Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1988-06-21SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1988 AT 7:30 PM. Special Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk SPECIAL MEETING - DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2000 - REVIEW OF SPECIFIC AREAS AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS - File 115 Mayor Mulryan opened the meeting stating tonight Council would make deci- sions on the Plan and noting although the agenda indicates two meetings are to be held, tonight and tomorrow night, Council was confident they would finish tonight. Councilmember Frugoli stated he would not be discussing the following topics: Lamperti Property, Spinnaker Phase V and Scettrini, because of possible conflicts of interest. Planning Director Anne Moore stated they have tried to provide the City Council with a summary listing of all verbal comments during public hear- ings along with written correspondence. She indicated the report focuses on recommended changes and major recommendations, noting this is not a complete listing of all the recommendations Council has had for changes. She thanked Planning Coordinator Jeff Baird and Senior Planner Jean Freitas for their work on the Draft General Plan 2000. Senior Planner Jean Freitas stated the focus of the City Council review and discussion are goals, policies and implementing programs for the Specific Areas sections. The proposed order for reviewing the Specific Areas sections is the order in which they appear in the Draft Plan which starts with the Residential Neighborhoods Section, including all residen- tial areas of the City not located within any of the specific subareas- It includes the West End, Gerstle Park, Peacock Gap and other residential areas primarily around the Downtown area. Discussions would be of St. Vincents/Silveira, Northgate, Downtown, Fran- cisco Boulevard West, East San Rafael and the Canal/Bayfront. Areas highlighted in the staff report on wetlands and setbacks information would be part of the Canal/Bayfront discussion as related to the Canal Setback Policy. Staff recommended that any parcel specific requests be discussed by sub area. These requests are identified in a separate staff report handout given to the Council last night entitled, "Property Specific Land Use Revisions Not Recommended for Change". The staff report contains a discussion of two outstanding issues: St. Vincents/Silveira land uses and Canal/Bayfront setbacks as well as provid- ing several attachments as follows: A compilation of recommended changes and City Council consideration items for the Specific Areas and Implementing Programs sections of the Plan. This compilation contains changes from three staff response documents. She stated staff did respond to all correspondence received prior to May 25, 1988 and indicated all correspondence received since has been forwarded to Council. Attachment C is the St. Vincents/Silveira map and Sierra Club recommenda- tions. Attachment D is a summary of how many pending development applications are affected by the Wetlands setback provisions. Attachment E is a list of new implementing programs which need to even- tually be prioritized. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 2 Two separate documents were passed out to the Council last evening, one, cost estimate and work program information for a possible St. Vincents/ Silveira "study area"; two, a list of Property Specific Land Use requests not recommended for change. ATTACHMENT A - Page 8 of the Staff Report Ms. Freitas stated the first item is not recommended by staff or by the Planning Commission and is a Council Consideration item for a Land Use revision for several parcels on the South side of Second Street located between East St. and Sentinel Court. She stated that the West End neighbor- hood has recommended Medium Density along the Second Street frontage parcels because the sites are adjacent to single family zones, noting the neighborhood wants to retain the existing two-story building heights. She stated the Planning Commission considered this request but retained the high density designation because the lots are flat sites, near the Downtown area with good access. Difference between the two designations would depend on the zoning that is ultimately adopted for the property. Some of the medium density desig- nations could require a 2,000 square foot minimum per unit and some high density zones would require 1,800 or 1,500 square feet per unit. Ms. Moore stated it is fairly consistent with the approach used, for example, busy residential arterials carrying a lot of traffic such as Lincoln Avenue, are transit accessible, near services and are appropriate areas for higher density, presumably rental developments. In a situation such as this and in the West End, high density development could end up being three stories and provide a noise buffering of the lower density residential neighborhoods behind those properties from the arterials with this kind of development. She noted this is the rationale behind the staff and Planning Commission's recommendation. LAND USE DESIGNATION Ms. Freitas stated staff recommends modifying the Land Use Designation for certain large parcels taking access from Fremont Road from "low density residential" to "hillside residential" which would reduce further subdivi- sion potential. She noted this is consistent with the topography and noted the parcels are adjacent to other "hillside residential" parcels. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the modification of the Land Use Designation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None REDESIGNATION OF PARCEL "B" - SEASTRAND LOT Ms. Freitas stated that staff's recommendation is to redesignate the Seastrand Lot from Open Space to Low Density Residential because there were no legal restrictions recorded to preserve that site as open space. City Attorney Ragghianti stated Council did not know as yet if this site should be open space noting prior to the time the Council actually adopts the Plan, this should not be acted upon. Mayor Mulryan suggested this item be deferred stating that a Special meeting was scheduled for June 27, 1988 before the budget meeting. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REVISE Councilmember Thayer asked Council to consider reducing the high density to medium density in the West End Neighborhood. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question should Council adopt staff's recommendation of high density and if there would be a significant differ- ence in use as to what is there now, Ms. Freitas responded it would not and that it is currently zoned as R-3, high density residential. She noted that many of the lots are developed at high density already. Councilmember Frugoli stated he felt that staff's recommendation would provide more affordable housing in the Downtown area. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 3 Councilmember Thayer moved to adopt the reduction from high density to medium density in the West End Neighborhood. Motion died for lack of a second. BRET HARTE Ms. Freitas stated the Bret Harte Neighborhood Association has recommended that as the area is in transition, given Andersen Drive improvements, there be a policy and program added recommending preparation of a Bret Harte Area Neighborhood Plan. She explained this has not be recommended by staff to date because staff felt it is relatively unlikely that this existing developed residential area would be significantly affected by Andersen Drive improvements, noting the nearby commercial area has already been studied in the Francisco Boulevard West Specific Plan done recently. Ms. Moore stated if Council is interested in endorsing the Neighborhood Plan effort for the future, staff would recommend its priority be rela- tively low because they are committed to prepare the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan not just through the General Plan but through the Redevelop- ment Agency Agreement with the School District; for the Montecito Neighbor- hood Plan and the Lincoln Avenue Corridor, also a specific plan for Down- town. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, that the need for a Bret Harte Neighborhood Plan be acknowledged with priority to be reviewed later, noting to some degree the area is in a transition period. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None In response to Mayor Mulryan's question about residential neighborhoods dealing with school sites, specifically the Laurel Dell Intermediate School being recommended as high density, Ms. Freitas responded that the surrounding area is zoned R-3, high density. In response to Councilmember Thayer's reference to Section 8 - Residential on Lincoln Avenue, if there would be higher density other than what already exists in that area, Ms. Freitas responded negatively noting not unless the project is given a density bonus. She said the current zoning would be retained. Ms. Moore stated there might be some increases on some of the properties because of small lot sizes, some lots may not have achieved the high end of the density range due to an inability to provide circulation parking. Staff stated a way to achieve higher density would be with zoning implemen- tation where parcels are made larger. She noted there may be some potential for increasing the number of units in the corridor but it would be done in a way that on -street parking would be met and there would be fewer driveways than there are now. It would only be by putting lots together making parcels that can be developed into R-3 types densities, noting sufficient parking would then be mandatory. PROPERTIES SPECIFIC LAND USE REVISIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHANGE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Councilmember Boro referred to Item 1 - 157 Woodland, stating current recommendation is for low density, noting that Mr. Copple requested it be changed to medium density. Mr. Boro stated based on a prior project Mr. Copple constructed in the area and the quality including the need for affordable housing, that medium would be an incentive. He noted the range for medium is 6 to 15 and the range for low is 1 to 6, and indicated if the site cannot handle much above 6, this could be limited during the planning process even though it is zoned medium. