A.  CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, INVOCATION AND ROLL CALL

Invocation - Pastor C. P. Titus, Christ Church North Bay

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Jim Henderson

Mayor Pro Tem John Mani

Councilmember Michael Di Giorgio

Councilmember Carole Dillon-Knutson

Councilmember Pat Eklund

Also present: City Manager Roderick Wood, Assistant City Manager Walter Bobkiewicz, Community Development Director Carol Branan, Police Chief Brian Brady, Community Services Director Larry Dito, Acting Planning Manager Jennifer Barrett, City Engineer Steve Wallace, Senior Planner Hans Grunt, Recreational Supervisor Kathy Graves, Consultant Sonia Seeman, Hamilton Consultant Ken Bell, Contract Planner Elizabeth Cobb, Financial Advisor Debbie Kern, Special Council Joe Coomes, Assistant Special Council Seth Merewitz, City Clerk Shirley Gremmels

B.  CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT

6:00 p.m., Simmons House Conference Room

The City Attorney announced that the Council met in Closed Session for the items listed on their agenda and no action was taken to report.

C.  CEREMONIAL MATTERS/PRESENTATIONS

Proclamations: National Sexual Assault Awareness Month

Holocaust Memorial, April 15-22, 2001

Marin Earth Day - April Waste Free Lunch Month

Fishing in the City Month

D.  APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA

(Note: The minutes follow the order of the printed agenda regardless of actions taken by Council to reorder the agenda.)

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Di Giorgio, to approve the final agenda.

The motion carried unanimously.

E.  PUBLIC COMMENTS

Eileen Moylan, representing the Save Bahia Committee, stated that they were concerned about misleading information given by the Bahia Now Committee on the dredge and lock project. She said the 424 unit development project was too big for the neighborhood and urged a "no" vote on the Bahia Project to prevent overcrowding of schools and increased traffic and preserve wetlands. She stated that the only reason she and her husband cannot vote on this project is because of the "cherry stemmed" City limits.

Robert Weeden, 2516 Topaz Drive, member of the Save Bahia Committee, stated that he was opposed to the 424-unit project. He said that the residents of Bahia had been promised $10,000 each if the project is approved. He was concerned about traffic and preservation of wetlands. Art C, LLC, the developer, has the support of about 35 residents in Bahia who work on his project and ask their neighbors for support.

Lynn Emrich, 3005 Topaz Drive, co-chair of the Save the Bahia Committee, urged that the campaign be kept honest. She referred to literature that has been distributed that she said was misleading. The literature claims that the dredge and lock problems will be solved. She stated that she supports the dredge and lock project which is not the same project. The developer is spending huge amounts of money on the campaign. She stated that theirs is a small home-grown committee.

Jim Emrich, 3005 Topaz Drive, also voiced his concern about the information that was disseminated by the Bahia Now campaign. He stated that the information claims that Measure A will provide fire safety. He read portions of Fire Marshal Craig's letter where there is discussion about cul-de-sacs not being conducive to fire safety, that an emergency road was needed and that the Rural Street Standards proposed to be used were not acceptable.

Jon Dahlstrom, 2811 Topaz Drive, stated that he has lived in Bahia for the last 16 years and he moved in just prior to the last dredging. That dredging only lasted for three years. Now there is 36,000 cubic yards of mud and sludge in their lagoon. He urged support of the Bahia Project and commended those who have supported the residents for all these years. The project is good for those who live in Bahia.

Al Groendt, Bugeia Lane, stated that he was in support of the dredging project but opposed to the development project. Since both projects need the support from the same support base, the mitigation will be shared and will compete with each other.

Harry O'Brien, attorney for Campus Management, applicant for the San Marin Office Project, referred to his letter of April 10, 2001, and the comments he made at the last meeting. With regard to ridgeline protection, they believe that portions of the Code are overzealous. He referred to the other options that he provided in his April letter that allow some flexibility. The density reductions and Design Review component were fine but the height limitation needed some further work by staff.

Councilmember Di Giorgio stated that he wanted to talk about this issue last time. He said he would remove the item from the Consent Calendar.

Charles Kellogg, 54 Pizarro Avenue, recognized Councilmember Eklund and Tom Gamble for their hard work on the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). He read his letter of April 10 which he distributed calling for the City to formally request that Jerry Vincent, Senior Program Manager, Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) and the Army Corps of Engineers expedite securing additional funding for the proposed Land Fill 26 Methane Remediation Project.

The City Manager responded that a letter has already been sent on that issue. The letter stresses that closed bases' landfill issues should be addressed before moving on to fund bases that are just now closing.

Councilmember Di Giorgio referred to the election on the Bahia Project and asked for civility and decorum. He said that members of the campaign should refrain from name calling.

F.  CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 2 and 3 were removed)

1.  PROPOSED FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE

Council held the second reading and adopted Ordinance 1440 help reduce the number of false alarms that are generated throughout the City.

