HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 2004-09-28SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 AT 6:00 PM
Special Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Hearing — DRAFT SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
PERTAINING TO THE CIRCULATION, LAND USE, NEIGHBORHOOD, ECONOMIC VITALITY AND
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENTS. APN: CITYWIDE AND SAN RAFAEL PLANNING AREA; CITY OF
SAN RAFAEL APPLICANT — FILE NO.: GPA 03-002 (CD) — FILE 115 (2020)
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Outlining the process, Mayor Boro stated the hearing would commence with the Circulation Element,
subsequent to which staff would answer questions raised, followed by questions or direction from the City
Council, and the other Elements would be dealt with accordingly.
Mayor Boro requested that each speaker state his or her name and address, limit comments to two to
three minutes and try not to be repetitive. He invited Principal Planner Linda Jackson to introduce the
Circulation Element.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Jackson indicated she would walk Council through the
development of the policies in the Circulation Element. She noted it had been a lengthy four-year process
and estimated that approximately 1,000 people had weighed in on this topic. She indicated that her
presentation contained a review of the information the Steering Committee used to develop policy, and in
this respect, she thanked the Public Works team who worked on all of the traffic modeling, - Linda Zeng,
Meherdad Namiranian and Willie Legleva - headed up by CityTraffic Engineer Nader Mansourian.
Ms. Jackson reported that on September 15, 2004, at the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) public
hearing, Mr. Mansourian made a presentation on traffic modeling and tonight the focus was on the policy
development resulting from all of that work.
Noting that long range planning was all about managing change, as change would come, Ms. Jackson
explained that in San Rafael's case, as a built -out City, very little change was anticipated. There were few
vacant sites and the City was faced with the challenges of redevelopment. She stated that the goal of
General Plan 2020 was that San Rafael would be a dynamic city, there would be change; however, it
would also be a place residents recognized as home, hence it would be the right kind of change.
Traffic is a Top Issue - Ms. Jackson reported that the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Steering Committee
started with identifying issues, and there was no surprise here. Issue #1 was local traffic and Issue #4
regional traffic, and as Mr. Mansourian demonstrated with the growing data base of traffic counts, staff
was aware there was more traffic in San Rafael.
Where's all the Traffic Coming From? - On the question of where the traffic was coming from, Ms. Jackson
stated the good and bad news was that San Rafael was at the crossroads of major thoroughfares — U.S.
Highway 101 North/South, Highway 580 and Second/Third Streets East/West. Mr. Mansourian's findings
for San Rafael were that to a large extent, commuters were the traffic; however, at the same time, there
had been growth in the surrounding region, both north, south and east, and this had had an impact on
traffic in San Rafael.
In addition to growth, Ms. Jackson stated that much of the increase in traffic in the past decade had been
due to lifestyle changes - people were taking more trips per day — an increase from 5 to 10 trips. There
had been population growth, a demographic change, more families, more home-based businesses, baby
boomers, and more retirees, resulting in an increase in peak hour traffic. She indicated that some of the
traffic was due to new development, especially commercial, which had happened faster than housing
development in San Rafael in the last fourteen years. While this was good news for the local economy, it
meant an increase in commuters and the resulting impacts on air quality and the ability to get around San
Rafael during peak hours.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 2
Ms. Jackson stated the reality was that in San Rafael a large multi -dimensional transportation system was
needed and these were some things the Steering Committee learned about from the background
research. New connections had been very helpful, recalling life before the Lincoln -Los Ranchitos
connection, Andersen Drive and the Merrydale Overcrossing; however, at the same time, San Rafael was
the victim of the success of these improvements. Ms. Jackson stated there was a change in emphasis
from the car to other means of getting around, noting the Transportation Center was built to facilitate bus
transit, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan had been completed and adopted and the Safe Routes to
Schools, a new program started in the last few years to encourage schoolchildren to walk or ride their
bikes to school.
Indicating that there had been changes in methodologies to monitor and analyze traffic impacts, Ms.
Jackson stated that in the current Plan staff started using a VC (Vehicle Capacity) ratio and ICU
(Intersection Capacity Utilization); today, a delay rating system was being used, which is based on the
average seconds of delay at an intersection.
Ms. Jackson noted there had been changes in Land Uses from the past: the revitalization of downtown,
part of which was new housing that supported a walkable neighborhood for shopping, etc., taking transit
for jobs. She indicated the bottom line was that much of San Rafael had an old street network, few
crossings across Highways 101 and 580, and in many neighborhoods, there were no alternatives to the
automobile for getting around.
Looking Ahead - Ms. Jackson stated it was the belief that San Rafael would continue to be impacted by
growth in the surrounding region and that Marin, because of its beautiful location, would continue to be a
major destination.
101 is the Route of all Evil - Reporting that traffic modeling was conducted with the Steering Committee,
Ms. Jackson noted five findings:
1) It was learned that Highway 101 was the "route of all evil";
2) Highways 101 and 580 had a tremendous impact on local roads during the commute hours -
clogged local streets feeding into the freeways;
3) Incomplete HOV lane in San Rafael, hence a bottleneck;
4) Inadequate interchange at 101/580; and
5) Lack of parallel routes, etc., resulting in local trips being forced onto the freeway.
Ms. Jackson noted that commuters took shortcuts through San Rafael when 101 backed up — witness
Lincoln Avenue.
Findings and Conclusions - Regarding the findings and conclusions, Ms. Jackson emphasized that not
one of the five Land Use scenarios, starting from a more aggressive level of growth to very minimal
growth, passed in terms of having intersections that met today's LOS standards. Regional background
traffic was contributing to traffic congestion more than new local development. She indicated that most of
the roadway improvements in the Draft General Plan were needed whether or not any more development
occurred. The corollary was that without more capacity with revised LOS standards, the City would not be
able to meet its housing and economic vitality goals in the vision of General Plan 2020.
Measuring Congestion - Ms. Jackson reported that the Steering Committee spent a substantial amount of
time discussing LOS. She stated that Level of Service is measured in terms of delay, starting with a
ranking from A to F —
A = wide streets, no traffic, no delay to F= slowest, small blocks, a lot of pedestrians.
She reported that some of what was learned from downtown amendments in 1996 was that in some areas
it was desirable to have traffic traveling slower, e.g., cars going more slowly in downtown so drivers could
see pedestrians, see shops, be aware of bicycles, pay attention to the busses, and see retailers and
restaurants. She noted that the streets were narrower, buildings were close together and people could
walk easily from place to place, and with bikes and busses, it was a busy place; therefore, the pedestrian
safety factor became more important. Recognizing this, Ms. Jackson reported that in 1996, the City
Council adopted an LOS E standard for the downtown, which is an LOS for a typical walkable community.
Ms. Jackson reported staff recognized that other arterials were auto oriented, noting that Second and
Third Streets had a LOS D, established by the County, acknowledging it was a major arterial for the
County. She explained that in other words, LOS was not a "one size fits all", rather an intentional
description of what certain roadways should be like.
Trade-offs - Ms. Jackson noted the Steering Committed addressed trade-offs — you build more roads, you
have negative impacts. She stated that no more development meant not being able to meet the state's
housing requirements and no City funds for all the quality of life implementing programs contained in the
General Plan.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 3
She noted the vision was clear; there were things needed in San Rafael in the next sixteen years, i.e., a
strong local economy, affordable housing and a diverse community. She indicated there were areas
where something better was desired, i.e., Andersen/Bellam intersection area, Marin Square, with housing
and better shops, Merrydale Overcrossing with updated mall and better shops, Second and A Streets to
sustain downtown's revitalization.
Ms. Jackson reported the conclusion the Steering Committee reached was that the focus should be on
moving people around, not just cars. Feasible improvements should be made for cars and other modes,
recognizing that safety was a critical factor in the circulation system, and a willingness to have more traffic
for the desired future.
Indicating that choice was a good thing, Ms. Jackson stated circulation was more than just a car, noting
the current element focused on the car as the primary method of getting around, which was different from
today. In General Plan 2000, she stated the LOS standards were new and there were a few policies for
bicycles and pedestrians and some on transit; however, in General Plan 2020, an entire goal was
dedicated to different modes of transportation. It was about increasing capacity through greater travel
choices and reducing automobile use and dependence.
Ms. Jackson noted that no one solution worked on its own and each addressed a different part of the
means of getting around in San Rafael.
She reported that the Steering Committee and Planning Commission recommended that the traffic
standards be revised, and as mentioned previously, should they not be revised, this would effectively
prevent the kinds of changes described in General Plan 2020. Ms. Jackson reported that both the
Steering Committee and Planning Commission recommended keeping LOS standards in the General
Plan, adding the AM peak hour to the peak hour analysis and evaluation, modifying the LOS standards to
afford the opportunity of attaining goals, modifying the standard of LOS mid D — a range of 35-45
seconds — to the whole range of LOS D — 35-55 seconds.
Ms. Jackson stated that a further recommendation was to exempt the Highway 101 and 580 on and off
ramps, maintaining LOS E in the downtown area and adding some of the other areas with similar
characteristics to downtown on the east side of Highway 101, and adding a new level of analysis — an
arterial segment analysis. This recognized that traffic was not all about one intersection, rather roadway
segments and the amount of delay time on that segment. She noted that some segments were currently
operating at LOS E and F, and these were identified in the Appendix of the General Plan.
Ms. Jackson described two New Policies:
• C-4 — Safe Roadway Design — this recognized that with an increase in different modes of travel,
improvements would be needed for pedestrians, bicycle safety, and busses. It was expanding the
approach to improvements beyond just what made it easier for the car to get around. The Steering
Committee first began thinking about this policy in terms of the Transportation Center and should a
train come to San Rafael, the impact that would have in the vicinity.
Ms. Jackson explained that this policy arose with an improvement from the congestion at Third and
Union and this could be the first time this policy would be used. She stated the policy spoke to
exempting an intersection from LOS standards, as safety related improvements were necessary.
During its review, the Planning Commission inquired as to what the exemption would consist of.
Ms. Jackson noted that the Commission then added a program to state that at a time the
exemption was granted, a new LOS would be established for that intersection, i.e., it was not an
exemption for perpetuity, rather a new LOS standard would be set by the City Council.
C -5D — Evaluation of Project Merits — The Steering Committee considered for quite a while having
an exception process from LOS standards, and backed away from recommending it out of
concern that it also would be a blank check for freeing intersections from having to deal with LOS
standards should a project come through the City favored. This policy was not included in the
Steering Committee's recommendations; however, subsequent legal counsel review pointed out
that without a mechanism such as this, there would be times in the next fourteen to sixteen years
where a favorable project was presented (such as the theater downtown) that would result in a
LOS that did not meet current standards. Without this policy, it would be in conflict with the
General Plan and Council could not approve it, even with overriding considerations; therefore, this
was a recommended policy. Noting the limit had been reached in many places, Ms. Jackson
stated that as it could be needed in the future, the City's hands should not be tied.
