Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPPH Minutes 1999-12-07SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1999, AT 7:30 PM Special Joint Public Hearing: Present: San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: Also present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Paul Jensen, Planning Consultant Patricia J. Roberts, Deputy City Clerk Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor None PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE APPLICATIONS FOR THE NORTH SAN RAFAEL AND EAST SAN RAFAEL AREAS (CD) - File 115 (PPP) NORTH SAN RAFAEL: Community Development Director Bob Brown stated it was apparent, given the strong economy and desirability of building in San Rafael, that the City had more applications than it has traffic capacity, which made for difficult decision-making. He noted staff and the Planning Commission had made recommendations to the Council, which would be reviewed by Consultant Paul Jensen, then City Manager Rod Gould would comment regarding the North San Rafael process. Consultant Paul Jensen stated the public hearing would take place in two parts. First, there would be a hearing covering North San Rafael applications, the hearing would be closed, and recommendations made. The public hearing would then be opened to hear applications for East San Rafael. Mr. Jensen explained the San Rafael General Plan establishes PM peak hour Level of Service standards for intersections, and with the exception of the Downtown, that standard was a Level of Service "D". He stated policies and programs identify a need to coordinate the timing of land development with the timing of planned transportation improvements in the traffic -impacted areas of the City, and noted there tends to be more land development potential than there is short- term traffic capacity, and the long-term transportation improvements that are necessary could take years to finance, plan and build. Mr. Jensen reported that since 1988 the City has implemented the PPP Procedure, which basically determines which development projects can proceed with construction, based on the limited amount of traffic capacity available. He pointed out it was basically a competition among development projects in two geographic areas of the City, and this competition was generally initiated annually, noting it had been initiated in 1998 for both North San Rafael and East San Rafael. Mr. Jensen stated the PPP did not grant land use approvals, nor was it subject to environmental review, explaining it strictly dealt with PM peak hour traffic conditions. Mr. Jensen stated that in order to obtain PPP approval, a project must qualify as a "High Priority" project, for which the City has historically used three categories. The first category is Affordable Housing, in which a project proposes an affordable housing component of 15%, or more, for Below Market Rate sales or rentals. The second category is Needed Neighborhood Serving Use, in which a project provides a direct contribution to the construction or financing of the use or improvement that has been identified by a neighborhood plan or the General Plan. The third category is High Tax -Generating Uses, which are uses that generate high tax dollars to the City, and generally, what has been the benchmark for an "Excellent" rating in this category, resulting in "High Priority" status, is a minimum of $300,000 per year in annual sales tax revenue to the City. Mr. Jensen pointed out there were ten project applications this year, five applications for North San Rafael, and five for East San Rafael. He explained that Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian would provide a brief report on the baseline traffic conditions and available traffic capacity, beginning with North San Rafael, after which Mr. Jensen would provide a brief summary of the recommendations on each of the applications. Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian reported the latest peak traffic counts, collected from March through June, 1999, had been utilized, as well as the vacancies and projects that had already been approved, to determine the number SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 2 of trips in North San Rafael and East San Rafael. In North San Rafael, staff utilized 865 PM peak trips, which included 365 project trips that had been approved throughout the year, and 510 vacancies, due to large offices and banks that closed. Mr. Mansourian reported a Level of Service analysis had been completed for all intersections in North San Rafael, and most of the intersections were operating at Level of Service "D" or better during the AM/PM peak hours, except the intersection of Las Gallinas and Lucas Valley Road, which was operating at Level of Service "D", "E", and "F" at certain times during the AM peak. However, Mr. Mansourian pointed out that intersection was under the jurisdiction of the County. The intersection of Las Gallinas and Nova Albion, which is all -way stop controlled, always operated at Level of Service "E" and "F" during AM peak hours, and that intersection has been identified in the General Plan to be signalized; however, staff has conducted a work analysis to determine whether a signal is justified, and the intersection has not yet met those requirements. Mr. Mansourian stated staff would continue to monitor that intersection. Mr. Mansourian stated that for the purpose of the PPP, staff calculated the baseline traffic volume, and added the project trips for each applicant, noting they had conducted eighteen different scenarios for North San Rafael and East San Rafael combined. For North San Rafael, they found some of the projects were too small to consider individually. Those projects included 5000 Civic Center and the McInnis Apartments. Mr. Mansourian stated staff's final recommendation took into consideration Redwood Highway, Civic Center Drive, and Freitas Parkway, on the east side of the Freitas Interchange. He reported Northgate Mall had been analyzed by itself, and in combination with the Fairchild office complex, and the Fairchild complex had also been analyzed in with other applications. Mr. Jensen stated there were five applications for the North San Rafael area, and the recommendations in the staff report were also those of the Planning Commission, who had reviewed the projects for both North San Rafael and East San Rafael at a special meeting on November 30, 1999. He noted the report also included recommendations of the North San Rafael Vision In Action Committee, who reviewed the applications for North San Rafael on November 3rd. Mr. Jensen stated the first application was for a small office development, proposed at 5000 Civic Center Drive, a site immediately east of the Freitas Parkway off -ramp. He reported the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this PPP application for several reasons. First, what was being proposed was a fairly substantial contribution, given the size of the project, of $22,000, to be given to the Freitas Parkway Center Median Landscape Fund, which is a priority action in the North San Rafael Vision. He noted this project was already progressing through the Planning process, and it was expected the Planning Commission would review the Planning applications early in the year 2000. The second application was Look -Out Mountain, a 13 -unit residential development proposed for 6.5 acres on Channing Way. Mr. Jensen recalled that last year this project competed in the PPP process and was denied, primarily because it was too premature to grant PPP approval. He noted the project proposes 2 units be affordable to Below Market Rate households, for sale, which represents 15.3% of the project density. Mr. Jensen stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application again this year, noting that although Planning applications have been filed for the project, they were incomplete, and the project would be subject to a fairly comprehensive environmental review process, and an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), which could take in excess of a year. The third application was a Redevelopment proposal for the former Fairchild site, at 4300 Redwood Highway. Mr. Jensen explained there were actually two land use alternatives submitted by the applicant, both of which involve construction of 130,000 square feet of building area. One alternative would be an Office development, while the other was a Light Industrial development. The project proposed to qualify as a "High Priority" project by contributing $120,000 to the Freitas Parkway Center Median Landscape Fund, at $10,000 per year, for ten years, for an expanded or second shuttle service in the North San Rafael area, and also proposed wetland buffer improvements along the contiguous north fork of the Gallinas Creek. Mr. Jensen reported the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the Office alternative, primarily because that project alone would cause one of the intersections in the Northgate area to fall below Level of Service "D". The Light Industrial alternative was recommended for approval, as the land use was consistent with the North San Rafael Vision and the General Plan, the project proposed a public benefit package that was consistent with the "High Priority" criteria, and the environmental review process for this project was anticipated to be able to be processed within the one-year window that was typically acceptable for approving these applications. SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 3 The fourth application was McInnis Park Apartments II, a proposed development of 42 residential apartment units on the remaining undeveloped parcels at the Smith Ranch Homes Planned Development. Mr. Jensen noted this site has historically been approved for eight senior villa units. He stated this project was being proposed as an affordable housing development, with 19% of the project density, or 8 units, proposed to be set aside for Below Market Rate rentals for 40 years. Mr. Jensen reported this application was being recommended for approval, as it does meet the "High Priority" project qualifications. He noted, as Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian had pointed out, this was one of the projects that would generate a minimal amount of traffic in the Northgate area, and the Planning process expected for this project could most likely be processed in one year. The last project for the North San Rafael area was the Northgate Mall expansion. This proposal involved a major expansion of the mall, 245,000 square feet of additional retail space, which included a new department store, an expanded Pacific Theater facility, a relocated Rite-Aid Drug Store, several free-standing retail stores at the corner of Las Gallinas and Northgate, and two, four -level parking structures for the east side of the mall. Mr. Jensen stated this project definitely qualified as a "High Priority" project, noting it would generate in excess of $300,000 per year in annual sales tax to the City. The project also proposed to develop a portion of the Promenade Hike and Bike Path along Las Gallinas, which was one of the priority actions in the North San Rafael Vision. However, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application, for several reasons. First, this project, on its own, would cause several intersections in the Northgate area to fall below the Level of Service "D" standard; second, the project would involve several major General Plan amendments; and third, it was expected that this project would require an Environmental Impact Report and, therefore, would take more than one year to process. City Manager Gould stated that although the Planning Commission and staff believed it was premature for the Council to consider traffic allocation for the Northgate Mall expansion, he felt it would be wrong for that to be interpreted as lack of interest or denial of this project, which he stated was quite the contrary. He reported it was staff's belief that the expansion being proposed was critical to the future of the Northgate Mall, to North San Rafael, and to the entire City, noting it would greatly strengthen the competitive position of the Mall along the 101 corridor, and provide a number of community benefits that would be unachievable anywhere else. He stated staff would like Council's direction to work very closely with the Macerich Company in the coming months, to determine exactly what the traffic impacts would be, what mitigations might be possible to offset those impacts, what Level of Service could still be expected, based upon the mitigations, and how the Mall expansion could facilitate and carry out aspects of the North San Rafael Vision. Mr. Gould reported the Macerich Company had expressed its willingness to explore those possibilities, in the hope that they could find a way to work with the community, the Community Development Director, Traffic Engineer, and the City Council to make this project happen. Mr. Gould stated he believed this was very important to the future of the entire City. Councilmember Phillips thanked Mr. Jensen for his report, noting he had found it to be very complete, and a significant guide in the Councilmembers' decision- making. Mr. Phillips noted that while the recommendations were coming from the Planning Commission, reference had also been made to the North San Rafael Vision, and he wanted to make certain there was concurrence with that committee, as well, with regard to each of the recommendations. Community Development Director Bob Brown explained the Vision in Action Committee had not been charged with ranking the various proposals, rather they reviewed each project to make certain it was consistent with the Vision, and also looked at each of the proposed pubic benefits to see if they were consistent with the Vision. He reported that in all cases, they found these projects were consistent. Councilmember Phillips noted the staff report, in addressing projects for North San Rafael, discussed levels of traffic measured in the PM; however, AM peak hour periods would have to be assessed during the environmental review process for each development project. He stated his concern was that if staff was looking at PM traffic conditions, was the City going to be "blindsided" by the AM peak, which might be significantly greater? He wondered whether the City was "putting the cart before the horse" with regard to these issues, not knowing where we stand with regard to that other key point in time? Mr. Brown acknowledged that was certainly a question that affected a number of projects. He explained the General Plan discussed and regulated PM peak hour traffic, but not AM traffic, noting the City's traffic model had not addressed AM traffic SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 4 until just recently. Mr. Brown stated staff always makes sure the applicants are aware that there is one process in the PPP process, but through CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), in the actual project entitlements, they would also be subject to AM peak hour review, as well. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Mansourian if he felt any of these projects might cause a AM peak traffic problem? Mr. Mansourian stated staff had analyzed each of the projects, and AM traffic was adequate. Mr. Phillips asked if this meant the projected AM traffic would be no worse than the PM traffic? Mr. Mansourian stated that was correct, explaining these projects, in combination with existing traffic counts, indicated the Level of Service for AM peak would be at a Level of Service "D" or better. Councilmember Phillips stated that under the Northgate Mall expansion, reference was made to the Promenade, which was considered "Highly Desirable" from the Vision in Action Committee's viewpoint; however, he noted he saw no mention of perhaps the highest of profile items, which was the Town Hall concept. He asked if that issue had been discussed? Mr. Brown agreed the concept of the Town Center was key to the North San Rafael Vision, reporting the VIA Committee has had some discussion regarding the location in the corner of the mall. He stated the Committee would actually like to get much further into this issue, but the City had tried to constrain them, in terms of the PPP evaluation, in order to look at only the overall concept of the project, noting it has been recognized that the specific design of that area would have a long way to go, with a lot of neighborhood discussions and VIA discussions. Mr. Phillips stated he was looking forward to something along those lines in the future, and he hoped strong consideration would be given to that additional community element. Regarding AM peak traffic, Councilmember Cohen referred to that section of the staff report which discusses Baseline Traffic Conditions, which states several intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service, including Las Gallinas/Nova Albion at LOS "F", and Las Gallinas/Lucas Valley Road at LOS "E" or "F". He acknowledged that any project to come along now could not be held responsible for improving those conditions; however, he assumed the City would look for them to mitigate that, so they did not make conditions even worse than they already are, since they are already fairly degraded, and the City should be looking to find ways to improve them, not worsen them. He asked if it was staff's belief that these projects, being put to that test, would try to find a way to mitigate their impact on these intersections? Mr. Mansourian explained the trip distribution for each project would determine whether they would have a specific impact on these intersections. He reported Las Gallinas/Nova Albion fails during the AM peak because of the school activities; therefore, the applications of Northgate Mall and the other businesses have no impact. Councilmember Cohen referred to the General Plan improvements for potential signalization of the Freitas off -ramp, and asked if any of these projects had been reviewed, relative to their impact on either of the approaches to Freitas? Mr. Mansourian stated staff analyzed the traffic for each of the projects as they go through the interchange; in addition, the northbound Highway 101 off - ramp at Freitas Parkway was analyzed in twofold: once, in its existing condition, and secondly, with the signalization. As an example, Mr. Mansourian reported the Northgate Mall expansion would work at the interchange with signalization and some widening; however, there would be impacts at Las Gallinas/Merrydale, Merrydale/Civic Center Drive, and Las Gallinas/Del Presidio. He stated the interchange had been analyzed in detail. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. He explained the Council would first go through the five applications in North San Rafael, and allow the applicants to address the Council. He asked that they limit their comments to five minutes, in order for everyone who wishes to speak to be allowed to do so. Once the applicants had addressed the Council, Mayor Boro stated the Council would take comments from members of the public who wished to address specific projects. Mayor Boro invited the applicant of 5000 Civic Center Drive to address the Council. Robert Hatfield, architect for the 5000 Civic Center Drive project, and representing the owner of the project, stated they supported the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mayor Boro invited public comment, and there was none. Mayor Boro announced the next application to be discussed was Look -Out Mountain, 280 Channing Way. No one addressed the Council regarding this project. SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 5 Mayor Boro invited the applicant of the Fairchild site redevelopment, 4300 Redwood Highway, to address the Council. Jay Paxton, Attorney representing the sponsors of the proposed project, referred to the Vision in Action Committee, and the Vision for North San Rafael. He stated that after reading the Vision, it was very clear what was intended for the site, noting it appeared in three places in the staff report, on the map, and under the Business Vitality section, in which one sentence states, "Most importantly, the large vacant site on Redwood Highway, where there once stood a big manufacturing plant, could be a home to a new Office/Light Industrial complex, complimenting the adjacent Northgate Industrial Park". Mr. Paxton stated that was exactly what they were bringing before Council. He reported Keenan/ Lovewell Ventures, who had extensive experience, and were among the most respected and successful developers in Silicon Valley, were asked to look at this site, in part because they have redeveloped other sites owned by Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Fairchild Semiconductor. He stated they knew how to do this, and were the "pros and brains" of this kind of product, and to the technology industry the City was trying to attract and serve. Mr. Paxton noted Mr. Lovewell and Mr. Keenan, of Keenan-Lovewell Ventures, were in the audience, and he introduced Mr. Lovewell, to provide more details concerning the project. John Lovewell, Keenan-Lovewell Ventures, thanked staff for their guidance throughout this extensive process, noting he hoped it had been perceived that Keenan-Lovewell Ventures was coming to the City with a project that was exactly as described in the (North San Rafael) Vision. He noted they had proposed two projects, an Office project and a Light Industrial project, to try to provide as much opportunity to select their particular project, and they were very pleased with the results. Mr. Lovewell stated they would be delighted to proceed with the Light Industrial project, noting they had already been to the Design Review Board and received their comments. He explained they had not yet made formal application to the City, because they had not known which project was going to be approved through the PPP process; however, they were ready to proceed, and excited about doing so. Councilmember Cohen stated one thing he had been struck by, positively, had been the notion of a contribution toward additional or expanded shuttle service, as he felt that was something that tied in very well with the Vision, and clearly had the potential to benefit the City. He noted it was no secret the City advocated expanding the shuttle service, and trying to make it work throughout the City. However, he wondered whether that was going to fold into the traffic mitigation, in which case its benefit as making this a "High Priority" project became somewhat attenuated, or whether that was in addition to any mitigation for the traffic impact to this project? Mr. Mansourian stated, at this time, staff did not know the exact impact the shuttle program would have on trip reduction; therefore, the reduction in the number of trips could not be assessed. Mr. Cohen asked, to the extent the City would be doing this project and it would be coming forward during the next year, when they discussed mitigations, would they be going with the normal mitigations, and the contribution toward the shuttle program would be in addition to that, since the long-term viability of the shuttle could not be assessed? He asked if that was also Mr. Lovewell's understanding? Mr. Lovewell stated it was, adding that should the City decide the shuttle program was not something the City wished to pursue, they would be willing to consider other public benefits for the use of those funds, which may have nothing to do with traffic, per se, Mayor Boro asked for further comment on the Fairchild site, and there was none. Mayor Boro invited the applicants for the McInnis Park Apartments to address the Council. Harvey Rich, representing the developer of this project, stated they were very pleased with the recommendation from the Planning Commission and staff, and appreciated staff's cooperation. Councilmember Cohen asked if the breakdown of the BMR units had been included in the proposal? Mr. Rich stated it was included, noting there would be eight BMR units. Mr. Cohen asked what the split would be? Mr. Rich reported there would be four low-income and four moderate units, which was consistent with the criteria for PPP. Mr. Cohen asked what the moderate units were targeted at? Community Development Director Brown stated they would be looking at the low end of the range, probably close to 80% of median. Councilmember Cohen noted that was actually close to market. Mr. Brown agreed, stating he had already informed Mr. Rich and his consultant that the City was presently looking at that, and as the project progresses, staff may change that particular policy, at least on rental projects, trying to target low-income rather than moderate. Mr. Cohen SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 6 asked, if the City made such a change, while this project was going through, would the change apply to this project, as well? Mr. Brown stated it would. Councilmember Heller asked how long the units would be considered low-income? Mr. Rich stated they would be designated low-income for forty years. Ms. Heller asked if there were any BMR projects for which the City had gotten more than forty years? Mayor Boro stated there were not. Mayor Boro asked if there was anyone who wished to address this issue, and there was not. Mayor Boro invited the applicants for the Northgate Mall expansion to address the Council. Jack Jensen, Vice President of Real Estate for the Macerich Company, representing the ownership of Northgate Mall, stated the Macerich Company was committed to making the Northgate Mall as competitive and profitable as the center could be, in its given market. He noted they believed the expansion of the center would allow Northgate to remain competitive, keep retail sales strong in San Rafael, and minimize the potential for future competition in the trade area. He reported they have discussed with staff the next steps needed to conduct more detailed traffic analysis, to determine the scope and extent of the mitigation necessary to expand the center, and it was their goal to appear before the Council, as soon as reasonably possible, to re -file their application for expansion of the Mall. Mr. Jensen thanked the City for the detail and time given their application, and complimented staff on their effort and hard work. Councilmember Heller stated she felt sure the applicant would be looking into ways to scale back the project if they felt that would qualify it for next year, and asked if they had begun to look at ways to do that, in order to meet some of the traffic problems? Mr. Jensen believed that would be premature, until they know the full extent of the traffic issues, and what mitigation measures are available. Mayor Boro invited additional public comment, and there was none. Mayor Boro referred to the application for the expansion of Northgate Mall, noting Mr. Jensen, representing Macerich, had made a comment that was very apropos, which was to keep them all healthy and competitive, and, as the City has done in the Downtown, recognize that the Northgate Mall is one of the older malls in the County. He noted it has been upgraded, but continues to need to be upgraded to make it competitive, and that was very critical to the City, and to the community of Terra Linda. However, he noted the community also had concerns with respect to the traffic, and their quality of life. Mayor Boro noted the City had instituted the Vision Plan in North San Rafael, there was a document, and there were people who are very supportive of North San Rafael, and he believed they would recognize the trade-offs that might have to be reached as the City goes forward, in order to reach the goals of Macerich, and at the same time, reach the goals of the community. He noted that although the Council could not grant any approvals at this time, he hoped the spirit Mr. Jensen has offered, to work with the City and the community in the coming year, will bear fruit, because he believed it would be productive for both Mr. Jensen's organization, as well as the City and the community of Terra Linda. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen stated he was very interested in seeing Northgate Mall continue to be successful and competitive, and a strong part of our community and local economy. He noted that to the extent staff was looking for direction to work on that, they would certainly get it from him. However, he felt that needed to be done in a way that would not negatively impact the community, and would build support for what the City is trying to do in North San Rafael, and make it possible for the City to achieve some of the objectives of the Vision. He believed that finding a way to do that would be challenging; however, he noted there were a lot of talented people ready to work on this. Mr. Cohen stated there was a lot of interest in this project among the people he had spoken with, noting the people in North San Rafael recognize the benefits to their community in having a successful and vibrant mall in their midst, and there was a lot of support for that. He pointed out there was a lot of work to do regarding the impacts, as there was not a lot of enthusiasm for more traffic around the mall, and there were a lot of hurdles there; however, he believed that if everyone worked together, there was a good chance of overcoming them. Regarding the applications and recommendations now before the Council, Councilmember Cohen noted he was comfortable with the recommendations. He stated he was encouraged to see something on the Fairchild site, and appreciated their willingness to proceed with the Light Industrial approach, which he SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 7 believed did fit the site. He recalled that, in the past, what the Council had heard in the debates concerning Costco was that there was a desire from not only the surrounding residential communities, but also from the businesses in the Northgate Industrial Park, that development on the site be consistent with what was already there, and Mr. Cohen believed this project would certainly do that, as proposed. He stated he was very encouraged by the interest to participate in expanded shuttle service, and he felt that the more the City could find people willing to participate in that, the better the chance of the City providing another successful transportation alternative. Referring to the McInnis Park Apartments, Councilmember Cohen believed that project clearly met the standards in the PPP process; however, he reiterated that at this point, as the Council was well aware, affordable units based on moderate income were not really getting the City very much. He stated he would be very interested in hearing from staff if there was an opportunity to revisit the issue before this project gets its final approval. He believed that if the City was going to give the project a priority and some of the traffic allocation, and if the Council was going to impose tougher standards for affordability, he would like to do so in a timeframe that incorporated the project that was now being given priority. He acknowledged that was not going to be done at this time, but he wanted it on record that this was his thought as the Council moves forward with approval of the project. Addressing the Northgate Office Building (5000 Civic Center Drive), Mr. Cohen noted he had looked at the design and remembered it, and he admired the patience involved in bringing the project forward again. Councilmember Miller stated he agreed with Mayor Boro and Councilmember Cohen. Councilmember Heller agreed with Councilmember Cohen's summary, and she was pleased to see that the Northgate Office Building was coming forward and being built. Regarding the Fairchild site redevelopment, she noted she had watched that location for years, and she felt Light Industrial was very appropriate for that site. Ms. Heller also believed expansion of Northgate Mall would be necessary, and agreed with Mayor Boro and City Manager Gould that the City needs, and would like to, work with Macerich for the next year, working out the mitigations, as it was important to have a