4.  JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT (file 413-05)

Council adopted Resolution 36-01 authorizing the transfer of the Novato Police Department Juvenile Accountability Block Grant monies to the County of Marin Juvenile Drug Court Program

5.  HAMILTON COAST GUARD TENNIS COURT RENOVATION (CIP PROJECT 00-003) (file 803-02)

Council awarded construction contract to North Bay Construction, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $331,162 representing the base bid.

6.  THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED BY STAFF

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to approve Ordinance 1440, Resolution 36-01 and the remainder of the Consent Calendar by role-call vote.

The motion carried unanimously.

F.  ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

2.  ZONING CODE AND MAP REVISION AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE (file 201-03)

Consider introducing Ordinance 1441 adopting: (a) the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance; (b) new Zoning Map reclassifying all property within the City of Novato; and (c) other amendments to the Municipal Code regarding Development Standards, Land Subdivisions, Development Agreements, Streets and Sidewalks, and Trees and Shrubs, ZT 98-001.

Councilmember Mani stated that he has received both telephone calls and letters from Mr. Upton and Mr. O'Brien of Campus Management regarding the ridgelines and he also shares Councilmember Di Giorgio's concern. He wanted to see a larger gray zone.

Councilmember Eklund requested that Acting Planning Manager Barrett respond to a letter received from Harry O'Brien, attorney for the Campus Management applicant for the San Marin Office Development Project, regarding hillside and ridgeline protection.

The Acting Planning Manager stated that the 10 percent slope or greater was intended to evoke Design Review. The definition that is used in the Zoning Code is the same standard that has been used for 30 years and really has not had problems interpreting the definition. She stated that, if in the future, there are some problems, staff will bring it back for clean-up revisions. Staff already anticipates that there will be "clean-up" amendments required for the Zoning Code in the next year. The applicant does not want to measure within 300 feet of the property. Their counterproposal will eliminate many of the hillsides the Council said to protect. She advised that to change this part of the Zoning Code required going back to the Planning Commission. She stated that she has talked to the applicant and has advised of those facts.

Councilmember Di Giorgio was concerned that the hillside and ridgeline provision of the Code was too restrictive and he was leery about adopting it and then having to revise it again.

The Acting Planning Manager described the mechanisms that add flexibility: findings can be made to approve a project, a Master Plan can be done in which a different hillside standard is allowed and the interpretation if there is a developed ridge.

Councilmember Eklund stated that Council and staff have worked very hard to be able to now introduce the Zoning Ordinance. The hillside and ridgelines are what have made Novato so unique. She wanted to protect them as was discussed during the General Plan hearings. All the Council at that time wanted to protect the hillside and ridges. She believed the standard afforded Council the flexibility that is needed. She did not want to make an eleventh hour change at this point. If changes are needed, revisions can be made later.

Mayor Pro Tem Mani agreed with Councilmember Di Giorgio and stated that portions should be reworked. He questioned if the ordinance could be postponed.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson stated that people who come to Novato see that the City's ridges and hillsides are protected. They are an asset to the citizens of Novato. Other communities in Marin have not protected that resource. Staff has indicated that there are always exceptions that could be requested. If a wonderful project comes forth, there is flexibility to approve that project. She emphasized that since the Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan and has been worked on for the last six years, it should not be changed at this late date. The problems can be addressed as they come forthward.

The City Manager advised if the majority of the Council believed that clarification was needed, the item should be continued.

Councilmember Di Giorgio stated that the adoption procedure has been long and arduous but he wanted to avoid an eleventh hour mistake. He also was very proud of Novato's ridgelines and wanted to continue to protect them but he needed further clarification to make sure that commonsense prevailed.

The Acting Planning Manager referred to Mr. O'Brien's letter dated April 10, 2001, and stated that staff could support Option 1 as outlined in that letter. This option could be incorporated without going back to the Planning Commission first.

The public comment session was opened.

Gail Meyers, 2 Carmel Drive, showed pictures of the ridgeline at sunset on the Marion property. She was concerned that if there was already development in the area that the developer would be able to build on this ridgeline as well. She said she would referendum the whole Zoning Code in that case. She referred to the office building that was approved at the corner of DeLong and Redwood Boulevard and stated that that project should never have been approved.

Harry O'Brien, attorney representing Campus Management, the applicant for the San Marin Office Project, stated that they have been raising these issues for months so it has not just been brought up at the eleventh hour. He said that they understand that it was the intent of staff to monitor the progress and that they would come back to Council if they encountered difficulties. They believe that the height limitation is new and not what staff has always used. The exception criteria are very specific and difficult. Findings must be made that no feasible building site can be found. Although their project has a Master Plan and the exception criteria would not apply, they were still concerned about the 25-foot-height limit. He responded to Mayor Pro Tem Mani that the 10 percent slope provision, Section 19.26.020, required an applicant to work through the ordinance to see how it applies to the property. If the exception provision is not used, the applicant would be limited to a 25-foot height. The way he understood the theory was that an earthen dropback had to be provided.

