots of 2.05 acres each).
An examination of Title 14, Section 14.04.020, Land Use Regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD)
demonstrates that a 77 Locust is now, and has been since it was disassociated from Dominican
College, a religious institution: a Catholic Convent'
Section 14.04.020 contains an illuminating table, Table 14.04.020, which clearly states that
Religious Institutions would be prohibited in both R (residential) and PD zoning districts.
14.04.020- Land use regulations (R, DR, MR, HR PD)
1=: Perrnitced by right: C: Cond;uonai Life penint; A: Ad iiin-sq ative use pet -1-111t.
Blank. hGt allowpo
Table 14.04.020
Type of Land Use R DR MR HR PD Additional
Use
Regulations
Public and Quasi -
Public Uses
2 As stated supra, the U (later PD) designation was chosen so that 'controls awd limitations could be placed on its
use through a conditional use permit" the Staff indicated that suc a use perr iit would assure that the association
with Dominican College could be continued. (See March 27, 197 City Staff R iport, item 279-5)
Rehgdous
dnAIRMons
Emergency
shelters for the
homeless
Permanent
C- C C C {'e
C
'Pi cthihited in
RZ,i. R 1 a and
PFJ -hillside
dISVICts..ind
i{,?Ci h1ll:1cdr
resole nnal
lots.
See
standards,
Section
14.16.115
Therefore, a plain reading and application of the Land Use Regulations demonstrates that the
proposed use is not allowed and, indeed, is prohibited. Therefore the Decision should be
reversed and the Appeal granted.
The Proposal Constitutes an Ammendment to the PD Zoning and Should Require a New
Zoning Application
The current PD use is as a private convent and/or a retirment community, depending on which
title has been affixed to the PD use at Lourdes. ZO 14.07.150 states that "requests for changes
in the contents of approval of a PD zoning and development plan shall be treated as a
zoning amendment (rezoning). Rezonings shall be heard and decided by the city council (sic).
The procedures for filing and processing a rezoning shall be the same as those established for an
initial PD zoning and development plan application." Therefore, pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance, this application should not be handled as a Change in Use but, instead should be
handled as a zoning ammendment. The procedure which has been employed is improper and
inappropriate and, therefore, the Decision should be rejected.
The Proposal is Non -Compliant with ZO 14.16.115- The City has Zoned GC and LI/O
Districts for Shelters for Families.
As part of the justification for the application, and the Zoning Administrator's Action, there is a
stated need for additional shelter for families with children to meet the requirmeents of
Government Code Section 65583.
14.16.115 reads as follows:
A. Purpose. This section establishes standards for location and operation of a permanent
emergency shelter for homeless populations in compliance with California Government
Code Section 65583, including allowing shelters as a permitted use in some commercial and
industrial district locations. This section is not applicable to temporary emergency shelters
established by the city in response to an emergency event.
B. Applicability. Emergency shelters to provide temporary housing and assistance for families
and individuals who are homeless shall be permitted as of right in the GC and LI/O districts
generally bounded by Bellam Boulevard and I-580, consisting of those shaded parcels within
this area, as shown on Map 14.16.115, and at other locations where conditionally permitted by
the land use tables of this title. However, the total number of beds provided within the area
shown on Map 14.16.115 shall only be permitted by right as necessary to meet the local housing
need established by the General Plan 2020 Housing Element (reflecting regional housing needs
assessment (RHNA) projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments and
based on the state housing and community development department needs assessment at the time
of adoption of the most current housing element). A conditional use permit shall be required to
provide additional facilities within this area in excess of the RHNA needs assessment identified
in the General Plan 2020 Housing Element. All facilities shall be operated in compliance with
the provisions herein. (Emphasis added.) There has been no showing that the current use is
actually needed to meet the regional housing need in the General Plan 2020 instead, we are going
on the assumption that this is housing actually needed to meet a need which has never been
objectively demonstrated so as to meet San Rafael's obligation. Indeed, many expressed concern
that this housing may be actually directed at families living outside of San Rafael. As no need
has been demonstrated, aside from the presumption that such housing is needed, this appeal
should be granted and the Descision should be overturned.