healthy and competitive shopping mall in San Rafael. Councilmember Phillips reiterated his satisfaction with the staff report, noting it was amazing to be this far along so early into the meeting without a lot of dissention, and he gave staff a tremendous amount of credit for that. Mr. Phillips stated those in the audience who had worked directly with staff shared in that applause. Mr. Phillips noted he lived in Terra Linda and, therefore, that entire area was dear to his heart. He stated he was particularly pleased to see that the Fairchild site and Northgate Mall were moving forward, noting that even though the Northgate Mall expansion was not going to be acted upon at this time, he hoped they had been encouraged to proceed, and that this message was loud and clear. Mr. Phillips stated he was also pleased that contributions to enhance the overall appearance of the entranceway were going to be part of the package, which would benefit the new residents and tenants in the area of these buildings where construction will be underway, as well as the general populace. He stated he was delighted to have this as part of the overall scheme of things. Referring to the Northgate Mall, Councilmember Phillips asked them not to give up on the City. He believed the message was loud and clear that first and foremost, they needed to keep an eye on traffic, as people were quite concerned about traffic; however, at the same time, the Northgate Mall and its success were critical to all of San Rafael, and particularly to those in North San Rafael. Mayor Boro referred to the Fairchild site, noting he was pleased this application was about to come forward. He recalled that two or three years ago the Frank family representative met with individual Councilmembers about wanting to develop this site in a way that met the community needs, and Mayor Boro felt they had done that. He pointed out that, unfortunately, it has been an eyesore for a long time; however, he believed, as has been done in the southern part of the City, this project was going to make a huge difference as people approach from the north. Community Development Director Bob Brown noted the title of the Resolution contained the word "Recommending", and suggested that word be changed to "Granting". SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 8 Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution recommending the 1999 Priority Project determinations for the development impacting the Lucas Valley Road/Smith Ranch Road/Highway 101 and the Freitas Parkway/Highway 101 Interchanges in North San Rafael, as amended to change the word "recommending" to "granting" in the title of the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10542 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL GRANTING THE 1999 PRIORITY PROJECT DETERMINATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING THE LUCAS VALLEY ROAD/SMITH RANCH ROAD/HIGHWAY 101 AND THE FREITAS PARKWAY/HIGHWAY 101 INTERCHANGES (NORTH SAN RAFAEL) City File Nos. P99-1, PPP99-2, PPP99-3, PPP99-5 and PPP99-9. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:None EAST SAN RAFAEL: Consultant Paul Jensen stated the same process would be repeated in presenting the applications for projects in East San Rafael. He noted Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian would report on baseline conditions and available capacity in East San Rafael, and would also comment on one of the local intersections, which impacts two of the applications. Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian reported AM and PM traffic counts were conducted from March through June of 1999, and the baseline traffic volume was calculated based on existing traffic counts, plus approved, yet to be built or occupied development projects, vacancies, and historic trips. All intersections were found to be operating at Level of Service "D" or better, and in July, staff recommend to Council that an additional 400 PM trips be allocated, in addition to the baseline. Mr. Mansourian reported each of the intersections was analyzed by adding the individual projects, based on information provided by the applicants and trip distribution, and again, eighteen scenarios were analyzed for AM peak and PM peak, to ensure the intersections would operate. Mr. Mansourian stated two of the applications, the Gary Place Hotel Development and the Gary Place Used Auto Sales and Auction, would share a driveway on Gary Place. He pointed out that Andersen Drive has heavy traffic volume, and the westbound right -turn movement from Bellam Boulevard to Andersen Drive exceeds 900 vehicles per hour, noting this was a double right -turn, which makes it very difficult to access Gary Place from southbound Andersen Drive. The other driveways at Bellam Boulevard, accessing the Marin Square site, also had limited capacity, both for storage of the cars, and for competing with westbound through traffic, and he noted this was a problem with both of these applications. Mr. Mansourian stated the scenarios staff conducted showed the best combination would be Scenario C, which would utilize the most trips, and allow the intersections to operate at a Level of Service of mid -"D" or better. Councilmember Cohen stated the problem impacting those parcels seemed to be from outside the PPP process, and was one that would continue to crop up. He asked if staff had given any thought to ways in which this might be addressed in the future, and assuming the City were to go forward with the recommendations from the Planning Commission, was there some direction the Council should give to the applicants with regard to addressing that problem? Mr. Cohen noted those parcels were "land -locked", and there was land there that had a higher and better use; however, regardless of the PPP process, until someone could figure out how to get them better access to the circulation network, it was going to be difficult to see approval for these kinds of projects in those locations. Mr. Mansourian explained each one of the projects worked by itself, as far as capacity and Level of Service at the interchange of the I-580 intersections. He reported he had spoken with Bill Dietrich, of DKS Associates, who was representing one of the applicants. He noted Mr. Dietrich had suggested that within the next two years, the Highway 101 Gap Closure would close the southbound off -ramp to Andersen Drive, and it would be an excellent location to re -direct Gary Place to that off -ramp, which he explained would stop a lot of the problems. He believed the existing southbound off -ramp could be utilized as the main entrance to Gary Place and Marin Square, which he felt would work very well. Highlighting the five applications for East San Rafael, Mr. Jensen reported the first application involved development of the former Ghilotti property, located at 2350 Kerner Boulevard. He explained this project proposed a two -phased development, with the first phase consisting of two office buildings totalling SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 9 116,000 square feet, and 3 acres reserved for an accompanying development of the City's Corporation Yard from Downtown San Rafael. The second phase involved a third office building of 19,000 square feet, and parking on two contiguous sites. The project qualifies as a "High Priority" project, as it proposes to provide a new site for the City Corporation Yard, which is a Needed Community Serving Use, and is also recognized for relocation under the San Rafael General Plan. Mr. Jensen reported the Planning Commission had recommended approval of Phase I only, which was the two office buildings and the Corporation Yard. He pointed out that in addition to meeting "High Priority" criteria, the planning applications were well underway; in fact, staff was completing the environmental review, and hearings were expected early in the year 2000. Phase II was not recommended for approval, primarily because the addition of the traffic from this second phase would utilize nearly all the available traffic for East San Rafael, leaving no trips available for any of the other applications. Mr. Jensen reported the second application was for a 10,000 square foot expansion of the P.G.& E. Service Center at 1220 Andersen Drive. He explained P.G.& E. was looking to relocate its employees from its Third Street site, and was marketing to sell that property for redevelopment, with the hotel facility. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application for several reasons: the expansion would generate a limited amount of traffic in the East San Rafael network; the Planning process for the expansion was anticipated to take less than a year; and this project would actually facilitate redevelopment of the Third Street site in the Downtown area for a hotel, which was a High Tax Generating Use, and also the relocation of St. Vincent's Dining Hall, which was a Needed Community Serving Use. The third application was for the development of 1775 Francisco Boulevard East, a vacant site located between the Phoenix Leasing office and Bayview Business Park. Mr. Jensen recalled that last year an application was filed for this site by Storage USA for a self -storage facility, and that application was denied. What was proposed this year was a base development of 20,000 square feet for bulk retail use, and staff understood McPhail's was interested in relocating their showroom to this site, with the second half of the building being proposed for furniture store use. Mr. Jensen noted the project also included two alternatives for a second -story expansion for office use, at some point in the future. The project proposed to qualify as a "High Priority" project in the High Tax Generating category; however, with the information submitted by the applicant, at most, the project would generate approximately $200,000 per year in annual sales tax to the City. Mr. Jensen reported the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application, primarily because the amount of estimated sales tax was optimistic, and not high enough to receive an "Excellent" ranking, or to compete with the other PPP applications. The fourth application was for the Gary Place Hotel Development, a 165 -room hotel envisioned for 3.35 acres located at the end of Gary Place. Mr. Jensen noted this was a highly visible site from both Highway 101 and I-580, and the project would definitely qualify as a "High Priority" project, as hotel uses generated a lot of money in transient occupancy tax, and in this case, it would be approximately $500,000 in transient occupancy tax to the City, annually. However, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application for several reasons. The first was the constraint at the intersection of Andersen Drive and Gary Place, as Mr. Mansourian had reported earlier. In addition, even though the General Plan encourages landmark uses on this property, because of its prominence and the fact that the project was fairly large, the appropriateness of the use and the intensity of the improvements should first be determined through the Planning and Environmental Review processes before PPP approval is granted. The last application for East San Rafael was a used auto sales and auction operation at 20 - 38 Gary Place. Mr. Jensen stated this was a unique application because it involved a proposed use on a developed site, noting the existing uses on the property were auto related, and included European Auto Service and Wheel Works. Mr. Jensen stated the project proposed to qualify as a "High Priority" project, as it would be a High Tax Generating Use; however, based on sales volume figures submitted by the applicant, it was estimated that annual sales tax revenue on this project would be approximately $150,000, and although commendable, that was not high enough to meet an "Excellent" rating, nor to compete with the other applications. This project, too, was constrained by the intersection of Gary Place and Andersen Drive, although to a lesser extent than the hotel application. As a matter of clarification, Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding that with the hotel, there were restraints in addition to the traffic issue. He noted there would need to be a General Plan amendment, and the Planning Commission's recommendation was to have that process be addressed first, and SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 10 have the land use determined, since the land use being requested was not possible at this point. Then, if that proceeded, the issue of traffic would be revisited. Mr. Jensen stated that was a fair assessment. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. He stated the same procedures would be followed as during the first public hearing on North San Rafael, noting he would first invite the applicants to address the Council, limiting their remarks to 5 minutes, and then members of the public would be invited to speak. Mayor Boro first invited the applicant for the Kerner Office Complex and the City Corporation Yard, located at 2350 Kerner Boulevard, to address the Council. Richard Hannum, of Hannum Associates, architect for the owners, stated he had been working with the City for some time in order to bring this project forward. He referred to a diagram of the site, noting it was an unusual piece of property, and it posed the opportunity to provide the much-needed facilities for the Corporation Yard, on which they have been working with Public Works Director Bernardi, in order to come up with something that worked for the long-term. Mr. Hannum noted one thing that was important, and something they had worked on with the community at large, was the completion and realization of the Shoreline Park infrastructure, which currently ends just short of the property, and again at South Pond. He explained the entire zone in between would, as part of this project, be developed as a 100 foot wide public park zone, accessible from one end of the property. He stated this would provide a tremendous buffer zone, and give the public access to an area that currently was quite derelict. Mr. Hannum stated that working with the Department of Fish and Game, the City, and the Wetland Mitigation program set forth for this area some years ago, they were also proposing, as part of the project, a fifty foot average wetlands mitigation zone off the entire north end of the property, which would create a buffer zone between the entire development and all of the water areas. He reported there had been a great deal of study concerning this, to make sure what was being proposed met everyone's expectations for this particular area of the property. Pointing out the area of the City's new Corporation Yard, Mr. Hannum noted this was being proposed on a long-term, economically beneficial lease condition, and would include such things as core services infrastructure being installed for the project, and made available to the property, which the City's budget indicated would represent a $600,000 benefit for that line item alone. Mr. Hannum believed the elements of this project addressed many of the issues that have been brought forth, in all the different plan amendments and studies that have been done for this area. He thanked City staff for having spent so much time with them, trying to work out the details of the process. Councilmember Phillips asked Mr. Hannum to point out the area of Phase II, and Mr. Hannum noted that parcel on the map. He explained that area was a piece of City land that had been left over, which they had also agreed to improve as part of their project. Additionally, there were areas of the South Pond that would be part of Phase II, if that portion of the project was approved. Mayor Boro invited public comment. Lee Jordan, attorney, addressed the Council on behalf of Cal -Pox, Inc., the owner and developer of Shoreline Park. Mr. Jordan stated he objected to the recommendations that have come to the Council from the Planning Commission, because if the Council were to approve the two projects recommended by the Planning Commission, they would be departing