Explaining this was not a policy that would be done lightly, Ms. Jackson stated it would go through
extensive review at the Planning Commission level and again, at the City Council level. She also
recognized there were some limited CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) exemptions,
primarily for infill housing.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 4
Mitigations - Noting a number of mitigations from the traffic modeling and recommended by the Steering
Committee and Planning Commission, Ms. Jackson commented that not on the list was the McInnis
Parkway. Included were roadway improvements, such as the GAP Closure (new carpool lanes on
Highway 101), Freitas Interchange with new traffic light and possible widening of the intersection, building
a connection between Shoreline Boulevard and Andersen Drive across Highway 580 to relieve the
congestion at Bellam, Bicycle and Pedestrian route improvements, and rail transit service. She reported
that the local improvements would be funded with traffic mitigation fees, in part, and there would be a
public hearing later this evening concerning the proposed fees. Ms. Jackson noted that the Draft General
Plan contained an updated list of the improvements and that the Traffic Mitigation Fees had been revised
to reflect that.
Policies for Transit — Reporting that a lot of people used transit in San Rafael, Ms. Jackson reported that
approximately 10% commuted by bus or ferry; in the Canal, 23% of the population commuted by bus or
ferry, and in the Canal also, 20% of the residents did not own a car; therefore, this was a major means of
transportation for a significant part of the community. She indicated that the County's proposed sales tax
Measure A included funding for local transit. In addition, the SMART rail project, now funded for between
San Rafael and Larkspur, was designed to be a commuter service to go beyond Santa Rosa. With two
stations proposed in San Rafael, there were some policies addressing the topic.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Ms. Jackson stated the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan had a goal for a 20%
mode split, and it addressed more bicycle routes, parking and promoting children walking to school,
instead of being driven. She indicated that the Planning Commission made some edits to the bike policies
and added the 2020 implementation time frame. The Bicycle and Pedestrian road improvements had
been included in the list of roadway improvements and she noted these were to be grant funded, as
described in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Policies for Land Use — Ms. Jackson stated this plan projected less commercial growth. She indicated the
City wanted to link the traffic management strategies to land uses and encourage mixed use and infill
development along the transit routes. She stated that a decision was made to encourage housing in
commercial areas, hence the Land Use recommendations to allow housing in the General Commercial
and Office Land Use districts, with the result that more people would be able to walk to work or to take
transit. With regard to baby -boomers and those retiring, Ms. Jackson stated there was an anticipation
from the market and from the literature about other communities of an increasing market for smaller units
in more central locations to meet that housing demand.
Roger Roberts, on behalf of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, distributed copy of a cartoon
depicting congestion, noting there was a congestion problem in San Rafael which needed to be taken
care of.
Addressing Exhibit IV.2-12 on pages IV.2-23 and -24 of the Environmental Impact Report, Mr. Roberts
stated it contained 24 listed intersections, and the traffic impacts under a baseline scenario, both without
improvements and with improvements. He indicated it was very interesting to see the results, believing it
could be useful to break them down in terms of how many resulted in a decline in LOS, no change, and an
increase in LOS standards. He reported that in General Plan 2020, without any improvements, the
number of intersections with no change would be 6 of the 24, the number with a decline in LOS would be
18, and 0 with improved Levels of Service. With improvements, Mr. Roberts stated there were 8
intersections with no change in LOS, 2 with a decline in LOS, and 14 with improved Levels of Service.
Mr. Roberts stated that looking at it in this way revealed there clearly were traffic congestion problems,
and improvements were essential in order to deal with them. The corollary was that there must be
necessary funding in order to deal with this critical problem, and without the improvements and the
funding in place for those improvements, any future City development was questionable and would clearly
result in a deterioration in LOS and increased traffic congestion.
On where to go from here, Mr. Roberts stated that in comparing the list of 24 impacted intersections in the
EIR and those on page 173 of the Draft General Plan, there was incongruence. He recognized that some
of those in the EIR were subsumed within the LOS D designation for the entire City; however, it appeared
to exclude other Levels of Service E intersections. He listed:
• Second and A in the EIR was LOS E with improvements;
• Third and A was LOS E with improvements;
• Third and Union was LOS E with improvements;
• Lincoln and 101 Southbound ramps were LOS E in the PM with improvements; and
• Mission and Irwin in the AM was LOS E with improvements.
Mr. Roberts stated it was curious they were not listed as the exempted LOS E on page 173.
To explain further, Mr. Roberts indicated it was stated in the General Plan that a series of intersections
would be listed where LOS E would be accepted; however, that list could be incomplete as in the EIR, it
was found that with improvements, there were five other intersections that also would be LOS E, and he
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 5
inquired whether these would be accepted or rejected.
Interjecting, Councilmember Cohen stated he believed these were all addressed on page 173, referring
Mr. Roberts to the list on page 173 under C -5A — Citywide, except as noted below — D, and Downtown,
except as noted below — E. He believed all of downtown by existing City policy was exempt and already
at LOS E, and all of the intersections referred to by Mr. Roberts were within downtown, with the exception
of Mission and Irwin and Third and Union.
Ms. Jackson stated that Third and Union was identified through the EIR process as having an LOS of E
and was not on the list. She indicated that the EIR was prepared subsequent to the Steering Committee
completing their recommendation. She noted that the other two intersections (Mission and Irwin and the
freeway on and off ramps at Lincoln) were listed as being "grandfathered" in.
Indicating the question was for clarification, Mr. Roberts stated this assisted him in understanding the
situation.
Mr. Roberts stated that the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods did not oppose a downtown LOS E,
believing it to be appropriate. Also, the Federation did not oppose LOS E or lowered LOS standards for
those intersections the City deemed necessary for safety improvements. They believed pedestrian safety
to be important and did not object to lowering LOS levels for that purpose; being a wise and prudent
policy, they supported it. However, on reading Draft General Plan 2020 C -5A (Page 173) and paragraph
D (Page 175) which afforded the City Council the right and duty to make exceptions to LOS D and LOS E
standards for the intersections listed, it appeared this was a problematic area. Mr. Roberts stated they
would like to understand clearly in advance the trade-offs the City would accept for increased congestion.
While they did not believe it was intended to be a blank check, they wished to ensure it was not and
considered it very important that the General Plan actually stated what the necessary findings must be.
He considered that language such as "overwhelming benefit to the City" could be important.
Believing standards were needed here, Mr. Roberts stated they would like to see the General Plan include
those standards, to make it clear to all upfront when, where and how the City would make those
exceptions.
Referring to the letter submitted to the City Council by the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, Mr.
Roberts stated they believed it was necessary to address the entire language of Policy C-5, sections A
and D, and how they would work together in handling traffic congestion problems. Regarding LOS E, they
believed the deterioration of Level of Service throughout the City that could be allowed was not in the
interest of the City, its residents or neighborhoods, and careful consideration should be given to how it
was handled.
Patrick Murphy, 21 La Vista Way, stated it was very obvious to him and he hoped to all in attendance, that
Measure A needed to be passed, as it appeared that every symptom from every problem stemmed from
what was being attempted to be resolved with its passage.
Thanking everyone involved in the General Plan process, Mr. Murphy stated it had been a long and
arduous one. Traffic had been one of the primary concerns of the neighborhoods, and as the Chair of the
Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, he wished to briefly address it. He indicated that the reason
traffic was brought to the forefront from every neighborhood was because that was what was brought to
them, and explained that the diversion of traffic from major arteries and major streets appeared to be the
problem; the symptoms - parking, congestion in neighborhoods and irate residents.
Mr. Murphy noted:
• Miracle Mile in the West End;
• Montecito - problem with Grand and Union, Grand and Mission, Second and Third, near the
freeway, the trucks from the quarry, and Irwin and Hetherton;
• In the Lincoln/San Rafael Hill area — Lincoln to the side streets — diversion of traffic to avoid the
extended wait at traffic lights;
• Las Gallinas to Lincoln and vice versa;
• Gerstle Park — Second, First and D Streets — commercial vehicles through the neighborhood;
• Dominican — Grand — Villa used as a side street to the freeway going north;
• Bret Harte— over the hill through Via La Cumbre, down Auburn;
• Glenwood/Porto Bello — truck traffic; and
• Downtown — the only issue was the unsafe loading and unloading of trucks in the middle of the
street causing people to cross the yellow line, which created a safety hazard.
Mr. Murphy stated that the traffic diverted into neighborhoods by those in a hurry created havoc and a
deteriorated quality of life. Lowering LOS standards on major roads would help to divert further traffic into
the neighborhoods, creating a higher level of anxiety.
With regard to the Circulation Element, Mr. Murphy inquired as to who would make the decisions of public
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 6
benefit and who the beneficiary would be?
Albert Barr, addressed the question of extending the Level of Service on Irwin and Grand Avenue,
between Second and Third Streets, to a LOS E. He indicated that last evening, Councilmember Cohen
questioned whether lowering this LOS could be interpreted as encouraging development, and he did not
believe a clear answer was provided by City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian.
Referring to Page 171 — Effectively Managing San Rafael's Roadways and Congestion — he quoted "More
flexibility is needed in applying the standards to allow for limited development that will provide desired
public benefits."
Ms. Jackson clarified that the Planning Commission recommended deleting that sentence, substituting it
with "In order to encourage development that would meet San Rafael's housing and economic vitality
goals, even in congested areas, City policy allows for evaluation of projects that exceed LOS standards."
Mr. Barr reiterated his point was the same in that the City was basically stating that lowering LOS to E
was encouraging limited development, and while this could be appropriate in certain areas of the City; he
did not believe it appropriate on Second and Third Streets at Irwin and Grand. He stated it was potentially
giving a green light to potential future development in East San Rafael and removing an impediment to
that development.
Recognizing one such development to be Loch Lomond Marina, which according to Mr. Mansourian,
would have minimal impact on traffic, Mr. Barr stated the other was an unforeseen issue at this stage,
namely, ultimate development of the quarry. Lowering the LOS at these two intersections would basically
remove a major impediment to that future development and the value of the land would be increased
considerably, which he considered inappropriate.
Under Location, Mr. Barr recommended the deletion of Second and Third at Irwin and Grand, leaving it at
LOS D, as is the case presently.
Mayor Boro referred to the staff report for September 27, 2004 — chart on page 5 — depicting Third and
Grand currently at 46.7 seconds — LOS D, without improvements it would go to 50.1, and with
improvements to 68.7 seconds with LOS E. He believed the question raised related to why that was
happening and explained that the design was for safety both with turns and pedestrian crossing.
Mr. Barr clarified that he was addressing Irwin and Grand at Second and Third Streets, and had no
argument with the Third and Union improvements for safety reasons.
Mr. Mansourian explained that with the new design and pedestrian element added at Third and Union
Streets, the intersection delay could go up to 68 seconds.
Councilmember Cohen stated he believed Mr. Barr's question related to a segment analysis for Irwin and
Grand, between Second Street and Mission Avenue.
Mr. Mansourian stated this applied to the arterial between Second and Mission and the four intersections
in between; however, Mr. Barr stated that the LOS in question related to the intersection, not the arterial.
From memory, Mr. Mansourian believed Grand Avenue northbound would be LOS E or F, southbound D,
and the LOS for Irwin would be F.
Mr. Barr stated his question concerned the intersection and requested that the LOS not be lowered at the
intersection for Second and Third, just Irwin and Grand.
Mayor Boro suggested staff respond either later this evening or when the item was returned to Council.