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to change the recommendation from low density to medium density for the property at 157 Woodland. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Thayer NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special. 6/21/88 Page 4 Council did not discuss the other four parcel specific requests and Mayor Mulryan indicated Council therefore agreed with staff's recommendations. ST. VINCENTS/SILVEIRA PROPERTIES Ms. Freitas pointed out Council's requests. That a matrix be developed comparing four St. Vincents/Silveira Land Use Alternatives: a) The draft Plan Medium Density Residential Alternative; b) A lower Intensity Mixed Residential/Office Alternative; c) The Maximum Environmental Protection Alternative from the EIR; and d) Sierra Club's proposal for the area. Ms. Freitas stated that Planning Commission recommended draft Plan recom- mends up to 3,600 residential units, most of which would be condominiums or apartments at varying densities and a neighborhood shopping center on the St. Vincents/Silveira property. Like the other alternatives, this alternative would preserve Site Wetlands, Hillsides, Miller Creek and a setback around Miller Creek. No urban land use development is proposed east of the railroad tracks on these properties, only agricultural and recreation uses as well as ancillary residential uses relating to the agricultural operation. She stated the Planning Commission approved this alternative on a 4-3 vote to maximize housing opportunities in the planning area. However, several of the Commissioners were also interested in a Mixed Use Alterna- tive but never specifically considered the proposed Mixed Use Alternative contained in this matrix which "fits" within proposed traffic standards. However, this alternative falls within the range of EIR Alternatives considered by the Planning Commission. The Mixed Use Alternative in the matrix would significantly reduce overall residential densities to 6 units per acre; continue to provide a neighbor- hood commercial area and some office development; have somewhat lower water and sewer impacts than the draft Plan due to reduced residential development, and retain the area east of the railroad tracks in an agricul- tural/recreation designation for the time frame of the Plan. The Maximum Environmental Protection Alternative in the EIR would allow very low density residential uses on bay mud and hillside portions of St. Vincents/Silveira and low density, single family uses on the remaining non bay mud portions of the site west of the railroad tracks. This alter- native would allow up to 760 residential units. Due to the low residential densities and limits on bay mud development, there would be no transit stop or neighborhood commercial center. The EIR Alternative specified a development prohibition on diked baylands east of the railroad tracks and it was assumed this meant open space rather than agricultural or recreational use of the area. The Sierra Club's Proposal is to acquire and restore the entire site as a wetlands and wildlife park and would mean zero development potential, public purchase of the site and constructing levee modifications to allow tidal action to resume in the diked former bayland area. Ms. Freitas indicated it is not known what effects this proposal would have on the existing St. Vincents' School or the Las Gallinas Sanitary District opera- tions. She referred to the Attachment C map in the staff report which shows that any levee modifications would affect the Las Gallinas Sanitary District property because it lies between the Bay and the St. Vincents/ Silveira properties. Some Councilmembers asked staff to provide a rationale as to why it may not be possible to leave St. Vincents/Silveira in an agricultural zone and Ms. Freitas stated that it may be possible to do so; however, it is nearly certain that the property owners would not consider long term agricultural use to be a reasonable economic use of their properties nor consistent with past planning efforts. Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report outline past Countywide General Plan Policies identifying St. Vincents/Silveira for mixed use development. She noted that agricultural contracts were cancelled in 1974 over the opposition of the property owner which is consistent with that approach. The 1982 Countywide Plan identified the area as a special study area with the County initiating the draft North San Rafael Policy Plan effort identifying the area for high intensity mixed uses oriented along the proposed transitway. Addi- SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 4 SRCC MINTUES (Special 6/21/88 Page 5 tionally, the City's Housing Element has designated the area as a housing opportunity area since 1985 as a logical City expansion area adjacent to both Highway 101 and the proposed transitway and is surrounded on three sides by urban development. Ms. Freitas stated that St. Vincents/Silveira representatives made several requests: For a mixed use designation, for inclusion in the five year Urban Services Area, for an Advisory Committee to continue the land use designation discussions for the property, and that decisions be left open regarding timing of development with circulation improvements in this area. Pages 4 and 6 of the staff report show staff's responses. Ms. Freitas highlighted two issues, one, the Advisory Committee study area request which has also been requested by some neighborhood representatives. She stated the Advisory Committee study area approach would leave a policy void in the General Plan and would make it encumbent on the City to complete its General Plan which has undetermined time and cost implications; staff estimates it would probably take one and a half years and cost $100,000. She mentioned this is in a three page handout entitled "St. Vincents/Silveira General Plan Amendment Study" and identifies the likely process, staffing needs and work program for such a process. Ms. Freitas stated staff's opinion was that constraints and opportunities are sufficiently known after six years' of study to establish overall land uses for the property and that the subsequent Master Plan, which would be the property owner's development plan called for in the draft General Plan, can incorporate updated or more specific information on wetlands, transitway improvements and new water and sewer information as it becomes available. Staff found that it would take six months to a year for new information to be available from the 101 Corridor Committee, the Countywide Plan or the Water District. She stated it is not recommended, but if there is substantial support for providing a study area overlay designation for St. Vincents/Silveira, staff would strongly recommend that Council go through the St. Vincents/Silveira Policies on pages 86 to 88 of the draft General Plan and retain those policies which are agreed upon in order to focus the study area efforts. Staff also specifically recommends that the Circulation Timing Policies, which are contained in the draft Plan Policy, SVS -2 be retained. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question of staff as to whether they need to make some designation on SVS -4 as to what density they want, Ms. Freitas replied staff believes there would need to be an underlying land use designation and would recommend continuing the agricultural land use designation that has been in effect for the property or an interim agricul- tural designation until such time as the study is completed. Mayor Mulryan asked if going beyond the interim, would a target be needed toward which the study should be aimed, Ms. Freitas stated if there is a target density, one basically has the land use, that is the main decision which needs to be made. Ms. Moore stated they have been monitoring the slow progress of the Las Gallinas Sanitary District in developing plans and studies for their future expansion. If this major expansion area in their area is put on hold to be studied for another year before decisions are made, staff can assume that would delay the Districts study of their plans and their being able to move ahead with any expansion of the sewerage treatment plant also, because they would need to know what the City's policy was for the property. This is true whether the property is inside or outside of the Urban Service Area, because their planning horizon is longer than the five years that the Urban Service Area pertains to. They would need to take into account the ultimate development beyond that five year window. Ms. Freitas pointed out that they are looking at two phases of expansion. One being a near term expansion that is needed immediately for the North - gate development and the longer term is for a larger expansion that would accommodate St. Vincents/Silveira development and additional Northgate area development also, but this would be after the initial expansion is