principles that have historically governed the PPP process, and which, in the past, for the most part rendered it a fair and equitable process. Mr. Jordan stated they also believed the Council was departing from an understanding the property owners in East San Rafael came away with after the Council conducted the public hearing which resulted, with their support, in the application of the collected traffic mitigation fees for the construction of the interim traffic improvements, which have made available the capacity now being discussed. Explaining how the two recommendations from the Planning Commission were a departure from these past historical principles, Mr. Jordan first referred to the project at 2350 Kerner Boulevard. He stated the General Plan allocated 261 PM peak hour trips to the entire property which was the subject of that application; however, approval would award, from the capacity developed through the improvements constructed with those traffic mitigation fees, 337 traffic trips, which was 76 in excess of the allocation contained in the General Plan for that property. He reported the Planning Commission stated it could do that, and could accommodate that by taking advantage of the reserve allocation, also contained in the General Plan. He explained the General Plan, in addition to allocating specific amounts to the individual properties, had held in reserve a number of PM peak hour traffic trips, which could be allocated to either redevelopment projects, or projects SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 11 deemed to be of "High Priority". However, when the hearing was held by the City Council a little over a year ago, and resulted in the use of the Traffic Mitigation fees paid by the very property owners now being affected, the entire discussion was devoted in the direction of stating that this would make available to the property owners additional traffic movements to fulfill the allocations for their properties contained in the General Plan. He stated what the City was now doing, if it approved this project, was departing from that understanding, which had formed the basis of the feelings of the property owners when they approved and supported the actions taken by Council at the time. Mr. Jordan stated the City of San Rafael, itself, was taking 47 of those traffic trips, and consuming 29 of those traffic trips for the Corporation Yard. He believed the real problem was the capacity created by the expenditure of those Traffic Mitigation Fees to benefit all the property owners in accordance with their respective allocations. He noted there were several hundred reserve traffic trips that could be allocated, but with respect to this particular capacity, were created on an interim basis, and it was done so with the understanding that it would redound to the benefit of those properties. He pointed out the City was now going to consume 29 of those, to serve the proposed Corporation Yard, and by Council's approval, they would be taking 47 of the excess capacity of the 400 trips, which otherwise would have gone to other projects, and giving them to this project; in total, 76 trips over and above its General Plan allocation. Mr. Jordan stated that in addition, they were deeply concerned by what seemed to be an increasing tendency on the part of the City, to approve PPP applications based upon the number of dollars placed in the City's pocket, which they felt was bad planning, and bad government. He stated the courts have sanctioned the imposition of Traffic Mitigation Fees to reduce problems created by a proposed project; however, he pointed out that in the North San Rafael area, with the three projects that were approved, of the two that were qualified for "High Priority", one was paying the sum of $22,000 to the City, and the other $120,000 to the City. And now there was an application before the Council with a recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission because it will be donating to the City a Corporation Yard. He stated it was beginning to look like the City was awarding its development entitlements to the highest bidder, noting that was a bad public impression, and in their judgment, a bad practice. Mr. Jordan stated that in looking at the justification for the qualifier in this particular case, the donation of a site for a new Corporation Yard did not, historically, qualify under the criteria originally established in the General Plan for the PPP process. He noted the Planning Commission purported it qualifies because it meets the criteria of a Needed Neighborhood Serving Use; however, in reading the history and the record of the PPP process, that language was originally intended to be confined to uses which were primarily intended to serve the neighborhood in which they were to be located. He noted if there was a Fire Station in North San Rafael, that could be justified because it was located there primarily to serve the North San Rafael area; and a median strip improvement primarily served the neighborhood in which it was being located. However, what the City was doing now was attaching priority to this application, not because it proposes a use that primarily serves the neighborhood in which it is located, but rather a use that primarily serves as a Citywide facility. He reiterated that was not the intention of the language contained in the General Plan. Mr. Jordan reported they were concerned about certain particular aspects of this project, which seemed to create a contradiction in the position the City has taken. He pointed out this project would locate the City's Corporation Yard immediately adjacent to an office complex, which is proposed to be part and parcel of the same property. It would also establish the Corporation Yard immediately adjacent to wetlands, and to Shoreline Park. Mr. Jordan reported that recently his client, Cal -Pox, approached the City with the suggestion of locating a Corporation Yard for a private contractor on Parcel 5 of Shoreline Park, situated exactly in the same fashion, adjacent to wetlands, to Shoreline Park, and to the office complex in the Bayside Development. He noted that as recently as November 29th, the City had responded in writing, as follows: "In addition, a Contractor's Yard would have to be found to be compatible with adjacent uses, which could be difficult to conclude on Parcel 5, which is now adjacent to the Bayview Business Park". With respect to its location adjacent to Shoreline Park and the wetlands, that same letter advised Cal -Pox that it would be, in a sense, difficult to approve, because of the apparent impacts upon the adjacent wetlands in Shoreline Park. Therefore, Mr. Jordan stated, with that historical background, they were concerned with the recommendation being presented to Council by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Cohen stated he was concerned about Mr. Jordan's comments suggesting that the City in recent years, through its PPP process, had been SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 12 allocating traffic capacity to the highest bidder. He believed the same argument could be made regarding a fundamental part of the criteria for PPP, which has been applied in East San Rafael to the mutual benefit of the property owners and the City, with respect to High Sales Tax Generating Use. Mr. Cohen asked why it would be a public policy benefit, other than the fact that sales tax is an income to the City, to approve projects of that nature, and give them priority over storage units, for example? Mr. Cohen believed the fundamental public benefit the City has assumed in that instance is increased revenue to the City, as the sales tax revenue flows to the City. He noted the argument has, in fact, been made throughout the State that California needs to revisit the entire issue of local government finance, because many communities have been accused of "planning for dollars", and exclusively zoning properties for retail use because sales tax confers much more value to the city coffers. Mr. Cohen believed it was a fair argument to make that the reason the City places priority on that is because of the funds that accrue in the City's treasury, and asked how that was fundamentally different from other projects that are bringing benefits, financially, to the City? Mr. Jordan believed there was a difference, in substance, noting it was in the way the whole field of Land Planning has approached the problem in the past. He pointed out he has worked for over four generations in that field, as a specialty, and it has always been accepted that revenue developed inherently by the nature of a project sought to be approved was a legitimate element to consider in either denying or approving a project. However, he believed the City was going beyond that in this instance, noting that in addition to the tax revenue that naturally flows from the project being approved, the City was stating that if the City is given additional money, a project will receive development entitlement. Jay Paxton, representing the Faskin Trust, asked to address some of the points made by Mr. Jordan with regard to this application, noting Mr. Jordan's fundamental criticism of this project, under the General Plan, was that it served too many neighborhoods. Mr. Paxton stated it was clear that this was a use that served the neighborhood in which it is located, and served the remainder of San Rafael in a way which was critical for the City. He stated, as far as they could determine, this was the site that would solve the problem created as the City cooperated with Fair, Isaac in agreeing to relocate its Corporation Yard. Mr. Paxton stated they brought this project forward to solve that problem, and to serve all the neighborhoods in San Rafael, suggesting the neighborhoods in San Rafael would be ill -served if the City did not have a Corporation Yard to respond to the needs of the City. Mr. Paxton noted Mr. Jordan stated the Corporation Yard was adjacent to Shoreline Park; however, he reported that was not correct. He pointed out on the map that section of the project where the Corporation Yard would be located, noting it would be separated from Shoreline Park by office buildings, and separated from the office buildings by a landscaped buffer and the walls of the Corporation Yard buildings. Mr. Paxton stated they had been extremely concerned, as developers of the office buildings, that there be appropriate screening between the Corporation Yard and the office buildings, and were making certain, in negotiations with the City, and in the design of both elements of the project, that this occurs. Referring to the separation between the Corporation Yard and the surrounding marsh area, Mr. Paxton noted the original plan had recently been revised to take into account the comments made by the Department of Fish and Game, asking for a fifty foot average buffer from the surrounding marsh. He stated they had found this to be adequate in the view of the Department of Fish and Game, and noted it would also be reviewed as part of the environmental process for their application. Regarding the traffic trips, Mr. Paxton explained special trips were not being allocated to the office project, noting the City would be going to its reserve for trips for its Corporation Yard. He stated the calculation of trips was obviously complex under these circumstances; however, staff had looked at the situation well, and the staff report accurately reflected the allocation of the trips. Mayor Boro asked for additional comment regarding this project, and there was none. Mayor Boro invited the applicant for the P.G.& E. Service Center project to address the Council. Armondo Rodriguez, representing Pacific Gas & Electric Company, stated P.G.& E. agreed and was very pleased with staff's recommendation for their proposed project, noting he was also very appreciative of staff's support during the application process. SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 13 Lee Jordan stated they had basically the same objections to the P.G.& E. project approval, based upon the traffic capacity which would be allocated under that approval. He stated the P.G.& E. Service Center had no PM peak hour trips available to it under the General Plan, and the Planning Commission decided they could get around that by using reserve trips, trips reserved in the General Plan for redevelopment projects. However, Mr. Jordan believed that in looking carefully at the General Plan, and the history of those reserve trips, this project did not fit the purpose of those reserve trips. He referred to Addendum B of the General Plan, which lists trips reserved for redevelopment for East San Rafael projects and North San Rafael projects, noting he believed it was clear, in looking at the history, that this was intended to permit the use of those reserve trips for a redevelopment project taking place in the area from which the traffic capacity was being taken; in other words, if there was a redevelopment project in East San Rafael, that was what those reserved trips were intended to serve, to allow that redevelopment project to go ahead. However, he believed that what this recommendation did was to take capacity made available through the expenditure of the traffic mitigation fees, not paid by P.G.& E., but by the other property owners in East San Rafael. He believed that to take that capacity, and take advantage of it by using reserve trips from the redevelopment reserve, not for a redevelopment project in this area, but for a proposed redevelopment project in Downtown San Rafael, was a clear departure from the intention of the General Plan. Similarly, in reading through the document, and the record of the history of the PPP process referring to sales tax generation being a qualifier, it was intended to mean taxes developed by the very project being approved, by the use that was being established in the area for which the traffic capacity was being taken. Mr. Jordan pointed out that in this case, the City was not stating this project on Andersen Drive would create tax revenue for the City of $600,000 per year, it was stating that this would free -up a piece of land for which a future hoped for hotel, in an entirely different area outside of East San Rafael, would develop $600,000 revenue to the City, and he believed that was not the intention of the General Plan. In conclusion, Mr. Jordan stated it was their position that by the City approving these projects, with what remains after the approval of these projects, except for some very limited development that could take place in East San Rafael, there would be no further development in East San Rafael for the foreseeable future. He stated they felt this was being done through a perversion of the language and intent of certain General Plan provisions, and by that perversion, the City was reaping a benefit. He noted this did not make it right, and they believed the process was being adulterated. Mr. Jordan stated his client was very close to closing a deal with Recreational Equipment, Inc., which would place a retail use, with a very substantial, qualifying tax revenue development, on the very site where this project was being established, and that would not be able to go forward if staff's position was correct. Mayor Boro invited public comment regarding this project, and there was none. Mayor Boro invited the applicant of the Retail/Office Building at 1775 Francisco Boulevard East. Dwayne Hunn, representing property owner Fred Grange, stated property owners Piombo, Morphew, and Grange were pioneers of East San Rafael, noting each had contributed a significant amount to East San Rafael, both civically and financially, in taxes, assessments, and fees. He stated they helped to pave the roads, build the drainage districts, and provide the infrastructure with all the money they put into East San Rafael. However, Dr. Hunn reported Mr. Grange felt he was not getting anywhere, that his arm was being twisted and his pockets were empty, as he comes back to yet another Priority Projects Procedure with the Planning Commission