Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 2007-02-21 TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Gram called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:04 p.m. on Wednesday, February 21, 2007, at Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLLCALL PRESENT: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Smith Slavitz PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Planning Consultant Lisa Newman, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi CLOSED SESSION (6:30 p.m.) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(b)) One Case - (Kol Shofar Appeal, letter from appellant's attorney dated September 6, 2006) CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 2005-06 Street Rehabilitation Project - Accept Project as Complete (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen) Town Council Minutes #04 -2007 February 2 J, 2007 Page J (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Accepting the 2005-06 Street Rehabilitation Project (2006-07 Phase I) and Authorizing the Filing of the Notice of Completion for the Work 2. 6 Mateo Drive Drainage Easement - Accept New Easement for Public Drainage Purposes and Abandon Old Easement; AP No. 038-381-21 (Director of Community Development Anderson) (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Accepting an Easement for Public Drainage Purposes over Property Located at 6 Mateo Drive, Tiburon (AP#038-381-21) (b) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Abandoning a Portion of a Ten (10) foot Wide Storm Drainage Easement over Property Located at 6 Mateo Drive (AP #038-381-21) 3. Stormwater Master Plan - Authorize Town Manager to Execute Agreement with CSW -ST2 (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer) MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt Consent Calendar.Item Nos. 1, 2. and 3, as written. Berger, seconded by Smith AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz PUBLIC HEARING 4. Appeals of Planning Commission Decisions to Certify the Environmental Impact Report and to Deny the Conditional Use Permit Application for Expansion of an Existing Religious Facility and Day School - Report by Director of Community Development Scott Anderson and Planning Consultant Lisa Newman Address: 215 Blackfield Drive Assessor Parcel No.: 038-351-34 Applicant! Appellant: Congregation Kol Shofar ("CKS") Appellant: Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition ("TNC") Actions for Council Consideration: a) Adopt Resolution Denying CKS appeal of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certification b) Adopt Resolution Denying TNC appeal of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certification c) Adopt Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project Town Council Minutes #04 -2007 February 21, 2007 Page 2 d) Adopt Resolution Making California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact e) Adopt Resolution Partially Granting the CKS appeal of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) denial, approving a Conditional Use Permit, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program All resolutions were adopted, as reflected in the official transcript. The hearing was transcribed by Maya Morohoshi, CSR, of American Reporting Services, LLC. ADJOURNMENT p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled On April 4, 2007, the Town Council adopted the transcript of the hearing while noting that it was a "general summary of proceedings." The Council also adopted amendments in the form of errata sheets, submitted by Councilmember Paul Smith, Director of Community Development Scott Anderson, and Planning Manager Dan Watrous (attached). Copies of the transcript are available at Town Hall. Town Council Minutes #04 -2007 February 21, 2007 Page 3 p. 13, line 24 p. 14, line 3 p. 14,line 5 p. 14, line 8 p. 14, line 20 p.14,line21 p. 14, line 24 p. 15, line 5 p. 15, line 10 p. 15, line 11 p. 15, line 1 7 p. 15, line 19 p. 15, line 22 p.16,line3 p. 16, line3 p. 16, line 4 p. 16, line 11 p. 16, line 21 p. 16, line 23 p. 16, line 24 p. 17, line 12 p. 17, line 13 p. 17, line 14 p. 17, line 15 p. 17, line 16 p. 18, line 1 p. 18, line 11 p. 40, line 15 p. 51, line 10 p. 67, line 5 p. 67, line 6 p. 67, line 7 p. 67, line 9 p. 67, line 11 p. 67, line 12 p. 67, line 15 p. 67, line 22 p. 67, line 23 ERRATA SHEET Transcript of Tiburon Town Council Meeting 2/21/07 delete second "and" replace "had" with "heard" delete "that" replace "decide on" with "discuss" to read, "not regulated in"; delete "To extent it" delete sentence delete "to the"; add "will" to "we will call. . ." delete "that" delete "a" replace "would" with "we"; replace "recognize" with "reco gnized" replace "were" with "are" add "the" to "materials" replace "or" with "for a"; add comma after 30 replace "this" with "the terms,"; delete period after events; continue sentence with "and..." add period after "events." replace first "and" with "at" delete "its" delete "me" add "the" at beginning of sentence; replace "lots" with "lot" replace "rather than" with "by" delete "what was, you know, a" delete "which actually ended up having" replace "we found ourselves" with "caused us to" replace "bumping" with "bump" replace "7:00" with "8:00" delete "have" replace "Council" with "counsel" delete "other" insert "the" between "took" and "position" replace "a" with "the"; delete "like" delete "this"; replace "plan" with "plant" delete "that" insert "have" after "and" replace "vote" with "plant" add hyphen between "historically" and "regulate" delete "It's" insert "school" before "sites" February 21,2007 Town Council Minutes #04 -2007 Page 4 2/21/07 errata continued. . . p. 69, line 3 p. 69, line 20 replace "has" with "had" replace "land use regulations" with "language changes" Submitted by Councilmember Smith 3/21/07 Town Council Minutes #04 -2007 February 21,2007 Page 5 p. 6, line 25 p. 7, line 19 p. 7, line 22 p. 12, line 8 p. 12, line 11 p. 13, line 4 p. 16, line 10 p. 16, line 20 p.16,line21 p. 19, line 22 p. 20, line 12 p. 32, line 3 p. 35, line 1 p. 40, line 17 p. 40, line 21 p. 44, line 5 p. 44, line 21 p. 45, line 18 p. 46, line 13 p. 46, line 14 p. 48, line 7 p. 49, line 14 p. 49, line 15 p. 49, line 18 p. 53, line 10 p. 53, line 24 p. 60, line 21 p. 77, line 17 p. 78, line 18 p. 78, line 19 p. 79, line 4 p. 79, line 5 p. 80, line 11 p. 81, line 8 ERRATA SHEET Transcript of Tiburon Town Council Meeting 2/21/07 replace "has" with "was" replace "go" with "took" replace "had" with "have" replace "Chairman" with "Attorney" replace "rule" with "role" replace "the congregation of' with "Congregation" replace "of ten is" with "attendance of' add "for" at the end of the line add a comma after "time" add "and" to the beginning of the line replace "Kemmler" with "Kamler" replace "appear" with "appeared" replace "Medic" with "Nanak"; delete "(phonetic)" replace "suggested" with "suggesting" replace "the" with "and" replace "irresolve he" with "unresolved issue" add a comma after the second "decision" add "I" between "what" and "was" replace "wait" with "weight" replace "wait" with "weight" delete "and" delete the period at the end of the line replace "That" with "that" replace "premitigation" with "three mitigation" replace "U.S." with "you as" replace "in" with "and" delete "an" replace "finding" with "findings" replace "f' with "i" add parentheses around "CKS" replace "IT" with "ii" replace "I" with "i" replace "2" with "ii" replace "And 15 and 400" with "Add 15-400" Submitted by Community Development Director Anderson Town Council Minutes #04 -2007 February 21,2007 Page 6 p. 7, line 19 p. 8, line 2 p. 10, line 2 p. 11, line 11 p. 12, line 8 p. 14, line 20 p. 16, line 10 p. 16, line 11 p. 20, line 18 p. 22, line 17 p. 24, line 24 p. 25, line 4 p. 32, line 10 p. 35, line 1 p. 35, line 21 p. 40, line 15 p. 41, line 10 p. 44, line 6 p. 71, line 15 p.71,line25 p.81, line 8 ERRATA SHEET Transcript of Tiburon Town Council Meeting 2/21/07 replace "go" with "as" replace "Curan" with "Curran" Delete "The" replace "than" with "with" replace "Chairman" with "Attorney" replace "to" with "in" replace "is" with "at" replace "and" with "at" replace "write" with "state" replace "squawked out" with unknown... replace "unless" with "as" replace "with" with "which"; delete "and" replace "consult" with "consultant" replace "Medic" with "Nanak Sikh"; delete "(phonetic)" replace "western most" with "westernmost" replace "Council" with "counsel" replace "LDN" with "Ldn" replace "irresolve he" with unknown. . . replace "Mr." with "Mayor" replace "I" with "Scott" replace "15" with "50" Submitted by Dan Watrous, Planning Manager 3/19/07 Town Council Minutes #04 -2007 February 21,2007 Page 7 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 STATE OF CALIFORNIA TOWN OF TffiURON In Re: CONGREGA TION KOL SHOFAR APPEAL / PUBLIC HEARING TffiURON, CALIFORNIA Wednesday, February 21, 2007 REPORTED BY: MAYA MOROHOSHI, CSR NO. 9564 AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES, LLC 711 Grand Avenue, Suite 120 San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 482-9030 * (800) 624-8688 Fax (415) 482-9038 email: AmericanCSR@aol.com www.AmericanCSR.com AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 2 3 4 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: mOMAS GRAM, Mayor PAUL SMITH, Vice Chair ALICE FREDERICKS, Councilmember MILES BERGER, Councilmember PEGGY CURAN, Town Manager ANN DANFORTH, Town Attorney DIANE CRANE IACOPI, CMC, Town Clerk DANIEL W ATRODS, Planning Manager SCOTT ANDERSON, Director of Community Development LISA NEWMAN, Planning Consultant DA VB HUITON, Interim Chief of Police HEIDI BIGALL, Director of Administrative Services NICK NGUYEN, Director of Public Workstrown Engineer 1 2 3 4 FOR THE APPEllANT CONGREGA nON KOL SHOFAR: 5 LAW OffiCES OF RAGGHIANTI FREITAS, LLP 6 By: GARY T. RAGGHIANTI, Attorney at Law 7 874 Fourth Street, Suite D 8 San Rafael, Ca1iforni~ 94901-3246 9 Phone: (415) 453-9433 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES (Continued) FOR TIBURON NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION: LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER By: STEPHAN C. VOLKER, Attorney at Law 436 14th Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, California 94612 Phone: (510) 496-0600 ADDmONAL SPEAKERS: HOWARD ZACK KAREN NYGREN TIFFANY WRIGHT scon HOCHSTRASSER --000--- Page 3 2 (Pages 2 to 5) 1 2 3 4 Proceedings 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX Page 5 Public Comment By Mr. Zack By Ms. Nygren 21 23 Rebuttal By Mr. Ragghianti By Mr. Volker 25,44 31,54 Comments by Councilmembers 58 Vote on Resolutions 71 ---000--- Page 2 Page 4 Tiburon Town Hall Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California Wednesday, February 21,2007 7:30 p.m. - 9:45 pm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 PROCEEDINGS 7 MAYOR GRAM: Okay. Let's come to order. We 8 met in closed session with legal counsel. Nothing was 9 detennined at that point, so rm calling the meeting to 10 order. 11 And could we have roll call, please. 12 MS. IACOPI: Yes, Mr. Mayor. rm over here 13 tonight. 14 Councilmember Fredericks. 15 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: Here. 16 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Berger. 17 COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: Here. 18 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Smith. 19 COUNCILMEMBER SMITH: Here. 20 MS. IACOPI: Mayor Gram. 21 MAYOR GRAM: Here. 22 MS. IACOPI: Vice Mayor Slavitz is absent 23 tonight. 24 MA YOR GRAM: And he is excused. Normally, we 25 have oral communications at this time. But tonight, Page 5 AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 I since we are in a continued meeting, I'm going to put I Was it Friday? 2 that off until after the Kol Shofar hearing is ended. 2 MS. CURAN: Yes. 3 Is there anyone who does want to speak? I 3 MA YOR GRAM: Friday. And they were sent 4 don't think there is. Either way, you can't speak now, 4 directly to the attorneys for the two sides and the 5 or we're going to put it over until later. But there's 5 representatives of the two sides. So we are here tonight 6 no one here anyway. 6 to consider the resolutions - there are five - receive 7 So let's go to the consent calendar. Does 7 remaining public comment on the proposed resolutions, 8 anyone on the council want to remove anything from the 8 hear rebuttals from both sides and then to hear Council 9 calendar or comment on it? Does anyone in the public 9 comment, and then hopefully to vote. If there are 10 want to comment on anything on the calendar? 10 changes in the wording of the resolutions, the final 11 Okay. Let's go to action items. And we have 11 versions may have to come back to the Council meeting on 12 the -- 12 March 7th probably on the consent calendar. 13 COUNCaMEMBER BERGER: I'd like to move to 13 So let me explain the procedure we are going to 14 accept the consent calendar. 14 use going forward tonight There are five resolutions 15 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: Second. 15 before the Council. They will be taken in the same order 16 MAYOR GRAM: All in favor. 16 and the same title as we talked about last time. The 17 (All respond aye.) 17 resolution denying the Kol Shofar appeal of the EIR 18 MA YOR GRAM: Next item, action items, and this 18 certification, a resolution denying the Tiburon 19 is the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to 19 Neighborhood Committee appeal of the EIR certification, a 20 certify the Environmental hnpact Report and to deny the 20 resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report, a 21 Conditional Use Pennit Application for expansion of any 21 resolution making CEQA fmdings of fact, and fmally, a 22 existing religious facility and day SChoo4 a report by 22 resolution partially granting the Kol Shofar appeal of 23 Director of Community Developing Scott Anderson and 23 the CUP denial, conditionally approving the CUP and 24 Planning Consultant Lisa Newman. 