Mr. Barr pointed out that should a project be presented to the City that would deteriorate the traffic below
D, the City had a right to override it; therefore, this issue was really not required.
Vicki Hatos, 16 Eucalyptus Lane, representing Montecito Area Residents Association, stated that with
regard to Circulation, it would be nice when dealing with traffic congestion to do so before working on a
development project as opposed to after, as it seemed impossible to catch up after the development had
taken place. Specifically, around the Montecito area, she indicated there was a major concern with one of
the items in Exhibit 19, the attachment to C-5. Ms. Hatos noted this was in reference to Grand Avenue
and improving the traffic flow to allow Grand to be used as a substitute for Irwin to get to Highway 101
north. This required removing on -street parking during peak hours, and adding signals at Fifth and
Mission Avenues. The problem they saw with this was that Grand Avenue, starting at Fourth Street, was
the beginning of the neighborhood, and from that point on was 100% residential; therefore, the
neighborhood entrance was being opened up to become part of the commute as opposed to part of the
neighborhood. Ms. Hatos stated they objected to the elimination of the parking and adding the signals,
and would prefer to see a degradation in the LOS to below standards during those times rather than
extending the commute into the neighborhood.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 7
Ms. Hatos expressed their support for item #7 which addressed the improvements on Grand Avenue,
north and south, up to Fourth Street, as they believed it made a lot of sense and would possibly move
people over to Irwin at Third and Fourth, as currently, they continue into the neighborhood and turn on
Fifth and Mission. At the very least they would like to see those changes happen further away from the
neighborhood prior to making any impacts into the neighborhood, preferably making no impacts into the
neighborhood at all.
Lynn Bradescu, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, stated that traffic was the number one issue on a
list of concerns with the citizens of San Rafael, and the Gerstle Park neighborhood was no exception.
She reported having taken a survey of hundreds of neighbors and their main concern was traffic. She
stated they had attempted in vain to work with City officials on implementation of traffic calming
alternatives to their neighborhood. They provided insight to all of their issues and alternatives for problem
solving, providing traffic counts, letters, pictures, including video, to validate the vehicle and pedestrian
safety hazards and concerns. Ms. Bradescu reminded the City Council of a fatality at the corner of C and
First Streets.
Ms. Bradescu stated the City's continued response was that nothing could be done as the issues did not
warrant action for traffic calming. Additional response by the City was to document in General Plan 2020
that D Street would not be changed back to two-way, fearing morning peak failure, and to spend
approximately $300,000 to place two stop lights, one of which they were adamantly opposed to, was not
their idea of neighborhood and City collaboration of traffic calming. She noted Pleasanton, Danville,
Berkeley and San Leandro in the Bay Area had working traffic calming policies, which were definitive,
readable plans outlining a specific process to follow, and most of these policies were accessible to the
public and residents on their websites. This, she stated, was a far cry from the "open door policy" the City
of San Rafael speaks of.
Ms. Bradescu stated they recommended that language be included in General Plan 2020, stating that the
City would develop a concrete and specific traffic calming policy that ensured neighborhood collaboration
and resolution of traffic issues with the City. Personally, she believed that lowering Levels of Service was
lowering levels of everything in service, and more traffic stopped on Second Street for a longer period of
time was more pollution directly aimed at the Gerstle Park neighborhood, which was not what anyone
desired.
Hugo Landecker, 127 San Rafael Avenue, stated that with regard to item C-5 — page 173 — Traffic Level
of Service Standards — it would be helpful to the public to include in General Plan 2020 what each Level of
Service meant. Mayor Boro confirmed Mr. Landecker was referring specifically to time delays and Mr.
Landecker stated that it would be great to have it explained in that manner.
Referring to Page 183 — Items 13 and 14 regarding signalization for intersections at First and D Streets
and First and C Streets, Mr. Landecker stated he would like to see stop lights eliminated and further
exploration of a means to re-route 12,000 vehicles away from a residential area. He recalled dealings
with Mayor Boro and Councilmember Cohen on this issue; however, would like to see items 13 and 14 at
a minimum allowing exploration into this alternative, rather than installing stoplights at those intersections.
He noted that the way these items were worded on page 183 directly conflicted with Goal 14 on page 195,
which "encourages a safe and efficient system that minimizes impact on residential neighborhoods."
Mr. Landecker stated that on Page 185, item #29 was not worded correctly, noting E Street was west of A
Street, not east and he did not comprehend the language.
Regarding C-31 — Page 204 — Residential Area Parking — Mr. Landecker stated that the Gerstle Park
neighborhood was already in a parking crisis and believed that if Assembly Bill 2702, which was on the
Governor's desk presently, were successful, the City would have to re-evaluate item C-31.
Nina Lilienthal -Murphy, President, Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, stated she
represented over 2,500 people in her neighborhood. She inquired of all those involved in the General
Plan process as to how many had actually walked through her neighborhood or had tried to cross Lincoln
Avenue.
Recognizing Circulation was under discussion this evening, Ms. Murphy noted that Linda Jackson had
stated it was necessary to explore other modes of transportation, yet the General Plan continuously
focused on cars as the number one way of getting around town. She noted suggestions such as turning
Lincoln Avenue into a four -lane arterial; however, the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association
did not want four lanes at any time, not even commute times, rather they were trying to calm traffic on
Lincoln Avenue.
Indicating there was a need for two signals on Lincoln Avenue, at Linden Lane and Grand Avenue, Ms.
Murphy stated these were imperative to health and safety issues in the neighborhood. She stated they
did not want any removal of parking on Lincoln Avenue, except where it visually impaired entering or
exiting Lincoln. Noting Lincoln Avenue was marked 50% red, prohibiting parking, she stated it was
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 8
difficult to get on and off, especially at Grand and Prospect. She commented this had been taken care of
by Mr. Mansourian by placing signs prohibiting vehicles over 6 -feet in height.
Ms. Murphy stated there was a need for more bus service on Lincoln Avenue more often, yet they did not
want to have Golden Gate Transit, as they were loud, noisy and vibrated the entire neighborhood. From a
transit hub to Northgate, Terra Linda and the Civic Center, she stated something was needed every
twenty minutes, such as small shuttles.
Noting the lack of any mention of Safe Routes to Schools in her neighborhood plan, Ms. Murphy stated
they probably needed the program more than other areas. She stated it should be a citywide program
and enforced as soon as possible to ease commute traffic.
Ms. Murphy noted that since opening the north end of Lincoln Avenue to Los Ranchitos, there was much
more traffic from Redwood Village and this needed to be diverted away from Lincoln Avenue. She stated
that a partnership should be set up with the County to complete the job that was started, including
installing sidewalks, overhead lighting and a bike path.
Ms. Murphy stated that the degraded Level of Service on Lincoln Avenue adversely affected east to west
traffic trying to cross Lincoln. She believed LOS F stood for Failed, and questioned whether it was
possible to cross Lincoln in under ten minutes, noting the police had not succeeded. As she believed
there were no peak hours on Lincoln, she stated that a left turn only lane was needed southbound to
Mission, otherwise at least 40 cars backed up. She stated that enforcement was needed in the hillsides
because of cars parked within six feet of the center of the road, which obstructed emergency vehicles.
Should the rail system fail, Ms. Murphy suggested paving over the railroad tracks and making them
bicycle or pedestrian lanes. If a rail system were considered, she requested that the air quality, noise,
vibration and interruption to City traffic be addressed, together with the installation of sound walls for
public safety. She urged all to walk through the neighborhood and attempt to cross Lincoln Avenue.
Eric Anderson, Marin County Bicycle Coalition and San Rafael resident, thanked the Planning
Commission and City staff for their careful consideration of the comments submitted, which was
appreciated.
Regarding Safety, Mr. Anderson stated that the General Plan did a very good job of recognizing that
safety was of paramount concern. He noted an example was provided earlier that it was acceptable to
allow LOS to fall if it benefited pedestrian safety; however, he believed there were other situations in San
Rafael much more challenging than just downtown, i.e., freeway interchanges and trying to walk and bike
through the Bellam area. For this reason he indicated that in several specific places in their comments
they recommended areas in the Plan where safety priorities could be established. He noted that
pedestrians were the most vulnerable users of the roadway, followed by bicyclists, and he believed the
General Plan policies should explicitly recognize this and call for protection for these users in all street
planning and design.
Regarding Completing the Streets, Mr. Anderson stated that San Rafael needed to build complete streets
that served all users. In their written comments he indicated they emphasized the need to build bicycle
and pedestrian projects from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan when those projects were part of a larger
roadway project. He believed that in these financially challenging times it appeared a waste of money to
build a project and then have to return and retrofit it with bike lanes or sidewalk connections; therefore,
they felt strongly that building complete streets should be a policy when conducting any roadway project.
On the question of Funding, Mr. Anderson stated it had been over two years since the adoption of the San
Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan and unfortunately, the City had been unable to implement
much of the Plan in that time, due mostly to grant funding problems, to which he saw no end in sight, and
this had led to a rising frustration about progress with implementing the Plan. Later this evening the
Traffic Mitigation Fee Ordinance would be discussed and he noted the huge amount of money this
ordinance would be raising to build projects that made it easier for people to drive. Mr. Anderson stated
that funding the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was crucial to achieving the General Plan goal of
encouraging more transportation options. While he was unsure of the solution, he suggested perhaps
allocating a percentage of the Traffic Mitigation Fees to build the projects to implement the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan. Although unsure this was the solution, he believed that without an exercise of political
will and leadership the goal of having 20% of trips biking and walking might never be reached.
Tymber Cavasian, Gerstle Park resident and participant in the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association
stated she supported a lot of tonight's comments. She indicated that staff attempts to work with the
neighborhood on these issues; however, there were no easy answers.
Regarding Page 173 - C-5 — Traffic Level of Service Standards, Ms. Cavasian agreed with an earlier
speaker and did not support downgrading service levels as a solution to afford for growth. Having gone
through a recent boom and still being behind, those mitigation fees obviously did not cover the growth;
therefore, they did not believe this was the source of revenues to solve their problems. She indicated she
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 9
was opposed to lowering them as a solution
With regard to the Circulation C-21 program, Ms. Cavasian stated it certainly did not address
neighborhood streets being used as diverters to make downtown and thoroughfare streets work
adequately. She noted that Patrick Murphy had a huge number of examples, Lincoln and D Streets
coming to mind from her perspective of motoring or walking around.
Being a newer resident, Ms. Cavasian stated that from talking to a lot of residents and their past
experiences, there was no measurable commitment or data that residential traffic calming was actually
functioning.
Ms. Cavasian submitted material to the City Clerk regarding cities with (traffic calming) programs that
were readable and understandable, addressing issues Mr. Mansourian had discussed, etc. Believing this
to be an opportunity, she requested the City Council to recommend a short-term timeframe for a priority
program to develop a concrete neighborhood residential traffic calming program that worked and could be
understood and followed, to try to resolve differences and big issues.
Sarah Jensen, Lochinvar Road, stated that last evening, Mayor Boro and Councilmembers Cohen and
Miller all expressed concern about people having a perception of a shell game going on with Levels of
Service and a desire to clear up misunderstandings. She believed part of the problem was that much of
the discussion was in very technical terms that were extremely difficult to understand, and sometimes
questions from elected or appointed officials indicated their difficulty also in understanding. She stated it
would be helpful to have clear explanations in everyday language of what impacts would result from these
changes.