trying to get something through. Dr. Hunn reported Mr. Grange has had twelve serious applicants come and look at the parcel, with only three that have gone so far as to make a presentation and try to get a project through. Dr. Hunn pointed out the staff report recommends denial; however, it does not show the totals that people such as Mr. Grange have contributed to East San Rafael and the City's coffers by the taxes and fees they have paid. He noted that rather than having their name on street posts, they would rather have it in a staff report to counter the negatives they encounter in this planning process. He stated if what they have contributed over the last thirty years was in the staff report, they would have a lot more "juice" in this process. Dr. Hunn noted that in the PPP process, it was difficult to do many good things. He acknowledged, on their small parcel, they could not give the City a hotel in the Downtown, or a St. Vincent's Dining Hall, and they could not do a $1.00 a year Corporation Yard, or push Fair, Isaac's through Downtown. He pointed out it was difficult for their proposal to compete with Fair, Isaac's, the City, or Downtown Neighborhood Serving Needs. In addition, it was also difficult, in this process, to compete with the extremely stringent Floor Area Ratios placed SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 14 on this particular parcel. Dr. Hunn reported Mr. Grange has been trying diligently to do that; however, part of the problem was reflected in the neighborhood's character. He noted that to the left of Mr. Grange's proposed project was the QuadraMed building, which was quite a large building, and he pointed out that in looking at all the buildings, the neighborhood character stands out, as they are all big buildings, two- and three -stories high. Dr. Hunn reported the Floor Area Ratios of the buildings that surround Mr. Grange's site are all .50-ish, while the one in the middle, Mr. Grange's parcel, is .25. Dr. Hunn pointed out Mr. Grange has owned the parcel for twenty -plus years, and this was his third recent application. He explained Mr. Grange was trying to abide by this low Floor Area Ratio, as he knows the Floor Area Ratio for a single parcel cannot be changed without a lot of money, and although Dr. Hunn acknowledged the Floor Area Ratio could be changed in the next General Plan, he noted that could be two or three years down the line. Therefore, Mr. Grange was following the City's Policy C-3, as a developer, timing development with improvements, proposing that he could build one-story, and generate only a little traffic, adapting the building to the peak hour traffic. Dr. Hunn explained that if Mr. Grange expanded by one story, that would result in 40 peak hour trips, or 10% of the allocation, which would not result in a lowering of the Level of Service in the area. Dr. Hunn stated Mr. Grange had tried to attract McPhail's, a family business, to this site. He reported McPhail's wants to build a super store, and pointed out the super stores McPhail's has built in San Jose, Concord, and elsewhere were really "diamonds", compared to the "rough" currently located at Jordan and Lindaro. In addition, Dr. Hunn stated revenues at the McPhail's store in Santa Rosa had gone up 70%. Dr. Hunn noted customers of McPhail's included contractors who purchase several ranges at a time, and purchase expensive ranges or marble counter tops. Dr. Hunn believed that since traffic analysis was an art, not a science, it might be possible to save a few trips here, because contractors do not want to have to drive around, and if McPhail's was in this area, the contractor would go to McPhail's, buy his fancy products, and also those products he would have gone to Home Depot to purchase, avoiding a second trip. Dr. Hunn believed that might happen with several contractors, pointing out that would do a lot for just a few trips. He stated they were trying to suggest that there may be some trips saved, and all they were looking for in this process was twelve trips. He reported the first floor of the property generates 40 trips, and there were 24 trips in the City's buffer; therefore, they were short only 12 trips for the Councilmembers to add this project to the ones they have already approved. He acknowledged they were asking for a little "magic" from the City's policy -makers, suggesting perhaps there might be Transportation Management Ordinances the City could put on some of the office buildings, noting, because of the Internet, he also believed the City could see a slight fall in the traffic to office buildings. In addition, Dr. Hunn pointed out there were a lot of vacancies, and suggested that perhaps when the City has a new modeling system, they may find there are additional traffic trips. He asked Council to take a chance, to state there may be more trips, noting that since there were so few being asked for, perhaps there would be a way to get this project through. Dr. Hunn stated, in a sense, they were also asking the City to look at this area as it had looked at the Downtown. He recalled that, for a while, the Downtown was struggling, it was not getting a lot of income or business, and the City decided to make a policy change to let a few more traffic trips come Downtown. Dr. Hunn pointed out the Downtown was thriving, everyone in the County talks about how great San Rafael's Downtown has become, and the Downtown merchants are happy. However, he noted Mr. Grange has contributed a lot over the past twenty or thirty years, yet he was stuck with a Floor Area Ratio that penalizes him. He explained Mr. Grange was now asking the City to help his economy, as he has been paying for a long time, and he believed that if the City would just make a little bit of adjustment, he could make an impact, and it would benefit him. Dr. Hunn noted he would like to invite others to comment on this project, and then make a statement when public testimony was completed. Forrest Morphew stated he was one of the pioneers of the East San Rafael area. He noted they have had to persevere for many years, and finally, in desperation, upon the promise of the City officials at that time, who told them that if they would just form an assessment district for East Kerner Boulevard and improve the area, they would be able to build what they want, whenever they want to, they formed an assessment district. He stated that had been fifteen years ago, and they were still waiting to build what they wanted to, without success. Mr. Morphew noted Mr. Jordan had pointed out they were now required to be in competition with people who were not even on their side of the freeway, such as P.G.& E., the hotel at Gary Place, and the used car lot on Gary Place. He asked why, after the millions they had spent in the East San Rafael area to be able to develop, they were now being required to compete with people who have SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 15 contributed nothing, and will contribute nothing to their area? He asked where the fairness was in that? Regarding the Floor Area Ratio, he asked where the fairness was in holding a building down to .25, when the buildings on each side were, respectively, .52 and .53? Mr. Morphew reported that at the Planning Commission meeting Chairman O'Brien had recognized the unfairness, and spoke at great length about how he felt they were being unfairly dealt with, noting the other members of the Commission, who voted against Mr. O'Brien, simply stated they were bound by the rules currently in effect. Mr. Morphew asked about the rules that were in effect when they put themselves in bondage for twenty years, noting they were still paying for those things. He asked where the fairness was in all of this? He respectfully requested that Council approve Mr. Grange's retail bulk store at 1775 Francisco Boulevard East, despite the negatives that have been presented in this unfair PPP report. Ralph Cole, commercial real estate broker and partner in Orion Partners in San Rafael, noted he has been representing Fred Grange in the sale of this property for several years. He stated that during this time, he has tried very hard to meet the needs of the City of San Rafael, recognizing that traffic flow is a problem, and adequate revenue to the City is needed, as well as adequate revenue to the owner. Mr. Cole noted that during the time he has been working with Mr. Grange, he has brought three mini -storage companies to the site, because he had been led to believe these companies would meet the needs of the City by providing little traffic, as well as tax income for the City. However, in each case, the clients were either rejected by the City, or, in total frustration, they have left. Mr. Cole stated he had been informed by City Planning officials that what the City needed was a quality office building, or a retail use, provided traffic was limited. He stated he went to work on that, and was now able to bring such a client, McPhail's, to this location. He agreed with Dr. Hunn that this would be a premiere, prime store, and one the City could be very proud of, and he believed this outstanding local company would provide excellent revenue to the City and quality service for our citizens, while providing little traffic problems; yet still, the staff report denies the project. Mr. Cole stated he has received frequent calls from brokers asking about this property, and in each case, when he responded to their questions, and stated the Floor Area Ratio was .25, over and over again the brokers asked, with properties on either side with twice that Floor Area Ratio, how he expected them to sell the site? Mr. Cole explained that out of total frustration from the inability to market the site successfully, Mr. Grange decided to build, on his own property, this outstanding structure for McPhail's and another tenant. However, again the report recommends denial. Mr. Cole noted the real estate brokers were at a loss as to what should be done; in fact, he noted some have stated they considered this to be a classic example of Inverse Condemnation. Mr. Cole stated he and the owner had provided top-flight companies, with stability, low traffic, and good revenue to the City, and all have been rejected. He believed this new building, with its excellent tenant, would be a real asset to San Rafael, and he respectfully requested approval of the project. Martha Hidinger stated she had recently celebrated working for twenty years in East San Rafael for Fred Grange. She recalled when Mr. Grange had assembled his neighbors, such as the Ghilotti's, Mr. Morphew, Mr. Piombo, and Mr. Delacio, and they formed the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District. Ms. Hidinger reported that together they built and paid for the extension of Kerner Boulevard, the construction of Pelican, Morphew, and Grange Ways, the drainage facilities, the levees, and a lot of other improvements. She stated she was astounded that the property owners were each to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for these improvements, noting at times it was a struggle for them to make those payments; however, she stated there was always the knowledge that when the time was right, the City would approve their development, and allow the owners to recoup their investments. Ms. Hidinger stated that when the time became right, development did not occur, mostly because of the limited traffic capacity; therefore, Mr. Grange proposed several low -traffic generating uses for his two -acre parcel, and all of them were ultimately turned down. She reported Mr. Grange was told an Office/Warehouse, such as at Bayview, would have more aesthetic value than a storage facility, so he was now proposing a very attractive Office/Retail use, taking that cue. Ms. Hidinger asked if the City remembered why these property owners originally became involved in the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District, and why they spent all that money? She asked if it was fair to give out the remaining traffic capacity to other projects, which did not participate in the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District, or any other public improvements? Was it fair to leave Mr. Grange, and the other property owners, without sufficient traffic capacity to develop their properties? She respectfully requested the Council approve Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 16 Grange's application for 1775 Francisco Boulevard, as submitted. Daylene Whitlock, Traffic Consultant, stated she had worked on the two projects being recommended for approval, and was also a fourteen -year resident of East San Rafael. She noted Mr. Grange and his associates felt they had fairly compelling arguments for placing this project on the City's "High Priority" list, and giving it a better rating than it currently has, according to the staff report and Planning Commission's review. However, she believed that if Council followed that view and decided they had a point, the next logical step would be to determine whether there was adequate traffic capacity to accept the project, and include it within the process. Ms. Whitlock stated that in reviewing the staff report and traffic analysis, and discussing the issue with Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian, she felt there was probably adequate space. She noted Mr. Mansourian stated he had run an analysis with the projects being proposed for approval, as well as the proposed project at 1775 Francisco Boulevard, and Mr. Mansourian had indicated that with the project and the 40 PM trips that were allocated, it would cause the intersection at I-580 East to fall below the acceptable limit. She pointed out, in looking at the trip distribution that was provided to Mr. Mansourian for this project, there were 13 trips assigned to the southbound left -turn coming off the ramp, which she noted was approximately 90% of all the inbound trips during the PM peak hour. She stated that normally, only 75% of the trips from the North would be assigned, because that seemed to be the way the trips generally went at this point, explaining it was assigned that way because of possible conflicts along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard East. However, if they had assigned those trips less conservatively, and sent them along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard instead, there would not be 13 southbound left -turns coming off the ramp, and probably, that intersection would not fail. She believed this project might even have been included for approval had it not been for the "Excellent" versus "Fair" rating. Ms. Whitlock stated the trip generation and distribution was based on the best information they had, and they tried to make it as conservative as possible; however, in this particular case, that conservatism may have gone too far. She noted it would only take a handful of trips, and they could maintain the mid - Level of Service "D" with this project included, in addition to the other two projects Council was considering for approval. Ms. Whitlock pointed out this intersection was pretty close to the border when 13 trips made the difference one way or the other. She noted it had occurred to her that when the traffic counts were taken in February and March, it was quite likely there were trips associated with many of the projects currently under construction, and trips associated with those projects, even included in the existing conditions, that would not have shown up anywhere in the model, and would have been, essentially, double counted. She explained that when the projections are done, they assume that the site is blank, that there is nothing there, and it generates no trips, and even for approved projects, when the model is added in, they add in all the trips associated with the new construction, even though, typically, there are no trips included in those kinds of projections for the construction activities. Ms. Whitlock believed it was highly likely there were at least 5 of 6 trips associated with construction that might have been double