24 adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program. 25 This matter has continued from the previous 25 So the specific procedure we will follow is as Page 6 Page 8 I meeting that we had, so we are going directly into it I follows: Paul Smith will present the modifications to 2 And I have a couple of comments I want to make. I'll 2 the final resolution as prepared by staff and the 3 keep it brief. This is the fourth hearing on this matter 3 subcommittee, and the subcommittee and staff will respond 4 before the Council. 4 to questions from the Council. We will also waive the 5 The first was held on October 24th, at which 5 Staff Report tonight because the Staff Report was posted 6 time we took public comment. The second was held on 6 well prior to the meeting. I think you all had a chance 7 November 15th, at which time the Council heard the 7 to look at it. And we think that the rebuttals tonight 8 presentation and recommendation of the Council 8 will be able to respond to anything in those Staff 9 Subcommittee. The third was held on February 7th and was 9 Reports. 10 continued prior to the end of public comment because the 10 But I want to point out that there is a letter, 11 court reporter was exhausted and had an early session the 11 which showed up today from CalTrans, which I would like 12 next morning. Consequently, the February 7th meeting was 12 staff to comment on because it is fairly directed to what 13 continued until tonight to complete public comment, allow 13 we're doing tonight. And I think staff would like to 14 for rebuttals and then to take the matter to Council for 14 comment on what the situation is with that letter and 15 discussion and, hopefully, consideration and passage of ]5 recommend how we go forward. Let me wait and ask you to 16 resolutions in this matter. 16 do that after I finish what the procedure will be. After 17 At the last meeting, we heard loud and clear 17 that, we will finish public comments. 18 from both sides that they disagreed with certain aspects 18 As you recal4 we had -- I don't knoW; I have 19 of the approach that the subcommittee and staff go to 19 them here -- five or six comment cards left from people 20 regulating events and activities at Kol Shofar and 20 who were not able to speak at the last hearing. You'll 21 reducing impacts on the neighborhood. Since the last 21 be able to address Council for up to three minutes. And 22 meeting, the subcommittee and staffhad modified the 22 I'm asking that you limit your public comments to the 23 resolution to some degree to respond to some of the 23 Conditional Use Permit resolution and its attachment. 24 concerns that we heard from both sides. Those 24 There is no new information with respect to denial of the 25 modifications were posted on the website I think -- 25 EIR certification appeals, and the record contains all of Page 7 Page 9 3 (Pages 6 to 9) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 . the appellant's arguments. 1 The Council is in this case the lead agency for 2 The Kol Shofar will then present its rebuttal 2 the project. It's up to you to determine whether you . 3 first, and because there have been modifications to the 3 think the evidence supports an impact or not. In this 4 resolution. it would be helpful if the rebuttal speakers 4 case, CalTrans' recommendations are advisory. Our 5 will address the resolution as modified, not previous to 5 recommendation on this will..be that the Council should 6 the previous denial by the Planning Commission or 6 feel free to move ahead and make a decision if they feel 7 alternative seven, but comments on the resolution as you 7 that's the proper thing to do tonight. And with that, 8 were presented with it last Friday. 8 I'll let the Town Chairman add anything additional. 9 Also, I'm willing to grant some additional 9 MS. DANFORTH: I would only underscore with 10 time, if the attorneys deem it necessary, for their 10 what the community development director said, that 11 complete responses during the rebuttal. The meeting 11 CalTrans' rule on this is advisory only. If the Council 12 announcements stated that 15 minutes would be allowed for 12 agrees with staff that the evidence in the records show 13 rebuttal. I'm willing to allow you up to 30 minutes 13 that the mitigation measure is no longer necessary 14 because I want you to have enough time to say what you 14 because the impact is reduced to a less than significant 15 think you have to say because, hopefully, we are going 15 level, I don't believe there is any cause for concern 16 from there to submission to the Council, discussion, and 16 with going forward. If in the event there actually 17 then fmal vote on the resolution. Again, that's what 17 should be an actual impact despite the evidence before 18 would be appreciated. 18 the Council tonight, of course, the impact would be 19 Then the TNC will present next and, again, they 19 addressed during the review of the CUP. But at this 20 will be allotted up to 30 minutes. I will then close the 20 point, we simply don't foresee that occurring. 21 public comment portion of the meeting and the rebuttal 21 MA YOR GRAM: Again, let me restate what you 22 periods, and the Council will conduct its deliberations 22 just said because I want to be clear on it. If there is 23 and then take action on the resolutions. 23 an actual impact at that intersection, it can be dealt 24 So going back to staff on this CalTrans letter, 24 with later based on what actually is happening? 25 which we received today, would you describe just 25 MS. DANFORTH: Yes. In the past, the Town Page 10 Page 12 1 generally what it talks about and then how you want to 1 Council has during CUP -- or the Plmming Commission has 2 proceed forward on it. 2 during CUP review imposed additional mitigation measures 3 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Mayor.. The letter 3 as a condition of approval. In fact, they've done so in 4 arrived this afternoon from CalTrans. Basically, it asks 4 connection with the existing CUP for the congregation of 5 the Town for more time for CalTrans to review some of the 5 Kol Shofar, and we could do so in the future if the need 6 latest materials that were submitted by 6 arises. 7 Robert Harrison with respect to the impact that had been 7 MAYOR GRAM: Okay. Does anyone on the Council 8 identified in the draft EIR on the Blackfield Drive 8 have questions of staff on this issue? 9 intersection with Tiburon Boulevard. Of course, at that 9 Okay, Paul. 10 time, the project had more Saturday events being proposed 10 COUNCILMEMBER SMITII: I want to do an 11 than the larger numbers of attendees. And the mitigation 11 abbreviated version of what I did last time, very 12 had called for a lengthening of the left-hand turn pocket 12 abbreviated version of what I did last time. We 13 onto Blackfield Drive from Tiburon Boulevard. 13 presented a CUP at the last meeting that we thought 14 As the Council will recall, there was 14 reasonably allowed Kol Shofar to engage in the activities 15 additional analysis done of that intersection and three 15 and proceed with the application that they had filed but 16 more counts by Harrison after the Planning Commission had 16 also contained mitigation measures, limitations that we 17 looked at the matter. And Harrison's result using a more 17 had intended to try to mitigate the impacts for the 18 sophisticated model and using the results from three 18 neighborhood 19 weekend counts as opposed to one, which had been used for 19 Both sides criticized the approach that we took 20 the EIR analysis, concluded there would not be a 20 for slightly different reasons, I think. And so we 21 significant impact on that intersection. And as the 21 scrapped the approach that we were taking before in favor 22 materials have been prepared for your consideration this 22 of a more simplified approach to regulating the project. 23 evening, the fmding of staff is that the evidence is not 23 And I want to recognize Scott Anderson. our community 24 in the record that would support a conclusion that there 24 development director, for putting the time and effort and 25 would be a significant impact on that intersection. 25 to go back to square one and look at what Kol Shofar Page 11 Page 13 4 (Pages 10 to 13) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 applied for originally and try to think out how to write 1 nights. 2 this Conditional Use Permit in a way that responded, I 2 Saturday, we combined -- we tried to get off of 3 thought, to a lot of the comments that we had. 3 this existing member-sponsored events. And new 4 And I think you picked up a lot of details that 4 member-sponsored events, we just found out: How many 5 I felt that answered some of the confusion that we had in 5 member-sponsored e.:yents do you want to have on Saturday? 6 the past. And I appreciate you doing that, Scott. 6 What are you proposing? And we determined that that 7 As the last time, there are various changes. 7 number was 16. And so we have, you know, six existing, 8 I'm going to decide on the ones that are more 8 ten new. We did put limitations on those member- 9 significant. Some of them are just language changes and 9 sponsored events, unlike synagogue-sponsored events. So 10 clarifications. As before, it's Section 3, Paragraph 2 10 there are eight events, a maximum of ten is 150, six at 11 that we substantially changed, and we quite frankly 11 200, one event and a maximum of 250, and one event with 12 scrapped the approach that we took before; we completely 12 no specified attendance limit provided that all 13 rewrote the section. 13 conditions applying to the event and in any event 14 It now contains a paragraph .at the beginning 14 expected to exceed 90 percent of on-site parking capacity 15 that essentially tries to explain the scope of our 15 are satisfied So that's sort of a catch-all, wild-card 16 intended regulation and I think does a much better job 16 event once a year. 17 than the prior version of making it clear there is a 17 That language that I just referred to, "90 18 baseline level of use of Kol Shofar that has gone on for 18 percent of on-site parking capacity," is another vel)' 19 many years that is not the subject of regulation under 19 significant change that was made to the overall approach 20 this CUP. It was regulated to the past. To extent it 20 . used in this CUP. Rather than what we were criticized 21 was regulated in the past, it isn't anymore. 21 last time for its counting people, we came up with a 22 We also changed Table 1, which was brought 22 different approach tonight. Again, I credit staff for 23 forward early on in this process as a part of the draft 23 helping me come up with this. What is the capacity of 24 to the EIR and instead created what we call Table A, 24 parking lots? And we just said: If you reach 90 percent 25 which is a combination in essence of Table 1, the annual 25 of the capacity of the parking lot, then we're going to Page 14 Page 16 1 use doc, and other infonnation we received subsequently I trigger a bunch of mitigation measures which we've had in 2 to try to come up with a comprehe~ive baseline of 2 here in the past, the parking and the traffic, and the 3 activities at Kol Shofar. And we have a provision in 3 variety of mitigation measures that have been in here. 4 this current version that says that, if there's any 4 The reason it's in this particular spot is, if 5 substantial increase from that baseline, that that will 5 that wild-card Saturday night member-sponsored event 6 require an amendment to the CUP. 6 happens to trigger -- there's an expected attendance of 7 We then go on to highlight the weekend 7 90 percent of the on-site parking capacity, then all 8 member-sponsored events. We noted -- and this was one of 8 those parking traffic mitigation measures come into 9 the things that Scott pointed out -- that somewhere along 9 effect. 10 the way, there was a confusion between member-sponsored 10 By my count, 90 percent of on-site parking 11 events and synagogue-sponsored events and would recognize 11 capacity is 323 people by our calculation of 2.3 per car. 12 that on Friday evening, based on Kol Shofar's 12 So those mitigation measures, rather than being triggered 13 application, they never did ask for member-sponsored 13 by some -- what was, you know, a fixed number of people 14 events. So it was sort of a misnomer in the way we were 14 in the past, which actually ended up having - we used 15 phrasing all these things. 15 the number 150 or the number 200, we found ourselves 16 What was asked for on Friday nights was an 16 bumping up against regulating existing Kol Shofar 17 additional five congregational dinners, which were 17 synagogue-sponsored activities. 18 synagogue events, in addition to 25 existing events. 18 It's not something we intended to do. So by 19 They are shown in materials provided by Kol Shofar. They 19 coming up with this approach of having 90 percent of 20 generally are -- have a hundred or fewer people, and they 20 on-site parking capacity be the trigger, we were able to 21 generally end by about 9:00 o'clock. So this provision 21 get around that and to regulate those things that we had 22 authorizes those additional five or total of 30 22 initially intended so we weren't so overly broadly taking 23 congregational dinners and also allows for certain 23 in events that we hadn't intended to take in. 24 evening adult education classes. No member-sponsored 24 All events on Saturday night end at 10:00 25 events were asked for; none were approved on Friday 25 o'clock. Sunday member-sponsored events are limited to Page 15 Page 17 5 (Pages 14 to 17) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 7:00. It's basically the same language that we had in 1 That's the sum total of the changes that I want 2 the past version: All events end by 8:00 o'clock. 