The public hearing was closed.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson stated that there has been a long process by staff, Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, and Council to "hammer out" the update of the Code. She noted that San Rafael adopted such an ordinance too late to protect their ridgelines. She wanted developers who wanted to work with the City rather than the other way around.

The City Manager reiterated that if the majority of the Council felt the ordinance was too ambiguous, direction should be given that it be brought back for additional language to consider which would probably take 45 days. The ordinance could be introduced with the language change suggested by the attorney for Campus Management as agreed to by staff without having to send it back to the Planning Commission. With regard to signs, staff's understanding was that the political signs could be the same size as the community signs.

Councilmember Di Giorgio stated that he did not want to accept the developer's language as City staff is very capable of developing the appropriate language for the City. He would be amendable to coming back in 45 days with additional language options to make sure that the hillside and ridgeline protection provisions are not too onerous. He did not want Novato's ridgelines to be spoiled or want Novato to look like San Rafael.

Mayor Pro Tem Mani stated that this provision of the ordinance was ambiguous and could be interpreted in many different ways.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to introduce the ordinance as presented by staff.

Mayor Henderson stated that since the process has worked for 30 years, it probably will work for the next 20. He was reluctant to have any definitions that include 125 feet as suggested by Mr. O'Brien in his letter.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to amend the main motion to allow political signs in residential zones in the right-of-way up to 24 square feet. The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

The main motion as amended carried unanimously.

3.  REVISED STREET TREE LIST AND NEW STREAM MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES (file 201-03)

Consider Resolutions 34-01 and 35-01 adopting a revised Street Tree List and new Stream Management Guidelines, referenced in the updated Zoning Code.

Mayor Henderson stated that he removed the item from the Consent Calendar because he wanted to remove the Western Red Bud from Group 3 because it actually was more of a bush that had to be trained to be a tree requiring considerable upkeep and add the Indian Laurel Fig. To Group 5, he wanted to add the Madrone, Manzanita, and Toyon.

Public comments session was opened and closed without none received.

Councilmember Di Giorgio moved, seconded by Councilmember Eklund, to approve the recommendation of Mayor Henderson.

The motion carried unanimously.

At 8:35 p.m. the five minute recess was taken.

G.  UNFINISHED AND OTHER BUSINESS

H.  WRITTEN COMMUNICATION

I.  PUBLIC HEARINGS

7.  CAPEHART/HILLSIDE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXCEPTIONS (file 208-05)

Consider adopting resolutions for a land use application for the following: (a) a Precise Development Plan (PD 00-013) (Resolution 37-01) for the Capehart/Hillside Subdivision to allow development of 648 new affordable, multi-family dwelling units; finished building pads for 60 transitional housing units; three privately maintained pocket parks and a central park; daycare center(s); and dedication of open space; and (b) a Tentative Map (SB 00-010) (Resolution 38-01) for the subdivision. The Precise Development Plan and Tentative Map propose Subdivision of the 208.8-acre site into 7 lots for multi-family use, and 3 lots for open space. Said application includes a request for exceptions to the City's adopted development standards to permit: (1) a reduced landscape area between a parking area and street improvements (Section 5-28.008-b-3-a); (2) sidewalks setback from the street curb (Section 5-34.008-a-2-c); 3) parking lanes eliminated for 36 foot or wider street sections (Section 5-45.008-b-j-2); and 4) parking spaces for multi-family units designed to back onto streets (Section 5-45.008-2-t). The subject property is located east of U.S. 101, within the Hamilton Reuse area, and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers 155-010-02, -07, -21, -36, and -72 and 155-020-01 and -05.

The Assistant City Manager noted that Items 7 and 8 were being done in tandem and were two important components of the Hamilton Reuse Plan, the third of which is the Rafael Village Tentative Map and Precise Development Plan to be presented to Council on April 16, 2001. He referred to correspondence received from the Marin Continuum of Housing and Services for Item 7, and for Item 8 the letters received from the Housing Council and the Novato Unified School District. He also referred to two staff memorandums for additional modifications that are being requested for the approvals. He introduced staff: Hans Grunt, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Cobb, Ken Bell and Laura Forbes, RBF Consulting; Debbie Kern, Kaiser Marston; Sonia Seeman, Consultant; and Joe Coomes and Seth Merewitz, McDonough, Holland and Allen.