counted, because of projects that are currently under construction, and were those trips removed, they could probably get the intersection back to a mid -Level of Service "C". Ms. Whitlock believed they could easily make a case for allowing this project, and maintaining the mid -Level of Service "D" at all of the intersections. Dr. Hunn closed his comments to the Council with three questions. First, he referred to the Floor Area Ratio, and asked if it was really equitable to allow this to continue, and for the project to be denied. Second, should there be some kind of nexus in the Priority Planning Process between the business development needs of long-time East San Rafael business and property owners, taxpayers, and the PPP process? He believed that if the City was doing the PPP process today, with the years of hindsight it has had with that process, it would probably consider the contributions the property owners have made, over decades, in setting up a system that awards planning approvals. Third, in this process, hurriedly designed over a decade ago, should a shortfall of just twelve trips outweigh the decades of financial and civic contributions that a property owner has made? Dr. Hunn stated he hoped the Council would consider Ms. Whitlock's comments regarding the construction, traffic modeling, the Internet traffic reduction that may be on the horizon, the vacancies that exist, and transportation management incentives that could be offered to offices and retail locations in the area, in order to reduce traffic counts. He reiterated they were only looking for a few trips. Mayor Boro invited further comment regarding this project, and there was none. SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 17 Mayor Boro invited the applicant for the Gary Place Hotel development to address the Council. Rick Scattina, representing the Rashee Family Trust, owner of the property on Gary Place, stated he wished to explain why they believed their project should be approved, according to guidelines, and he also felt it was warranted that he provide a brief history of the property, which has been owned by the Gary Rashee family, and his grandfather, Eddie Meyer, since the early 1900's, when it was the California Park amusement park. Mr. Scattina noted the property was at the gateway to San Rafael, now that Interstate 580 and Highway 101 corridors have been built around it, and they felt the use they have had there for over sixty years, which is Light Industrial, may have run its course. However, their concern now, and what has precipitated this rush to apply for the PPP Process, was having been approached by Redevelopment Agency staff recommending they do something with the property that might be more appropriate. He explained that several years ago, when they asked what would be more appropriate, a hotel was suggested, and they slowly began working on such a project. He noted Mr. Rashee was now the sole trustee of the property, and believed he should go on and give something to the community, something that would be an improvement, as well as something economically feasible for him and the City. Mr. Scattina stated they have been given notice by the City that they are in non-compliance with the current zoning, which is Office, and were given notice to evict their tenants, representing twelve or fifteen different types of service industries, or they would be fined $1,000 per day until they did evict them. He reported they have met several times with City staff to discuss what they could do, and acknowledged they were in non-compliance because they did not have an office building there; however, they did have a good commercial use, and they were reluctant to give up the tenants they have. Therefore, since the property was zoned for offices, they proposed to build an office building, but they were told they could not do that. He reported they then asked that they be allowed to continue with what they currently have there, until the City decided what it wants there, and then they would cooperate, but the City stated it could not do that, either. Mr. Scattina stated they had been given approximately three weeks notice concerning the Priority Process, and they did fantastic work, hiring Fisher Friedman, who designed the building that will be constructed on the former Macy's site. He referred to the brochure which shows what they intend to build if they receive approval. Mr. Scattina stated they wanted to work with the City, and hoped the City would want to work with them, noting they believed they had a golden opportunity for the City, and that they should be taken seriously on what they can do. He noted that while staff had given a very good recommendation as to what to do, they were constrained with what could be done, from their point of view. However, as the owner of the property, they had their own point of view, and while they wanted to cooperate with the City, they needed to know what the City wants. He stated they were gravely concerned when, along with the specter of having to evict their tenants, they were told that if they did not get the traffic trips this time around, they would never be able to improve the property, because there were no traffic trips formed for the future. Mr. Scattina noted what he had seen, growing up in San Rafael and participating in different developments around town, was that there were a lot of things they could be proud of, particularly that they have a public/private partnership that can work for the greatest good for everyone. He stated they believed they had a project that would be very good for both the City and the community, noting, in the spirit of the season, he felt like Santa Claus, in that they could bring to the table $550,000 in found money, generating that amount to the City and the community. To put into perspective what that could do, exceeding the PPP criteria, he pointed out they could help provide affordable housing and Needed Neighborhood Services, and they also had a high tax generating use, which were the three criteria for the PPP. Mr. Scattina stated they could meet, or exceed, all those criteria, and, through the $550,000 per year, which he noted was a conservative estimate, they could subsidize 180 low-income housing units, putting people out of sub -standard housing units in the Canal and into something nice, and help them help their families. He stated they could also provide childhood education, or teen self-esteem programs, help hire teachers for English language programs, and, in general, help people help themselves, which would, in turn, help the economy, by providing this kind of money to the City to do as it wants, noting it could go to the greatest good, and the greatest amount of people. Mr. Scattina stated that in addition to the tax generating portion of the project, which was their economic enhancement for everyone, there would also be employment opportunities, especially for people who are unskilled, and who live in the neighborhood. They would also provide neighborhood enhancement to an SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 18 area that is seen by 10,000 people a day, going north, south, east, or west on the freeways, as this location was at the hub of San Rafael. He referred to a photograph of the site as it currently looks, noting they wanted to improve the location, but would need help in doing so. He stated they were willing to do it themselves, but they were hamstrung with the PPP procedure, and how it was being interpreted. Mr. Scattina stated they were also looking at a visual enhancement for the gateway of San Rafael, noting it could be the "jewel in the crown" of San Rafael, and he believed that, particularly going into the new Millennium, it was time to think about how we wanted people to think of San Rafael when they drive through, and whether it should be just car dealerships, furniture and appliance stores. He believed there should be something nice there, noting it was dark and menacing at night, and San Rafael deserved better than that. Referring to staff's two main concerns regarding the criteria for the PPP process, Mr. Scattina first addressed the issue of the entrance and exit being off of Gary Place onto Andersen Drive. He reported they had found in their records that when Marin Square Shopping Center was given approval for construction eighteen years ago, a provision was made by the City Council that they allow for an easement through their property to this property, noting that would certainly be something they could work on to create less of a traffic concern. Regarding staff's concern as to whether or not they were premature in applying for this, Mr. Scattina acknowledged that, yes, they would rather have several years to work on it; however, given the constraint that they might not ever be able to do anything there, they had jumped on this project, and came up with something they were very proud of, which they believed was also a wonderful opportunity for the City, and would meet every bit of the criteria the Council has established for the PPP process. Mr. Scattina noted, to work with them, together, in order of San Rafael, and if anything, they would appreciate Council directing staff to come up with some kind of program they can accomplish to create something that would be very special for the City the community at large. Mayor Boro invited public comment, and there was none. Mayor Boro invited the applicant for Used Auto Sales and Auction at 20-38 Gary Place to address the Council. Sydney Fairbairn, attorney for Robert Fenton, stated they had been working on this project for a couple of years, and were recently told by the Planning Department that they needed to make an application to the PPP. She explained this was a parcel which is, similar to the hotel application, zoned for Office use; however, the existing building on the site was not exactly an office building, it was more along the lines of an industrial -style space. She reported the owner did have current uses on the site; however, in order to change the use or allow a new tenant in, anyone making an application at City Hall would be blocked. She explained they have had a couple of tenants who needed to move out because they were trying to get approvals, but the approvals were never granted, so they had to leave. Ms. Fairbairn stated they were trying to propose new uses; for example, the automobile auction was going to be a weekend use, and would not have any PM peak traffic effect. However, as that was a General Commercial use, rather than Office use, they were told they would have to go to PPP and have trips assigned, because by definition, General Commercial generates trips. She stated they did not believe the trips were really needed, nor that they would use them, but it explained why they were going through the application process. Ms. Fairbairn referred to the issue of traffic impact at Andersen Drive and Gary Place, noting that while that particular left -turn pocket did have space for approximately six cars, she had never seen more than three cars there at the very heaviest traffic times. Therefore, she felt it was a "red herring" that there would not be access to make left -turns, or that it was believed it would back-up onto Andersen Drive so badly that cars would not be falling into the pocket, and through traffic on Andersen Drive would be affected. In addition, Ms. Fairbairn reported they would be able to benefit from the Caltrans changes that were proposed, noting that if the off -ramp was turned into an access street, they would have an intersection that would allow turns, and allow access to Gary Place through the area that was now being used for parking. She stated they currently did have a lease with Caltrans, with an option to acquire the remainder of the parcel, for the remainder of the 50 year term, noting they were going to have lighting, electricity, water, landscaping, paving and striping, and fencing, and it would be all fixed -up. She pointed out this would remove an eyesore that has been pending in that neighborhood for some time, and would finish up the freeway retrofitting project Caltrans has been working on. Ms. Fairbairn acknowledged this project did not generate the income that was proposed under PPP; however, considering the number of trips they were SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 19 requesting, she believed it had a fairly high rate of return per trip. In addition, she pointed out they were not taking over a new piece of land in San Rafael, nor taking up valuable space, they were essentially redeveloping the current property in a higher and better use. She pointed out, especially since the use was automotive related, and San Rafael seems to be keen on automotive, this would be a service that would compliment the existing automotive dealerships, and provide a needed service, both to the dealerships, and the citizens of San Rafael and Marin County. Ms. Fairbairn stated their application has been pending for two years, and they were ready to move on this project, noting Caltrans has been out repeatedly, their maps are drawn, they are ready to go, and they would like to have the chance to proceed. Mayor Boro invited public comment, and there was none. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen asked for more information from staff regarding the status of the properties on Gary Place. He noted, as he understood what he had just heard, Council had just been informed those properties were zoned for Office use, which meant the existing uses were not in compliance with current zoning; however, they could not be converted to Office use without a PPP application, which staff was not currently recommending the Council give, and which did not appear to be available at any time in the foreseeable future. Mr. Cohen stated, if that was followed to its logical conclusion, it meant those parcels had no viable economic use. Economic Development Director Bob Brown acknowledged this was a "Catch-22" situation, noting this was something staff certainly intended to look at in the General Plan process. However, the property owner who addressed Council regarding the hotel proposal had also submitted a General Plan Amendment, which staff would be processing prior to the General Plan Update, to redesignate the area from Office to Light Industrial. He pointed out that was something that might work for Mr. Fenton's property, noting that while he would be requesting a redesignation to General Commercial, Light Industrial might be a better land use designation, in terms of traffic generation. Mr. Brown stated, at this point, he could not say what the outcome of that analysis was going to be, pointing out there was very constrained traffic capacity in that area, and he doubted the entire area could develop, even with Light Industrial uses, and still have adequate capacity, unless additional access could be provided in a few years. Mr. Brown stated staff would be looking at that issue separately, as part of the General Plan Amendment application. Regarding questions concerning the existing uses, he noted there were two principal uses on the property, which were illegally established without business licenses or zoning approval; one was a tree service, and one an auto towing service. He stated staff had indicated to the property owner and his consultant that while the General Plan Amendment was in process, the City would not pursue Code Enforcement on those uses, until after the General Plan analysis has been completed. Councilmember Cohen noted there were some businesses that have been there for awhile, within the area of the hotel, and the uses have been established. Mr. Brown stated those businesses that were legally established, but non -conforming, could continue on, or be replaced by a use that was not more intensive. Councilmember Heller asked if Mr. Brown was referring only to two businesses that were non -conforming and illegal? Mr. Brown stated there were only two that he was aware of. She asked if those were on the hotel side, not the other side? Mr. Brown stated that was