2 to highlight for you. There are, like I say, a few other 3 We made a couple of other relatively minor 3 language changes, but they're really pretty much 4 changes about no outdoor amplification. We learned that 4 clarifications. And so that's all I have. 5 both the opening and closing ceremonies of the Sunday 5 MA YOR GRAM: As I mentioned, this document was 6 school use outdoor amplification. So we changed it to 6 posted last week on our website. So we hope everyone had 7 allow the opening ceremony as well as the closing 7 a chance to look at it prior to coming and meeting and to 8 ceremony. 8 digest those changes. 9 We made some other relatively minor language 9 Next, I'm going to reopen public comments for 10 changes. We added specific reference to Kiddush lunches 10 those who did not have a chance last time to speak. I 11 allowed on the courtyard. We have recognized that those 11 think we have six. I don't know if all of you are here 12 were again ongoing activities at Kol Shofar. So we 12 tonight. First is Michael Kemmler. 13 provided for that. 13 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Not here. 14 We changed the language a little bit for the 14 MAYOR GRAM: Not here. 15 tenant day school saying that the maximum enrollment was 15 Joe Blum. 16 a hundred, but the total day school's use combination of 16 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Not here. 17 CKS operated school and the tenant day school is 150, 17 MAYOR GRAM: Howard Zack. 18 which provides more flexibility, you know, fewer in the 18 MR. ZACK: Here. Do you want to write the 19 tenant day school, more in the Kol Shofar school, and 19 other names? 20 vice versa And it really doesn't matter. What matters 20 MAYOR GRAM: Yeah. Howard and then 21 is that the total remains at 150. 21 Mindy Canter. She wrote us an email today and said she 22 And then, again, later in -- when you get to 22 was not going to be able to make it because it's her 23 paragraph 5 of Traffic and Parking Management programs, 23 birthday. 24 you'll see that we are using the calculation based on 24 Are you here, Mindy? 25 exceeding 90 percent of on-site parking capacity 25 I read her email. I think we all did She's Page 18 Page 20 1 calculated at 2.3 persons per vehicle as the trigger for 1 not here. And then Karen Nygren, who I see. And the 2 these traffic and parking mitigation measures. We made a 2 last would be Allan Blau. 3 few other relatively minor language changes'in that 3 We have Howard and then Karen. Again, try to 4 section. 4 keep it to three minutes. 5 In the Monitoring, Section C under Paragraph 5, 5 MR. ZACK: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm 6 we simplified the traffic monitoring requirements. We 6 Howard Zack, co-chairman of the Building Committee at 7 really tried to focus on the major events, and so we 7 Kol Shofar. I'd like to quickly review two items. 8 wanted to have our monitoring, unannounced monitoring, so 8 First, a typo on Table 8, Exhibit C. May I please draw 9 on and so forth, being done at those more major events. 9 your attention to page 3 where the top line refers to 10 So we changed that language a little bit to address that. 10 Saturday, just reading left to right, number of weeks per 11 We got some comments about the log, this 11 year, 30. The typo in question: Under "Typical Number 12 concern about having to provide a log of what goes on in 12 of Attendees," the number showing is 50. 13 here. So we have modified the language for that. That 13 This is for a lawn-area Kiddush lunch, as so 14 really requires relatively simple information, which 14 designated, and the immediate prior entry on the chart 15 is providing the log of events and activities that have 15 for Sabbath services, the very service which is 16 exceeded the 90 percent on-site parking. So it's really 16 continuous with this event. You go from the service to 17 just a date, you know, event and relatively simple 17 the lunch, designates a typical number of attendees, 18 information rather than counting people or specific cars, 18 50-400. And the "dash 400" simply got dropped in the 19 a much more simplified version of what we had. 19 first line of page 3. Is that clear? It appears as 50, 20 And then we eliminated the prohibition on the 20 and the "dash 400" needs to be added. It's a contiguous 21 Planning Commission relaxing restrictions for four years 21 event; people go from the building to the luncheon, 22 provided for Council's guidance on that issue instead 22 thereby making it consistent. It somehow got dropped 23 That is our more traditional approach, quite frankly, 23 along the way so there would be no reason to distinguish 24 under our standard CUP process. So we made that change 24 it between those two contiguous events. 25 as well. 25 The second point, on the Staff Report, it's Page 19 Page 21 6 (Pages 18 to 21) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 important to set for the record the historical veracity 1 to try to cure the problems of its resolution, which has 2 of what ensued There's a discussion headline: Prior 2 occurred since the Town has not gone through a normal 3 problems in the neighborhood. The Plamring Commission 3 planning process or followed the guidelines set forth in 4 has written, it so reads: Amended CSK and CUP in '97, 4 the general plan and zoning ordinances. The end result 5 one in '04 to address neighbor concerns and complaints 5 is one that has twi~d the intent of the Town's general 6 regarding traffic, safety, parking and noise. 6 plan and has not resolved many of the outstanding issues. 7 In point of fact, that was not the case. There 7 The Staff Report was correct on one point: If 8 is no history that sustains a prior problem of 8 approved, Kol Shofar would be the second largest meeting 9 observation. Let me just quickly recount In '97, the 9 facility in all of Marin County, next to the Marin County 10 CUP amended an incident, which was initiated at our 10 Civic Center, capable of holding over 1500 people with 11 choosing. We tried to fix our parking lot, as you 11 only 156 parking lots, spaces. This will be in the 12 probably well recall. Some neighbors strenuously 12 middle of a quiet residential neighborhoo~ not as a 13 objected, and we withdrew that initiative. 13 Civic Center, which is only surrounded by a government 14 In '01, the Jewish high school. took up a 14 building and an enonnous parking lot 15 one-year residency at Kol Shofar. We came to the 15 The EIR never studied the cumulative impact 16 Council, the Planning Commission and asked for permission 16 associated with this huge 1500-attendee facility. The 17 to do so, and we squawked out for the high school. And 17 EIR only looked at the project that was regulated by a 18 there was some attendant concerns about alanns and noise 18 CUP, which would hopefully maintain a level by the 19 arising from the high school in anticipation of that ]9 synagogue far below the 1500 level. It is naive to 20 happening. And that's what the '01 issue was about. We 20 believe that in five to ten years from the time the 21 brought it to you. It was anticipatory in nature, and it 21 facility is built and the population of Marin County 22 was handled and very straightforwardly. 22 grows, that the CUP would be able to regulate the future 23 In 2004, quite candidly as a forerunner to this 23 growth of the facility. Religious activities and events 24 very protracted proceeding, which we have seen playing 24 will grow in number and size unless the numbers of people 25 out over these past three to four months. Which brings 25 first using the facility will increase to the capacity Page 22 Page 24 1 me to my final comment: This has been a very principled, 1 that the facility can hold. 2 steadfast and resolute pursuit on ~ehalf of Kol Shofar, 2 The impact of this inevitable growth has not 3 one we've taken very close to heart to defend our right 3 been studied in the EIR; thus, that the fmdings and the 4 to practice our religious freedom. And we carry that 4 mitigations with the Council and claims will mitigate the 5 principle right to this end point, which we're grateful 5 impact to a level of insignificance basically is 6 to have arrived at. Thank you. 6 meaningless. For one to believe that Kol Shofar has the 7 MAYOR GRAM: Thank you. 7 community's best interest at heart while continuing to 8 Karen Nygren. And we did get your late mail 8 demand this huge expansion flies in the face of any 9 yesterday or today, and I think we all read it. 9 reasonable logic. 10 MS. NYGREN: Hello. Three minutes does not 10 I request this Council to seriously reconsider 11 offer the opportunity to comment on most of the issues ] ] the action they take tonight in approving this project as ]2 which remain unresolved with the Town Council. For the ]2 proposed and send it back to the drawing board to make a 13 record, I dfd submit the letter today to the Town Council 13 facility fit as it does today with the surrounding 14 dealing with the remaining concerns. ]4 residential neighborhood. Thank you. 15 MA YOR GRAM: And that letter is in the record. 15 MA YOR GRAM: Thank you. 16 MS. NYGREN: The process used by the Council ]6 Okay. I'm going to now close the public 17 for this project has hindered and interfered with the 17 comment and public hearing. And we will go to the ]8 normal planning process rather than facilitated it. ]8 rebuttal. ]9 Instead of the full Council hearing and publicly debating ]9 And that will be Kol Shofar's first, and you 20 the issue, a subcommittee as the minority of the Council 20 have up to 30 minutes. 21 has micromanaged behind the scenes what should normally 21 MR. RAGGHIANTI: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and 22 be a public process. 22 members of the Council. I have no intention of taking 30 23 Also, it has been impossible for any person to 23 minutes. I do have some remarks which I'd like to focus. 24 keep up with the multitude of changes for the Town's 24 In connection with Exhibit 7, our Exhibit 7, 25 documents made in the last few days. The Town continues 25 the CUP draft -- and I'll focus then by page -- Recital Page 23 Page 25 7 (Pages 22 to 25) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 G, which appears on page 3, I would respectfully request 1 written in what you want to say. You're now making 2 that tonight's date be added to it Let me repeat that: 2 reference to 4B(iv). .3 Recital G on page 7. I think that both February 7 and 3 MR. RAGGHIANTI: Yes. I simply said we're 4 February 21 should be mentioned since we are meeting 4 requesting that the words, quote: "And those events 5 tonight, and that, thereafter, the words should be 5 listed in 4B(iv)," end of quote~ be added to the 6 . changed to reflect the two dates so that it reads: "The 6 sentence: So we get to open the doors and windows during 7 Town Council held duly noticed public meetings" -- 7 the High Holy Day services and during those events which 8 plural -- "to take final action." 8 are listed below in 4B(iv), which are outdoor events. 9 On page 5 or, at least my page 5 in IF, in the 9 It doesn't make sense, in our opinio~ 10 last sentence, we wish to ask: for a change. That 10 respectfully that they'd be held outdoors and the windows 11 sentence reads: "The Design Review Board shall not have 11 to the facility not be entitled to be open so that people 12 the authority to unilaterally further reduce the square 12 can move in and out. That would, if you make that 13 footage of the MPB or classroom additions. " 13 change, require a change in the fmdings on page 39, the 14 The word "unilaterally" was added. And frank 14 CEQA fmdings - 15 to say -- and I don't know why but, frank to say, also 15 Correct, Tiffany? 16 it's probably none of my business. However, I don't 16 MS. WRIGHT: Correct. It's mitigation measure 17 think it adds anything to the sentence and may create 17 3.4-B.1. 18 confusion. In other words, I have no idea what it means. 18 MR. RAGGHIANTI: She says it would be a 19 I would ask the -- 19 modification to mitigation measure 3.4-B.l. I think 20 MAYOR GRAM: Where are you on that? 20 that's the extent of all the requests you have for your 21 MR. RAGGHIANTI: On page 5, item IF, the last 21 consideration with regard to the CUP. 22 sentence has the word "unilaterally." It previously did 22 I would like to add with regard to a previous 23 not have that word in there and just said that: "The 23 request I made, in paragraph 13, I still make the request 24 Design Review Board shall not have the authority to 24 that the last sentence be removed as it seems to take 25 further reduce the square footage of the MPB or classroom 25 away the impact of the sentences which precede it. That Page 26 Page 28 1 additions. " 1 sentence reads, and 1 quote - 2 Thank you. I just think that the word. 2 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: Excuse me. Can you 3 "unilaterally" should be removed for the reasons that 3 specify where you are? 4 I've stated. It adds nothing and it creates confusion 4 MR RAGGHIANTI: Yes. I'm on page 14. rm 5 when one reads it. What does it mean to say they have no 5 sorry, Ms. Fredericks. 6 authority to do it as opposed to they have no unilateral 6 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: Got it. 7 authority to do it? 7 MR RAGGHIANTI: The last sentence in No. 13, 8 The next change is on page 7, paragraph 4B, as 8 which reads: "Not withstanding the foregoing, the Town 9 in "boy," (ii). And this refers to when we could have 9 will not approve any such amendment request that is 10 the doors and windows of the MPB open. We wish to 10 contrary to a compelling Town interest." 