Elizabeth Cobb, contract planner, referred to the staff memorandum and guided the Council through the requested technical corrections. She also referred to the memo from Special Counsel Coomes and read the requested addition to the first paragraph on page 3 of the Council resolution approving the Precise Development Plan as follows: "and subject further to any technical, clarifying and conforming changes approved by the City Attorney and Special Counsel:" She continued that the following should be added to the first paragraph on page 4 of the resolution approving the Tentative Map: "and subject further to any technical, clarifying and conforming changes approved by the City Attorney and Special Counsel." She continued that a requested new Condition 97 to the Tentative Map would read as follows: "The implementing documents attached as exhibits to the Final Affordable Housing Plan, including but not limited to the Affordable Housing Agreement (Exhibit C), the Capehart Resale Restrictions and Options to Purchase Agreement (Exhibit G), and the Rafael Village Resale Restrictions and Options to Purchase Agreement (Exhibit H) shall be subject to revision and clarification, consistent with the Development Agreement and the final Affordable Housing Plan, to the satisfaction and approval of the City Attorney and Special Counsel prior to and as a condition of approval of the first Final Map for the Capehart/Hillside Subdivision or Rafael Village Subdivision, whichever comes first." The Council indicated agreement that the memo from the Special Counsel would become part of the record. She concluded by referring to the staff report and the new conditions proposed for the Tentative Map and Precise Development Plan.

Special Counsel Coomes responded to Councilmember Eklund that the proposed new Condition 96 to the Tentative Map regarding the 25 affordable rental units for conveyance to the College of Marin, that the language was worded to permit the City to conclude the negotiations with the College of Marin and under what terms the units would be made available.

The City Manager responded to Councilmember Eklund that whether the College of Marin would own the land is unknown at this time and will be determined in the negotiations. He further responded to Councilmember Eklund and Mayor Pro Tem Mani that in the negotiations the City will be looking to include the reverter language that was used for the transitional housing. Councilmember Eklund stated that if the College of Marin could not use the units, they should not have the right to sell the property.

Tom Gamble, Executive Vice President of Shea Homes, Managing Partner for the New Community Partners (NCP), stated that this has been a long process. NCP was one of the original teams who thought that the best approach was to rebuild rather than retrofit the project. He emphasized the importance of having workforce housing and stated that this would be the best affordable housing project in the United Stated. He stated that in his 30 years of doing projects, he has never had a better working relationship with City staff and consultants. The schedule established two years ago is only off by one month. He thanked the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager for making themselves so accessible when their assistance was needed. He also thanked Special Counsel Coomes and his staff. He advised that staff was in contact with NCP on the proposed additional changes and new conditions and they have no objections.

Laurie Mosset-Fehlberg, Architect Land Planner for NCP, stated that this was a landmark project, for which the City should be very proud. She described the project, stating that they have removed the housing along the creek to avoid flooding concerns, have a greenbelt on the creek and increase the riparian habitat. They utilize the existing pads to the extent possible because of the existing tree canopy. The footprints were decreased by removing some of the units. She illustrated samples of the housing product.

The public hearing was opened.

Gail Meyers, 2 Carmel Drive, distributed her letter of April 10 to the Council and read it into the record regarding her concerns that this project should be for people who work in Novato and should not be subsidized. Also, she was concerned about how the developer planned to finance the for sale units.

Special Counsel Coomes responded at the request of the mayor that deed restrictions will be required to be subordinated to any loans for financing of the housing.

Charles Kellogg, 54 Pizarro Avenue, was concerned that the density of Neighborhood Seven at 12.4 was too high. He stated that he did not want the density to be any higher than in the original plan.

At Council's request, Special Counsel Coomes responded that in the Reuse Plan, there was a targeted number of units and the goal was to try to achieve those units. This was also true with the Redevelopment Plan that the City has with the County.

Elizabeth Cobb responded to Councilmember Eklund regarding the density going from 10.4 to 12.4 that a consistency analysis was done which allowed for the transfer of units where there were restrictions. The Land Use Element of the General Plan was satisfied to allow for clustering of units to preserve open space.

The City Manager clarified that the number of units should not be greater than what is specified in the Reuse Plan, which was 708 units. This project protects the hillsides and creeks. The Reuse Plan recognizes that some shifting would be necessary. Councilmember Di Giorgio noted that Neighborhood Seven was where the Navy constructed the newest units. He questioned whether that was the existing density.

Laurie Mosset-Fehlberg responded that it was necessary to use clustering to save the tree canopy and use the existing pads.

Elizabeth Cobb responded to Councilmember Dillon-Knutson that the project exceeds the parking requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Mani noted that they had 2.3 parking spaces per unit. Elizabeth Cobb added that the parking on the street is not counted.

David Brewer, 19 Alta Mira Court, discussed the importance of affordable housing and its impact on Novato. He stated that he was an organizational psychologist and that he grew up in affordable housing as his father was disabled. He supported the integration of affordable housing throughout the community as a social economic model.

Kathleen Westenberg, 241 Marin Valley Drive, owner of a unit at Marin Valley Terrace, stated that she wanted to be sure that the setback requirements are followed for the units that are close to their property line. She also was concerned that the existing fence was not in the plan. She said that the developer was going to maintain it and there should be something in writing. She said there were problems with the signal at Bolling and Nave Drive was concerned and that the soundwall ended at that location. The construction hours of 7:00 to 7:00 for noise should be from 8:00 to 7:00. She stated that there were 18 units that would benefit by the extension of the soundwall and she also mentioned that she thought the off-ramp as constructed presented a safety hazard. She wanted to put the City on record of her requests and urged they be implemented.