correct. Councilmember Cohen felt it would be helpful to discuss the general context of the traffic allocations and questions concerning traffic, and the approach raised by Mr. Jordan. Mr. Cohen noted the City charges traffic mitigation fees when a property is developed, and the City had used proceeds from previously charged traffic mitigation fees to affect the improvements of the Loop. He asked if the projects approved tonight, which proceed to development, would pay traffic mitigation fees which the City would use to fund future traffic improvements. Mr. Brown stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen asked about Mr. Jordan's argument concerning allocation of trips? Mr. Brown stated the City's system was very complex, and included a number of "fail-safe" measures dealing with traffic impacts. One was the trip allocation in the General Plan, and for the most part, those trip allocations were eleven years old. Mr. Brown stated that was one of the reasons the City had the PPP process, which was a current look at traffic. However, given the General Plan appendix, there were a number of properties that had unused trips; for example, the Baypoint Lagoon/Spinnaker Point project was completely developed, and there were 96 trips it did not use, which were available. Mr. Brown stated there were a number of other SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 20 undesignated pools of trips, as well, which the General Plan indicates for specific purposes; however, there were others that were not designated for any particular purpose, and were available, subject to a Trip Permit application. Mr. Brown acknowledged the General Plan was not clear regarding how those bonus trips, or unallocated trips, were allotted, noting it basically stated they would be made available for the same type of "High Priority" uses dealt with in PPP. Therefore, he did not believe there was any conflict with the General Plan, in that sense. Mayor Boro stated there has never been an entitlement for trips, per se, rather it has been that the trips are allocated, but then competed for, based upon the PPP process. Mr. Brown stated that was correct, explaining General Plan Appendix B - Allocation was the starting point; however, the PPP process factors in, as does CEQA, and there are no guarantees that someone would actually be able to use those allocated trips. Councilmember Heller asked how many trips were in the trips pool, and whether 400 was the total, and that was what the City was drawing down from? Mr. Brown reported staff had recently gone through the exercise of trying to tally all the trips, and those were the trips in the general East San Rafael area. Ms. Heller asked if that was for the entire East San Rafael area, and it did not matter which side of the freeway? Mr. Brown stated that was correct, noting there appeared to be between 300 and 400 unallocated trips available. Ms. Heller asked if that was all the City was going to see? Mr. Brown stated that was correct, for now. He noted the entire issue of the General Plan allocation would be revisited with the new General Plan; however, based on the 1988 figures, and the updating of those figures, there were approximately 300 to 400 trips. Mayor Boro felt it was important to note that there were a couple of things that could happen as this goes forward. First, hopefully, other solutions would come up, such as the Loop, and other opportunities as the freeway is changed. In addition, as the City goes through the General Plan Amendment, the Level of Service could be changed to create additional trips, as was done in the Downtown. Councilmember Heller referred to the issue of the .25 FAR, as opposed to the .52 and .53, and asked if that had been assigned in the 1988 General Plan, and when the other two FAR's had been put into place? Mr. Jensen stated those projects had been developed in the early 1980's, before the City had Floor Area Ratio limits for that area. Mr. Jensen referred to the building to the north, which was the last building of the Bayview Business Park, noting Bayview Business Park had been analyzed as part of the whole park development, not on a building by building basis; therefore, the figures that had been presented during tonight's testimony might be accurate for that site, but the calculations had been based on an entire master plan for the business park. Mr. Brown also pointed out that the uses were Office and approximately two-thirds Light Industrial, which reduced the traffic generation. Ms. Heller asked if there were any other parcels that fell into this same small FAR? Mr. Brown stated there were, and noted, as a recent example, that Mr. Bramante's office building, next to Home Depot, had been built at the .25 FAR. Mr. Jensen pointed out, in referring to the nature of the Floor Area Ratio, that the .25 was based on the proposal for bulk retail use; however, there were different Floor Area Ratios in East San Rafael based upon the nature of the use. He explained that if Mr. Grange had proposed a Light Industrial use on the site, the maximum Floor Area Ratio would have been .38, and recalling the mini -storage project proposed last year, he noted the Floor Area Ratio for that project was up to 1.0, because the General Plan made allowances for that type of use. Therefore, the Floor Area Ratio varied, based on use, and it was extremely low in this instance because it was retail. Mayor Boro noted the Floor Area Ratio was .25, and the proposal was for that specific future use. He stated, as he calculated the trips, there were 337 for the Kerner Boulevard project, and 28 for the P.G.& E. project, for a total of 365 trips. Therefore, he wondered why there was opposition from staff regarding this proposal, asking if it was strictly the trips, or because it was on the cusp of the financial benefit? He also asked what the downside would be if Council approved the project? Mr. Jensen stated it was primarily based on the dollar amount estimated for tax revenue to the City, which was approximately $200,000, and did not meet what typically has been an "Excellent" ranking for a "High Priority" status, which was $300,000 per year. He clarified it was the amount of tax dollars related to the project, not the traffic related to the project. Mayor Boro asked if Council could potentially condition approval of the project, based on whether or not he brought back tenants who would generate that level of tax revenue? He noted Mr. Grange had one tenant, but not the second one, and asked if Mr. Grange could come back with tenants that would get the City over the $200,000 mark? City Manager Gould stated staff questioned whether Mr. Grange would be able to put tax generators onto this site who would SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 21 generate the $300,000 that would earn him an "Excellent" rating under the PPP process, noting staff believed that even the $200,000 mark would be a challenge, given the size of the project. Mayor Boro felt there had been references to other McPhail's sites, and he believed it might be worthwhile if the City investigated them to determine whether there was any merit to the representation of the amount of revenue that might be generated. Mr. Brown stated he believed those estimates had been provided by the applicant, based upon that type of facility. Mayor Boro stated he was having a problem with this particular site, because the applicant has been before the Council on several occasions. He noted a high quality design would be critical on this site; however, if the trips were not the critical issue, it would appear as though this application was on the cusp. Councilmember Phillips asked if the $300,000 in sales tax, to some degree, depended upon the available size of the business establishment, and if it was small, it would likely generate less that if the size was bigger? Mayor Boro believed that would depend on what was sold and how much it cost. Mr. Phillips felt size could sometimes be a factor. He noted this seemed to be a rather small site, and asked if it was unreasonable to expect it to generate $300,000, which it might if it had a larger site, and whether the $300,000 was a fair measure in this particular case? Mr. Brown stated staff has always avoided the temptation to try to put a dollar figure on a "per trip" basis; therefore, they have had to establish certain criteria. He also noted, in terms of a condition, staff was simply operating under the best guesses of an applicant and a retailer, and he would not want to be in the position of having to disallow a store, once it began operation, based upon the amount of its sales tax generation. Councilmember Phillips stated he understood staff's hesitation to use a "per trip" dollar measure; however, he did believe there really was a sense that Council's decision to state $300,000 is an "Excellent" ranking, particularly to the extent that it is done without any consideration for the size of the parcel, or the allowable size of the development under consideration. He noted it was his understanding from staff that there probably was not a retail use, given the size of the parcel and the Floor Area Ratio for retail use, that would allow the property owner to bring in a proposal that would hit $300,000. Therefore, inherently, there was no way to achieve an "Excellent" rating under the standard where the City has arbitrarily stated $300,000 is the mark. Mr. Brown stated that might be true for retail use; however, he noted Mr. Grange was also contemplating an extended stay hotel on the site, which, given the Transient Occupancy Tax, probably could meet that threshold, although he made clear that such a project was not before Council at this time, it was only a concept for an alternative use. Councilmember Cohen asked if trip generation numbers for something like that would be comparable to the current project, or would they be significantly higher? Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian explained the retail the applicant was proposing had a low trip rate, and he did not know what kind of trip rate an extended stay hotel would generate. Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared that Mr. Grange had brought forward a proposal crafted to meet much of the criteria the City had laid out in the PPP process. He acknowledged there might be other uses that would allow for higher Floor Area Ratio; however, they could be hard to fit with the priorities that have been set for this process. He noted there might be a hotel use that could be a higher revenue generator, but would also produce higher trips, and make it that much hard to fit the project "through the eye of this particular needle". Mr. Cohen noted no other projects for the site were currently before the Council; however, in terms of the arguments concerning other ways to address Floor Area Ratio and revenue, he believed that even if Council wanted to address, conceptually, what those other ways might be, all those others also appeared to have potentially fatal flaws, as well. Therefore, he did not know that it would be fair to tell the applicant to "jump through another hoop, and try again, craft another project", if what the City was really saying was that there was no way to put together a project on this parcel that was going to be competitive in this process, and development would be difficult, if not impossible, until the City gets to the ultimate circulation improvements. Mr. Cohen stated that was an awkward place for the Council to be. Councilmember Heller agreed, and asked if anything could be approved on this parcel without coming through the PPP? Mr. Brown stated last year staff had even looked at the possibility of mini -storage, which has a very low traffic generation, and it tripped PPP. Mr. Brown noted that since the question concerned the impacts of this approval versus others, he would refer the Council to a table prepared by Mr. Jensen, which showed the total trips from different combinations, and which would be helpful in seeing, within the various selections, what was excluded. SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 22 City Manager Gould stated the point was that there were 400 trips to allocate, and if the Council were to approve this project, that would mean eliminating one of the other two projects. Mayor Boro stated he had asked whether the City had allocated 400 trips, and in fact, there were only 365 trips allocated. Mr. Gould explained that if Council were to approve the Grange project, as it is proposed, it would exceed the 400 trips, and violate the General Plan policy. Referring to the 400 trips allotted under this PPP, Mr. Jensen explained staff had factored the trips for the exempt project identified in the staff report, a mini -storage facility on Andersen Drive, leaving 393 trips for competition in this process. Of the two applications being recommended for approval, 2350 Kerner Boulevard - Phase I totals 337 trips, and 1220 Andersen Drive totals 28 trips, for a total of 365 trips, leaving 28 trips remaining before reaching the limit of 393, and factoring in the Grange proposal, which was 40 trips, would put the total over the limit at 405 trips, or 12 trips over what was available for the PPP. Mayor Boro noted earlier, when Mr. Brown was discussing the number of trips available, he had not seemed quite as definite on the number, noting there were trips left over from different locations. Mr. Brown explained those were in General Plan Appendix B, and were the trips allocated to individual properties for future development in 1988, some of which have been used, some have not, and some were held in reserve. He stated that was simply one level of the multiple layer of traffic control, with the PPP being the top threshold, comparing it to existing capacity today, and addressing what can be built and how much capacity we have to meter out, based on today's traffic. Mayor Boro noted the staff report states, "The base development proposal for a 20,070 square foot bulk retail would not result in significant traffic impacts, so it would be consistent with the General Plan policies that are pertinent, but it would not qualify as high tax". Mayor Boro asked if that meant that although the impact was not great, there were not enough trips for it? Mr. Brown stated it would depend upon what was done in combination with that project. Mr. Jensen clarified that statement, noting the finding refers to that project on its own. Mayor Boro stated he understood that; however, when looking at the chart, the City would be short those trips, which were the 12 Dr. Hunn had referred to earlier. Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti what the City's boundaries were regarding going over the 400 trips, whether the City had the ability to do that, within reason, and if the City had ever done that in the past? Mr. Ragghianti stated that in the past, the City had not had to face this issue, and certainly had not ever had to carve it as closely as it was having to at this time. He noted Mr. Mansourian had just mentioned to him that in July of this year these additional 400 trips had been authorized for release by the Council. He stated it was his belief, with respect to the trips, that the entire PPP was premised, in large part, upon lack of capacity to permit everyone to develop; therefore, this criteria was achieved in 1988 for the purpose of attempting to force competition among projects for available capacity. He noted it would be difficult for him to conceive of a circumstance under which the City could exceed the number of trips, and still honor this. However, he would not venture a guess on whether or not it was possible to get 12 more trips here, he would leave that to the traffic engineers. He felt, if the Council was faced with objective data which stated the combination of these three projects exceeded the total number of trips available in this portion of the City, he could not recommend that the Council exceed it, although they could ask the Traffic Engineer if there was a way to squeeze more trips. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Mansourian if the 400 trips were based on staff's projections of the results of the Loop, as we knew them at the time the Loop was approved, and what was projected, as the result, going forward? Mr. Mansourian noted that was correct. Mayor Boro asked when the City would complete the acquisition of the used car lot, and make the other changes to Bellam Boulevard, and whether that would be within the next year? Mr. Mansourian reported Phase IIb and Phase III for East San Rafael were currently being designed, and would include the widening of Francisco Boulevard East at the Scotland Car Yard, noting the land had already been acquired. Mr. Mansourian stated the Level of Service calculations were based on those improvements, and included those 400 trips, and the release of those 400 trips was also based on those improvements. Mayor Boro asked when the improvements would actually be completed, at which time the City could then assess whether, as a result, the calculations were correct, or whether there were any more trips available? Mr. Mansourian stated the design for Phase IIB would be completed by March, and the improvements would then be completed within eight or nine months. Phase III, which involves dealing with Caltrans on the widening of the on-ramp, would take longer, possibly another year or year and a half. Mayor Boro told Mr. Grange he was sorry, but he did not believe there was SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 23 anything the City could do, noting he felt the Council would probably have tried to allow for something on the site, but it did not appear there were enough trips to support his proposal. Councilmember Phillips referred to the 400 trips, asking if that number had been an educated guess, or an actual hard and fast calculation? He noted the City had made available 400 trips, which was very close to 412, and he wondered if it had been a conservative estimate to release 400 trips, and if, perhaps, it should have been 425. Mr. Mansourian explained that in the past, the PPP did not allocate the number of trips to be released, this had become a new practice last year, after the Loop, when it had been determined that the Loop would increase the capacity by 800 vehicles for PM peak. This year, staff tested various scenarios at different locations in the East San Rafael area, with different land uses, such as Retail, Light Industrial, and Office. He stated they concluded 400 trips was the maximum the Loop could handle, including the vacancies and other projects that had already been approved since 1988, but had not yet been built. He acknowledged the 400 trips was not exact, and that might be a soft number because they were conservative in their approach with the vacancies and projects that have not yet been built; however, it would not be off by very much. Mr. Mansourian noted that if Council wanted to change the number to 412, he could not honestly state that it would create a great impact; however, he reported staff had tested that as an additional scenario, and the intersection at eastbound I-580 and Bellam Boulevard failed, not because of double -counting the trips, which the City does not do, but because the movement of the intersection was reaching its capacity. Mr. Mansourian acknowledged it could be possible that one of the vacant parcels, for which they had estimated 100 trips, would only generate 97 trips, noting that was why staff comes before the Council every year to report how many trips are left, and how many more can be allocated. Councilmember Phillips stated it sounded as though the 400 trips was a conservative number, and asked if that was a fair impression? Mr. Mansourian stated that would be almost the maximum number, and Mayor Boro clarified that 400 would be the maximum number Mr. Mansourian would be willing to support, based on the results of running the traffic models at that time, and based on the improvements, new growth, and what he saw left over. Mr. Phillips noted there had been recent tests, and asked if anything had changed since then, that might lead Council to believe there might be some additional room in that number? Mr. Mansourian stated if Council was asking for 12 more trips, and whether that would make any difference, he did not believe 12 trips would make any difference. He explained there were many factors involved, and one of them was occupancy. He stated that when staff made their counts, many of the buildings were vacant, and they had to account for that; although staff would not know exactly how many trips each one of them would generate. However, he stated they had gotten very close, and it was already to the limit. Mr. Phillips asked, when assumptions were made in the past for other vacant sites, and they then were occupied, did Mr. Mansourian find that their assumptions had been high or low? Mr. Mansourian stated they have not made a firm determination as yet, noting that while updating the traffic model, taking counts at different locations, and customizing trip rates for San Rafael, they found that some of the Office uses were using slightly lower trip generations, while some were slightly higher. He stated there was a fluctuation of lows and highs, at all times. Mayor Boro stated when he first pursued this particular application, he was pursuing it based upon the Sales Tax generation, as he thought the City had the necessary trips. However, it now seemed the criteria for the Sales Tax dollars was not at the norm the City usually goes with, and in addition, based upon the City stating it could only allocate 400 trips, there were not enough trips for this project; therefore, he felt it would be pushing it to try to fit this project in. However, he noted that as the City continues the improvements to the Loop, staff would be able to go out and test it, and determine whether more trips have been generated, and perhaps at the same time, other solutions will arise that have not yet been thought of. City Manager Gould stated it was staff's intention to do the trip counts in East San Rafael at least annually, to determine whether or not there were trips to be allocated and, therefore, a reason to run the PPP process. He explained that as the conditions change in that area, as a result of traffic improvements, vacancies becoming filled, changing traffic patterns due to employment, and a myriad of other factors, so did the trip counts. He stated staff was hopeful that in the future there would be additional trips to allocate in East San Rafael, and then this, and other projects, would be able to compete. However, what the Traffic Engineer was stating, based on his best estimates and SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 24 projections of what the second and third phases of the Loop improvements were going to yield, was that this was pretty much what staff sees. Mr. Gould stated Mr. Mansourian did not want to tell the Council staff will be back next year with another 400 trips to allocate, as that was not likely. He noted the Loop improvements provided a one-time opportunity to allow some additional development in East San Rafael, and Council has been metering it out the past two years; and if the City happens to come upon another development, or something major changes out there, perhaps there will be another opportunity. However, as has been discussed in the past, the Irene Street Overcrossing was the improvement called out in the General Plan to provide additional traffic capacity in that area, which could range as high as $20 million, and there was no where near the traffic mitigation fees to pay for that at this time. Mr. Gould stated he wanted to give the Council an accurate picture of how staff views this. Councilmember Phillips referred to the issue brought up by Planning Commission Chairman O'Brien, noting the measurement seemed to be rather objective, and did not allow for consideration of the concept of the assessment district and the previous history. He asked if there was any substance in Mr. O'Brien's remarks that should be given consideration by the Council? Mr. Jensen explained the assessment district had been created in 1984, primarily to restore the wetlands, to improve levees in the area, and to connect portions of Kerner Boulevard with Francisco Boulevard south of the former CAL-PDX dump site. He pointed out the assessment district was not set up to do any of the major transportation improvements in that area that were currently recognized in the General Plan, noting it had a completely separate purpose. Mr. Jensen reported, for comparison, that many years ago in the North San Rafael area, when the Merrydale Overcrossing Assessment District was created, those projects were exempt from the PPP when it was initially envisioned, primarily because they were funding that whole overcrossing, in conjunction with Caltrans funds and traffic mitigation fees, which basically gave that small group of projects in the North San Rafael area the ability to be exempt. However, that assessment district was specifically formed for the purpose of funding a transportation improvement that was identified as a long-range improvement under the General Plan. Mr. Phillips asked if Mr. Jensen's answer was that the Council should not factor in the assessment district in making their decision? Mr. Jensen explained that the way the guidelines were set up, no credit was given for something like that. Councilmember Cohen stated an attachment to the report to the Planning Commission regarding the traffic analysis did state fairly clearly that what was being recommended for approval would use up the remaining capacity. He noted that brought up another point of Mr. Jordan's, which was that other projects, such as the potential for REI, would be precluded if Council goes ahead with the allocations, as they would, in effect, be allocating the remaining capacity, leaving only approximately 28 trips. Mr. Cohen stated that while the REI project would be an appealing one, it was not currently before the Council; therefore, it made it difficult to weigh that in the consideration. Mayor Boro pointed out that several years ago, when Home Depot went in, the City had thought that would be the last project, until they found other solutions and subsequent development throughout East San Rafael. He felt all Council could address at this time were the applications now before them, and the point in time at which they were now. Councilmember Cohen agreed, noting he believed the City needed to rejoin the issue of circulation capacity in East San Rafael, and try to determine if there was "some other rabbit in the hat". He acknowledged this may be all that is out there; however, he felt the City needed to take a harder look at the options available. City Manager Gould pointed out it had been Councilmember Cohen, several years ago, who directed staff to take a hard look at East San Rafael, and determine whether there was an alternative to the Irene Street Overcrossing, which resulted in the Loop improvements. Councilmember Cohen stated staff had done excellent work with the Loop, noting the "bar just keeps getting raised". Mr. Gould stated there were limits, noting Mayor Boro's example of Home Depot was particularly poignant, because Home Depot was currently using almost 80% more trips than were attributed to it when it was approved, because of its success. Mr. Mansourian acknowledged that during the last traffic count, Home Depot was using an additional 100 trips over what they had used the year before. He noted that in 1997, when staff was studying what other improvements needed to be done, such as the Loop, Home Depot began doing better, and that was when they took some of the additional trips. Mayor Boro stated he raised the issue of Home Depot, not because of what they were or were not doing now, but because at the time the Council approved the project, it was thought that there would be no more trips for quite a while, yet the City found a way to come back and do more. SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 25 Mayor Boro invited Mr. Grange to address the Council. Fred Grange asked whether the Council would consider a conditional approval, conditional upon him going through the Planning process, and coming forth with a plan that satisfied Council? He noted the Planning process would take at least six months to a year, and at that time, the City might have more capacity, or he could have less of a project, enabling him to meet the City's capacity. Mayor Boro stated he did not believe the Council could do anything on a conditional basis. He noted Mr. Grange knew what the issues were, and had gotten a sense from the Council that their sentiment was that if there was a way they could make something work on this site, the Council would like to try to do that. However, all they could deal with now was what was before them. Councilmember Cohen stated he saw nothing that would prevent Mr. Grange from putting forward an application that would still require allocation before it could actually be built, and if Mr. Grange arrived at that point a year from now, and the project had all its approvals except for PPP, Mr. Grange could request the Council to open the PPP process, although they would have to open it to other people who might also want to compete for the trips. Mr. Cohen stated that would be consistent with the policy of the past, and he believed that was the way the Council would have to approach it, rather than allowing people to bank trips while they went through the approval process. Councilmember Heller asked what would happen when Lucas begins to move out, and whether that would change the counts? Mr. Brown stated that was quite a concern, because Lucas was not the typical Office or Light Industrial user, having very unusual peak hours. He noted staff was quite concerned about what the re -use of that property might be. Councilmember Cohen stated, regarding the conceptual approach, and his discussion with Mr. Jordan regarding public benefit versus sales tax revenue, that he was comfortable with the approach taken by the committee, and supported by the Planning Commission, in terms of rating these projects. He noted he could understand that perhaps it was a departure from just looking at sales tax revenue; however, he believed San Rafael had been fairly consistent in not just using sales tax revenue as the measure of a project, and he believed the City should continue with that. He was also comfortable with the standards used to evaluate these projects against the priorities, and after staff's discussion, he was comfortable with allocating traffic capacity to these projects, and with the idea that the source of funds to do the Loop were traffic mitigation fees paid by earlier projects, and that the current projects might generate additional traffic mitigation fees, which may help fund a future "rabbit to be pulled out of the hat". He stated he would be interested, as the projects move forward, to hear more about the future uses of the properties on Gary Place; however, he believed there were some major hurdles there, and it would not be prudent for the Council to allocate capacity to those until some of those issues are addressed. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the 1999 Priority Project determinations for development impacting the Bellam Boulevard/I-580/Highway 101 Interchange in East San Rafael. RESOLUTION NO. 10543 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE 1999 PRIORITY PROJECT DETERMINATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING THE BELLAM BOULEVARD/I-580/HIGHWAY 101 INTERCHANGE (EAST SAN RAFAEL) CITY FILE NOS. P99-4, PPP99-6, PPP99-7, PPP99-8 AND PPP99-12. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro thanked Consultant Paul Jensen for his presentation to the Council. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 25 1999 SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 26 JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF , MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Spec.Pub.Hearing) 12/7/99 Page 26