11 request that in the penultimate line where it says: 11 I ask the reason, which 1 won't repeat and 12 " ... except for High Holy Day services" that the 12 which 1 specified in writing before, that you consider 13 following additional words be added: Quote, "And those 13 removing that. And rn repeat my request this evening. 14 events listed in 4B," as in boy, "(iv)," so that we can 14 That concludes all of the requests that we have for your 15 open the doors and windows during the time that the 15 consideration in connection with the most recent draft of 16 events specified in 4B(iv) are conducted. 16 the CUP. 17 I believe that that would require a change in 17 I next move to 1 think an oversight that 18 the findings. And I'll ask Ms. Wright if she would tell 18 occurred when the Mayor was announcing the resolution 19 me what it is. 19 that would be taken up. 1 did not hear Exhibit 6 20 MS. WRIGHT: Page 39. 20 mentioned in connection with the matters to be taken up. 21 MR. RAGGHIANTI: Page 39 of the CEQA fIndings. 21 And 1 say Exhibit 6 in connection with tonight's Staff 22 MA YOR GRAM: Let us try and follow where you 22 Report, which is a resolution adopting general plan and 23 are at the moment. 23 zoning ordinance consistency findings regarding this 24 MR. RAGGHIANTI: I'm on 4. 24 project. So I would just make sure that that was 25 MA YOR GRAM: I know where you are, and I've 25 mentioned for the record. Page 27 Page 29 8 (Pages 26 to 29) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 I have I think a lot of things that I could say 1 the project, to close the hearing prematurely. And I 2 that I choose not to because they've been said in 2 would urge that the Council reconsider its decision to 3 writings that I have transmitted to the Town, and I wish 3 prevent those who appear before to appear again with 4 to preserve time because I don't know what Mr. Volker is 4 respect to the series of revisions that we have seen. 5 going to say. And I wanted the opportunity to respond if 5 There are a n~ber of new impacts. For 6 there's anything new. But there isn't anything new, and 6 example, the fact that CalTrans has written a letter 7 I don't purport at this juncture to take your time 7 advising the City that its mitigation measure, which was 8 talking for the next 25 minutes about things that we've 8 an additional left-turn space on Tiburon Boulevard, was 9 gone over for almost two and a half years. I appreciate 9 peremptorily dismissed by this Council based on further 10 the fact that we have arrived at this juncture as much as 10 review by a consult. But CalTrans is the owner of 11 anyone else in this room. at least as much as most people 11 Tiburon Boulevard. It's a state highway. as I recall. 12 I think in this room. We look forward to this being 12 Highway 131. And CalTrans has the sole discretion to 13 concluded. 13 approve or disapprove the proposed mitigation until such 14 When someone mentions th.at they donlt think 14 time as that responsible agency has spoken would be 15 that this process has been public. I ask: What other 15 premature for this Council to take action. 16 process has occurred but public? How much more of a 16 I would add that, apparently. CalTrans had not 17 public process do you think a project deserves than the 17 been provided with the latest permutations in the 18 process this project has received? 18 proposed permit and its conditions. And I think it fell 19 So with that, I respectfully request that I be 19 to the Town to make sure CalTrans was kept in the loop. 20 permitted to reserve up to 10 or 15 minutes. if I need 20 And that, unfortunately. was riot the case. We have now a 21 that time. And I wish to hurry to say that, if I donlt. 21 project that has added a substantial number of parking 22 I will not come back to the podium after Mr. Volker 22 spaces to the site without any mapped reconfiguration of 23 speaks. Thank you very much. 23 those spaces. We don't know if the site can accommodate 24 MAYOR GRAM: Thank you. I'm willing to do 24 156 parking spaces. The latest round of restrictions on 25 that. but again if Mr. Volker wants to reserve time 25 use apparently allows one event per year without a Page 30 Page 32 1 after. you mayor may not. I'm going to allow it. 1 limitation on the attendance. That, again, is a 2 MR RAGGlllANTI: Whatever you want to do is 2 significant change that warrants reopening of the public 3 fine. 3 hearing. 4 MA YOR GRAM: Okay. I want to lay it out that 4 Fwthermore. after the last hearing, the 5 Mr. Volker will be allowed to speak. 5 members of the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition conferred 6 MR RAGGlllANTI: That's fme. 6 and promptly advised the City. the Town Council. that 7 MAYOR GRAM: Sir. 7 most of their members would be out of town this week 8 MR VOLKER: Good evening. Honorable Mayor and 8 because it is a school holiday throughout Marin County 9 Members of the City Council. Again, it is an honor and 9 and, thus. would not be available to comment since their 10 privilege to appear before you today on behalf of the 10 use of their property and their children's welfare is 11 Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition. I have five major points 11 directly at stake in this case. I think it behooves the 12 J wish to address tonight. The first has to do with 12 Council to continue this matter until they're returned to 13 process. 13 permit them to speak to these issues. 14 At the close of the last hearing. this COlIDCil 14 MAYOR GRAM: Mr. Volker. ifJ may just comment 15 had not heard from six individuals and appropriately 15 on that. I received an email I think last Wednesday. 16 reserved time so they could speak. However. those 16 which is well a week after the hearings. No one said a 17 individuals who had already spoken had offered their 17 word until then. And I was then sent an email with a 18 comments in response to the then-staff file. Since 18 list, I believe. of individuals and/or couples. of which 19 February 7. that f1le has grown significantly. We had 19 two are here tonight. So we're talking about maybe four 20 additional Staff Report submissions and revisions to 20 to six people who are not here tonight. 21 Exhibit 5 and 6 on Friday the 16th as well as Tuesday 21 MR. VOLKER: Which is a significant number of 22 this week. 22 the leadership of the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition. 23 And I would submit that it's an inappropriate 23 And I think it's reflective of the cross-section of the 24 deprivation of the right of other citizens who aren't 24 surrounding neighborhoods that the coalition represents, 25 here tonight to speak out with regard to those changes in 25 that there are perhaps a similar ratio of citizens Page 31 Page 33 AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 9 (Pages 30 to 33) PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 . affected by the project, perhaps two-thirds who are not 1 so far in one direction that its proposed decision 2 available today and should be allowed to speak. 2 threatens a violation of the equal protection clause. 3 The next point I wanted to make has to do with 3 This is an issue that has not yet been addressed in the 4 RLUIP A. I was struck by the language employed by staff 4 9th Circuit, and we frankly are concerned that the Town's 5 in its report to you from Friday indicating that they 5 express relaxation of land usl(.regulations to benefit a 6 feared that it would be, quote, "unnecessarily risky~ tI 6 religious institution deprives neighbors of the land use 7 close quote, to apply the land use planning requirements 7 protections they would otherwise be entitled to under the 8 of this jurisdiction in the manner that normally would 8 Town General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as well as the 9 occur with any other non-religious use. And I wanted to 9 California Quality Act. 10 point out that I think we have a growing body of case law 10 Weare concerned that in its effort to 11 that would underscore the Town's authority to apply 11 accommodate Kol Shofar's position and out of concern for 12 neutrally based land use restrictions and, in particular, 12 potential liability under our RLUIPA. that the Town has 13 environmental information processes, such as CEQA, to 13 been pushed too far in the other direction. And for that 14 protect public health and safety even with regard to 14 reason, we urge you to reconsult with your Council and to 15 religious institutions. 15 reconsider the approach taken in the proposed 16 At our last hearing, I mentioned the City of 16 resolutions. 17 West Linn, Oregon case. And I again commend that to the 17 The third point I wanted to address has to do 18 Council's attention because, in that case, the Court made 18 with what I view as continuing failure to address 19 clear that a local government has authority under RLUIP A 19 significant restrictions on the parking impact of this 20 to impose buffering restrictions and restrictions on the 20 project established under the zoning ordinance. Under 21 size of a religious facility in order to preserve the 21 Zoning Ordinance Section 16-5.8.2, the Town has an 22 existing residential character of the neighborhood. 22 obligation to require that Kol Shofar enter into a 23 I also made mention of the leading cases in the 23 covenant or a lease to establish a property right as 24 9th Circuit, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for 24 necessary to implement the off-site parking requirements 25 California and surrounding states, the Morgan Hill case 25 in this case. Page 34 Page 36 1 and the Guru Medic case (phonetic), both of which hold 1 The language of that restriction is pretty 2 th,at those proponents ofRLUIPA contending that a Town or 2 clear. It says that for non-residential uses if the 3 County has violated the law have a very high burden of 3 building, structure, use or improvement requiring parking 4 proof. 4 space is located on one parcel -- that is the site of the 5 The standard, according to those governing 5 project here -- and the required parking space provided 6 decisions in the West, is that they must demonstrate that 6 is on another parcel -- and that would be a reference to 7 the town's land use restriction is, quote, "oppressive to 7 the off-site parking that's been proposed -- then one or 8 a significant e>..1ent, tI close quote, or formulated 8 both of the following shall apply: Subdivision A of that 9 alternatively that it constitutes a significantly great 9 section requires that they would be able to put a 10 restriction or onus upon religious exercise. And I don't 10 covenant establishing the property owner's right to use 11 think we've heard any evidence in this proceeding that 11 the off-site parking space for the off-site parking need. 12 the modest constraints on the size and uses of this 12 And then Subdivision B provides alternatively that the 13 facility that the TNC has advanced would approach such an 13 Town may pennit the required parking spaces to be secured 14 oppressive restriction upon religious exercise. 14 by a lease agreement. 15 I also wanted to bring to your attention a 15 The purpose of these requirements is to assure 16 recent decision that came down in November from the 2nd 16 the public that in fact the property owner whose off-site 17 Circuit Court of Appeal in lllinois division, Church case 17 parking demands require the provision of parking off site 18 where the Court likewise adopted the standard for 18 in fact own the right to use the proposed off-site 19 establishing a violation of our RLUIP A substantial burden 19 parking location for that use. 20 test that the 9th Circuit had adopted So we have the 20 Then the second provision of the zoning 21 two western most Circuit Courts of Appeal in agreement 21 ordinance relating to parking that has not been 22 that it's a very stiff burden for challengers to a city 22 adequately addressed is 16-5.8.10. The Staff Report 23 land use regulation to surmount. 23 makes mention of this in connection with its conclusion 24 And I might add that we have here perhaps the 24 that it is sufficient if the Town merely provide adequate 25 unfortunate circumstance that the Town has been pressed 25 parking for the multi-purpose room And the discussion Page 35 Page 37 10 (Pages 34 to 37) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 fails to address the fact that the sanctuary, likewise, 1 flow on Highway 131 would be impaired from one 2 is a potential overlapping use, which would generate a 2 intersection to the next. If the Harrison approach is 3 parking demand. 3 taken, it assumes that the remonitoring of the 4 According to the Town's previous calculations, 4 intersection results in a lower intersection use and 5 the sanctuary has a capacity of 550 individuals applying 5 coupled with an estipate of future use would yield a 6 Zoning Ordinance 16-5.8.4, Subdivision D, which requires 6 lower impact, an insignificant impact. We don't know 7 that one parking space be provided to each four persons. 7 that that's the case. We do know that this discussion 8 That yields a parking space demand of 137. When added to 8 was not presented in the EIR. The original EIR reports 9 the 161 parking spaces required for the multi-purpose 9 they found a potentially significant effect. 10 room, it yields a total of298 parking spaces, and the 10 I think the key here is that CalTrans has 11 parking proposed for this project is far less than that 11 obvious expertise. It has obvious neutrality. It owns 12 So I think we have a conflict there. It's true 12 the street in question. And the Town's omission of 13 that the Town Council per Section 16-5.8.2 has discretion 13 CalTrans' input on this critical calculation I think 14 when considering the potential for qverlapping uses to 14 speaks volumes about a key omission in this process. 