Elizabeth Cobb responded at the Council's request. She referred to Condition 22 of the Tentative Map which stated that the fence would be either retained or repaired. With regard to the setbacks, she referred to Condition 7A of the Precise Development Plan, which requires a ten-foot rear setback. For the request regarding construction noise, she referred to Conditions 9 and 28 in the Precise Development Plan that required that within 500 feet of existing residences or adjacent property, construction will be limited to the hours of 8:00 and 5:00, Monday through Friday. She also referred to the noise mitigation.

The City Engineer responded with regard to the signalization at Bolling and Nave, that the signal could be designed to ensure that there are no problems created by the operation of the signal.

Laura Forbes, Contract Planner with RBF, referred to the EIR which stated that the applicant should look for ways to extend the soundwall in coordination with CalTrans. However, the criteria cannot be met to do so. An incremental increase in residential construction does not trigger a warrant for a soundwall at that location.

Councilmember Di Giorgio stated that the existing soundwall bounces the sound to the other side of the freeway. He suggested other methods of using other natural materials could be considered. Laura Forbes advised that existing noise conditions from the freeway already exceeds the City's General Plan.

The City Manager clarified that the freeway already produces a significant amount of noise. Under State nexus law, the City is prohibited from forcing the applicant to fix the noise issue.

Joan Goode, 11 Altamira Court, homeowner at Bayside Subdivision, stated that she had concerns about the density of the Capehart/Hillside project as it will be the size of four of the existing subdivisions at the New Hamilton Partnership project. She felt that crime, ongoing maintenance and percentage of rental units versus homeowner occupancy would produce unfavorable neighborhoods. She responded to Councilmember Di Giorgio that she was not advised when she purchased her home that this type of project was to be constructed.

The public hearing was closed.

Mayor Pro Tem Mani stated that he lives near Hamilton and his neighbors are always asking about the project. He gave a lengthy description of the project, outlining its density, its different components and amenities as stated in the staff report. He said he was a whole-hearted supporter of the project and thanked the City Manager, who was the major architect to bring about the project.

Councilmember Eklund stated that there was no question that the City has made considerable headway getting to this point in the project. With regard to the financing of the affordable housing, she referred to Page 4, Chapter Two, of the Final Affordable Housing Plan and asked for clarification on the tax credits.

Debbie Kern, Keyser-Marston, explained that if for some reason tax credits cannot be secured, the developer would still have to build the units to the Navy's requirement of affordability.

Elizabeth Cobb responded to Councilmember Eklund with regard to Condition 7, setback requirements, that the condition is consistent with the City's current standards. She reiterated that the master developer is using the existing pads. With regard to the two daycare centers, she responded that they will have the same setback requirements as for the units. She further responded that all the mitigation measures have been met.

The City Manager clarified to Councilmember Eklund regarding Condition 62 in the Tentative Map that the master developer will be required to comply with the process in place at the time of issuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Ken Bell, Hamilton Consultant, also stated that requirements for stormwater quality were standard prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

Councilmember Eklund questioned the bus stop on Nave Drive, stating that there was no bus service at that location and that bus riders would actually need to go to the park and ride lot on the other side of the freeway to take a bus to San Francisco. Elizabeth Cobb responded the intent was to provide pickup service. The Assistant City Manager clarified that a shuttle service was part of the approval for the New Hamilton Partners project.

Councilmember Di Giorgio stated that he started working on the Hamilton project when he served on the Homeless Commission. At the time, there was also concern raised about the homeless shelter by the neighborhoods. The City put in place very strict regulations. Capehart will not be a ghetto because of the regulations in place. He also supported the project very strongly. The City has been working on Hamilton since 1974, when the base first closed. With this affordable housing program, the City is almost doubling the deed-restricted affordable housing that will be available in Marin County. Currently, 50 percent of the median income is $90,000, so the occupants of these units will be teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc. He thanked everyone for their efforts on this project.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson stated that she worked on the Hamilton project before she was elected to the Council as a member of the Hamilton Advisory Commission, along with Councilmember Di Giorgio. Many different stakeholder groups that had an interest were involved and there was much compromise that occurred to develop a very good Reuse Plan. At that time, the vision was workforce housing, so that teachers, safety employees and other City employees could live in Novato. The master developer has taken the vision and implemented it very well. She wished that other projects would come forth with some of the amenities of this project. She was happy that the existing tree canopy could be used effectively. The plan is balanced and will be an asset to the whole community. She said that she would proudly support the project.

Mayor Pro Tem Mani stated that those nearby are concerned about protecting of their property values. He advised that all seven neighborhoods will belong to a homeowners association. There will be on-site management and the common areas will be protected and maintained. He stated that Hamilton will be a beautiful community and is the City's jewel. He stated that it was one of the reasons he ran for office and felt this project was an obvious "win-win." He stated that Hugh Scott, Chair of the Ignacio Neighborhoods Committee (INC) deserved credit for his lobbying efforts through the years. Everyone can be very proud of this exemplary project.

