RE: consent item #7,
Resolution Stating the City’s Position on Proposed United States Fish &
Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) proposed Marin Baylands Wildlife Refuge. City’s Resolution
The City of San Rafael had a Resolution criticizing the USFWS handling of the Baylands Refuge mapping process. The Resolution specifically criticized the USFWS’s handling of the St. Vincent's Silveira properties. Many other property owners, including Canalways, proposed adding all the concerns of all the property owners to the Resolution.
The Marin Airport, San Rafael Chamber, League of Women Voters, and Canalways were among those who spoke against the USFWS’s Refuge process and against having certain property included in it.
CAPS and Marin Sierra Club and Audubon Society spoke in favor of having the properties included in the Refuge.
Some summarized, unofficial comments follow. I may post the resolution and some abbreviated, more official City mini-minutes in a few days.
League of Women Voters, May 7, 2001 letter. Read into Council record at the meeting.
Our intent is to be consistent with City policy. If the Refuge is placed on all of St. Vincent’s Silveira it could jeopardize the City’s ability to deliver ABAG’s 2,090 fair share housing units. It could also “complicate and cloud discussions on St. Vincent Silveira.” Therefore staff supports the Resolution as issued.
Staff doesn’t believe the Marin Airport and Canalways should be included, since there are preservable lands on those sites, and they have not gone through an extensive planning process as has St. Vincent Silveira.
By not including other properties in your resolution is to sanction their inclusion in it. Link to Kuhn & Levy letter (coming)
Still not clear on what designation follows with Baylands Refuge other than making funds available.
I came to knit but got upset to hear Marin Audubon say this Wildlife Refuge has been a closed process. People in San Rafael need housing and you City Council should be applauded for your efforts to deliver that.
Read his letter into the proceeding which states negative traffic impacts from St. Vincent's Silveira, funding opportunity Refuge offers, strong voter support for a refuge and that in-fill can address housing needs.
Where do you suggest we provide the 2,090 units of housing?
You will probably not find another site that can provide a hundred units. You can look downtown but not in ag areas. You might have to face the fact that you are built out.
We want you to consider taking Silveira out of the Refuge. We are skeptical of this proposal. My family has been patient and if we want the government to buy something we can ask them and wait for them to get the money. We have had our land for over a 100 years, so we can wait. My Dad recently spent five years in an eminent domain battle and these labels you put on the land do factor in. The president of CAPS, the Marin Sierra Club, the Marin Audubon Society – they were all in Court every day trying to take our land. We are very skeptical of this whole process and don’t want to be in it.
Regarding ”environmental quality” from your Resolution’s Whereas list: The Canalways partnership has been involved in enhancing the environmentally quality of the once toxic North Bay pond. Private developers turned that dead toxic hole into a thriving pond. As to “workforce housing” on your Whereas list: We believe, unlike Mr. Dickenson, that Canalways has the potential to deliver well over a hundred housing units. As to “input:” I have been to several property owners meetings. At one, property owners were asked to place red pins on a map if they wanted out of the Refuge and green pins if they wanted in. No green pins were placed. No one wanted to be in the Refuge. We seek input on the Canalways site. We have had engineers from Levine & Fricke, who have done the largest wetlands mitigation in California out to give us advice on how to enhance the land. We have had three of the leaders from the Fish and Wildlife Service spend two hours with us last week.
Planner Brown said the Refuge could “complicate and cloud discussions on St. Vincent's Silveira.” It is that same clouding and complicating that happens to the other property owners that causes us to be want to be specifically included in your Resolution. The 535 nationwide Refuge programs are wonderful, but in this county for too long these kind of terms are misused by pressure groups to later cause time and money to be spent by land owners before councils like this. Projects are then down zoned, affordable housing is destroyed and congestion is caused. Your city has done more than any other Marin city to provide affordable housing and should be praised. But in this county this Refuge term will be misused to deprive the county of its ability to address housing and transit needs. That is why we ask you to include the other property owners in your Resolution which expresses grave concerns about the USFWS Mapping process.. Canalways May 4, 2001 letter
(Link to SR Chamber letter coming)
On
his reading of the USFWS website http://refuges.fws.gov he learned
that; “"The
Service land protection policy is to acquire land only when other means of
protection (e.g., zoning or regulation to achieve program goals) are not
appropriate, available, or effective.” Other means of protecting are available so why
is this going on.?
Where did fish and Wildlife come from? No property owners were asked before they
came in. No cities or congressional
reps were contacted. Therefore, I can
only conclude that special interest
groups brought them in to try to resolve this issue (St. Vincent's Silveira) …
This label could cloud the St. Vincent's
Silveira property. It’s a deliberate
attempt to undermine the process. The
Silveira’s pay $200,000 a year in property tax and they were not properly
contacted and involved. This is a
deliberate attempt by special interest groups to thwart the St. Vincent's
Silveira process where 85% of the land has been protected.
I get very annoyed at the irony of saying we
(the city) were secretive when compared to how USFWS has handled their
process… dickenson and I have been
disagreeing fot 10 years. Weh have
probably caused more environmental damage from cutting trees to make the paper
that have covered votes on those discussions and disagreements… I do not buy the idea that this Refuge is a
great funding opportunity. The federal
government can’t pay the costs to acquire these lands. Zip is available in their budget…
I don’t want to see 15 million people in this
county, and I won’t. I’d like to see my
kids live here but they probably won’t be able to afford it. But I am not prepared to close the gates on
providing housing… USFWS has run
roughshod over the process.
I’d be looking for Refuge land where people
want to sell. No way in the Church’s
heaven that St. vincent’s would be willing to sell. USFWS should look to where people are willing to sell.
I don’t buy the argument that this is a
source of funding. I don’t see the
funding being available, so I do not think we are passing up funding.
The Resolution as is was adopted 4-0, Heller absent.