15 allow a modest or reasonable reduction in the total of 15 MA YOR GRAM: Again, I want to ask our Council: 16 the two different overlapping uses. But I don't think 16 Is CalTrans's agreement a requirement, or are they a 17 that ordinance can be read to mean that one can simply 17 suggested agency? 18 ignore one of the overlapping uses and provide only for 18 MS. DANFORTH: Their role in this case has been 19 the other one. So I believe, again, that the Town needs 19 merely advisory. The Town is the lead agency; therefore, 20 to take a close look at that issue. We have raised this 20 it falls to the Town Council on this appeal to detennine 21 on a number of occasions. 21 what is the significant impact and what is not based on 22 The fourth point fd like to raise has to do 22 the evidence before you. That is not the job of 23 with the Planning Commission's decisions with regard to 23 CalTrans. It's the job of Town Council. 24 general plan and compliance. We have seen a number of 24 MAYOR GRAM: Go ahead. 25 modifications of the project, yet we still have some 25 MR. VOLKER: In response to that comment, I Page 38 Page 40 1 pretty significant unresolved impacts. Let me address 1 would just point out that if CalTrans disagrees and comes 2 briefly the four key ones: 2 to a different conclusion, that's substantial evidence 3 With respect to traffic, we have the unresolved 3 that there is a significant impact, which wasn't 4 question whether CalTrans will agree with Robert 4 considered by the Town Councilor addressed in its 5 Harrison's studies, which suggested that a 5 mitigations. And for that reason, the decision will lack 6 resignalization and a remonitoring of the intersection 6 a rational basis I think in court. 7 yielded no need for additional left-turn lane space. But 7 The next point I wanted to address with regard 8 CalTrans hasn't agreed with that yet, and it may never. 8 to general plan inconsistency is this project's impact on 9 And if it doesn't, then a key assumption of the project 9 noise. The Staff Report once again harkens back to the 10 proponents that there's no significant impact because of 10 LDN methodology, which averages noise over a 24-hour 11 the additional traffic turning left from Tiburon onto 11 peri'od. We have evidence in the record that there are 12 Blackfield would fall and with it the rationale for 12 noise spikes late at night which are a significant 13 approvals before the Town Council. 13 impact, more than 20 decibels at times. And there's no 14 MAYOR GRAM: Mr. Volker, can I again interrupt 14 evidence that those spikes will not continue with car 15 you. Could you elaborate on that, why that now creates a 15 doors opening and closing, with car alarms inevitably 16 less than significant impact because CalTrans disagrees? 16 being triggered with late-night entry into cars. and so 17 MR. VOLKER: If CalTrans finds fault either 17 forth. 18 with the calculations conducted by Mr. Harrison such that 18 We have only the suggestion that the 19 it concludes that: No, there will be a backup at that 19 construction of a catering garage will reduce the 20 intersection with the additional traffic that will exceed 20 late-night impacts, and that is substantially outweighed 21 the capacity of the intersection, then Caltrans will not 21 by the impact of the 150-some cars in the parking lot 22 accept that as an insignificant impact and will require 22 that might be in use at 9:30 or 10:00 or 10:30 at night. 23 additional mitigation, perhaps the construction of the 23 And there certainly has to be a realization that folks 24 left-turn lane, or something else. 24 leaving a gathering late at night will tend to converse, 25 Alternatively, CalTrans may find that traffic 25 and that sound will travel in this bowl-shaped Page 39 Page 41 11 (Pages 38 to 41) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 environment. So again, we have a potentially significant 1 have a facility that is designed to receive more visitors 2 impact on noise that hasn't been fully addressed, and the 2 than it will provide parking for. . 3 Planning Commission properly found that that impact 3 So that's the fundamental flaw, logical flaw in 4 violated the general plan. 4 the approval process, that it's designed for failure 5 The fourth point with regard to General Plan 5 really. Ifs designed to attract n:ore cars than it can 6 Compliance has to do with the impact of light. As we 6 accommodate, and therein lies the irresolve he on public 7 indicated, we now have a post reconfiguration of the 7 health and safety. 8 parking lot that adds additional vehicles. We have 8 I appreciate the opportunity to talk more than 9 mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce the 9 the 15 minutes. And I'd like to reserve any available 10 impact oflate-night lighting glare on surrounding homes. 10 remaining time I have for rebuttal. 11 But we do have admission in the Staff Reports that 11 MAYOR GRAM: You have six remaining. 12 nonetheless there will be at least three residences that 12 MR. VOLKER: Thank you. 13 will still be impacted by late-night headlights shining 13 MAYOR GRAM: Gary. 14 into bedrooms late at night, certainly will di~turb the 14 MR. RAGGillANll: Thank you. I'll be brief. 15 sleep of children and others. And I would submit that 15 Let me start, if I may, with the Planning 16 that remains a significant impact that hasn't been 16 Commission. The Planning Commission is not the body with 17 addressed and would, again, support the Planning 17 the final determination on many land use matters. This 18 Commission's finding that the general plan requirements 18 is not the frrst time that the Planning Commission 19 for neighborhood compatibility have been violated here. 19 decision may be modified, and it will not be the last 20 So in summary, I want to point out that we have 20 time. So the idea that the Planning Commission made a 21 a number of sophisticated mitigations and other 21 decision and, therefore, it's the right decision in my 22 permutations in the project that were placed in the 22 judgment is a specious argument to make. It was a 23 record after the close of the February 7 public hearing. 23 decision the neighbors liked, as simple as that. 24 And it falls to the Council now I think to rectify the 24 On the CalTrans issue, I agree with sta:ff: and 25 premature closing of the record by reopening the record 25 I'm not going to repeat anything other than to say that Page 42 Page 44 1 to permit public commentary coupled with a need, of 1 CalTrans is an advisory agency. They have no right or 2 course, for CaITrans to weigh in with resp~ct to the 2 authority or jurisdiction to make a determination with 3 BlackfieldlTiburon Boulevard intersection. 3 respect to whether an impact is significant or 4 We have serious doubts about the enforceability 4 insignificant. They commented on tbe draft EIR, the 5 and the efficacy of many of these mitigation measures. 5 final EIR 6 We have presented extensive photo documentation of the 6 And I believe in June, as the letter indicates, 7 failure of on-site parking mitigation in the past. And 7 we have all three people who attended the meeting with 8 the absence of compliance with Zoning Ordinance Section 8 the Caltrans representative present in the room this 9 16-5.8.2 requiring a covenant or a lease for the off-site 9 evening, Mr. Hocbstrasser, Ms. Wright and Bob Harrison. 10 parking required under the mitigations here I think 10 They were told then that CalTrans did not want to get 11 underscores the lingering doubts that exist with respect 11 involved in the decision on whether there was a 12 to the efficacy of the proposed traffic and parking 12 significant impact or not but to return to the Town and 13 mitigations. 13 get a decision made by the Town Council and corne back 14 We also have the reality that folks arriving to 14 after it was over. 15 a facility that is overbooked in the sense that the 15 MAYOR GRAM: Could you repeat that? 16 number of vehicles exceeds the available parking will 16 :MR. RAGGHIANTI: I can repeat that. And I have 17 tend more often than not to revert to old bad habits, 17 Scott here who can -- I wasn't at the meeting. I'm 18 which are to seek out the remaining available street 18 repeating what was told. 19 parking, which means there will be, notwithstanding the 19 On June 12th, they met with CaITrans 20 signage closer to the project site, V-turns and T-tums 20 representatives in Oakland. Ms. Wright was at the 21 conducted in a dangerous manner. 21 meeting, Mr. Hochstrasser was at the meeting, 22 Those impacts the Planning Commission found 22 Mr. Harrison was at the meeting. At that meeting, they 23 were significant and posed a direct threat to public 23 were told that they, meaning the CaITrans people, did not 24 health and safety. And despite staffs best efforts to 24 want to get involved in a dispute involving a decision to 25 mitigate those impacts, I think they remain so long as we 25 be made by the Town, whether there was a significant Page 43 Page 45 12 (Pages 42 to 45) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 impact or not at this intersection. They said, "Go to 1 change the left-turn lane. 2 the town, get the decision and come back, and we'll 2 Following that discussion, there have been 3 review the materials." 3 significant changes in the project, the intensity and use 4 It wasn't until September that Mr. Harrison did 4 of the intersection. The mandate was presented to you by 5 his revised traffic studies. And I believe that there 5 Mr. Harrison that concludes that there really isn't an 6 are correspondence -- 6 impact at the intersection. So that's why we met with 7 I think Tiffany was showing me tonight. I 7 CalTrans and was to try and get an Wlderstanding how much 8 didn't have a lot of time to look at this because I 8 do we have to reduce the use for them to be comfortable 9 didn't get the letter until about 5:30. 9 with that left-turn lane and the signal time perhaps. 10 -- that bears this out. The point that I 10 And they told us: Go back, and when you have a decision, 11 wanted to make is that this issue your Town staff has 11 when you know what your project is, then we'll look at 12 told you is not significant. The determination of the 12 it, and we might determine you need to do something here, 13 Town staff is entitled to wait just as the determination 13 or we might not. 14 of the Town is entitled to wait in connection with 14 And subsequently, the projects changed, and 15 whether a project is consistent with your general plan 15 substantial additional information, including three 16 and zoning ordinance. 16 different monitorings at that intersection at different 17 MAYOR GRAM: Again, I want to go back to 17 times, all the information in Harrison's report has been 18 CalTrans. 18 presented to you. So that's the evidence that shows that 19 And maybe Scott or Tiffany, you could answer 19 there's not a new provision. 20 this. 20 MAYOR GRAM: So you're saying, when and if we 21 MR RAGGHIANTI: Scott. 21 make a decision tonight, then it will be that time to go 22 MA YOR GRAM: We seem to be hearing that 22 back to CalTrans or let them analyze everything based 23 CalTrans said they would like the Town to make their 23 upon the decision, and then they'll decide if we need a 24 decision, and then they would revisit the issue. What 24 change? 25 did they then say they might do they might have the 25 MR.. HOCHSTRASSER: Excuse me, but that's what Page 46 Page 48 1 option or power to do? 1 was in the final EIR. And that condition or that 2 MR. HOCHSTRASSER: for the record -- 2 mitigation is no longer required because of the project 3 Scott Hochstrasser, Planning Consultant -- on page 30 of 3 reductions. 4 the final EIR, there was a mitigation that said., if 4 MA YOR GRAM: They'll acknowledge that, I 5 CalTrans determines that the project has an impact on an 5 assume, by studying the fmal project after we make a 6 intersection, one or two things could happen: Either the 6 decision tonight. Is that true? 7 signalization could change, or the project could be 7 MS. WRIGHT: I want to jump in here real quick. 8 required to extend that left-turn lane. 8 MA YOR GRAM: You were at the meeting also. 9 CalTrans wrote a letter on March 10, 2006 9 MS. WRIGHT: I was at the meeting also. 10 responding to the final EIR saying: You have to follow 10 Tiffany Wright with Remy Thomas. 11 CalTrans's standards if you're going to make improvements 11 The mitigation measure at the time the fmal 12 in the roadway. So we went to meet with CalTrans to find 12 EIR had come out and., as Scott was referring to, the 13 out what those standards were. And at the time, we were 13 mitigation measure that had been added from the time of 14 developing a new alternative to the project that would 14 the draft EIR to the fmal EIR was a mitigation measure. 15 reduce the number of trips, the number of people 15 That said., we'll leave it up to CalTrans to decide what 16 attending and would reduce the impact on the 16 mitigation is necessary for this impact. And so, in 17 intersection. 17 essence, the mitigation measure was Mitigation No.4, was 18 And they told us: When the Town makes a 18 on the other premitigation measures in place. 19 decision and you've got additional data, then we'll 19 In essence, the mitigation measure left the 20 determine based on the mitigation and the EIR, which says 20 determination of the appropriate mitigation up to 21 "if they determine." So they told us: Go back. When 21 CalTrans. And that's what we were there to talk to 22 the Town makes a decision, then submit whatever 22 CalTrans about. CalTrans wasn't asking us to come back 23 additional studies we have, and we will determine whether 23 and give them information on whether the impact was 24 or not there's an impact, whether or not we have to 24 significant or not. It was an issue of what mitigation 25 change the signalization, whether or not we have to 25 would be required if the impact was going to be Page 47 Page 49 13 (Pages 46 to 49) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDfNGS-2n1ro7 1 significant 1 agrees with what Mr. Volker has said or which has 2 MAYOR GRAM: So if we make a decision tonight, 2 championed that argument. But that argument has been 3 and then we send the infonnation to CalTrans, which seems 3 made. One wonders who the protected class is that is 4 to be what they requested - in other words, send it 4 being referred to here, but I assume that it is the 5 after the decision is made -- and they detennine that 5 neighborhood. .. 