Councilmember Eklund stated that she would support the project for the same reasons stated by her colleagues, but most of all, for the affordable workforce housing it will provide. She talked about members of her family who have been unsuccessful in purchasing property in Marin because of the cost. She stated that this housing will be safe and well maintained. She thought the available parking and open space would be phenomenal and was happy the trees could be saved.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to adopt the resolution approving the Precise Development Plan, including the changes and additions recommended by staff in their memorandum. The motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to adopt the resolution approving the Tentative Map.

After the City Manager responded to Councilmember Eklund that Council should give direction regarding the College of Marin condition that the property have reversion language back to the NPFA if the 25 units are not used, Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Di Giorgio, to amend the main motion to include adding a Condition 96 as follows: "Prior to the first Final Map approval at the City's election in its sole and absolute discretion, the Developer shall provide for a site to accommodate up to 25 affordable rental units to be deed-restricted for very-low and low-income persons for conveyance to the College of Marin. The location of the site and the terms of the conveyance shall be proposed by the City and shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Developer. Said site and the terms of its conveyance to the College of Marin shall be subject to City Council review and approval."

The City Manager responded to Mayor Pro Tem Mani that the College of Marin units would have the same moderate mix in order to abide with the covenants required by the Navy. Staff has talked to the College of Marin. He responded to Mayor Henderson that the College of Marin has certain rights under State law. He responded to Councilmember Dillon-Knutson that he believed staff would be able to negotiate covenants with the District such as the City has with other agencies.

The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Mani, to amend the main motion to add to the end of Condition 38: "nearby public transportation facilities." The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

The main motion as amended carried unanimously.

J.  GENERAL BUSINESS

8.  HAMILTON REUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENTS FOR CAPEHART/HILLSIDE: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING COORDINATION PLAN AND AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING RESIDENT SELECTION PLAN (file 207-04)

Consider adopting Resolutions 39-01, 40-01 and 41-01 approving Hamilton Reuse affordable housing components for Capehart/Hillside; including: (a) Affordable Housing Plan, (b) Transitional Housing Coordination Plan, and (c) Affordable Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan. These three components are addressed in two staff reports: one report combines the discussion and recommendations on the Affordable Housing Plan and Transitional Housing Coordination Plan, and one report addresses the Affordable Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan.

The Assistant City Manager stated that this was the second component of the Reuse Plan to be heard.

Special Counsel Coomes gave the staff report, noting that this plan was developed under the procedures set up under Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act for the disposition of surplus military property. It was a "long, drawn-out" process, but the City was finally able to use the negotiated sale process for the fair market value. To justify a fair market sale, the Navy had to find a purpose. The reuse process involved all the stakeholders identified under BRAC. The affordable housing component was the justification for the Navy to make the sale. The ranges of affordability are mandated by the Navy. The percentage of rental and the affordability will run in perpetuity or the land would have to be surrendered. There were two components of restriction, the affordable workforce housing and the 60 transitional units, which were also approved by the Housing & Urban Development Department (HUD). After the decision to demolish the units, it was determined to cluster the 60 transitional units and the pads will be conveyed to the Novato Public Finance Authority (NPFA) to be leased to the affordable housing providers for transitional units under an agreement to lease.

Councilmember Di Giorgio remembered that during discussions of the transitional housing plan, there was stipulation that if the units were not built after a certain period of time, the pads revert back to the NPFA.

Consultant Sonia Seeman referred to their agreement to lease and said that if the providers are unable to construct the units, NPFA must find another provider. If the units were already constructed and the units were in default for some reason, it would be up to the NPFA to find a successor entity to manage the program. She stressed that there were many opportunities built into the agreement to make sure the program is successful. Eventually, if the program is not successful, the units are designated to be for the low or very-low category.

Debbie Kern, Keyser-Marston, gave a presentation on the key elements of the affordable housing plan. If the developer receives the tax credits, he must meet the City's deeper level of affordability. If the developer does not receive the tax credits, he would still have to meet the Navy's level of affordability but he would have more time to do the project, up to 12 years.

Consultant Seeman gave the staff report on the transitional housing orientation plan. She stated that the Housing & Services Commission heard the plan with no changes and recommended that it be adopted. She also gave a report on the Resident Selection Plan. The Housing & Services Commission had two recommendations: to include the Novato Unified School District employees in the second priority and to move the Novato Fire Protection District Fire Fighting personnel from the second priority to the first priority. Staff recommended that the Novato Unified School District be added to the second category. She responded to Councilmember Di Giorgio that the Marin Continuum of Housing & Services will have an interest in a portion of the Commissary site.

Councilmember Di Giorgio remembered the discussions when he was on the Hamilton Advisory Commission that this project should benefit people from Novato. He questioned why it has been reduced for Novato residents to one-third of the units available.