Using an example, Ms. Jensen stated that as Point San Pedro Road goes into town and towards the
highway, there appeared to be a horrendous mess. She noted it was very difficult to anticipate what could
be done to help with this and it clearly was necessary to make changes to protect pedestrians. She
believed that changes by Whole Foods would be considered an improvement; however, it would actually
make more difficulties for drivers. Ms. Jensen stated it was worth doing this to protect pedestrians and
believed most people would gladly accept that situation. It was difficult to understand, however, at the
same time, allowing additional traffic to feed into this already problematic area without any idea of how
even in the future this problem could be solved. She believed people were willing to accept a delay to
keep others safe, especially school children and seniors, but questioned why at the same time traffic was
being added to the area before there was a solution.
Mayor Boro invited Community Development Director Bob Brown to respond where feasible.
Mr. Brown stated that most of the responses would be provided by Mr. Mansourian. He and Linda
Jackson would cover some of the questions and subsequently, address some of the policy perspectives
that people raised.
Mr. Brown noted the first question regarding who makes the decisions concerning the public benefits and
who the beneficiary was of any LOS exemptions. Ms. Jackson referred to page 175 — Policy C -5c which
states that the City Council may approve such a project.
Regarding what the criteria are, Mr. Brown explained that the criteria staff tried to model these after were
essentially the same override findings contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
the idea was that just as the Environmental Quality Act gives the City Council an opportunity to find there
are projects important enough to a community to override identified environmental impacts, this followed
the same logic. He indicated the reason it was included (and the question was raised: "Why not just use
the CEQA process?") was that there are some types of projects which are exempt under CEQA;
therefore, it would not be a CEQA violation and a CEQA override would not be necessary. Mr. Brown
stated staff believed this was a situation that would cover the City in terms of non-compliance with the
General Plan and staff did not wish to clutter the General Plan with each individual exemption. He
indicated the process would involve public hearings in front of the Planning Commission and City Council,
i.e., a great deal of public involvement; however, ultimately it gave the City Council some flexibility similar
to that under CEQA.
Mayor Boro suggested that perhaps some amplification of the description as to how it might play out could
be helpful, as people were looking for some level of assurance.
Mr. Brown noted that Policy C-5 D states the Council has to find "Based on substantial evidence, that all
feasible mitigation measures have been required and that specific economic, social, technological and/or
other benefits of the project outweigh the project's impacts on circulation." He indicated that although
somewhat general, it was typically the CEQA override criteria.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated that when this section was being debated it was the subject of a
great deal of discussion, and he believed the policy contained a plethora of standards. Also implicit in it
was the requirement that there be a public hearing, that there be substantial evidence, which is a legal
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Pagel 0
test, and that there be feasible mitigation measures, which are words of art contained in CEQA, all of
which require that there be an examination of the mitigation measures required and that there be the
specific articulable economic, social, technological, etc. benefits which this Council or some future Council
could determine indicated to them in their collective wisdom that they believe this project should be
approved. Mr. Ragghianti stated it was his judgment that this was as specific as could be written and it
was not possible to make it any more so because the universe of information presented would depend on
the specific project. (Page 175)
Mr. Brown noted that Mr. Rogers posed the question "Why say feasible mitigation measures, why not
require all necessary mitigation measures?" and stated the point was that if a project could provide all
necessary mitigation measures to mitigate its Level of Service impacts it would not be requesting an
exemption, rather it would mitigate its impacts, and these were for projects that could not.
A perfect example that arose during the course of the Steering Committee process was the Downtown
Cineplex, which was a component of the Downtown Vision. Mr. Brown stated that in very preliminary
traffic modeling it was found that a Cineplex would have a traffic impact (largely off peak) for a couple of
hours on a Friday afternoon. The question, therefore, was whether a Cineplex was worth a couple of
hours of congestion weekly in terms of what it could do for downtown restaurants, retail, etc. Mr. Brown
stated this was one of the examples used by the Steering Committee in indicating that a process was
needed that allowed some exemptions for projects that really mattered to the community.
Councilmember Cohen believed this needed more work and he would like staff to explore ways to deal
with the issue and address some of the concerns clearly present in the community. He indicated that
during the Steering Committee meetings, this was the subject of a lot of discussion, including doing this
through the process of a General Plan Amendment. He noted the staff report indicated this was a higher
bar and could prove burdensome to certain projects. He believed it was the subject of so much
discussion at the Steering Committee level because everyone understood the General Plan Amendment
process is a higher bar; therefore, by its nature provided some assurance to the community that it would
get a higher level of review. Councilmember Cohen noted there were a limited number of times per year
when a General Plan Amendment could be done, and in a way it set a higher standard than appeared to
non -lawyers to be implied by this language.
Councilmember Cohen stated that another route to take could be as suggested by City Attorney
Ragghianti without perhaps his realizing it. He believed there was guilt here about the type of jargon
spoken of in some of the public testimony. On reading it the first time he believed it to be very unclear
and it did not set any standards. Re -reading it he indicated he began to recognize some phrases he had
begun to learn over the years and as pointed out by Mr. Ragghianti, these were very specific references
to established terms of art in the law that to a lawyer or one experienced in Land Use had very significant
meaning. Unfortunately, however, to the general public the clarity was lost. Councilmember Cohen
believed it deserved language that indicated it was not a decision that would be made lightly. There
needed to be clear public benefit and a way to state this in non -legal terms needed to be figured out. The
legal language could be retained but perhaps lead off with a paragraph that non -lawyers could understand
regarding the pretty high threshold to be crossed in order to make these findings.
Councilmember Cohen believed the message had to be loud and clear that this was not something to be
done lightly, rather rarely when the benefit was clear, and while he was not insisting the standard had to
be a General Plan Amendment, he believed the language and intent had to be clear to the City Council,
the community and future City Councils.
Councilmember Heller agreed that many times legalese was used and it took the City Council many years
to learn it. She suggested including a Glossary of Terms so that terms could more easily be understood.
Referring to a box on page 175, Mayor Boro stated it was interesting in that it did exactly the opposite of
what was intended, i.e., to make LOS F a failure. LOS F was a time delay that was longer than LOS A — it
was not a failure, but rather took longer.
Regarding the current issue, Mayor Boro suggested that perhaps graphics could be used to summarize
how it was done in terms people could understand. He believed people were seeking clarity and
understanding how it would work. While he believed the box on page 175 was fine, it made LOS F
appear like a failure which it was not, as this was how long it took and how it was quantified.
Regarding the terminology, Linda Jackson stated the Steering Committee (the original drafters) did not
want a Glossary; however, this could be discussed. She noted that the Level of Service box on page 175
was added by the Planning Commission in order to have a definition in the General Plan. She noted that
staff refrained from adding in the seconds to avoid the situation in the current General Plan where the
methodology used was very explicit. She indicated that all the amendments were done to explain that a
new methodology was being used; therefore, it was deliberately written in more general terms. Ms.
Jackson stated she would defer to Mr. Mansourian on the specifics; however, should the methodology
change in a few years, the danger was that the seconds could change.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 11
Referring to Ms. Jensen's question, Mayor Boro stated the traffic from Loch Lomond was projected in
General Plan 2020 to move up approximately four seconds in the intersection in question. When the
improvements for safety are carried out this would increase by eighteen seconds; however, Ms. Jensen's
thinking was how much of it was going up because of the traffic. While standards could change and need
updating, he believed that somehow the issues of most concern - LOS and the Exception — should be
made more understandable in General Plan 2020. Mayor Boro requested City Attorney Ragghianti to
work with Community Development Director Bob Brown on this.
Regarding the question "With the ability for the safety exception, why add additional traffic caused by
development?" Mr. Brown stated that as explained last evening, and clarified by the Planning
Commission in their revisions, if and when Council chose to make an exception to LOS for safety reasons,
at that time, the City Council would set the acceptable Level of Service that could accommodate some
additional development or no additional development, depending on its choice at that time. For example,
should there be an improvement at Third and Union which added eighteen seconds of delay and this were
placed at a certain point in Level of Service E, the City Council could establish this as a threshold which
would allow no further development whatsoever, or require any development beyond that to appear for
another exemption process. Mr. Brown stated this would be Council's choice through a public hearing
process.
Councilmember Cohen stated this led to a question concerning the exception language and maybe the
LOS measures. He inquired where the language stated that while the LOS was E there would be 68.5
seconds of delay, not the entire range of E which goes to 85 in the methodology. He favored language
concurring with Mr. Brown's statement, should it not be included already, to help address that particular
concern.
Councilmember Heller noted that Traffic Calming as a plan was available in other cities and believed at
some point the City Council needed to address a Traffic Calming plan for the entire City so that people in
the neighborhoods were aware there was a process, keeping in mind that traffic calming was expensive.
City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian stated that some traffic calming programs adopted by the City
Council were presently in place; however, because of budget issues, they were currently unfunded and
could not be studied or implemented.
Mayor Boro clarified the question was whether there were policies or procedures in other cities that could
be applicable in San Rafael. While an answer was not necessary this evening, he questioned whether
there was a way to do this where the community could work with the City. He requested that staff bring
this back to Council at some point for further discussion. While he recognized staff had done some great
things and the City was very constrained with respect to financing, he believed this was more of a policy
issue.
On the question of the Bicycle and Pedestrian improvements and why they could not be installed as part
of any street project, required of new development or funded through a percentage of Traffic Impact Fee,
Mr. Brown stated that some of the issues regarding City street improvements and installing bicycle and
pedestrian improvements at that time, he would defer to Mr. Mansourian as it was a matter of practicality
and cost. Requiring these improvements of new development was a legal issue, and he referred to a
famous Supreme Court case which limited the ability of the City to require these non -traffic related
improvements, to specific development, or to fund them through impact fees, because the impacts of the
project in terms of the need for a bicycle and pedestrian facility must be identified. Should it be impossible
to demonstrate that the patrons or employees of a business, or residents of a residential project would
generate the demand for a new bike lane or pedestrian bridge, those requirements could not be placed
upon a specific project or even charge generally a portion of all projects in town to pay for it. Mr. Brown
stated there was a very high level of legal nexus required to fund these from individual projects or
developments.
Mr. Mansourian reported that in the past two years there had not been any major roadway widening or
improvements where there was a right-of-way to implement the bicycle lanes. However, it was possible to
re -stripe Point San Pedro Road, working with the County of Marin, from Third and Mooring all the way to
Biscayne, which is painted as a shoulder and bike lane. He reported that Freitas Parkway was also done;
however, it had not been possible to implement some of the more expensive ones, due to lack of funding,
grants, or having the right-of-way.
Regarding Mr. Barr's impression of the Irwin and Grand LOS, Councilmember Cohen stated it was his
understanding this was more of a recognition of conditions on the ground than opening the door to any
additional development beyond that explicitly listed in General Plan 2020; however, there still appeared to
be a question about this and he would like the response to be more explicit. He stated it was similar to
the question at Union Street in that by doing this as a by-product, was it opening the door to more
development without spelling it out?