6 they believe modifications have to be made to that 6 I do think -- and I hadn't intended to comment 7 intersection, you're saying that we should come back and 7 on RLUIP A, but I will -- that it's probative that no one 8 revisit that? 8 has come in here with an expert from the neighbor's 9 MS. WRIGHT: No, no. What CalTrans is asking 9 standpoint to tell you you could have done what you 10 you to do is to continue your hearings so they can study 10 originally proposed to do. When he talks about that 11 it and weigh in. And what your staff has told you is 11 you've been pushed too far to one side, to be fair, it's 12 that you're the decision-maker in this process. You 12 usually the applicants that may well have been pushed too 13 determine whether the impact is significant or not. 13 far to one side. And the history of land use allover 14 MAYOR GRAM: But is what they're saying in 14 this county I think serves as testimony to that fact. 15 there different than what they told you at the meeting? 15 Here, you have an applicant who comes forward 16 MS. WRIGHT: Yes. What they told us at the 16 and says: There's a Federal statute that exists. Here's 17 meeting is that they didn't want to get involved in the 17 what it says. There's an applicant who happens to be a 18 City decision over whether this impact was significant. 18 religious institution instead of an institution that 19 COUNCll.MEMBER BERGER: Was Ms. Finney or 19 sells materials. We, therefore, think we are entitled to 20 Mr. Finney at the meeting? 20 different treatment. 21 MS. WRIGHT: I don't believe so. That name 21 Before you get to RLUIP A, we have a right under 22 doesn't sound familiar. 22 the Federal Constitution to practice our religion in 23 COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: He or she wasn't at the 23 whatever we want, free of any governmental intrusion. 24 meeting. She, I guess. 24 Now, we don't take the position, as we have said before, 25 COUNCll.MEMBER SMITH: I believe what we have 25 that you can't regulate us at all, but we sure do take Page 50 Page 52 1 done is, we have determined that, based on the more 1 the position that this statute has a very important part 2 recent Robert Harrison studies, that this impact, which 2 of what's going on here. 3 at one point was considered to be significant, is no 3 Last comment -- and rll think about it -- 4 longer significant. It was mitigated by virtue of our 4 that's about risk. There's no risk at all to the 5 taking those new traffic counts. So as the 5 neighbors in our RLUIP A suit, none, because they don't 6 decision-makers in this, we are simply saying that this 6 pay for it. The Town pays for it. If the neighbors want 7 issue has been addressed by the decision that we will 7 to sue the Town and allege that they've been deprived of 8 ultimately make on these resolutions, one of which 8 protection, let them They have the same rights we do. 9 contains a reference to the new Robert Harrison counts, 9 But in this case, I mentioned before when I was 10 by which in the other shrinkage of this project that ]0 here, U.S. fiduciary sitting here running a multi-miJJion 11 mitigate that impact to less than significant. This says 11 dollar corporation are in the business of assessing risk 12 that's what we are deciding, not CalTrans. Right? We 12 as well as making decisions on other things that come 13 decide that. 13 across your desk. Your staff, in my opinion, has it 14 MA YOR GRAM: Any others? 14 right. I was surprised to see it in the Staff Report, 15 COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: We're deciders. 15 but it is there. They assessed risk, and they said it is 16 MA YOR GRAM: Do you want to wind up, Gary. 16 risky . 17 MR. RAGGHIANTI: Yes, I do. Thank you. 17 Any thinking person who is familiar with this 18 MA YOR GRAM: Do you want to address 18 area of the law in my judgment who doesn't think there's 19 Mr. Volker's -- I believe the first time you've heard it, 19 risk involved in treading into this area is not being 20 comment on the due process and I think establish new 20 candid with you, and you should view them with suspicion, 21 laws. 21 including me. There is risk here. It's palpable. It's 22 MR. RAGGHIANTI: Yes. That argument has been 22 real. We've talked about it, and I don't intend to talk 23 made in RLUIP A cases. I don't think it really makes any 23 about it anymore. 24 difference what I think about it. Experts have debated 24 The noise in the parking and the other issues 25 it. I know of no Federal Circuit Court opinion that 25 that deal with light, it's one thing to complain. It's Page 51 Page 53 14 (pages 50 to 53) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS-2nlro7 1 another to point to substantial evidence in the record 1 deprives the neighboring land owners of their right to 2 that actually supports what they are talking about. They 2 equal protection under the law because the law would have 3 don't. So we've gone back over again the same arguments 3 been applied differently had RLUIP A not entered into the 4 that have been raised before. I don't have anything else 4 equation and had the proposed use been a nonreligious 5 to say, and I want to thank you very much for allowing 5 one. 6 me to speak again. 6 With that, I am finished. Thank you very much 7 MAYOR GRAM: Thank you. 7 for allowing me the time. 8 Steve, you want to wind up? 8 MA YOR GRAM: Another question. Are you saying 9 MR. VOLKER: Yes. Thank you. 9 that RLUIP A may be unconstitutional? 10 First, with regard to the CalTrans letter, the 10 MR. VOLKER: Absolutely. 11 letter on its face refutes the suggestion that CalTrans 11 MAYOR GRAM: And that this could be a situation 12 doesn't believe it should participate in a determination 12 where RLUIP A may have entered into our decision but that 13 of the significance of this project on traffic on Tiburon 13 it may be unconstitutional, and that has not been 14 Boulevard The letter states clearly ~ CalTrans needs 14 decided? 15 a minimum of 10 working days to adequately review the new 15 MR. VOLKER: That's correct. The predecessor 16 traffic information and to determine whether impacts at 16 statute, as you may recall, was declared unconstitutional 17 the Tiburon BoulevardIBlacktield Drive intersection are 17 by the U.S. Supreme Court. That Court has not yet 18 indeed less than significant. We, therefore, request 18 addressed the constitutionality of RLUIP A. The 19 that the Town COl.nlcil postpone its decision on 19 9th Circuit has not yet addressed the equal protection 20 certification of the final EIR until we have had the 20 clause and its potential violation by RLIUP A. I think 21 opportunity to conduct our review. 21 that this case raises that issue. 22 So they couldn't say it more plainly that they 22 So again, we are drawn back to our original 23 believe they're a vital factor in that determination 23 proposal, which is a mediated resolution of this. If 24 since they own the road and they have responsibility 24 this matter ends up in court, it may be hard, as 25 under California statutes to assure that traffic moves 25 Mr. Ragghianti has reminded us, to predict the outcome. Page 54 Page 56 I smoothly and safely on that road So I've again returned 1 There are risks for all concerned. mc has never 2 to the point that this process has ~n rushed to 2 advocated resolving this in litigation. And we return to 3 judgment prematurely in light of the substantial new 3 our original proposal, our continuing desire to resolve 4 information that's been developed over the last several 4 this sort of litigation if that can be done. Thank you. 5 weeks with new mitigations proposed, with new impacts and 5 MAYOR GRAM: Thank you. 6 with a lagging consultation with CalTrans. 6 Does anyone on the Council have any questions 7 With regard to the equal protection clause, no 7 regarding what we just heard? 8 Court has said that it wouldn't be violated under these 8 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: I wonder if the 9 circumstances. One of the closest cases on point is the 9 staff could comment on Mr. Ragghianti's suggestion that 10 division of the Church case where the Court did discuss 10 that paragraph that talks about the authority of the DRB 11 this point but from the flip side of whether or not a 11 to reduce the size of the multi-purpose room, whether the 12 religious institution could raise this claim. But one 12 word "unilaterally" has a particular meaning. I3 examines that ruling and applies it with the unequal I3 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The intent of adding that 14 treatment accorded the citizens in this case. One is led 14 word was that if Kol Shofar did happen to come in with a 15 to the conclusion that equal protection of the law was 15 building, which was perhaps slightly smaller than the 16 not provided here. 16 square footage that was shown, the Board would not be in 17 And the reason is simple: Had this been a 17 a position to reduce the size even though that was 18 non-religious use proposed at this location, the Planning 18 applied for. It's just one of those clarification words 19 Commission's determination would have been sustained by 19 that we put in there. In other words, if Kol Shofar is 20 this Council. The reason that this Council has been 20 requesting that the building be a tad bit smaller than 21 pushed off of that mark is that Kol Shofar has brandished 21 what was shown in the CUP, the Board can approve it, 22 the RLUIP A sword repeatedly and pointedly reminded the 22 whereas without that word it would-lead you to believe 23 Town of its financial liability should it be drawn into 23 that they could not. 24 an RLUIP A litigation. 24 COUNCILMEMBER FREDRICKS: Thank you. 25 And it's that coercive effect of RLUIP A that 25 MAYOR GRAM: Any other questions of staff? Page 55 Page 57 15 (Pages 54 to 57) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 Okay. I am going to bring this now to the ] these controls will be effective or that they will be 2 Council. We're at that point where I'd like to hear what 2 enforced. Reducing the mnnber of events, the number of 3 councilmembers have to say. And then I'm going to go 3 people, requiring triggers for off-site parking, 4 through the resolutions and ask for modifications, if 4 controlling the lateness of events with oversight, with 5 any, or acceptance of revisions that have been proposed, 5 incentives and with enforcements are just about as good 6 and then call a vote on each one. 6 as you'd get I think at a Conditional Use Pemrit. There 7 And I'm sorry. I want to take a break. I got 7 may be some specifics that we'll discuss as we go through 8 a request for one. The court reporter needs a break, and 8 the resolutions one by one, but I support this approach. 9 we will always defer to her. Some of us need a break 9 MAYOR GRAM: Okay. Miles. 10 too, and maybe you do. 10 COUNCll...MEMBER BERGER: First of all, before I 11 (Recess from 8:55 to 9:12 p.m.) 11 make other remarks, I'd like to really thank Tom and 12 MAYOR GRAM: The reporter is ready to go again. 12 Paul. I hope the Town understands the difficult roles 13 Since she's been running the meeting, I'm ready to go, 13 that they've been put on as subcommittee and the 14 too. 14 tremendous amount of work and the dedication and the 15 At this point in time, the matter has been 15 . intelligence that they've brought to bear and the 16 brought back to the Council. And before we vote on the 16 evenhandedness that they have worked so hard to show. 17 resolution, consider the resolution and vote on them 17 And I sort of disagree with one of the comments 18 individually, I'm going to ask the Council if they have 18 that was made about it not being a public process because 19 any comments. 19 I really do think with all the meetings that have 20 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERlCKS: Are you asking for 20 happened that anybody who had anything.that needed to be 21 general comments at this time, or are you asking for 21 said in the course of this discussion really had ample an 22 specifics? 22 opportunity to make their comments and had very 23 MAYOR GRAM: I'm going to ask for general and 23 intelligent and well-informed people listening to them. 24 specific. 24 I really want to thank you. I think the Town really owes 25 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERlCKS: I'm not prepared to 25 you guys a great debt, especially considering the Page 58 Page 60 1 give you specific comments on some of the changes that ] expertise and the patience that's been shown in looking 2 were asked by Gary Ragghianti. 2 at this. 3 MA YOR GRAM: Okay. As far as the revisions 3 I'd also like to thank the staff. This has 4 that Gary requested, when we get to that exhibit and 4 been a really, really tough process, both for our 5 resolution, we will take each one separately and comment. 5 in-house people and for the consultants that have been 6 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: Good. 6 brought to bear on this process, and with very numbing 7 I have a few comments just on the general 7 amounts of detail. And I really think we have, as I've 8 process and what I feel a councilmember was trying to do. 8 said on many occasions, the best planning staff in the 9 I think it was expressed well in the Staff Report. We 9 Bay Area And I've had occasion to work with others, and 10 want to avoid substantial burden of practice of religion, 10 I'm very proud of the people that we have working here. 11 and we want to mitigate impacts on the neighbors. 