Special Counsel Coomes advised that since this was the largest affordable housing project in the County, the preferences and criteria are subject to a developing area of the law. Under Constitutional provision of the equal protection of the law, the City cannot arbitrarily discriminate and particularly not against a protected class of people. There has to be rational basis and a relationship between the public interest and need. He stated that they have looked at plans of other jurisdictions and have tried to design a plan that could be supported by the data that is available and would not be subject to challenge. He referred to the Hamilton Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan and the Summary of Data/Findings Local Public Sector Employment and Affordable Workforce Housing documents that are listed as attachment. He noted that two-thirds of the local public sector employees live outside of Novato. There is not the definitive data to support starting the preference plan with more than one-third of the units being available to Novato residents. Their goal was to develop a plan that would not be challenged because on its face it was arbitrarily exclusive. The plan needed to be balanced with the need to provide adequate public service by being able to attract public service employees. The provision for one third of the units to be available to local public service employees was an educated judgement on the part of staff based on the data. After an applicant's list has been developed, more information can be gathered from the applications. He responded to Councilmember Di Giorgio that for the rest of the eligibility most will probably come from the County and other local agencies in Marin.

The City Manager stated emphatically that the public employees provide fundamental and necessary services. Council wanted to be sure to provide adequate opportunity for Novato public employees to apply and live at Hamilton. Taxpayers in Novato have borne most of the cost of Hamilton since 1974.

Mayor Pro Tem Mani was concerned that two-thirds of the preferences would be lost, which could be translated to mean $130 million tax dollars. He was concerned that for years the Council has been telling its constituents that this would be workforce housing for Novato residents, and now the Council abruptly learns that Novato will lose two-thirds of its eligibility. He questioned if it now could be given to Novato seniors.

Special Counsel Coomes responded that the plan was developed to be flexible, and modification was possible upon receiving confirming data. These types of plans are examined very strictly and HUD has disallowed local preferences in other jurisdictions in the past. Their concern in developing a plan was the very new law and the implementation of the preferences that there is a disparate discrimination against protected classes. Since the data has not yet been developed, staff can only support recommending one-third preference for Novato. Later, as the applications are received, there is flexibility to increase percentages if the data supports doing so. The data collected so far does not give the information as to who of the local government employees would actually want to apply and live at Hamilton.

Assistant Special Counsel Seth Merewitz explained that for annual compliance, and as the units are constructed at the end of each phase, there would be an opportunity for Council to reconsider the percentage of units that should be available to Novato residents.

Special Counsel Coomes responded to Mayor Pro Tem Mani that the City has to have a rational basis for selecting who would have the privilege of living in the affordable units. Documentation for the preferences and a demonstration of the need should be shown.

The City Manager noted that many employees have a spouse with a second income and already live in a single-family home in another community where housing is less expensive. It is unknown whether they would be willing to move into a townhouse to be closer to work.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson questioned whether the percentage was too conservative, as she believed there were many Novato residents who would want to live at Hamilton. Special Counsel Coomes responded with regard to affordable housing plans studied by staff in other communities, that these were very small plans compared to Novato's Affordable Housing Plan. He reiterated that staff can only support one-third at this time because they do not want to put the Council in the position of having the plan challenged or jeopardize the developer's ability to get the tax credits and bonds that are needed to construct the most affordable project. He further stated that if Council wanted preferences other than the public employees in the first tier, they would need to give direction.

Special Counsel Coomes responded to Councilmember Eklund that the Multiagency Board (MAB) list was done as a list of priorities without any analysis as to whether these priorities had supportive data. The City Manager added that plans that were just based on residency have not withstood challenge.

The public comment session was opened.

Captain Dan Northern, Novato Fire Protection District, stated that he was speaking for the future employees of the District. He advised that there will be a big turnover in employees within the District in the next five years and they believe this plan will be very helpful to hire and retain employees. He stated that 89 percent of their workforce would be eligible for the moderate range and urged that the District be given due credit. District employees who live in the community can better help protect the community.

Katie Crecelius, Marin Housing Council, stated that the tax credits are an important infusion into the property to make the units affordable. She was concerned that the plan allows for putting off the construction if the tax credits are not available. She questioned how many people would really be willing to comply with the resale provisions of the plan, which she described as onerous.

Hugh Scott, representing Ignacio Neighborhoods Committee (INC), stated that he shared the Council's frustration with the percentages recommended for Novato residents. He was angry that through the years, the community has been misled about this plan and questioned why data was not gathered on other jurisdictions.

Gail Meyers, 2 Carmel Drive, read her letter of April 10 that she distributed to the Council and stated that a challenge Novato's plan if it had a higher percentage of units available for Novato residents was not fair. She asked a number of questions to which Consultant Seeman was requested to respond.

Consultant Sonia Seeman stated that there were nine categories, of which Novato employees were number one. Water District employees are eligible to participate. With regard to the transitional housing, applicants would go through a certain progression to be eligible. Special Counsel Coomes responded that State law allows for senior housing projects.