Regarding Ms. Hatos' question concerning Grand, Councilmember Cohen stated this could be a choice
that had to be made and he would like to have more explicit knowledge of the tradeoffs. He understood
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 12
why the neighborhood did not wish to see what was being proposed there and he would like to know what
would happen should the City indicate it wanted to divert the traffic back before Mission. He suggested
this be evaluated and the choices being made understood. It was a legitimate question and while perhaps
it would not be answered the way the neighborhood would like, at least there should be more discussion
at Council level to consider what was being done.
Understanding the frustration expressed by Mr. Anderson, Councilmember Cohen stated he shared it and
was aware there were real challenges in terms of the City's legal ability to require funding for bicycle and
pedestrian improvements and the nexus issue. He suggested looking at the language to ascertain
whether language could be included to indicate that at every opportunity it would be the policy of the City
to grab funding wherever possible, not only to make it easier for cars to get around, rather also to make it
easier for pedestrians and cyclists. He was sorry about the increasing frustration that the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Masterplan was not being funded; however, was pleased there was a Masterplan, albeit
recognizing it led to expectations which led to frustration. Councilmember Cohen noted that funding
would be an ongoing challenge for the City in every area; however, he requested that this policy
document at least indicate the City was committed to looking at every opportunity for funding for not only
automobile improvements, rather also Pedestrian and Bicycle improvements.
Commenting that he used to live in Gerstle Park and liked it very much, Councilmember Cohen stated he
shared the frustration. He stated it was his view from all the meetings referenced that he attended with
the neighborhood and the Traffic Engineer that the proposed solution created more harm for the larger
community than it solved the problem for Gerstle Park, and this was a tradeoff that in good conscience he
could not make because he represented the entire community. Should he be wrong and the City could
work with the neighborhood to conduct traffic studies, he was open to continuing to do this.
Councilmember Cohen stated that logically he believed what the neighborhood was asking for made more
sense; however, not at the expense of breaking the circulation system downtown. He indicated that the
City would continue to look at this with the neighborhood and should a way be established sometime in
the future, it would be attempted. He did not want the residents to believe that this document slammed
the door on making D Street two-way to downtown, rather he remained unconvinced that it could be done
in a way that the trade off was acceptable. He suggested referencing that the City wished to continue
working with the neighborhood. It was not a case of not agreeing, rather that the proposal did not work at
the present time.
Councilmember Heller stated that these were arterial streets the City sometimes did not have complete
control over because the entire community was feeding through to them, together with the CMA
(Congestion Management Agency) setting standards, and she requested further explanation. She noted
that D Street feeds directly over the hill into another long busy segment and this was confusing, whereas
Lincoln was a direct route.
Mayor Boro stated this discussion had taken place with the neighborhoods and it could certainly be
repeated. Regarding the issue of traffic calming he questioned how it worked elsewhere, how much was
applicable to San Rafael, whether with funding something could be done to make it better, etc., and he
concurred with Councilmember Cohen's remarks that it was not possible to solve a problem in one place
and then have a larger problem throughout the community. He noted Second and Third Streets were
cross -county connectors and the majority of traffic on those streets came into San Rafael either from the
west, south or east, and to congest those streets by trying to solve a problem in one neighborhood would
result in a bigger problem throughout the entire City. He stated staff was convinced traffic would divert
through Gerstle Park. While he believed the City had tried to do as much as possible, Mayor Boro stated
it did not mean more should not be done.
Noting Ms. Murphy made a comment about Safe Routes to Schools and the lack of a reference in the
General Plan, Mayor Boro inquired whether this should be referenced in the General Plan and he
requested staff to investigate and report back. Councilmember Heller indicated that part of the question
was whether it was citywide.
Linda Jackson reported that it was inserted as a citywide policy because so many neighborhoods were
interested, and it was identified on Page 188 in Policy C-13 which listed Routes to Schools as an example
of the kind of implementing program to use to deal with school -related automobile traffic. Recognizing that
funding might not be permanent for the program, it was not listed as a specific title in its own right.
Commenting that San Rafael works with the County in developing priorities for Safe Routes to Schools as
funds became available, Mayor Boro requested confirmation.
Mr. Mansourian explained that up to last year the City managed and carried out the Countywide Safe
Routes to Schools program in parts of San Rafael.
Mayor Boro noted that Measure A on the ballot, referred to earlier, certainly had dollars for Safe Routes to
Schools.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 13
Regarding Ms. Murphy's question on a bike path along Lincoln Avenue, Mayor Boro stated that part of the
SMART project and part of the work being done lately by the Marin Bicycle Coalition was to have a bike
path beginning at Mission. Mr. Mansourian confirmed it would start at Mission Avenue, going over the hill
to North San Pedro, running parallel with the train tracks. While not completely designed yet, Mayor Boro
stated this was a plan, as it was not practical to have bikes going up and down Lincoln.
Regarding page 5 of the staff report discussing the signals on Grand, Mission and Fifth Avenue, Mayor
Boro stated that since he travels that street daily his recollection was that with the improvements and
development at Dominican, a signal was to be installed at Fifth.
Mr. Mansourian confirmed that a signal was proposed for Mission and Grand. The intersection without a
signal would go to LOS F, and it was not recommended at Fifth and Grand because falling between two
signalized intersections would render it unsafe.
Mayor Boro noted that a lot of the traffic was local neighborhood traffic trying to get through, together with
people going to the high school mornings and evenings.
Mayor Boro thanked all for their input on the Circulation Element and indicated that the City Council
meeting would pause for a five-minute break.
The meeting resumed at 8:15 p.m
Directing Council's attention to page 23 — Land Use Element, referring to wording added to Program LU -
2a., Ms. Jackson recalled that the current General Plan contains a waiver process in the Conservation
Element for wetlands, i.e., if a property owner could not comply with the policy, a waiver could be granted.
She indicated that the Planning Commission recommended that that waiver be applied citywide for all
development proposals, not just applying to wetlands. She indicated that as a result wording was added
as a second sentence to LU -2a.
Page 30 — Policy LU -12 — School Site Reuse or Redevelopment — Ms. Jackson stated two options were
presented as introduction paragraphs and the Planning Commission decided that neither one was
necessary. She indicated that at its meeting of adoption, one of the Commissioners suggested looking at
allowing on school sites the uses allowed in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) district because school
sites were being re -designated to allow residential use, and the Planning Commission believed that
because the school sites were in neighborhoods it could be a good idea to allow the small local
neighborhood retail uses listed in the NC district. This being "bigger than a breadbox" topic, Ms. Jackson
stated the Commission did not make that change and staff promised to raise the topic with Council as an
issue to be considered at a later date, perhaps in the next update for the General Plan.
Page 42 — Listing of the General Plan Designations — Ms. Jackson noted at the top of the list the new
Land Use designation of the Lindaro Mixed Use District. She stated the Steering Committee heard about
wanting to upgrade the area around the Davidson Middle School, and one of the concerns was that in
adding Residential as a possible use in this area there was the potential for Land Use conflicts between
residential use and industrial use.
Ms. Jackson reported that other cities in California were beginning to experiment with the idea of allowing
residential use in industrial areas. The Steering Committee recommended proceeding on this by allowing
only live/work use in this area. In conjunction with this General Plan Land Use District, on Monday,
Council would see some recommended zoning ordinance changes to the live/work recommendations to
strengthen that. She confirmed the change was not intended to replace the current businesses with
residential areas, rather it was the first step in exploring the feasibility of residential use in industrial areas.
Regarding the Neighborhood Element, Ms. Jackson stated this was intended to replace the various
adopted and unadopted neighborhood plans. She also noted that the East San Rafael Neighborhood had
been renamed the "Canal Neighborhood."
Referring to page 125 — Policy NH -147 — San Rafael Rock Quarry — Ms. Jackson reported there had been
a lot of discussion about this particular site and policy, and the Planning Commission in response to public
hearing comments recommended some revisions and added policy statements and programs concerning
working with the County, particularly on nuisance issues. She noted that this evening's packet contained
a copy of a letter from the property owner requesting reinstatement of the sentence under sub -section a.
which the Planning Commission recommended deleting. She noted staff had no objection to the request.
Ms. Jackson stated that the Economic Vitality Element was drafted to implement parts of the Economic
Vision created a few years ago.
Community Design Element: -
Page 137 — Policy CD -3a. — Ms. Jackson stated that the Planning Commission recommended adding as a
short-term project to the Design Review process a program to explore the feasibility of expanding single-
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 14
family design review to include ground floor additions and renovations to single-family homes. She
indicated that this change was of concern to staff in terms of time and implementation costs.
Page 139 — Policy CD -5 — Ms. Jackson stated the Planning Commission favored "Preserve and Enhance"
and adding the words to the greatest extent possible and publicly accessible pathways.
Page 144 — Ms. Jackson noted that it was recommended to relocate Policy CD -20 — Street Trees from
this element to the Infrastructure element, in order to recognize the Public Works Department's role in
maintaining street trees.
Page 145 - Ms. Jackson reported that the Planning Commission added some Landscaping policies and
programs because of the important role landscaping plays in establishing character for the City of San
Rafael.
Roger Roberts, referring to Page 137 — CD -3 — Neighborhoods — "Develop programs to respect the
context and scale of existing neighborhoods" stated these could be terms of art words within the Planning
Department; however, from the standpoint of the neighborhoods, what they meant in requiring respect to
the neighborhood design character was that they retain the average size, height, lot coverage and FAR
within a defined radius, and they hoped this was what the City meant. He suggested it could be useful to
amplify that because a lot of houses were being transformed, either through renovation or rebuilds, to
what others referred to as starter castles, and as a result, the diversity of housing stock that would be
available and more affordable for all levels of society was lost. Besides accomplishing that objective, he
stated the objective of retaining the character of the neighborhood as to its dimensional characteristics
would also be accomplished. This he believed could deserve some clarification unless the term of art
included his concerns.
John Ortega stated he had lived in the Canal area for fourteen years and liked it. Noting "la parada"
meant stopping place, he indicated that in this case he was referring to the workers along Bellam.
Addressing the Economic Vitality element, he believed things had not changed in fourteen years with "la
parada" in that people were aware of wealthy Marin and could find jobs. Mr. Ortega stated a lot of these
people were paid in cash in an underground economy and this was tolerated because it was convenient,
practical, sensible and a way of getting work done. He expressed gratitude for all the attempts the City
had made to correct the situation and noted the County did not have an Economic Development plan for
these people.
Mr. Ortega recognized the City Manager's attempts to organize the situation and the willingness to put
together a job center, which most certainly would relieve a lot of pressure on the business people there.
He was aware the County attempted to solve the problem and conducted a study; however, the "parada"
remained, with its inherent responsibilities such as lack of workers' compensation, social security, etc. He
realized these problems needed to be solved through another level of government and did not wish to
pass blame.
Mr. Ortega commended the City for Pickleweed Park and the Expansion Program, and suggested
everyone getting together in a political way to deal with this new reality and culture that could only be
solved by decisions from the federal level.
Mayor Boro stated the City was continuing to evaluate this issue and was working on plans towards some
type of solution locally.