completed, about two or three years down the line. Ms. Freitas spoke on the Urban Service Area, stating that the St. Vincents/ Silveira representatives have made it clear they are strongly opposed to being placed outside the City's five year Urban Service Area as they wish to insure that they can proceed with their development applications SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Special 6/21/88 Page 6 and because they want the Sanitary District to plan for them in the near term. She noted although the staff report explains why it is logical to retain the St. Vincents/Silveira area outside the Urban Service Area, she indicated this policy was derived from other infrastructure timing policies in the Plan, and it may be somewhat redundant with those other infrastructure timing policies. She mentioned if this policy is retained, the Plan states that the Urban Service Area designation will be reviewed every two years and could be modified at that time or additionally, if property owners submitted plans for development as part of that, they could submit a revision to the Urban Service Area Policy as part of the development application. Mr. James Stark, 134 Sear Street, San Francisco, spoke on behalf of the St. Vincents/Silveira properties, and clarified there is an important aspect to the comments submitted to staff by St. Vincents/Silveria. He stated among their comments, they requested an extension of an Urban Service Area and supported the concept of an Advisory Committee regarding continuing planning efforts in the St. Vincents/Silveira neighborhood. He noted this was generated by Attorney William Bullard's office and included as an attachment to their letter as SVS -2a and SVS -2b. Their primary concern is inclusion of St. Vincents/Silveira within the Urban Service Area. Establishment of the Advisory Committee is a second consid- eration which they support if they progress with an Urban Service Area. He noted if the Urban Service Area is not to be advanced in the General Plan, they then would rather go with the Land Use designation as has been considered in the General Plan process. In conclusion, Mr. Stark pointed out the St. Vincents/Silveira General Plan Amendment Study, stating they see this as a scope of work that is very premature at this point in the General Plan process and noted if this is to be the assignment of the Advisory Committee, they would want to review it and comment upon it in detail; and if this is before Council for consideration, they asked for the opportunity to review and comment on it. Ms. Freitas stated it should be noted that one of the first items of the Task Force would be reviewing the work program. Council's Comments Councilmember Boro referred to the meeting of June 7, 1988, regarding the matrix whereby this item came up with some of the Councilmembers being concerned about the use of the word "taking" or "inverse condemnation" and whether or not it relates to any of the alternatives that had been advocated. He wanted the record to show clearly, that the position proposed by the Sierra Club is one that advocates the "taking" of the land, in that it talks about reverting it back to its natural state and allows for no building, and that it is important for the people of San Rafael to understand that it is an option the City has but should not be under the guise of maximum environmental protection but rather, potentially a Bond Measure. Mr. Boro understood this parcel is assessed at $11 million, has improvements of $3 million and the asking price would be considerably higher than the $14 million. The potential is, if the City were to adopt the Sierra Club's proposal, that the City would basically be liabling the citizens of the City anywhere from $200 to $300 per year on a 20 year basis. Mr. Boro felt this clarification is important between the Sierra Club proposal and the Environmental Protection alternative. Mayor Mulryan referred to the matrix and questioned the difference between the lower intensity mixed use and the maximum environmental protection. In the latter, it is stated there is no development on diked baylands; whereas in the former lower intensity mixed use, it does not say that there is, and asked staff would the lower intensity mixed use allow develop- ment on diked baylands. Ms. Freitas replied that it would allow only agricultural, recreation and ancillary residential uses for the time frame of the Plan. She also noted the designation is also "land reserve", allowing the possibility of some additional development after the time frame of the Plan. Councilmember Thayer agreed with the analysis of the Sierra Club's proposal regarding costs; however, the agricultural designation for St. Vincents/ Silveira is a little different than acquiring the land for open space, or whatever. She asked for information from Counsel as to whether an agricutural use would be a reasonable use of the property with the law. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Speical 6/21/88 Page 7 City Attorney Ragghianti replied it is impossible for him to answer the question now stating he would need to know more about the holding cost of the property, investment and information with respect to it in order to intelligently answer it. He noted the courts examine reasonable use in terms of reasonable economic use; reasonable investment -backed expecta- tions. He mentioned at last night's meeting when Mr. Brekhus made a presentation, part of it indicated how much the landowner paid for the property, what the improvements were, etc. He noted all of this is an important component in attempting to address the issue of whether a permitted use returns to the property owner reasonable investment -backed expecta- tions; it is an ad hoc case by case decision. Councilmember Thayer asked if it is mandatory upon a government body to rezone, and Mr. Ragghianti replied negatively, but mentioned when one designates the land use of a site, one must zone consistently with it. It would be impossible to say that agricultural use is not reasonable, just as it is impossible to say that it is without more information. Ms. Moore stated the fact that the property is outside the City limits also means the City has to coordinate with other agencies to achieve implementing an agricultural land use designation policy. Presumably, implementation measures following that kind of land use designation would be petitioning the County to rezone the property to something such as A60 if the property owner is interested in reestablishment of Williamson Act contracts to support that. Given the longstanding County Policy of designating the area for Urban Use, it is unclear how the County would respond to that. She concluded staff would not have the rezoning authority available to the City but stated the City could prezone the property but it would simply be establishing what the zoning would be at such time or if the property were annexed. She noted staff has some concern with this kind of land use designation in light of the longstanding County Policy that the trade off for keeping the inland rural area rural, and the coastal area as agricultural, that Urban Development belongs in the eastern urban corridor. She stated staff believes this kind of designation may encourage the property owners to not be interested in annexing to the City of San Rafael but to seek development entitlements from the County of Marin instead. Mayor Mulryan mentioned that would have to follow LAFCo's Policy which means if they needed municipal services, they would have to be in the City. Ms. Moore noted if there is a difference in policy between the County and City for the property, it is unclear what might happen. She mentioned if the City designated it as agricultural with the County also designating it as agricultural, this would be counter to its Policy since the early 1970's. If the County did not, the City would probably have the only case in San Rafael's planning area where the City and County Policies would be different, and she noted she did not think it is possible to forecast which Policy LAFCo would endorse. Councilmember Thayer stated she had concerns about St. Vincents/Silveira being included within the Urban Service Area, noting the problems with sewage as an example. She mentioned the funding is there for minor expansion of the Las Gallinas Sanitary District plant but for long range expansion and larger expansion necessitated by the development on these properties, she suspects it would be paid for by the taxpayers with a Bond Measure. This is a rationale for not including this property in the Urban Service Area. Another concern Councilmember Thayer had is sewer hookups, stating there would be tremendous competition for the remaining sewer hookups which exist at the present time and are very limited, and noted other projects could be jeopardized. Mayor Mulryan stated he thought the draft General Plan's density is too great at 3,600 units and that he favored the mixed use. He suggested the Council make a decision to round out the General Plan function of designating uses at the mixed lower intensity as a general target subject to design, etc. and the actual site studies necessary. This action would also provide focus on studies undertaken by the developer when specific plans are necessary and the City. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Special, 6/21/88 Page 8 Councilmember Breiner stated she leaned toward the lower intensity mix use at this point but is troubled by several aspects of it. She felt that 100,000 square feet of "neighborhood commercial center" seems too big, stating she could see having a density range of six to eight units, but would prefer having more housing than space for office building; would prefer seeing the neighborhood commercial cut down unless it were to have some retail that would be beyond neighborhood as well. She suggested Council consider a residential designation of six to eight units, noting nothing has been tied in because that would be dependent on further studies in terms of the wetlands, possible rising sea level, etc. Ms. Freitas informed Council that the six to eight units do not "fit" in the traffic limits with the commercial proposed. Councilmember Breiner preferred to reduce the office space or eliminate it and that the 100,000 square feet of neighborhood be cut down also to fit within the traffic limits. Councilmember Boro stated his position is that the residential density should be comparable with the surrounding neighbors which is about six units to the acre, noting he is not too troubled with the 100,000 square feet of commercial but that the office space is higher than it needs to be. This site is classic with extremes. One extreme calls for zero development and another wants as much as they can get. There are neighbors who are willing to see some use on the site but have expressed a desire to participate and noted he favors the study approach but is concerned about the amount of study staff proposes, stating it is going beyond what he was looking for. He noted it seems to be a Master Plan study and that he was looking for a committee to come back with a recommendation to Council, specifically as to what they would like to show in the General Plan at some future point. He also stated it is important that the property owner and neighbors, together with staff and representatives from the Council and Planning Commission try to work on this outside of this environment. Councilmember Frugoli stated if Council chooses lower intensity mixed use area, he would agree to a certain extent with that but noted the neighborhood commercial center is needed. He asked that St. Vincents/Silveira be allowed to go into the City's Urban Service Area, stating this would work in the City's favor for the expansion of Las Gallinas Sanitary District, noting it would give them the parameters where they will have to expand through.CEQA-:within the next three, five or ten years. Mayor Mulryan stated if they approve having a committee study, they should quickly make it known what the Council's feelings are; the Committee can recommend, but Council must decide if they can accept 261,000 square feet of office space, for example. He noted he would not want to blanket it with housing and would want to preserve the corridor to some degree and that six units per acre reflect what is there now, and also that some neighborhood serving use is fine. Regarding neighborhood shopping areas, Ms. Freitas stated staff did some work in response to the Marin Ranch Airport neighborhood commercial center, and found that at least 73,000 square feet of commercial space is needed to include a standard size supermarket. The new supermarkets are 30,000 to 35,000 square feet and the neighborhood center typically has another 30,000 to 35,000 square feet of ancillary stores. She pointed out as clarification that commercial in the lower intensity mixed use does not mean neighborhood commerical but leaves open the option for neighborhood and other kinds of general.commercial. Ms. Moore stated another concern staff has is the makeup of the committee; there would be those that want in and decisions would need to be made as to who is on the committee and who is not, who has access to the commit- tee and who does not, noting they have never used a committee that way in San Rafael, but it is not to say that it cannot be done. In looking back at the Neighborhood Plans, Gerstle Park, Peacock Gap, 13/14, Northgate and East San Rafael, Advisory Committees were not used. However, Ms. Moore noted had they used a committee they would have gotten a single consensus proposal, but typically, there are at least two alternatives. One from property owner developers and one from the neighborhood and sometimes additional ones. Staff cautioned that it may not be possible to expect a committee with a diverse makeup to present Council with a SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Special 6/21/88 Page 9 single recommendation, but instead present you with more alternatives to choose from. Mayor Mulryan suggested that Council give an indication for the committe to study something close to the lower intensity mixed use leaving open the exact square footage on office, whether it be 260,000, 160,000 or 50,000; leaving open whether the neighborhood commercial should be neigh- borhood serving only or neighborhood serving plus commercial and if it should be 100,000 or 75,000 square feet. He noted perhaps it would be a better decision to go with the study with these directions rather than come down to an exact amount, and that a range or target be set that the Council feels is a policy direction toward what they want the committee to study. He suggested the lower intensity mixed use at around six units; something below 100,000 square feet as a maximum in the neighborhood commercial and something below 260,000 square feet office and that the Committee give Council some alternatives. Councilmember Breiner stated that time be factored in for new information expected from other agencies within six months to a year, noting they would not be expecting a Master Plan or major recommendation back to Council until some of the information is received. She noted they would want to know where the eastside arterial will be and about the rising sea level studies, etc. She stated by doing it this way, the Environmental Impact Report would not need to be revised because it falls under those guidelines. Ms. Freitas clarified that Council Use/Land Use Designation that would with trips they could quantify and mix of uses. Mayor Mulryan agreed. was suggesting a range of the Mixed be the underlying Land Use Designation that the committee would refine the Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to include St. Vincents/Silveira within the Urban Service Area and inclusion of the study discussed with the general parameters. Councilmember Boro suggested that the time frame the committee would have to do the study should be at a maximum one year and hopefully, less. Also, the landowner should be looked at to participate in costs to be worked out with an agreement. Councilmember Thayer asked why the area should be included in the Urban Service Area if a study is going to be done, and Mayor Mulryan responded that this property be designated as something that will require services. They are looking toward a "how" and actual precise mix, and noted it does not make a great deal of difference other than that it shows an intent to move toward urban. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Clean Up Items, Page 8 - St. Vincents/Silveira Properties First - if anyone had a problem with recognizing the history of St. Vincents, and there were none. Second - staff recommendation which is consistent with other language for residential development that maximum densities are not guaranteed; Council agreed with this. Third - Ms. Freitas stated this has to do with diked baylands program noting it makes sense and that there would be a continuance of land reserve, land use designation for the property east of the railroad tracks. She stated this program would request that the County, for the ten year time frame, zone this area as Bayfront Conservation Zone; this zoning designa- tion requires environmental review prior to any new agricultural buildings being constructed to insure they are set back from wetland areas, etc., and is similar to other zoning requirements for other bayfront lands in the County. Council agreed with this. Fourth - This is a request for an advance determination by the Corps of Engineers regarding the extent of wetlands on the St. Vincents/Silveira SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Special 6/21/88 Pgae 10 properties, as part of any future planning studies in that area, and if this is to be studied, staff does not have this important piece of information. Ms. Freitas noted it does not have to be requested by the City but could be at the property owner's initiative that it be done. Councilmember Breiner stated in addition to the advance determination, she would want to be assured that during the wet winter months particu- larly, there be lots of observation whether it is by the committee or the Corps. She noted there have been some dry winters and sometimes this can present an unrealistic picture in terms of the extent of wetlands, and suggested that the area will be monitored during those wet months. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt the additional program to request an advance determination by the Corps including observation during the wet periods of the year. Councilmember Frugoli asked who would pay for the advance determination, and City Attorney Ragghianti stated it is his opinion that, under the Government Code, the City can ask that those studies be performed. Prefer- ably, they would like to have the property owner's consent. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Fifth - Ms. Freitas stated this does not apply. Northqate Ms. Freitas stated there are two Council Consideration items in this area. First - Public Comments - That Marin Ranch Airport be retained as an airport and the property owner recommends that the land use designation in the Plan be retained. Mayor Mulryan asked for the numbers on this project, and Ms. Freitas replied 350 units are proposed on this 100 acre site with a neighborhood shopping center of 73,000 square feet. Mayor Mulryan stated one of the uses to be considered on this property which he felt is more important than a golf course, is the potential use of having a Marina and water oriented uses which is a natural consider- ing the creek that is there, noting there will be a golf course across the way at McInnis Park. He indicated this would be in conjunction with residential. Councilmember Boro stated the golf course should be left in as another option with priority given to the Marina. Councilmember Frugoli was concerned about the accessibility to Gallinas Creek because of the dredging situation. Ms. Moore stated if it is an option, she did not feel that would be a significant change and any studies of it would answer these types of questions. Second - Policies in the Plan for the Civic Center North Property, which is a sensitive habitat area. There were no objections by Council. Ms. Freitas mentioned there are some property owners requests on the list given to Council regarding the Northgate area properties, and it corresponds with what Council received from the Marin General Hospital relative to the former Ross General Hospital site. Councilmember Boro spoke on Regency Center II, and referred to the use of the parking area as far as calculating its Floor Area Ratios (FARs). Ms. Moore stated this has to do with transferring FARs and trips from one parcel to another. Staff has been very consistent in this regard, believing that trips should be related to property lines, and noted if they begin to give FARs and trips for easements and other mechanisms, the creativity is limitless and this could get out of hand. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 11 Councilmember Breiner referred to #6 and asked for staff's rationale for not making the site more consistent with some of the others having to do with the limited number of peak hour trips, and Ms. Freitas stated the trip allocations consistent with .3 FARs have been in effect in North - gate since 1982 and this would be consistent with that; staff agrees that this redevelopment site is later than many of the other properties in the Northgate Industrial Park which were developed at higher FARs. She noted however, lower FARs are not unprecedented in this area indicating there is a major project located at the corner of Redwood Highway and Mitchell Boulevard that is a .28 FAR. Councilmember Frugoli stated Marin General Hospital has intention of putting up a medical facility and noted he would like to see it retained in the Plan as it is, Hospital/Housing indicating he was not suggesting any change in NG -15. Ms. Moore stated this was one of the properties listed as being a sloping, non-residential site with the hillside FARs endorsed earlier, that there would be some reduction in the ultimate yield on the property because of the slope on the site, and staff will have to take this into considera- tion when it is reviewed. Councilmember Boro requested since Ross General Hospital is out, the Plan could be updated to reflect the current status who the property owner is, etc. There were no other points on Northgate. Downtown Ms. Freitas stated Council had two Council consideration items on the Downtown Area. First - The San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, some individuals and the Ecumenical Association for Housing asked for consideration of revising the Downtown Parking District's height limits from three stories to four stories. The area is the Central part of Downtown, roughly, between Lincoln and D Streets,and Fifth Avenue and Second Street containing the highest FARs in the draft General Plan; some areas already have a four story height limit in the Plan. Ms. Freitas stated the major reason four stories were not recommended previously, is that a four story height was not expected given the proposed .7 FARs and even up to the 2.0 FARs in the Plan; also because of the many recommendations staff had received in retaining the small town charac- ter. Ms. Moore stated this is related to one of the observations and recommenda- tions contained in the Downtown Marketing Study done for the Redevelopment Agency; one of the deficits of the Downtown shopping area that was called out in that report was that it was so long and linear. If you upped the densities in the outer areas in the FARs, you would be providing the mechanism to continue the "stringing out" of Downtown, rather than emphasize a more intensive core area. She suggested that the Redevelopment aspect should be taken into consideration, noting this is why staff is not recom- mending the change from three stories to four stories. Councilmember Boro felt this started with the Centertown project and stated they would be defeating the whole purpose of the Downtown character by allowing four stories, and obviously if it is potentially there, it can and will be done. Mr. Boro preferred the character that is already there and noted they can accommodate the Centertown project without higher heights throughout the whole Downtown. Councilmember Frugoli stated the City garage is four stories and the Dean Witter Building is four stories and suggested that four stories be built south of Fourth Street and everything north of Fourth Street continue to be three stories. Councilmember Thayer did not feel that two or three buildings changes the character of Downtown and that opening up to four stories in an exten- sive area would, and preferred to keep the Downtown the way it is now. Councilmember Breiner stated she is not in favor of any change. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Special. 6/21/88 Page 12 Mayor Mulryan stated he is not in favor of any change. Ms. Freitas stated she assumed that Council was therefore not in favor of the second consideration item which is revising the wording that would eliminate the low height limits rationale from DT -1, and Council agreed. Staff Recommendations First - Identification of adding the words "with planned improvements establishes limits to total development". Ms. Freitas stated staff is not intending to keep Downtown Circulation exactly as it is but intends to make some improvements to capacity. Second - Recommendation from the Planning Commission "That a strong ped- estrian connection be provided between the Downtown Transit Center and other important Redevelopment projects or important destinations". Councilmember Thayer suggested having minibuses going from the PG&E site to the rest of the Downtown area if this is feasible. Council agreed with the two staff recommendations, without motion. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 95, DT -15 - Business Expansion, indicating currently off site parking is being allowed and noted there are problems with this and hoped that in terms of implementation or any revisions to City standards, this be reviewed and the provisions tightened up. Councilmember Boro asked if Centertown has been accommodated, and Ms. Moore responded affirmatively, that in the Housing Section, Council endorsed a Policy that provided an open door to an additional story if certain criteria could be met. Ms. Freitas pointed out one other Downtown area parcel specific request for a higher FAR at B and Mission, that staff did not recommend. She stated the property owner requested that the same FAR provided within the Parking Assessment District be provided for some parcels outside the Parking Assessment District that front on Mission, and staff recom- mended that these properties along Mission Street are not in the center of Downtown but on the fringe, and that the .4 FAR is consistent with what is being recommended along that corridor. She indicated they might be looking at higher FARs overall if they considered this one. Council did not make a motion on this, therefore it remained as is. Francisco Boulevard West Ms. Freitas stated there are no changes proposed to the Francisco Boulevard West section except for FBW-19, which is discussed as Item 1 in the East San Rafael section. She indicated this would be discussed later. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 99, FBW-3, she stated in an earlier meeting there was discussion of a hotel use in the northwestern and south- western portions of Francisco Boulevard West area and asked if they should leave the southwestern portion in. There was no action taken on the comment made by Councilmember Breiner. Mayor Mulryan called for a 5 minute recess. Mayor Mulryan resumed the meeting. East San Rafael Policies and Implementing Programs - Pages 103 to 108 Ms. Moore stated much testimony was received about the East San Rafael area. She noted a consideration is to revise the ESR -19 and FBW-19 wording which concerns Redevelopment Agency funds being used for the Andersen Drive Extension and considering transferring those funds for Bellam Boule- vard Improvements. The policy currently reads that Council consider trans- ferring the funds, and San Rafael Forward 2000 recommends that Council go the next step and do it. Staff continues to recommend the language in those Policies because it is important that the City know what other funding sources are available, what the County's position will be on SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Special, 6/21/88 Page 13 the use of FAU monies and will the Transportation Expenditure Committee work prior to transferring funds; if there is a sales tax measure in the future, will Andersen Drive be viewed as a 101 parallel and be all or partially funded out of some of those funds. She stated if the City makes that decision to use the Redevelopment money on Bellam Boulevard instead, those kinds of negotiations and leverage points are lost and staff believes they are important ones to maintain. Councilmember Thayer urged consideration of the Bellam Boulevard Inter- change Improvements because of the problems in that area, and the number of potential developments coming from that area. Ms. Moore stated staff could go one step further and recommend a specific program be added to implement these policies - that as a high priority item the Redevelopment Agency consider adding a program that these policies be implemented. Councilmember Boro stated they have already tentatively approved the proviso in the Plan in Circulation for the Circulation Improve- ment Committee with the intent of having City staff focus on the three major interchanges and look for funding options. Part of the option that the committee would look at is what is available, with Andersen being one and what the alternatives for Andersen would be. Council agreed on all comments made. Ms. Moore stated that the clarifying language on the next item, includes the term, "Phase One Improvements". She stated discussion about the Bellam Boulevard Interchange Improvements has not always made it clear that those improvements can be divided into Phase One and Phase Two with Phase One appearing to be fundable in a shorter period of time. She noted the emphasis is on Phase One, which is relocating the northbound ramp. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the revised wording, "may be considered for reprogamming to the I-580/ 101 Bellam Boulevard Interchange Phase One Improvements". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Recommendations from Neiqhborhood Representatives Ms. Moore stated these recommendations are to revise the Land Use Desig- nation for the City -owned site at the end of Bellam from high density housing to neighborhood serving commercial. Councilmember Boro preferred to have the wording changed to "either/or" to have the option, because there is a need in the community for neighbor- hood serving commercial, but on the other hand the practicality of that is still a question; there is also a concern whether or not housing can be put on that site because of possible toxic problems, and the more options we put on that land in the Plan will allow staff to pursue these as the City goes forward without having to revise the Plan. Councilmember Thayer was concerned with the City site, stating many of the problems in the East San Rafael and Canal areas have been compounded by the densities for housing and what is not needed in the Canal at this point is additional high density housing. She suggested changing it to "neighborhood serving uses". Councilmember Frugoli agreed with Councilmember Thayer and stated the Exxon Company is looking at affordable housing on that site with Spinnaker -on -the -Bay wanting housing, and stated if the Council does not designate one area for commercial they will have the same situation, where the housing market looks like it is more positive and everyone will be putting housing in but with no neighborhood uses for shopping centers or serving commercial in that area. He personally wants it to be neighborhood serving use. Councilmember Breiner preferred the mix remain in because of the possibi- lity of including housing as well as neighborhood serving uses. Mayor Mulryan clarified that Council agreed to have the wording, "neighbor- hood serving and/or housing". SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 14 Ms. Moore asked for planning purposes that a medium density range be used, and Council agreed. ESR -27 - Automobile Accessible Bay and Wetland Vista Point Ms. Moore stated Council had a recommendation to delete from ESR -27, "automobile accessible Bay and wetland vista point". Councilmember Breiner moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to accept staff's recommendation to delete from ESR -27, automobile accessible Bay and wetland vista point. Ms. Freitas stated there are many other places in East San Rafael where people can view the Bay noting this relates to the Canalways site. She clarified that it is not necessary to say that automobile accessible bay and wetland vista points should be created on Canalways because it could be left up to future project review. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Thayer had concerns about ESR -26 and asked for consideration of reducing the numbers per gross acre on the Spinnaker on the Bay site from 20 units medium density of up to 15 units with the buffer of 10 units per acre adjacent to Spinnaker Point. She noted she has received numerous complaints regarding this issue from that particular neighborhood. Councilmember Breiner asked if the second sentence would need to be revised as well, and Ms. Moore replied affirmatively, and should probably be eliminated. Councilmember Thayer suggested deleting it. Councilmember Boro supported the concept of medium density for that site, but asked if the density bonus would apply on this site, and staff stated it could potentially. Ms. Freitas stated if it was designated in the medium density range with a maximum of 15, then the density bonus would be above the 15. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to amend that 10 to 15 units be built, given the lower density of 10 units near the adjoining Spinnaker Point project; allowing that sentence to remain, but only 15 units per gross acre be built with the necessary changes in the amount of units, with the second sentence deleted entirely. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner referred to ESR -27 (Canalways) where 15 acres is mentioned in the first sentence and 5 acres they have been talking about. Ms. Freitas stated 5 acres is an error and it was noted in the staff report. It should have read 10 acres of light industrial office and 15 acres of residential. This is what has been proposed for sometime. Councilmember Breiner asked if the site could be used without filling any of it, Ms. Freitas replied negatively, stating it is all a wetlands site requiring fill. Councilmember Breiner asked staff how they arrived at the 25 acres, and Ms. Moore stated it was derived from review of previous proposals, looking at the need for extending Kerner Boulevard. While this amount is generally consistent with the current proposal (which is inactive at the present time; no work being done by staff on the Canalways proposal), the Applicant has not authorized any work be done in the application pending Council's decision on the General Plan. The proposal in the General Plan is consis- tent with what their latest proposal is. Councilmember Breiner was concerned with the amount of fill and with the density on those acres that would be filled. She felt if there would be residential there it should be consistent with the 15 maximum units per gross acre they were talking about in the same connection with Spinnaker rather than a higher density one. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 15 Councilmember Breiner stated as a first motion, she moved that Council amend the number of units per acre to allow a maximum of 15. Councilmember Boro then stated he preferred the term, medium density, because it does not have the expectation that the density will automatically go to 15 and hoped they would do the same regarding Spinnaker as well; use the term "medium density". Mayor Mulryan agreed and stated they just voteed that way. Councilmember Breiner agreed. Ms. Moore clarified that the medium density designation applies to only 15 acres of the Canalways site. Mayor Mulryan reiterated the motion, to amend to "15 acres at medium density" with the Spinnaker policy reading "medium density as well. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner moved to policy altogether; and revise of units as well. Council agreed. Buffer Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan strike out the second sentence of Canalways the first sentence by scratching the number Ms. Freitas clarified that instead of the wording being, "buffer the wetlands from the site" it would read, "buffer the wetlands from the project". There were no objections from Council. Mr. Robert Hoffmann thanked Council for the last two actions stating it is what the neighborhood wanted. He also referred to the suggestions made on using Redevelopment monies to improve the housing problems or to work on housing problems, and that comments from staff under CCPH-37 and all references on densities kept going back to this. There also was discussion about the agreement with the County of Marin regarding the limitation of financing to $12 million. He suggested that the agreement with the County be considered and a study be done on it because it appears it might be in the city's best interest to review the limitation if there are other agreements. He stated each city has needs be it transportation or housing that were not known or thought about as much in 1980/81 when these agreements were made. He indicated he was involved with this at that time and that each City was concerned about not overstepping the bounds of that agreement and at this time it might be prudent to investi- gate revising the agreement in order to improve the funding for housing and possibly transportation. Ms. Freitas stated the Redevelopment Agency currently has a $12 million bond, and Mr. Hoffmann is recommending that Council consider renegotiating the bond to allow additional funds to be spent on housing and transporta- tion. Ms. Moore stated this could be added as a program to negotiate with the other agencies, noting there are many other needs in that neighbor- hood that could be looked at. Revise Vacant Residential Land Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt Council Consideration to revise vacant residential land from high to medium. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 16 Others Ms. Moore pointed out three specific property requests: One - Lease of the Caltrans property by Mr. William Joost. Staff has no recommendation at this time because they have not met with Mr. Joost and Caltrans as yet. Two - San Quentin Ridge. Staff does not recommend additional trips or FARs for the site, however they do think there needs to be additional language to indicate that the delineation on the land use map of the conservation area is schematic and the precise location will be subject to Master Plan review by the City. Council agreed. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 108, ESR -d, Auto Center reading "Assist in development of an auto center", and asked if a sentence could be added to recognize the current auto uses and wish to maintain them along the East Francisco Boulevard area. Mayor Mulryan stated that ESR -d, without specifying where an auto center may be, allows Council to consider this as well as any other future site, noting they do have an auto center and they are discussing two different sites, one on Francisco Boulevard and one on the San Quentin property. Third - Ms. Moore referred to Mr. Nolan's correspondence this date, whereby Council allowed an exemption so his application which was not consistent with the draft Plan be processed, and he now is asking that he also be exempted from the proposed FAR limits and be allowed higher FAR than proposed in the General Plan. Mayor Mulryan asked Ms. Moore what Council action to date has been taken, and she responded that Council allowed Mr. Nolan to submit an application for review; it has been submitted, has gone to the Design Review Board and presently, it has not been favorably reviewed by the Design Review Board and they have recommended specific changes be made having to do with design and circulation. City Manager Nicolai stated that Mr. Nolan spoke to her today and his concern was about the Resolution adopted by Council last August, when he was exempted and allowed his application to be processed, that basically, the Resolution finds circumstances surrounding the proposed Application are unique and special and that the property owner's Appellant had pre- viously secured City approvals, etc. He wanted to ascertain if that exemp- tion implied that yes, his proposal did exceed the recommended FARs for the area, that the approved plan also acknowledge that his project exceeds the recommended blanket FARs. She noted it was her understanding and his also, that in getting the exemption to allow processing, it was acknow- ledging that his project as had been approved, exceeded the FAR in the draft General Plan and is it still the intent of the Council to allow that infill lot in that area to exceed the recommended FAR. Ms. Moore stated Mr. Nolan was able to demonstrate that his proposed FAR had once been approved by the City sometime in the 19701s, and that it had lapsed and he had not been able to build the project. He was also able to demonstrate that many of the surrounding properties are built at the FAR he is proposing. Her only caution is that Mr. Nolan is expect- ing, if he is allowed higher FARs, that guarantees approval of that project approved by the City previously, and this is not included in this type of consideration because there are concerns about the project for reasons separate from FARs. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question if Council determined FARs, Ms. Moore responded negatively, that Council stated that staff would not use the basis he was asking for the higher FAR, therefore, they would not accept his application. Staff stated they could process it and look at the project on its merits. Ms. Moore clarified if Council adopts the FARs as in the draft General Plan, Mr. Nolan would need to revise his project with less square footage to be consistent with the General Plan; if Council provides Mr. Nolan with an exception, Council would be saying that the parcel is unique and the only one left in that area, and that a somewhat higher FAR is SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 17 possible, but that he is subject to all other usual design review parameters. After further discussion, Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, that Mr. Nolan's project proceed with the proposed FAR subject to all review requirements. City Manager Nicolai stated the policy does not necessarily guarantee him his proposed FARs, and he is subject to design review. Ms. Moore stated staff will develop language to clarify this. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro Canal Bayfront Ms. Freitas stated there are consistency differences between the Canal Bayfront Section Setback that has been proposed which is a minimum of 25 feet from the top of Bank along the Canal and the 50 foot Wetland Setback Policies recently endorsed by the Council. She referred to pages 6 and 7, and Attachment D of the staff report that identifies how the Wetlands Setback Policy or the 50 Foot Setback Policy endorsed, affects many projects that are in the planning stages. Ms. Moore believed they listed all the projects but have reviewed the implications of the 50 foot setback in a short time period, and these are all they are aware of; they may not be all of the projects affected by the Wetlands setback policy. Staff recommends, particularly for the San Rafael Canal, that 50 feet is excessive given the fact it is an already developed area and the development has been typically with significantly less setback, and there will be difficulties in achieving the 50 foot setback. Ms. Freitas stated there are four Council Considerations on page 7. First - Creeks identified on Map GP -23, Creeks and Drainageways Map, are also wetlands. Ms. Freitas stated they have a Creek Policy saying there is a 25 foot setback from the top of high top creek banks and then a wetlands setback of 50 feet; the edge of the wetland is not exactly coterminus with the hightop creek bank, but there should be a closer correlation between the two. Ms. Moore clarified that Council has endorsed a policy for creeks that on one hand there is a 25 foot setback from the top of creek bank; and there is also a Wetlands Policy with a 50 foot setback. She stated that creeks are a type of wetland. The top of creek bank is not exactly the same thing as the edge of water but it is close and is not the 50 feet endorsed for wetlands. Ms. Moore stated there needs to be clarification that creeks, for purposes of the 50 foot policy, are not included in it, or Council needs to look at the 50 feet again,particularly in light of the list of projects and specific letters addressed to Council detailing how that 50 foot setback affects those projects. Staff recommends that Council not modifiy the creek setback. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, that Council not modify the 25 foot creek setback from the high top of creek bank. Council agreed. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to accept that concrete drainageways are not wetlands and that creeks be excluded specifically from the 50 foot wetland setback policy. Council agreed. Third - Ms. Freitas stated the Canal setback issue is similar to the creek issue as being a wetland between Highway 101 and the western boundary of Pickleweed Park. The Council could apply the 25 foot policy currently in the Plan for the Canal rather than a 50 foot setback from wetlands. Ms. Moore stated the rationale is unlike the East San Rafael Bayshore line, where there is a levee and most of the area is just developing. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 18 She noted this area has been developed for a long time and in most cases there are no 25 foot setbacks noting the 25 foot setback standards go beyond what is typical along the developed Canal now and in some areas the width of the property is minimal enough that a 50 foot setback from the Canal does not leave much width of developable land on the parcel. She noted staff questions whether it is consistent with the historic development of what the Canal has been and what the whole purpose of intent of the Canal planning efforts through this General Plan has been. Staff recommends that the 25 foot setback for the Canal is adequate. Council agreed, with the portion of the Canal being included be delineated. Four - Ms. Freitas stated there is a possibility of providing exemptions from the wetlands setback for later phases of Master Planned Residential Subdivisions where no design changes are proposed and previously have received all approvals. The only one this may apply to are Spinnaker Point V, Marin Shores Townhomes and possibly San Pedro Cove. Councilmember Breiner agreed with Spinnaker Point V which has been designed to provide a 25 to 35 foot setback; however, regarding the Marin Shores Townhomes, she believed Council should reevaluate this project, stating she voted against this years ago because she felt that six units on less than one acre in size that required a fair amount of fill with two stories, was not appropriate. She urged that Council not let this continue by giving an exemption for Marin Shores Townhomes. Ms. Freitas stated this project requires wetland fill also, and that the waiver provisions may apply regarding wetlands fill because it is a small parcel. Ms. Moore explained that the two projects are not comparable at all. She noted that Spinnaker Point V is a fifth phase of an overall planned area with street improvements in, and there would need to be substan- tial and difficult redesign necessary if that was not exempted from the wetlands setback. She stated that Marin Shores is a single property development and not a phase of anything else. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to grant exemption for Spinnaker Point V. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli Ms. Freitas indicated if Council did not grant an exemption for Marin Shores Townhomes, they would either apply for a waiver provision from both the setbacks and wetland fill and submit the same project they have; or may try to redesign the project so it does not require wetland fill and possibly meet the 50 foot setback. She mentioned the site is only 50 to a 150 feet wide and there probably would be limited buildable area. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question if Council granted an exemption for the 50 foot, that the project still might have problems regarding the fill, Ms. Freitas responded affirmatively. Ms. Moore stated the Canal has a 25 foot setback but that the project has a zero setback, so they would need to come in showing that it is not reasonable to develop the property any other way. She stated that the basic design had some modifications made throughout the years but it is over ten years old. After further discussion, City Attorney Ragghianti stated that staff has approvals for the Design Review permit and the Tentative Map and that no Final Map has been approved. He assumed if the Tentative Map, which has expired is renewed, the City would have the ministerial duty to approve a Final Map if it was in substantial conformity with the Ten- tative Map, and once the Final Map is recorded, those lots come into existence. Ms. Moore stated it is the extension of the Tentative Map that will be before the Planning Commission shortly. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 19 Mr. Ragghianti stated the extension is discretionary. Ms. Moore stated if they are provided with no waiver, one of the reasons probably to be recommended for not extending the Tentative Map will be that it is not wholly consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2000. She stated if some uses were allowed, alternatives would need to be looked at, such as fewer units arranged differently with greater setbacks. Mr. Thomas Patterson, representing Marin Yacht Club, the owner of the property, stated he spoke to his engineer today, who submitted the appli- cation to the Planning Commission for renewal of the approvals of the site. He stated if there were any reduction of units to that site, six units, it probably would not be economically feasible to develop it. He hoped that the request for approval would be approved. City Manager Nicolai stated if the exemption is not given tonight, then it will come through the process on its merits under extension of the Tentative Map and they would have to simultaneously request for a waiver, and present their rationale before the Planning Commission and Council, so Council is not presupposing any of that information by any action tonight. Mayor Mulryan stated this is a good point, and stated this should be brought back to Council for review. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to have this project brought back to Council for their review. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Freitas mentioned two other projects noted on Attachment B: Civic Center Plaza which is a residential project off Civic Center Drive has an approved valid project with a Tentative Map. The current project provides minimal setbacks from a small wetlands area and the revised submittal would not substantially increase the setbacks from the wetland area. The 50 foot setback requirement does significantly affect the design of this project and would reduce the number of units for that site. She stated it is possible that the waiver provision would apply in this case. Additionally, an Auburn Street area subdivision located in the Auburn Street horseshoe in the Francisco Boulevard West area, contains a number of wetland drainageways through the site and a fresh water wetland. Ms. Freitas stated if setbacks are provided around the different wetland areas on that site, it significantly reduces the development potential. Civic Center Plaza Ms. Moore stated if Council were to endorse the 50 foot setback, right now with what staff is aware of that is going on, these projects will need to be given special consideration; they would need to be redesigned to meet 50 feet setback or special findings will have to be made for the rationale for the reduction from the 50 feet. Ms. Freitas referred to page 7, NE -20, Revised Wetlands Policy which was conceptually endorsed, and it mentions that a property owner may apply for a waiver if the setback would substantially interfere with any reasonable economic use of the property. She stated another possibility might be to allow a slight setback reduction when considering habitat value; ie, a reduced setback if the wetland is a drainage way with minimum wetland vegetation as opposed to a major wetland with lots of wetland vegetation. She stated this would allow more flexibility over time. Mr. Chris Craiker, Architect for the Civic Center Plaza, the Gables project which presently is going through redesign, pointed out that the 50 foot setback would make the project useless. He indicated they have an existing program in place for 47 units and would simply have to go ahead with that program. He noted they already have the Army Corps, Fish and Game and Coast Guard approvals; they also have an exemption and are asking for an extension of that exemption to the new proposal. He referred to some language made by Matt Guthrie for Council consideration and that is looking at the site and drainage ways throughout the City for their SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Special 6/21/88 Page 20 quality and ability to ue improved. He noted it is quality rather than quantity that is important. Also, he stated their current plan has zero setbacks in many locations and has no provision for revegetation or improve- ments to those drainage ways; in short, they will remain "dumps". Their revised plan is to improve them and bring them up to a standard which will be significant. Ms. Moore suggested some proposed language, "A property owner may apply to the City for a waiver of this Policy if the property owner can demon- strate that implementation of this Policy would substantially interfere with reasonable use of the property and that the proposed setback adequately protects the value of the wetland habitat". She stated they would have to show that the City is not saying "any reasonable economic use", but "that substantially interferes with reasonable use of the property". This is not quite as tight a criteria as the original language, but there is an additional criteria that the setback does provide the protection that is appropriate for the kind of wetland involved. Council agreed with the proposed language as stated by Ms. Moore, in concept, with final wording to be worked out by staff and that it could also be used for the Auburn project. Mr. Matt Guthrie, representating Mr. Roger Pierce, owner of the Auburn Street property, asked if the same concept discussed could apply to the two for one mitigation, stating this is key to the site, noting that the site is filled with trash and that the opportunity to provide develop- ment to that property will go a long way to clean up an area which many people feel is needed. The value of the wetland is questionable and can be enhanced for bird habitat and a straight two to one mitigation require- ment will substantially reduce the ability to accommodate any of those important aspects. He stated they have a problem with a predetermined mitigation which is not in accord with the project impact; and they would like Council to consider the same concept adopted regarding drainageways in this case. Mayor Mulryan stated it may make sense to do that. Ms. Moore stated in this location it does, noting that in terms of mosquito breeding ground, garbage dump and being a nuisance in the neighborhood, there is a need to look at the total benefits of the project, and calling it out for special consideration may be appropriate for this particular site, because of the way this site affects the surrounding properties. She stated they will have specific language made for this site and it would not be a give away of the wetlands. Council agreed. Ms. Freitas referred to two State Lands Commission recommendations for canal bayfront for Council consideration. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the provision on page 11 as recommended by the State Lands Commission. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Freitas referred to Attachment E, stating it contains most of the new implementation programs noting many already have priorities and that they are Priority One because of zoning revisions, or are on-going projects that occur as a part of a project review. There are four new programs for Council determination; Levee Maintenance Funding, City Landscape Areas, Tree Maintenance and Houseboat. Councilmember Boro suggested when the Planning Department Budget is reviewed next week on Monday evening, that would be the time to review the priority settings because funding would be involved with the priority setting. There being no further business, the June 22, 1988 meeting was cancelled and the meeting was adjourned. JEANN _.-- LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/21/88 Page 20