Calvin Willhite, 10 Alta Mira Court, acknowledged that the Novato Unified School District have had been moved up in eligibility. He thought that the College of Marin employees should also be moved forward on the list. He fully supported all school employees and District offices having an opportunity for this housing, and suggested that Delanie Easton, State Superintendent of Schools, be contacted to disseminate this information Statewide. He was concerned that there was no "net worth test" for applicants.

Rita Taylor, 121 Saratoga Court, Co-President of Novato Federation of Teachers, stated that she was speaking on behalf of teachers and the Novato Unified School District. She stated that they have 451 teachers and that the beginning teachers' salaries are very low. Veteran teachers make $58,000 a year. Workforce housing would be very beneficial to Novato teachers. The District has many teachers that will soon retire. Also, the District loses teachers to neighboring communities where housing is more affordable. She was pleased that the District employees have been moved forward on the list.

Nancy Kenyon, Fair Housing of Marin, stated that Novato's Plan will be a showcase development for the rest of the United States. She noted that the one-third percentage for Novato employees was flexible, however. It was her opinion that anything higher would be violating the protected classes and be discriminatory. She urged that the Plan not be adopted until more data can be gathered on protected classes.

Leelee Shapiro, Marin Housing Council, reiterated some of her concerns that she gave to the Housing & Services Commission. She stated that because this project uses public money, it has to be affordable to all people. She referred to other smaller projects that use different kinds of money and have not been challenged. She thought this project would be challenged because of the lack of data.

Special Counsel Coomes responded to Council that the data referred to has been included in the staff report.

Charles Kellogg, Hamilton Homeowners Association, stated that according to the plan, a successful applicant does not have to move if their category changed, for example, through a job change. He questioned where the money would come from that would allow a person to still live in workforce housing if they did not pay their rent or mortgage. He questioned whether the occupancy would be mandated by the courts and was concerned about the value of the market-rate homes in the New Hamilton Partners Project.

Special Counsel Coomes responded that this project would not operate at a deficit according to the plan. For example, if a homeowner did not pay rent, the site manager would evict that person.

Consultant Debbie Kern added that there were also processes to address anyone not paying their mortgage.

David Brewer, 19 Alta Mira Court, urged that the percentages for Novato residents be much higher. He suggested that some type of Affirmative Action Plan could be included. Local agencies employees would be needed in times of natural disasters. Also, anything that would reduce traffic and pollution by removing cars from Highway 101 would be beneficial. He felt that the percentage should reflect the demographics of Novato.

The Assistant City Manager stated that staff is recommending that the Novato Unified School District be moved into the same category as the other districts and the Novato Community Hospital.

The public comment session was closed.

The City Manager summarized that this plan was intended to address a wide range of people based on income for affordable housing. The category for public employees, which includes safety employees, is obviously defendable. He stated that he understood Council's frustration, but the laws have changed as there have been court cases and new laws are being formulated in Sacramento and also by Housing & Urban Development (HUD). The goal has been workforce housing. People will be on an equal footing with regard to eligibility with two-thirds of the units being available, as that will be inclusionary housing. This project will require no future subsidies or grants, so if there are no tax credits, it will take longer to construct.

Mayor Pro Tem Mani moved, seconded by Councilmember Di Giorgio, to adopt the resolution approving the affordable housing plan, including the changes as outlined in the Special Counsel's and staff's memos referred to under Item 7 in staff's comments.

Special Counsel Coomes responded to Councilmember Eklund that adopting this resolution would not preclude the Council from again considering the Plan at a later date to examine whether the data is sufficient to change the percentages.

Councilmember Eklund was concerned that an outreach for data was not done for other public agencies.

Councilmember Di Giorgio stated that he would support the resolution because there is a possibility to adjust the percentages later. He expressed concern that it seemed that affordable housing advocates used most of the money on salaries and not on building affordable units.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson stated that she felt like she had no choice but to support the motion. She really thought that there would be a higher percentage for Novato residents. She said that the residents' sons and daughters cannot afford to live in Novato and she did not think it was discretionary to have a higher percentage of Novato residents. After all, it was the Novato taxpayers who bore the cost of Hamilton.

Councilmember Eklund stated that she would reluctantly support the motion as she would like a higher percentage for Novato residents.

The motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Di Giorgio, to adopt the resolution approving the Transitional Housing Coordination Plan. The motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Pro Tem Mani moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to adopt the resolution approving the Affordable Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan. The motion carried unanimously.

9.  POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT REPORT

Consider receiving Police Department Management Audit report.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Mani, to continue the item to April 16, 2001. The motion carried unanimously.

K.  COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND BOARDS APPOINTMENTS

L.  ADJOURNMENT AND CONTINUED TO APRIL 16, 2001

At 12:24 a.m. the meeting was adjourned and continued to April 16, 2001.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Novato City Council on the 15^th day of May, 2001.

____________________________