Mr. Ortega expressed appreciation for Mayor Boro and Councilmember Miller's attendance at the Central
America Independence Day celebration at Pickleweed yesterday, which had a very powerful impact.
Nina Lilienthal -Murphy, President, Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, commenting on
Land Use, stated that they desired the open space on top of San Rafael Hill to be maintained for their
health and safety, and depended on fire abatement procedures initiated on an annual basis by the
removal of scotch broom and diseased vegetation. She stated the enforcement of homeless
encampments all over the hill must continue.
Ms. Murphy noted language in the Draft General Plan states "new construction — encourage to have
underground parking" and they favored "new construction required to have underground parking."
Page 49 — "Be proactive in new housing so that changes continue to enhance San Rafael making it a
more attractive place to live" — Ms. Murphy stated that prior to further building, the traffic woes needed to
be resolved.
Jim Stark, representing St. Vincent's/Silveira, stated that with regard to the Neighborhood Element,
subsequent to checking their files and City files, he noted every draft General Plan and every adopted
General Plan ever processed had included St. Vincent's/Silveira as a neighborhood, and this would be the
first General Plan not including it. With that thought in mind, he reiterated a recent statement to the City
Council where they indicated their willingness to work with the City to satisfy any concerns regarding
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 15
political issues around the properties. They were assured by the Silveiras they are. Mr. Stark indicated
they would not submit an application if the City slowed down its process, and until the City deemed it
appropriate that the issues of concern around these properties were addressed in advance of any
submittal.
Vicki Hatos, Eucalyptus Lane, San Rafael, commenting on the Neighborhood Element, stated that in
general, the Montecito Area Residents Association (MARA) was in agreement with the consolidation of all
the individual plans into one element, with the understanding that there would be continued focus on
adding to that element with information from each of the individual neighborhoods in the future.
Referring to page 118 - Policy NH -125 — San Rafael City Schools' Corporation Yard on Union Street, Ms.
Hatos stated that MARA approved of the wording regarding the type of housing designated for this site;
however, they strongly encouraged adding something more powerful to the childcare language and the
continued use of the space for childcare. She requested additional language indicating that the children's
play lot not be overlooked as part of the development of the site. Ms. Hatos stated that presently there
was no park or playground in her neighborhood; therefore, if and when development occurred on this
Corporation Yard lot, they wished to ensure a playground was part of it.
Regarding Community Design, Ms. Hatos believed this was absolutely critical for the neighborhoods and
they were pleased to see that design guidelines originally developed for the Montecito/Happy Valley
Neighborhood Plan would be adopted as interim plans for the residents throughout San Rafael; however,
they would like to see priority placed on the development of program CD -3c — Revisions to Design
Guidelines, and they looked forward to working with staff and others having input on the project.
Ms. Hatos stated they would also like to see priority placed on Policy CD -20a — which discusses tree
maintenance and planting.
In terms of the park, Councilmember Miller inquired of Ms. Hatos as to whatever happened in years past
to the park planned on the school site. Ms. Hatos stated it was being used as all parking spaces presently
for basketball, etc.
Lynn Bradescu, addressing page 153 — EV -8b — Diversity of our Economic Base — Day Laborers —
inquired whether this Day Laborer convenient location would be a center for employment for legally
employable people.
Confirming there was no center currently, Mayor Boro stated that should it become operable it would not
be operated by the City, rather it was his understanding that a non-profit organization would run it for the
laborers. He indicated it had always been the City's goal to get the men off the street. Their immigration
status was another issue which the City could not enforce. As to whether tax dollars would be used,
Mayor Boro responded negatively. Ms. Bradescu indicated she would be adamantly opposed to using tax
dollars being spent for this purpose. Mayor Boro further confirmed that the City was precluded by state
law from operating a Day Laborer Center.
Hugo Landecker, addressed the following elements:
Page 23 — LU -2 — Development Timing — Mr. Landecker stated he favored changing the word "should" to
shall ... be consistent with findings, noting "should" was too loose. Regarding the last sentence in LU -2a,
he suggested it be written more clearly. He believed the term economically viable was too vague and
subjective.
Page 26 — LU -8a — Residential Zoning — Mr. Landecker stated this made no sense to him and suggested
it be deleted.
Page 30 — LU -12 — regarding clustered housing on surplus school sites, Mr. Landecker noted Mayor Boro
attended a meeting with the Gerstle Park Neighborhood regarding the future of Short school for which at
one time, the General Plan proposed 70 units. He indicated that currently, it was zoned for approximately
9 single-family homes should it be declared surplus and go to a developer, which was fine. However, the
possibility then had to be faced of clustered housing on the site which probably would not be compatible
with the adjacent neighborhood, and that needed to be included in LU -12.
Page 73 — NH -11 — Schools — Mr. Landecker stated this policy addressed clustered housing on surplus
school sites and did speak to the compatibility issue with surrounding homes. Regarding AB 2702, he
was unaware of its effect on housing density on that site. Mr. Landecker stated that this perhaps needed
further review, not only for the Gerstle Park site, rather also other school sites that could possibly become
surplus.
Page 31 — LU -14 — Height Bonuses — Mr. Landecker stated he had a concern about development on the
south side of Second Street and the possible impacts on adjacent residential uses. He recalled an article
in the Marin Independent Journal concerning a proposed apartment building on Second Street; however,
the developer had since backed off. Nevertheless, the building would tower over very low rise residential
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 16
uses to its north and he had a concern about development on the Second Street corridor, specifically on
the south side of Second Street. Mr. Landecker noted that in some cases on the south side of Second
Street it did not matter because the current uses were not residential.
Referring to Exhibit 9 — page 35 — Second/Third Street Mixed Use East Zoning District — Mr. Landecker
stated he was unsure as to the limits of that District.
Page 87 — NH -40 — Second/Third Mixed Use District Design Considerations — Mr. Landecker noted this
was the same problem he had just alluded to — the building heights on the south side of Second Street
having impacts on existing residential.
Page 95 — NH -90 and Page 99 — NH -48, NH -49 — Canal — Mr. Landecker proposed expanding the
existing Beach Park, adjacent to Seafood Peddler to the west. He indicated it was his understanding the
property to the west of Beach Park was owned by the City and leased to San Rafael Yacht Club. San
Rafael Yacht Club had taken it upon themselves to change their facility into a gated area no longer open
to the public and the site essentially was under-utilized. He noted they had a membership of
approximately 200 people, compared to the Canal neighborhood with a population many times greater.
Mr. Landecker proposed a public promenade, boat launch and boat dock where visiting yachts could moor
and have convenient access to the downtown. He stated this was an ideal situation, rather than having it
closed off by the yacht club as it is presently. He noted there was a similar facility in Petaluma which
allowed boats to moor in downtown Petaluma, and was a very popular destination for many boaters.
Page 111 — Mr. Landecker stated that the picture spoke of a well-preserved older home, and he
requested the photograph be changed as this was one of the newest structures in the neighborhood.
Page 139 — CD -5 — Views — Mr. Landecker reported that a recently completed home west of Loch
Lomond Marina was huge, and while he believed it was very nice driving up to the front, observed from
the water, it appeared as though it was designed by someone who perhaps designed house trailers in the
1950s — it was horrible — and not an asset to a view as observed from the Bay.
Page 143 — CD -16 — Participation in Project Review — Unless policies had changed, Mr. Landecker stated
that single-family, single -story homes were not subject to review. He recalled a situation in Gerstle Park
where a developer built two single-family homes, which were single story, and the neighborhood did not
have much to say about it.
Page 145 — CD -X — Landscaping — Mr. Landecker favored a program to encourage property owners to
landscape the planter strips between the sidewalk and curb. In addition, in the Gerstle Park neighborhood
the front property lines are usually set back approximately two feet from the sidewalk and property owners
fence right up to the sidewalk, resulting in the loss of many of those planter strips. He noted Public Works
had provided people with encroachment easements to fence off that area, which he believed was wrong.
Page 153 — EV -8b — Day Laborers — Mr. Landecker stated he was totally opposed. He was aware the
City addressed this issue some years ago and while he did not wish to see the day workers on the street,
he could not envision a facility that would accomplish the goal.
Page 155 — EV -12 —Workforce Housing — Mr. Landecker stated he did not like the term "Workforce
Housing." He stated the correct term was "Affordable Housing" as "Workforce Housing" discriminated and
implied prohibiting someone disabled, retired, etc., from living there. He noted that "Workforce Housing"
meant different things to different people and noted a request from a Councilmember this evening for a
definition of terms.
Patrick Murphy, Chair, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated he was requested to attend this
evening with a very pointed attitude directed at the process of General Plan 2020. In his recent history in
the City he had learned under the tutelage of former Lieutenant Jim Kelly that a partnership was better
than aggression. He indicated he was concerned, as was Steve Patterson of the Federation, who figured
"This would be a I0k race that had turned into an Ironman Triathlon ." Mr. Murphy stated that everyone
had been taxed to their limits with regard to this endeavor and believed next time a shorter process should
be considered. He noted that the expense of this process had cost them a community policing position
and perhaps hours at the library.
Indicating that some of these were his concerns while others were brought to him with a message to
deliver them with a point, Mr. Murphy stated that while he could discuss some Planning Commission
meetings that were upsetting to some individuals, he favored dealing with the community and
neighborhoods in a positive way. He indicated the real problem in addressing the neighborhoods was
maintaining a quality of life that existed in the past, was present today and would continue in the future,
and achieving this meant addressing the issues on a balanced forum. He recalled recent newspaper
editorials, comments and the infamous letter at the onset of this entire endeavor expressing a point of
view that the Steering Committee was slanted to the perspective of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr.
Murphy stated that even though he signed that letter, he did not believe in this, and had apologized to
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 17
those concerned. He believed in a balanced approach to the community through both the Chamber of
Commerce and neighborhoods and they needed to support each other.
Mr. Murphy stated the real question was maintaining what San Rafael had in a common sense approach
to its future. Referring to issues such as Loch Lomond and St. Vincent's, he noted there had been
political and emotional differences that had caused splits in the community, and these issues had to be
resolved to maintain the quality of life in San Rafael.
Regarding downtown, Mr. Murphy stated his concern and that of a number of residents in the community
related to building heights. Noting the extensive views that existed in San Rafael, he stated that drastic
changes to those views would be met with resistance from both hillside residents and those living in the
flatlands. He believed a common sense approach to both the development of downtown with reference to
office space, buildings, traffic, streets and the types of businesses needed to be adhered to, otherwise
there would be chaos. It had to be approached as a team working together to develop the City's future,
maintaining common sense and communication, not polarization.
Tymber Cavasian, Gerstle Park, commented as follows:
Page 153 - EV -8b — Day Laborers — She noted a myriad of legal issues surrounded this and supported a
policy regarding the congregation of laborers on gateway streets. These people were not being protected
with regard to workers' compensation, tax issues, employment practices, etc., and she believed they were
being encouraged to break the law. She believed something needed to be done as the problem was
deteriorating.
Page 154 - EV -11 a — Home Occupations — She agreed that Home Occupations were a great alternative
for transportation reasons; however, requested a high priority be given to any programs relating to the
policy because they also created problems in neighborhoods.