Map 14.16.115
Map 14.16.115
ego COO
CC
a
Qi
iia
t
F
The Proposal is Non Compliant for Failure to Meet Performance Standards
14.16.115 D An emergency shelter shall meet the following development and performance
standards:
1. On-site management and on-site security shall be provided during hours when the emergency
shelter is in operation.. .
6 (c). The provider shall have a written management plan including, as applicable, provisions for
staff training, neighborhood outreach, security, screening of residents to ensure compatibility
with services provided at the facility, and for training, counseling, and treatment programs for
residents.
This Shelter has no on site management or on-site security and no management plan that satisfies
Section D(6)(c). The only thing that has been provided is a document relating to the screeing
criteria. Therefore the Decision should be overturned and the Appeal should be granted.
San Rafael has, consistent with the General Plan and Government Code Section 65583,
designated proper zones for this type of transitional housing.
Objective Studies, Conducted Pursuant To Statutory Mandate, Show that Homelessnes
Amoung the Population of Families with Children Has Decreased Therefore the Stated
Urgent Need is not Supported by the Empiricle Evidence.
Every two years Marin is obligated to conduct a homeless census. In that regard, since 2009, the
Marin Point -In -Time Homeless Census and Survey has been recorded. The census, done under
contract with the County of Marin, by Applied Survey Research out of Watsonville, shows that
there has been a downward trend in the need for housing for families with children.
In 2011, in Marin, there were 155 households with children counted as homeless. In 2013 that 4
number had dropped to 99.
The 2015 Point -In -Time Census stated that: "very few families experiencing homelessness are
unsheltered. Public shelters typically serve around 90% of homeless families in the United
States, a significantly higher proportion of the population compared to other subpopulations,
including unaccompanied youth."
The following table from the 2015 study illustrates the statistics on homelss familes in Marin.
FIGURE 34. HOMELESS FANI I LIES WITH CHILDREN POM LAT ION ESTI RIATES
TOMPOPUTATI011OFF4111JES 51EA591ilESSSIfN19�El;ttll+1!!EllBEflc
96%5hetteree ---- -- — ----------- 4%unshekew d
HUD OEFIIIITIUII A haus. held .ettlt at least ani• adult rrc a^111-.1o7i.ittland at 11.151 n3:, (htld tuetrtiter IpeFSans
under 18)
.sit Ito 4 t rlIII? lie4l;,ut %'t V lif -it -an It. (.'tlt•:) Riau if t'uuat.V11, )1711 it+c Crtr-,ua r:.Sut : ),inn ith CA
Therefore, the need is not as great as stated such that a residential area, and a PD zoning district
for a convent, should be adapted to accommodate the stated, yet unsupported need. Other areas
in San Rafael are zoned for this use/need.
While the demand for housing is low, the risks of this proposal are high. The Domincan is an
area of families with small children and young students. A large dorm and the cafeteria are on
the north side of the campus near Lourdes. The following table shows that 68% of the 19
homeless families surveyed in Marin in 2015 suffixed from either drug or alcohol abuse or
psychiatric conditions that contributed to their homelessness. Another 26% suffered from PTSD.
Therefore 94% are suffering from illnesses and conditions which require treatment.
HEALTH CONOIVONs Atdor;G HOMELEss FAMII )E5 WIiH CHILDREN
Eight of the 19 family members reported suffering from psychiatric c» menta! problems.
FIGURE37. ttEAt.TH CUIr1DITION-.S N10.14G IiobtEl.t:Sti r.,XbfILlES t: ITt1 CHILnRE-4
42 -
2G'S 1-1
Drug or ll!g1 nu.
A!�ol;ol ADu;e ur I mcbr:n ll
Conditions
Xii
Plty;:G:, Post h tanrat .