11 I've spent about 20 hours in hearings listening 12 One of the letters asked, rather eloquently, if 12 to the public on this issue and over the last couple of 13 you were a neighbor, would you approve this project. I 13 years. And I've been trying to show what for me passes 14 have to say, ifl were a neighbor, I certainly would be ]4 for restraint as far as the talking. So I just hope 15 out there advocating to reduce the impact as much as 15 you'll indulge me with a few minutes to make some ]6 possible. But even then, that's a different role than a 16 remarks. 17 councilmember. 17 First, I'd like to tell you a story. I was 18 As a councilmember, I feel I have to vote for 18 telling my son over the different table about - he's 19 the balance that's required by the record. We have tools 19 ] 5 -- telling him about this process. And he told me a 20 to mitigate. One of them would be to reduce the size of 20 story, a joke that he felt would apply to it. And it's a 21 the multi-purpose room. But we also have controls that 2] Chelm story, which some people know it's part of a Jewish 22 reduce the impact of the use of the room and the general 22 folk tradition. Chelm is this town somewhere in the 23 use of the site. 23 Chelm settlement where the angel who passes out the wise 24 I think the only problem from the neighbor's 24 souls and the foolish souls was inebriated one night and 25 point of view is that they just distrust either that 25 dropped by accident all of the foolish souls into this Page 59 Page 6 I 16 (Pages 58 to 61) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 ] one little town. So there is just not one sharp blade in ] State of California and the nation, who are always very 2 the rack in the town of Chelm. 2 mindful of them. RLUIP A is the law of the land, and so 3 So there's an old man from Chelm and his 3 we're, of course, bound to respect it. 4 grandson. They're coming back from a market day back 4 However, my profession as architect and planner 5 into Chelm, and they have a little donkey. And the 5 and designer, I think it looms larger than the way we've 6 little boy is riding on the donkey, and the father is 6 been discussing t:hi11gs. But in reality, at least for me, 7 walking. And they pass by two neighbors -- not from 7 it just did not playa functioning part. For me, I had 8 Chelm -- and they say, "What a shame. This venerable old 8 to answer to a higher authority; that's CEQA, the 9 gentleman having to walk, and this perfectly fit young 9 California Environmental Quality Act, which tells us 10 kid is sitting on the donkey and riding on it. This is ]0 exactly how we are supposed to process through all issues )] just disgusting. " )] of this type, all these kinds of applications. 12 And the old man says, "They have a point. ]2 And really cutting to the chase, I think that 13 Perhaps we will switch." And so the old guy gets on the 13 in the course of a process where the impact as defined by ]4 donkey, and the little boy is wa1kin~ along. So they go 14 CEQA and the process, the EIR process, are determined to ]5 along for a while like this. And another group of 15 be mitigated or to be less than a significant amount. 16 people, bystanders are saying, "This is disgusting. Look ]6 And the applicant has made significant changes to the ]7 at this; this old man is riding on the donkey, perfectly 17 project and taken it and adapted it in various ways as ]8 fit old gentleman, and then he's responsible for the 18 described in the past and helped with those mitigations. ]9 health and the safety of this little boy and making him ]9 At a certain point, they have the right to ask: 20 walk along while there's a perfectly healthy donkey to 20 Where is my pennit? Where do I get my pennit to get 2] carry them This is just bad parenting." The old man 2] going in this process? The impacts to my sense, 22 says, "Well, once again, an interesting perspective on 22 especially having to do with parking and the other aspect 23 our situation. So why don't both get on the donkey and 23 of it, have been mitigated. They respond to the Tiburon 24 ride down the road on the donkey." 24 standard and planning guidelines. 25 So they're going down the road on the donkey. 25 As far as Mr. Volker's comment about the Page 62 Page 64 1 And after a while, they approach this bridge, and it's a ] parking and its numbers - and I'm speaking now 2 pretty steep bridge, and there's som~ people hanging out 2 specifically from a planning point of view - the idea is 3 at the bridge crossing. And the people say, "This is 3 that for its normal use, the kind of use we expect this 4 just a shame what's going on here because this donkey has 4 facility to have. During 90 percent of the time of its 5 labored all day long for you, and now after he's labored 5 operation, the parking lot appears to be completely 6 all day long, both of you people are sitting, riding on 6 adequate. And what we've asked, the synagogue has more 7 this donkey as you're trying to go over this incredible 7 than volunteered to do, which the six-month CUP process 8 bridge. This is really disgusting. " 8 is there to test, and everybody is here to try to fmd a 9 These people are from Chelm, and they're 9 solution to mitigate it in the future. 10 not too bright. So they say, "We might do something here ]0 The parking does not have to be owned off site. 11 at least for the short tenn. We'll get off the donkey, 11 It's the mitigation parking. The parking for normal use 12 and wel1 carry the donkey over the bridge." So they 12 is on site, and when there are these other needs for 13 pick the donkey up. They're finnbling with him. They get 13 larger activities, that could be handled through various 14 to the center of the bridge, they lose their balance, and 14 ways. I'm very concerned -- and they don't have to own 15 the donkey goes over the edge of the bridge, falls into ]5 it. I really think that we have -- the CUP process 16 the river and swims away and gets to the other bank and ]6 hasn't discussed ample means both software and its 17 then runs off. ]7 programs or different ways in which the activities of the 18 And the moral of the story is clearly that, if ]8 temple are conducted, especially having to do with 19 you try to please everyone, you might as well kiss your 19 parking. Also, even it could be hardware. It could be 20 ass good-bye, which is what we discovered in this 20 something that's a bricks-and-mortar change that might 21 process. 2] happen over time. 22 MAYOR GRAM; Could we have a vote on this? 22 We have lots of options, but it's wrong to 23 COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: Yes. Seguing into the 23 preconceive what these need to be before the facility is 24 issues at hand, we took an oath of office when we took 24 in operation. We could all much more intelligently look 25 our seats here, and that was to obey the laws of the 25 at what kinds of mitigations need to be done in the Page 63 Page 65 1 7 (pages 62 to 65) AMERlCAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 future when those are in place and can be adapted. But 1 what they're asking for does nothing more than that. I 2 to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction more to the 2 think it is in the middle of a residential neighborhood, 3 point of the requirements ofCEQA, the mitigations are in 3 so there is a significant need to try to mitigate and 4 place to allow the process to go ahead with the 4 control the impacts that may potentially arise as a 5 agreed-upon controls having been discussed. 5 result of a larger facility. .. 6 So for me, this is a much more straightforward 6 I honestly believe that if this project is 7 CEQA type of thing and much more of a planning process. 7 built the way it's proposed and the CUP is adopted as 8 And RLUIP A is just not -- it's out there, something for 8 it's currently drafted, that the impacts on this 9 us to think about, but it's not really part of the 9 neighborhood will be better, less than they are today. 10 picture, at least as far as I'm concerned. And perhaps 10 You may all come back later and tell me I was wrong, but 11 as Mr. Ragghianti said, a really intelligent person would 11 we'll see if that day ever comes. 12 be fearfully taking that into consideration. Ifs too 12 I think the CUP as it1s currently drafted 13 bad. I'm from Chelm. I didn't think about it. I'mjust 13 strikes a reasonable and fair balance between attempting 14 going on the CEQA aspect of it. 14 to mitigate the impacts that may occur on the 15 I got a kick last time at your description of 15 neighborhood that were identified to the CEQA process but 16 yourself as you came up and said, "I'm not here to have a 16 also allows Kol Shofar to continue with the activities 17 lawsuit. I'm here" -- and I kept thinking about the 17 and events that they've had there for many years and to 18 grand inquisitor, you know, with the guys on the rack. 18 engage in some new activities. 19 And I said, "I am not here to have Igor turn that rack. 19 I think it was improved through the process 20 I'm here to keep him from turning that rack here." 20 that we have already gone through, as excruciating at 21 So it's about kind of the way I felt. 21 times as that was. It's a better document today and, you 22 Nonetheless, I think that RLUIP A is really the inquest. 22 know, a lot of us put a lot of effort and time into 23 So I really liked the modifications, and I can support 23 various provisions. But I think we were able to let go 24 them. I can support the various things as mentioned in 24 of things that weren't popular and things that didn't 25 the resolution for the reasons I've said. 25 seem to work. And I think we took a lot of input from Page 66 Page 68 1 COUNCll.MEMBER SMITH: Tom and I met with both 1 people, and we modified the document to reflect a lot of 2 sides repeatedly, and it became very apparent ~om the 2 those things, and it's now a better document than it was 3 outset that there is a fimdamental distinction between 3 previous. And I think staff has a great deal to do with 4 the two sides. The neighbors repeatedly and consistently 4 making that happen. 5 throughout the entire process took position that the way 5 So I've listened to a lot of public comment. I 6 to control the potential impacts on a neighborhood like 6 went to the planning commission meetings before these 7 this was by controlling the physical plan. It's just if 7 meetings. I read tons of letters and emails. I read a 8 you reduce the size of the buildings, you can reduce the 8 bunch of Staff Reports and Consultant Reports. You know, 9 impacts, and that that's the way it should be done. 9 but the decision that I have to make here is really based 10 They do not trust the kind of regulation that 10 on my personal review in consideration of the entire 11 you get through the CUP process, and a much greater trust 11 record of these proceedings, a great deal of which is 12 in simply shrinking the vote. Kol Shofar on the other 12 sitting in my garage at the moment and taking up a lot of 13 hand embraced the concept of regulation through the CUP. 13 space. 14 And I personally believe that you can -- and we have 14 So I can support the recommendation of staff to 15 historically regulated facilities like this through the 15 adopt these resolutions. I believe the facts in the 16 CUP process. I believe in the CUP process and its 16 record before us support the fmdings that are proposed 17 ability to regulate and control these kinds of 17 in these resolutions, and I believe the fmdings support 18 facilities. 18 the resolutions and their detenninations. So when we get 19 We've analyzed this project to an incredible 19 to it, I will give you my suggestions on the request of 20 degree. I want to step back, and I just look at the 20 land use regulation, unless you want them now. 21 site, and I look at Kol Shofar. You mow, this is an old 21 MA YOR GRAM: On the CUP itself, the resolution? 22 public school site, and it needs to be upgraded. It's 22 COUNCll..MEMBER SMITH: Yeah. 23 like we have all of our other similar sites. It's 23 MAYOR GRAM: We'll wait until we get there. 24 appropriate for them to want a facility that meets the 24 You've heard me talk at length at the previous 25 current needs and standards. And I quite frankly think 25 three meetings, and I'll try to keep my comments brief. Page 67 Page 69 18 (Pages 66 to 69) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 We're not trying to restrict the current uses or any 1 2 future reasonable uses ofKol Shofar. Our responsibility 2 3 is to accommodate your religious needs and provide for 3 4 your other congregational events and activities, and 4 5 we'll do so in the future if need be. But in balancing 5 6 those interests, we have to reasonably minimize the 6 7 disruption to the neighbors while at the same time not 7 8 imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of your 8 9 re~~ 9 10 But we are not and cannot give you a blank 10 11 check to do whatever you want, whenever you want 11 12 regardless of the impacts on the neighborhood. That 12 13 would be your responsibility given that you are about to 13 14 build a very large meeting space iJ:1 the middle ofa 14 15 closely-knit residential neighborhood. You have families 15 16 living close by, and it's our job to make sure that 16 17 they're protected as best we reasonably can. 17 18 We are making this decision based on an 18 19 independent analysis of the facts based upon reviewing 19 20 the record, including the EIR and exhaustive meetings 20 21 with both sides. Our decision is not based upon any 21 22 specific individual views of the audience or the public. 