Page 23 — LU -2a — Development Review — She agreed with Mr. Landecker that the language, especially
the last sentence, was much too loose and did not protect the spirit of the LU -2 policy. She noted that the
success of CD -2 — Neighborhood Identity (Page 137) relied on successful development timing.
Page 26 — LU -9b — FAR Transfers — Noting the language one or both, as there were four items, she
questioned whether it was one or more, two or more, or all.
Page 31 — LU -13 — Building Heights — She noted Exhibit 7 appeared to be struck out; however, remained
referenced in the text which made her question whether the zoning ordinance was now governing the
height limits everywhere except downtown where the other table applied. She requested a definition of
how the heights are calculated be included. Also on LU -13, she requested that perhaps, the new
Neighborhood/Commercial height limit be changed from a straight 36 -foot allowance to a site-specific
range of 30 — 36, depending on the transition point of adjacent properties.
Page 31 — LU -14 — Height Bonuses — She was pleased with the clarifying language added concerning
only one height bonus to be granted and questioned whether it included the affordable density bonus
allowable.
Regarding Neighborhoods, Ms. Cavasian stated she was still against the exchange of "hometown" for
"small town."
Page 70 — NH -1a — Neighborhood Planning Process — Agreeing that it was a good idea to condense all
the plans, Ms. Cavasian stated they were concerned about the interim period, and she hoped the City
Council would set a priority for that program to the effect that the funding and timing are developed in the
neighborhood plans or the additional pieces of neighborhood plans. She commented that the interim
period made them somewhat nervous about what could happen.
Page 70 — NH -2 — New Development in Residential Neighborhoods — She requested that this include new
construction, remodeling, additions and renovations affecting exterior elevations, as otherwise all types of
different modifications appeared to slip through.
Page 71 — NH -4c — Property Maintenance Standards Ordinance — She stated she was confused about
why the property was deleted in NH -4b and now it was just landscape that would be somehow enforced.
If landscape could be kept looking good, she questioned why not the same with properties. Regarding the
ordinance, she stated it would be a good priority to develop this program because it would enhance
resident quality of life and encourage stronger economic vitality by improving the visions of
neighborhoods.
At this point Mayor Boro invited Ms. Cavasian to submit her comments to Ms. Jackson for responses.
Page 72 — NH -6 — Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendly Streets — Ms. Cavasian questioned how many new
streets would be attained and requested deletion of "new." While she recognized it was challenging to try
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 18
to fix existing narrow streets, she believed it would more accurately state the facts
Page 73 — NH 9b — Vehicles as Residences — She requested the deletion of public right-of-way as a
limitation and she did not understand why the ordinance would not enforce prohibition of residential use of
vehicles on private or public property because of the obvious nuisance that living in cars and vehicles
caused for neighborhoods.
Page 81 — NH 32 — Downtown's Neighbors — She favored the added language regarding gradual
transitions to adjacent residential neighborhoods in terms of building scale and intensity of use, and
believed it sent a really good sign that people care how it all went together.
Pages 86 and 87 — NH -39 — Second/Third Mixed Use District and NH 40 — Second/Third Mixed Use
District Design Considerations — She requested specific and differentiating treatment of the south side of
Second from the north side, especially at areas where as -built geography limited the transition areas to
existing neighborhoods. Otherwise, this policy did appear inconsistent with other policies in community
design in NH -32 — Downtown Neighbors and possibly NH -28a - Downtown Design Guidelines. Although
she specifically was thinking of south side of Second between C and E Streets, she was aware it did
happen at other places creating a tunnel effect, so Lincoln was also one of those and possibly areas of
the West End.
Page 137 — CD -3a — Design Review Process and CD -3c — Revisions to Design Guidelines — She believed
it appeared to be a really good start on the Design Review Process and was aware there were hurdles
concerning staff concerns and funding; however, without making it required, she believed it would be good
if the Design Review Board could be available should a project either require a variance or met
neighborhood opposition, or it did not fit the context of more types of projects, i.e., remodeling, additions
and renovations, not just new construction, so there was an added layer of guidance.
Page 138 — CD -4 — Historic Resources - She agreed with the value of the City's historic resources
mentioned in the policy and hoped it gave way to a successful historic preservation policy.
Page 143 — CD -16a — Notification and Information about Development Projects — She noted this had been
a huge concern for neighborhoods and requested the strikeout of the sentence "Provide early notification
and require neighborhood meeting early in the review process for proposed projects" be removed, and
that the sentence be reinstated, as it appeared to be the crux of many disagreements of neighborhoods
and development getting on the same page with City staff.
Ms. Cavasian acknowledged that Mr. Brown was absolutely correct in that huge economic realities faced
the City and much more was desired than could be paid for. Despite this, she supported the downscaling
of commercial and housing numbers because it was a signal that the capacity and quality of life had
registered that these things were trying to be balanced. She encouraged a continuance of this even
though commercial opportunities seemed to be the easy way to see whether revenues could come in.
Personally, she stated that property values came to mind on reassessment, a bigger issue.
Elissa Giambastiani, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, suggested that the City Council not do anything
to lower any of the building heights anywhere in the document. In speaking with Stephanie Lovette,
Affordable Housing Specialist, she reported that Ms. Lovette indicated the City was already bumping into
problems in terms of getting the housing numbers needed and people wanting to do housing were being
restrained because of the height limits.
Reporting on the Marin County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearing today, Ms.
Giambastiani stated there were at least a dozen people who protested the zoning being placed on St.
Vincent's/Silveira with 5% of their lands being economically unsupportable. She indicated that many
made the request that the City Council reconsider its decision and not take these lands out of the City's
sphere of influence. Climates change and two years had made a difference and she wagered she could
get 1,000 people from Loch Lomond to support St. Vincent's now. Ms. Giambastiani stated that housing
numbers would be sufficiently tough to make and she respectfully requested that the City Council
reconsider.
Kevin Stockman, referred to Page 86 — NH -38a — Mahon Creek — stated he was present two weeks ago
pointing out that the EIR in the flood hazard section indicated that periodic dredging of San Rafael Creek
was required to maintain its channel capacity. To the sentence "Complete the implementation of the
adopted Mahon Creek Final Conceptual Plan", he requested the addition of "including a Creek
Management Plan." He noted the Conceptual Plan stated "The City shall develop a long-term
Management Plan to retain creek capacity. Dredging procedures shall be identified in a Creek
Management Plan, including access points along the creek, equipment and methods of periodic dredging
and responsible parties." He commented that just by including the implementation of the adopted Mahon
Creek Conceptual Plan in the General Plan that obviously extended to the specified Management Plan.
However, the plan was adopted 6 years ago, there had not been a Creek Management Plan established,
flooding was continuing, and some in the neighborhood believed it was worsening. Mr. Stockman noted
that because of this plan more development could, in fact, worsen the flooding conditions; therefore, it
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 19
appeared correct to have a Creek Management Plan, not a dredging plan, rather something that afforded
the Department of Public Works and the City some guidance for protecting the neighborhood.
Nina Lilienthal -Murphy, President, Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, stated that a park
was needed for their residents, and within walking distance if possible. She noted the Final Draft of
General Plan 2020 designated Boyd Park as their park, also designating it for Fairhills. With Boyd Park
isolated between two neighborhoods, used little by the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association
and Fairhills, a car was necessary to get to it from both places. She reiterated they needed their own park
within walking distance — Page 248 - PR -9 — New Parks.
Referring to Page 36 — LU -16 — Convenience Shopping and Page 73 — NH -10x — Needed Neighborhood
Serving Uses — Ms. Murphy quoted: "Encourage the retention and improvement of existing retail stores
and services in residential neighborhoods that provide needed neighborhood services and reduce traffic."
She noted there were two motels, a nursery and a mini -mart in her neighborhood. One of the motel
owners wished to refurbish and modernize his property, which they encouraged and hoped the City would
do so also. Ms. Murphy stated that all of these businesses provided a vital service to a wide area and
should remain intact and be improved.
Ms. Murphy noted a request for an increase in density on Brookdale or Lincoln Avenue and removal of a
motel or nursery, and should this be the case, they would like to have a park in exchange for this.
Page 37 — LU -19 — Lot Consolidation — Ms. Murphy favored encouraging projects such as the 1515
Lincoln Avenue project, and that with the proper design and off-street parking, it would work for all.
Regarding Brookdale becoming high density, Ms. Murphy stated there was no access in or out of that
area presently and it appeared unrealistic to tear down these houses by eminent domain to be replaced
with more. She stated they favored the CalTrans plan with a soundwall on the west side of the railroad
tracks and a promenade and park like setting, along with a bike path on the area left open on Brookdale.
Regarding new development, Ms. Murphy indicated they wished to retain the existing character and scale
in their neighborhood, not turning it into a high-rise and canyon effect area.
With regard to Affordable Housing, Ms. Murphy stated it was not needed in her neighborhood, nor was
infill housing. She referred to Page 35 — Exhibit 9 — Height Bonuses and Page 64 — H-21 — Density
Bonuses and stated they wished to remain at three stories as the height limit along Lincoln. She indicated
they would consider 4 stories on the east side of Lincoln, again, with a trade-off of a park, playground or
recreation center.
Page 79 — NH -25 — Refine Look of Lincoln, Hetherton, Lindaro and Andersen Drive, and Page 145 — CD -
21 — Lighting — Ms. Murphy stated they would like the City to continue to maintain street trees and
sidewalks along Lincoln Avenue, together with better lighting for pedestrian safety, especially over the
crosswalks. She requested continuation of existing heights and setbacks for homes and businesses,
maintaining a clean look throughout the neighborhood.
Page 62 — H-18gf. , b. — Revisions to the Parking Standards — Ms. Murphy quoted: "Reduce parking
requirements for projects in close proximity to transit stop." She vehemently opposed this indicating it
could be interpreted as their entire neighborhood, as they were so close to the transit hub. She stated
they required off-street or underground parking to be included in all new projects for their neighborhood.
Relaying a message from her Steering Committee, Ms. Murphy stated that four and a half years were
spent on the General Plan process. She noted the MERA project took over a year and could have been
settled in three months. Expressing disappointment at how it was all dealt with, she inquired as to how
many people had walked through her neighborhood or attempted to cross the street, and questioned what
the height bonuses would do to the look of Lincoln Avenue. Considering their quality of life she noted the
noise from the freeway and from Lincoln Avenue, and noted that more lanes on Lincoln meant more noise
for the neighborhood. She indicated there were gangs and graffiti which needed addressing. Ms. Murphy
stated that the waste of money and time on General Plan 2020 could have retained the Community
Policing Officer, and now there was no communication with the police and residents. She stated they
desired quality use of their money, taxes, investments and lives, and a General Plan for their
neighborhood that reflected their wants, not a vision from someone who just drove through.
Mayo Boro acknowledged the presence of Joanne Webster and Dick Katerndahl, members of the original
Steering Committee, and thanked them for their attendance this evening.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
With regard to staff responses, Mr. Brown stated that not having these comments in writing was
ineffective.
Mayor Boro stated that should the public have issues they wished to ensure the Planning staff responded
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 20
to, they should submit them in writing.