015.1bdey SUuY, Ut,orC�r
!P isltl
Dt D -a 0%
I. nramC Heal!h Ilaumati, AIDS1111V
Pradlenls Brainlnt1w; Relatcd
1h tt); or gift uhol 111,10v it 111, I%%ullirth n r,t ,retuil,alld r plightirnr• u.11. I'hv>a al Ilkabilm.11 N. 'a,t•I'nnnnalIt
51gr,%Dmilrlrr(NISM Ii Ir1.011mliI hr,dlllprdhl,rtt+11.1'1• Ilgtutlutlit Brain lujtt)ytla').AI1)5/11It' reLglc•d
11 Iii
,glut, I• aPlrlicd tial t•r t lw%v,1r r It 1201;l. Uur in ('wolf t Nrnlu Ir ,ti Sul vev. 11'ul,uttrdlr. CA
Despite the evidence showing that this constituency suffers a disproportionately high set of
mentaVemotional health illnesses and conditions NO SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED TO
THOSE LIVING AT LOURDES.
THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER/ZONING COMMISSIONER DEMONSTRATED BIAS
IN HIS HANDLING OF THE APPLICATION AND IN HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE
PLANNING COMISSION'S — THEREFORE THE DECISIONS MADE INCORPORATING
SAID BIAS SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.
Documentation received thgrough a California Public Records Act request, made by petitioner,
demonstrated that Mr. Jensen, the Planning Commissioner/Acting Zoning Administrator
demonstrated a bias in favor of the applicant.
Evidence of Mr. Jensen's bias is demonstrated by the includion of Condition 7
The documentation revealed that Mr. Jensen wouldl take materials sent from Appellant to the
Planning Commissioner/Acting Zoning Administrator was shared with the Applicants and their
attorneys but Applicant was not provided the same benefits. Indeed there is evidence of
significant ex -parte communication between the Planning Commissioner/Zoning Administratror
and the Applicants demonstrating that he had a bias in favor of the applicants. Said information
will be presented to the City Counsel prior to the hearing on this appeal.
An example of the bias can be demonstrated by the fact that Appelant was not given notice of the
Administrator's Proposed Decision despite the Administrator having all of Applicant's contact.
Apparently, Appellant was the only one who suffered this mistake.
Mr. Jensen, the assigned City Planner and Acting Zoning Administrator, demonstrated his bias
when he went beyoind what the Petitioners had asked for, an Ammended Conditional Use Permit
to expire in two years and stated that one of the three things the sisters would have to do (shall)
at the end of the two year period was to apply for an extension of the Ammended Conditional
Use Permit in perpetuity. In the Decision, advanced to the Planning Commission for approval,
under Conditions of Use, Paragraph 7, Mr. Jensen stated the following:
This Use Permit Amendment is approved for two (2) years commencing on the issuance
date of Certificate of Occupancy. At the end of the two year period the Use Permit
Amendment will terminate. At that time, the project proponent shall be required to
proceed with one of the following for the `yellow hallway'
a Request an extension to this Use Permit Amendment to continue the transitional
housing use for a term period of in perpetuity.
b Re -purpose the single residential dwelling unit to another residential use such as for
a managets/caretaker unit or for convent use, or
c Remove the kitchen facility and return the area to its current use as residential
convent rooms
This reveals a bias. When Mr. Jensen was asked to correct the Condition as an oversight in
direct contradiction to the application and all of the time spent by the neighbors in coming up0
with the 2 year sunset clause, he originally refused only assenting to do so after the Applicants
asked him to do so. This clearly shows a bias and the whole process has been tainted.
When, as is the case here, there is evidenc of bias on behalf of a decisionmaker, or one who
stands in a unique position as a public servent to influence the decisionmaker, in the process fair
process is denied the party against whom the bias is found and the decision affected by such bias
should be overturned. That is the case here.
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS RULING IS UPHELD, ANY CHANGE IN
ZONINGIUSE SHOULD HAVE A CONDITION TO RUN WITH THE LAND THAT IF
THE SISTERS EVER TRANSFER TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE BY
SALE. OR GIFT, THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING USE MUST TERMINATE
Just as the PD zoning was allowed to remain as long as the Convent remained associated with
the Dominican College, so as to assure that the College would have oversight and the community
could be assured of continuity and a stable custodian, if the Sisters leave, that is stop utilizing the
facility, sell it, gift it or otherwise dissacociate from Lourdes, the Ammended Conditional Use
should immediately terminate and the property revert to a R -la zoning district. Part of
what is relied upon by the Zoning Administrator is the reassurance that he believes exists given
the fact that the Sisters will live in close proximity, in residence, at Lourdes. If that safeguard no
longer exists, the transitional housing relationship should automatically expire.
SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISION'S DECISION BE UPHELD THERE SHOULD
BE A MORITORiUM OF 3 MONTHS FOLLOWING THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2
YEAR AMENDED USE PERMIT SO THAT THOSE WITHIN THE AFFECTED
COMMUNITY (who have indicated concern — and those indicating support) CAN HAVE
TIME TO REFLECT UPON AND DISCUSS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY
FUTURE AMMENDMENT TO THE CHANGE IN USE
This application has resulted in a significant amount of public debate, concern and rancour
relating to the perceived impact that the Ammended Conditional Use may have on the
neighborhood. Admiditedly this concern is somewhat speculative. Should the winds continue to
blow in the direction they are blowing, and The Counsel deny the Appeal, The Counsel, in its
role of fostering community cohesion should impose an additional condition on the Permit to
foster community dialogue and decisionmaking in light of what will then be "track record" of
operation. Specifically The Counsel should require that following the expiration of the 2 years it
is the intent of the Applicants to re -apply for a continuation of the Ammended Conditional Use
Permit, there be a 3 month moratorium before any such permit be submitted, or considered, and
the Applicant's should be instructed to hold a noticed community meeting, giving notice through
the Black Canyon Neighborhood Association, to review with their neighbors and community the
performance of the program, and concerns that either side may have after the program has been
in effect.
Miscelanious Concerns re 77 Locust and Lourdes
Given that the whole purpose behind the creation of PD special zoning for this address was
because of the Convent and/or the property's affiliation with Domenican College, should the
Sisters cease using this as a convent, the PD district should be abolished and the property should
revert back to the R -la residential zoning and its use be in character with the surrounding single
family residential neighborhood.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons the appeal should be granted and Zoning Administrators Action,
and Planning Commission's Decision overturned. This is a rezonning, and as such a much
more formal and deliberative process should be undertaken so as to reevaluate the appropriate
zoning for this parcel.
Christopher B. Dolan Esq.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project:
PROJECT: 77 Locust Avenue (Lourdes Convent) — Appeal of the Planning Commission's March 14, 2017 action
denying appeals(s) of the Zoning Administrator's action, and approving a Use Permit (UP 16-057) to
allow the conversion of a 1,995 -square -foot area of the Lourdes Convent from congregate housing
(Dominican Sisters) to a single dwelling unit for transitional housing proposed to be shared by two adult
women and their children. The Use Permit is proposed to authorize the transitional housing unit as a
temporary use for two years. APN: 015-112-23; Planned Development (PD) Zoning District; Appellant:
Christopher Dolan; Congregation of the Most Holy Name Support Charitable Trust, property owner;
Appeal File No: AP 17-003.
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff
recommends a finding that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is
Categorically Evempt front the provisions of the Califonda Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under 14
CCR Section 15-701(Evisting Facilities). 1f the Planning Commission determines that this project is in an
environmentally sensitive area, fitrther studies may be required.
HEARING DATE: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION:
San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
WHAT WILL
You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and
HAPPEN:
decide whether to approve or deny the appeal.
IF YOU CANNOT
You can send written correspondence by email to the address above, or by post to the
ATTEND:
Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, 1400 5'I'
Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901. You can also hand deliver it prior to the action date.
FOR MORE
Contact Paul Jensen, Project Planner at (415) 485-5064 or Maul.icnscn (-d citvolsanrufacl.orL,.
INFORMATION:
You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to
look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You
can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at
hllj�://N'\1'\V.l' IIY<�lti.lnrQlaCLhfJI11Cl'tl n!!5.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Esther Beirne
Esther Beime
CITY CLERK
At the above time and place, all written correspondence received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge
in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code
Section 65009 (b) (2)).
Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90'h day following the
date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6)
Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198
(TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request.
Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling
Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964.
To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple, chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting1hearir18, individuals are requested
to refrain from wearing scented products.
Please publish in the Marin IJ on April 27, 2017