22 23 This has been going on for almost three years now. I 23 24 checked that out today, and I was surprised to see how 24 25 long it has been going on. 25 Page 70 ] At some point, someone has to make a decision 2 that he or she deems best under the circumstances. I 3 think we have tried to, and I think we've accomplished 4 balancing both interests under very difficult 5 circumstances, and I believe we have done that, and I 6 believe that we should now proceed to take a vote on the 7 resolutions. And I'm going to, I believe like other 8 members of the Council have indicated, look favorably 9 upon. 10 So that said, there are some revisions that 1 I have been made by staff, very minor. And so the first 12 resolution is a resolution denying the Kol Shofar appeal 13 of the EIR certification. And I believe there is a minor 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 revision to that. :MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Gram. We would recommend that you add a sentence to that resolution that indicates that the Council took additional public testimony on February 7th and February 21st of this year. MAYOR GRAM: And that's it? :MR. ANDERSON: That is the only change. MAYOR GRAM: Okay. Would someone like to make a motion either accepting that amendment, that revision, or passing the resolution as is? COUNCll..,MEMBER BERGER: I'd like to move that we accept, pass the resolution with those additions I had Page 71 mentioned. MAYOR GRAM: Is there a second? COUNCll..MEMBER FREDERICKS: Second MAYOR GRAM: Would you call the roll, please. MS. IACOPI: Yes, Mr. Mayor. CounciImember Fredericks COUNCll..MEMBER: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Berger. COUNCll..,MEMBER BERGER: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Smith. COUNCll..,MEMBER SMITH: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Mayor Gram. MAYOR GRAM: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Four ayes passed, one absent. MAYOR GRAM: The next resolution is a resolution denying the TNC appeal of the EIR certification. Are there any revisions to that? :MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The same change adding the line referencing additional testimony taken on February 7th and February 21st of this year. MAYOR GRAM: Okay. Is there a motion to approve that resolution with the revisions? COUNCll..MEMBER FREDERICKS: Move to adopt the resolution with revisions. COUNCll..,MEMBER BERGER: Second. Page 72 I MAYOR GRAM: Could you call the roll on that, 2 please. 3 MS. IACOPI: Yes, Mr. Mayor. 4 Councilmember Fredericks: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNCll..MEMBER FREDERICKS: Yes. MS. IACOPI: CounciImember Berger. COUNCll..MEMBER BERGER: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Smith. COUNCll..,MEMBER SMITH: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Mayor Gram. MA YOR GRAM: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Passed four ayes, one absent. MAYOR GRAM: Next is the resolution certifying the EIR. Are there any revisions you want to make to that? MR. ANDERSON: None. COUNCll..,MEMBER FREDERICKS: Move to adopt the resolution certifying the EIR. COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: Second. MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Fredericks. COUNCll..,MEMBER FREDERICKS: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Berger. COUNCll..MEMBER BERGER: Yes. MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Smith. COUNCILMEMBER SMITH: Yes. Page 73 AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 19 (Pages 70 to 73) PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 MS. IACOPI: Mayor Gram. 1 events. 2 MAYOR GRAM: Yes. 2 MA YOR GRAM: Is there a motion to adopt the '3 MS. IACOPI: Passed four ayes, one absent. 3 resolution making consistency findings to this CUP 4 MAYOR GRAM: Next, the resolution making CEQA 4 approval with that revision? 5 fmdings of fact. Are there any revisions to that? 5 COUNCILME~ERftERGER: So moved. 6 MR. ANDERSON: There is one potential revision 6 COUNClLME~ER FREDERICKS: Second. 7 that is a spill-over effect from a request by 7 MA YOR GRAM: Call the roll, please. 8 Mr. Ragghianti that one of the conditions of the CUP 8 MS. IACOPI: Yes, Mr. Mayor. 9 resolution involving at which times doors and windows of 9 Councilmember Fredericks. 10 the multi-purpose room can be kept open. There is a 10 COUNCILME~ER FREDERICKS: Yes. 11 spill-over there. 11 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Berger. 12 And basically, as I understand it, Kol Shofar 12 COUNCILME~ER BERGER: Yes. 13 is requesting that in addition to High Holy Day services, 13 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Smith. 14 when they would be allowed to have the doors and windows 14 COUNCILME~ER SMITH: Yes. 15 of the multi-purpose room open, they would also like that 15 MS. IACOPI: Mayor Gram. 16 privilege extended to Sukkot. 16 MAYOR GRAM: Yes. 17 MAYOR GRAM: To what? 17 MS. IACOPI: Passed four ayes, one absent. 18 MR. ANDERSON: Sukkot. I believe that's 18 MA YOR GRAM: The final resolution is a 19 largely an outdoor event anyway. The Kiddush lunches, 19 resolution partially granting the Kol Shofar appeal and 20 which are generally outdoors, when they're held in the 20 the CUP denial. 21 lawn area And also, to the opening and closing 21 MR. ANDERSON: I think we need to back up to 22 ceremonies at the SlD1day school, which are traditionally 22 the consistency findings. You just adopted the CEQA 23 held outdoors and amplified. 23 findings. Now we have Exhibit 6. 24 COUNCll.,MEMBER BERGER: I'd like to ask the 24 MA YOR GRAM: I'm sony. So you're making 25 question of the applicant. These are mostly outdoor 25 consistency findings for the CUP approval. Page 74 Page 76 1 activities certainly. But when the doors are open. is 1 MS. DANFORTH: Mr. Mayor, if I may clarify for 2 there a likelihood in the way these things have 1?een done 2 the record. I think what happened was, the motion 3 it the past that there's -- and for the outdoor things, 3 clearly referred to the EIR CEQA findings. But when you 4 there's no amplification, which we know. Is there a 4 recapped it, you misspoke and said "consistency 5 situation where, if the doors are all open. everything 5 findings." I think the motion itself in the second was 6 there might be things inside that would be amplified that 6 in fact to the correct resolution in Exhibit 5. 7 you would hear outside? Not likely. I mean, if it is, 7 MA YOR GRAM: Is that the understanding that 8 you can come back and deal with it. But not generally? 8 Council - 9 MR BROWN: No possibility. 9 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: Yes, it is. 10 COUNCll.,MEMBER BERGER: Thank you. That's all I 10 MAYOR GRAM: Okay. Next we have the resolution 11 have. 11 making consistency findings to the CUP approval. 12 MAYOR GRAM: If we modify this that way, then 12 Are there any revisions so that? 13 we are agreeing to modify the next one. I want to make 13 MR. ANDERSON: None. 14 sure we all understand that in voting for this one, we've 14 MA YOR GRAM: Is there a motion to adopt? 15 got modifications. We are voting to allow that also in 15 COUNCll.,MEMBER FREDERICKS: I move to adopt the 16 the resolution partly granting the appeal. 16 resolution to - adopt the General Plan Zoning Ordinance 17 COUNCll.,MEMBER BERGER: To me, it makes sense 17 consistency finding. That's where we are, Exhibit 6. 18 because these are basically outdoor things. It doesn't 18 COUNCll.,MEMBER BERGER: Second. And I'd just 19 make sense to say for everybody to come outside and we're 19 like to explain perhaps to the audience why it seems that 20 going to close the doors to an empty room. It just 20 Alice and I are doing all this moving and seconding. It 21 makes -- I mean, I don't think there's any -- it's just 21 has to do with the fact that we're not - we weren't 22 for clarification of use. 22 members of the subcommittee, and it's not so seemingly 23 MAYOR GRAM: Any other comments? 23 bad, people on a subcommittee moving the acceptance of 24 COUNCll.,MEMBER FREDERICKS: I just support it on 24 their own stuff. 25 the understanding that these are basically outdoor 25 MA YOR GRAM: Call the roll, please. Page 75 Page 77 20 (Pages 74 to 77) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS - 2/21/07 1 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Fredericks. 1 COUNCll.,MEMBER FREDERICKS: No. 2 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: Yes. 2 MAYOR GRAM: And then on I think the next one 3 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Berger. 3 is page 5, F, "unilaterally." We heard the explanation 4 COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: Yes. 4 from staff on that. 5 MS. IACOPI: CounciImember Smith. 5 Does anyone ~ant to accept that request? 6 COUNCILMEMBER SMITH: Yes. 6 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: No. 7 MS. IACOPI: Mayor Gram. 7 MAYOR GRAM: That's okay? 8 MAYOR GRAM: Yes. 8 MR. RAGGIDANTI: Yes. Thank you. 9 MS. IACOPI: Passed four ayes, one absent. 9 MAYOR GRAM: It got rejected anyway. 10 MAYOR GRAM: And finally, the resolution for 10 And then on page 7, I believe it's where it 11 partially granting the Kol Shofar appeal of the CUP 11 says in B, Roman No.2: Except for High Holy Day 12 denial, conditionally approving the CUP and adopting a 12 services, and those events listed in 4B(iv). 13 mitigation monitoring program. And we have requested 13 Did we resolve that? 14 revisions to that. 14 COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: Yeah. 15 And are there any staff revisions to that? 15 MA YOR GRAM: So that's acceptable. 16 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. There are a couple minor 16 COUNCll.,MEMBER SMITIi: 13, delete the last 17 staff revisions. The first one deals with page 9, 17 sentence. 18 Condition 5B -- Roman numeral "I," small "b." There is a 18 MAYOR GRAM: That's paragraph 13 on page 14, 19 reference in there to CKS. And based on the latest Crane 19 and the request is to delete: ''Notwithstanding the 20 letter that was in your packet, the recommendation is to 20 foregoing, the Town will not approve any such amendment 21 strike "CKS" and replace that with "Corte San Fernando." 21 request that is contrary to a compelling Town interest." 22 And that has to do with the placing of temporary "no 22 Is there a desire to accept that? 23 parking" signs along that stretch ofBlackfield Drive 23 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: No. 24 during very large events. 24 COUNCll.,MEMBER BERGER: No. J don't think we 25 MAYOR GRAM: Any comments on that request? 25 have to do that. Page 78 Page 80 1 Any other staff revisions? 1 MA YOR GRAM: And then in the table, there was a 2 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. On page 10, there is an 2 request. Does anyone have a problem with the change that 3 incorrect reference to a prior condition. There's a 3 Howard requested in the table? 4 reference to B Roman numeral n. And actually, that 4 COUNCll.,MEMBER SMITH: I don't have a problem 5 should be B Roman numeral I. Very minor. 5 with it. 6 MAYOR GRAM: Anything else? 6 MAYOR GRAM: Putting in a hyphen, I think it 7 MR. ANDERSON: Only the changes that were 7 was. 8 suggested by Mr. Ragghianti and Mr. Zack. 8 COUNCll.,MEMBER SMITH: And 15 and 400 on both. 9 MA YOR GRAM: Right So I'm asking you, are 9 MAYOR GRAM: Is that acceptable? 10 there any other staff revisions? Then we will deal with 10 COUNCll.,MEMBER FREDERICKS: Yes. 11 the request with -- 11 COUNCll.MEMBER SMITH: Any reason? 12 MR. ANDERSON: There are no further staff 12 MAYOR GRAM: Are there any other revisions? 13 revisions. 13 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. There is one more 14 MA YOR GRAM: Let's deal with the request by 14 collateral revision. It deals with the doors and windows 15 Kol Shofar. The first one I believe is in the fIrst 15 being open in the multi-purpose room. This is an 16 "whereas." ''Noticed public meeting," add an "S." Any 16 amendment to Exhibit B, which is the mitigation honoring 17 problem with that, make it "meetings"? 17 program. The language in that document should reflect 18 MR. RAGGHlANTI: And add February 21 st. 18 what's in the condition, which you've already agreed to 19 COUNCILMEMBER SMITH: And add February 21 st. 19 change. 20 MAYOR GRAM: Okay. That's G. 20 MAYOR GRAM: And you will make those changes? 21 COUNCILMEMBER SMITH: February 21st. 21 MR. ANDERSON: I will make that change. 22 MA YOR GRAM: G, you want to add February 21 st? 22 MA YOR GRAM: Okay. Does anyone have a concern 23 MR. RAGGHlANTI: Yes. 23 with those changes? 24 MA YOR GRAM: Any problems with that? 24 Anything else? Is there a motion to adopt the 25 COUNCll.,MEMBER BERGER: No problem. 25 resolution partially granting the Kol Shofar appeal of Page 79 Page 81 21 (Pages 78 to 81) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688 PROCEEDINGS-2nlro7 1 the CUP denial, conditionally approving the CUP and 2 adopting a mitigation monitoring program as amended? '3 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: So agreed. 4 COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: Second. 5 MA YOR GRAM: Call roll, please. ~ 6 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Fredericks. 7 COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS: Yes. 8 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Berger. 9 COUNCILMEMBER BERGER: Yes. 10 MS. IACOPI: Councilmember Smith. 11 COUNCILMEMBER SMITH: Yes. 12 MS. IACOPI: Mayor Gram. 13 MAYOR GRAM: Yes. 14 MS. IACOPI: Passed four ayes, one .absent. 15 MA YOR GRAM: That concludes this matter. 16 Thank you. 17 (Proceedings adjourned at 9:45 p.m.) 18 ---000--- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 82 22 (Page 82) AMERICAN REPORTING SERVICES (800) 624-8688