Page 125 — NH -147 a. — San Rafael Rock Quarry and McNear Brickworks - Councilmember Cohen
stated he had a little discomfort concerning restoring the specific language proposed. He indicated he did
not have a problem with "Consider the County's approved reclamation plan in future land use
considerations." It made sense to consider it, which did not imply the City had to adopt or approve the
County's reclamation plan, rather take it into account. He indicated he did have a problem with the
second sentence — "The Reclamation Plan indicates a mixture of single-family and townhouse units, a
marina, commercial, recreation or hospitality and neighborhood serving commercial uses" — which he
understood was a fair description of the current Reclamation Plan; however, under court order and by
agreement, that Reclamation Plan was being amended, revised and reviewed. He believed, therefore, to
have language that indicated this is what it included, when perhaps two years hence it could be out of
date, caused him some concern.
Councilmember Cohen suggested that if the attorneys and staff could find some language to get what
needed to be done, done, without being so specific about the current plan, he would be more comfortable
with the language.
Attorney Gary Giacomini, stated the General Plan indicates that when the County adopts a new
Reclamation Plan, the City would consider emulating it. This was just an existential statement of what is.
Going in that direction, Councilmember Cohen suggested adding a further sentence, to which Mr.
Giacomini responded that the two could be blended.
With respect to Mr. Roberts' comments in terms of respecting context and scale, Councilmember Cohen
stated that if he understood it correctly, the language indicated the City would develop a program that
fleshed out the meaning of those words (Page 137 — CD -3 — Neighborhoods).
Mr. Brown clarified that the policy statement was intended to be general; however, going beyond that into
the programs, was very specific. He indicated that CD -3b — Development Standards — addressed re-
examining zoning standards, looking at height limits, lot coverage, floor area ratios, essentially tightening
up those restrictions. Mr. Brown stated the policy language addressed how scale would be protected and
doing it based upon what was immediately surrounding any individual properties. Essentially, this was
developing design standards in each individual property's case.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was asking a question that came before that. The language suggested
in CD -3 stated: "Develop programs to respect the context and scale of existing neighborhoods." Mr.
Brown stated that those programs were a), b) and c). Councilmember Cohen stated that was a work in
progress, and rather than write the meaning into this document, it was being stated that more definition
would be given to it, with plenty of time for discussion. He noted Mr. Roberts and other neighborhood
advocates argued that it should be done in a way that got the results they sought. He commented that it
was not necessary to define the program during adoption of this Plan, rather the project itself would flesh
it out, see what it meant and how to do it. Mr. Brown stated it should be done through zoning, process
and design guidelines.
Regarding Mr. Landecker's comment concerning the leasing arrangement of public property adjacent to
Beach Park, Councilmember Cohen requested further information on this at some point.
Page 26 — LU -9b — Regarding Ms. Cavasian's comment, Councilmember Cohen noted it was not
possible to state "one or both" of four items, and this should be re -written in the document. He expressed
appreciation for the public's help in editing this large document.
Mahon Creek - Indicating he would like to hear a response to Mr. Stockman's request, Councilmember
Cohen stated that if the language about a Management Plan was, in fact, already in the Creek Plan, he
did not have a problem referencing it here also.
Mr. Brown stated that the concerns of Gerstle Park really were not addressed in this policy, rather this
policy addressed the Lindaro stretch of Mahon Creek. He indicated that Mr. Preston (Public Works
Director) was aware of the comments from the Gerstle Park residents and he would be present on
Monday next, when the Infrastructure and Safety elements would be discussed, as this was where the
Gerstle Park concerns should reside.
Councilmember Cohen noted comments concerning the Second and Third Streets corridor and what
happens on the south side of Second Street, (the border of Gerstle Park), and he requested further
discussion on this from staff at the appropriate time.
Regarding rejecting the Planning Commission's suggestion of the addition of a new program that the
City's design review process be expanded to include ground floor additions and renovation of single-
family homes, Councilmember Miller stated he understood the concern of staff. He suggested also being
cognizant of the fact that the reason for this was the possibility of projects popping up and the community
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 21
not being in a position to deal with the issue until it was too late. Should it not be taken to design review,
he believed somehow, the neighborhood should be informed to enable people to attend a review meeting,
etc.
Regarding the Economic Vitality element, Councilmember Miller expressed pleasure that it was in the
General Plan, as it embedded one item of sustainability. No matter what the project, at least some
cognizance would have to be taken of the fact that it had economic impacts. He stated it was not
intended to be a strategic plan, rather it raised awareness of the social, environmental and economic
equity and put the City on the road to sustainability.
Page 193 — C-1 7a., 4 — SMART — Councilmember Cohen stated he was uncomfortable with the language
"Encourage the use of trains that are of a length that they avoid blocking traffic at an intersection." He
believed that paired with the rewrite of 3. — "Support crossings at grade through downtown." He indicated
he did not have a problem with a policy position stating the City would accept at grade crossings
downtown, or even supporting at grade crossings downtown; however, he was only willing to do so if
those trains did not block Second, Third, Fourth or Fifth Streets. Therefore, he believed encourage was
too weak to use here. Should the voters ever decide to fund SMART, he stated the City would not find it
acceptable if those trains blocked Second, Third or Fourth Streets. Councilmember Cohen stated it
needed to be made abundantly clear that public policy support for this was conditioned on SMART
ensuring that happened.
Mayor Boro inquired whether there was a reason for this change because SMART fully understood the
trains had to fit between the streets.
Ms. Jackson confirmed the request was to combine 3. with 4. and replace "should" with shall.
Referring to page 10 of the staff report, Mayor Boro noted the Planning Commission spent many hours
and weeks on this Plan, and Council was not spending nearly as much time. Going through the Plan he
noted a multitude of strikeouts and staff confirmed these were Planning Commission recommended
changes. Mayor Boro stated he assumed that should staff professionally have some problems with these
changes they would alert the City Council. He noted that Policy NH -121 from last evening would be
rewritten; however, other than that, since staff had not raised issues or concerns, they were satisfied with
the changes made by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Brown noted there were only a couple of policies of the Planning Commission that staff had concerns
about, one of which was the proposal for consideration of a design review process for all modifications to
single-family homes. Councilmember Miller had requested it be brought back regarding notification and
involvement of the public, and staff would do this; however, there was concern in terms of establishing a
very large program to accomplish that. The issue of Windward Way site would be discussed on Monday
next, and other than that staff was comfortable with the Planning Commission changes.
For the record, Mayor Boro stated he believed the process the City went through to get to this General
Plan was not only a professionally well done one, but there were over 90 people on formal committees,
and City Manager Gould informed him today there were approximately 130 meetings to date. During the
entire process he stated two major issues were raised - one involved a development issue on a site
specific and the other concerned Circulation. While there were others, these were the two major issues
and he believed this was a credit to all the work done, buy -in, exposure, etc. Mayor Boro stated he also
was frustrated it took so long but believed it was a good product the City could live with, and hopefully,
next time a better way would be found to do it. He believed it extremely important that the Plan reflected
the community by providing opportunities for people from all over the community. He noted that he and
Councilmember Cohen worked in recommending the committee to the City Council; they were very
specific about where people lived, their backgrounds, interests, and groups they represented. They tried
to start with a well-balanced group of people on the Steering Committee and he believed it worked with
people committing numerous hours.
Mayor Boro stated it was remarkable the time and effort those in attendance had taken to be present, not
only this evening, but also at all the other meetings, and the depth gone into. On behalf of all, he
expressed thanks.
2. Public Hearing — DRAFT SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE ORDINANCE (PW) — FILE 115 (2020)
City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian stated that currently, the City had a Traffic Mitigation Fee for
three areas — North San Rafael, Central San Rafael and East San Rafael. The current fees were
approximately $3,300 for Northgate, approximately the same for East San Rafael, and $1,000 for
downtown. To implement the San Rafael General Plan 2020 improvements, staff estimated that
approximately $38 million worth of Mitigation Fees were necessary, with the total cost of improvements
approximately $58 million.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 22
Mr. Mansourian stated staff anticipated some of the funding could potentially come from the
Redevelopment Agency and state funding, and subtracting some of the existing funding already collected
and not committed, the shortfall would be $30 million.
Indicating there were three alternatives for discussion, Mr. Mansourian explained that Alternative 1 was to
combine all mitigation fee areas into one citywide mitigation fee. Dividing the $30 million by the number of
PM peak trips that would be added to the system by General Plan 2020, the mitigation fee would be
$7,022. Mr. Mansourian stated that having one fee would establish a citywide fee equally and would also
enable the City to implement some of the projects citywide. For example, in the downtown area there is a
shortage of funding, while in Northgate funding was available; therefore, with projects such as
signalization on Lincoln Avenue or Third and Union where there is a shortage of funding, this money could
be used. He emphasized that when a traffic project was impacting the City, it was not only for one area,
rather, it affected other areas of the City. Mr. Mansourian stated staff recommended using the highest
number between AM and PM peak trips to charge the mitigation fee. Currently, the charge is only based
on PM peak hour traffic and he noted some of the fixes listed were because of the AM peak hour failure.
Mr. Mansourian reported that the City Attorney had evaluated this alternative and could discuss its
legality.
In Alternative 2, Mr. Mansourian stated the mitigation fees were based on the current 3 areas and by
subtracting the amounts available in these areas presently, Northgate would be short by $11.5 million,
Central San Rafael $11 million and East San Rafael $8 million. That would result in a mitigation fee of
$6,900 in Northgate, $6,500 for Central San Rafael and $7,800 for East San Rafael per peak hour trip,
AM or PM.
Mr. Mansourian reported that Alternative 3 was to combine the AM and PM peak hour trips of every given
project. Basically, the combined numbers of AM and PM peak hour trips were divided by the total of the
General Plan 2020 AM and PM peak hour trips to come up with a fee for the same $30 million. He
indicated this would make the fees appear smaller; however, in the end, would cost the same for the
developers, perhaps more. It enabled the City to collect the money faster and carry out improvements
quicker. In this alternative, the Citywide fee (as per Alternative 1) would be $4,200 —Northgate $4,200,
Central San Rafael $3,900 and $4,800 for East San Rafael.
Noting that currently there were exemptions in the General Plan for some of the fees being collected, Mr.
Mansourian explained that the retail in the downtown area and Northgate had a 60% discount and
childcare facilities did not have any fees.
Mr. Mansourian itemized five items for discounts:
1) No fees for Childcare Facilities;
2) No fees for any downtown building of less than 5,000 square -feet;
3) No fees for affordable housing that met the requirements, i.e., 50% or more of the units to be
affordable and low or moderate -income housing;
4) No fees for City facilities, such as the Corporation Yard, City Hall or Library; and
5) Certain Redevelopment Agency projects would have a 40% discount in downtown.
Mr. Mansourian stated these fees were summarized on page 4 of the staff report. In order to collect more
fees faster to carry out the improvements, staff recommended Alternative 3 with the exemptions and
discounts.
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened
Roger Roberts stated he spent many years in the areas of banking and project finance and indicated that
projections were only as good as the assumptions behind them. He stated there was nothing in the staff
report to tell him what the assumptions were that would generate the $38.6 million anticipated. In
addition, he indicated it was not clear to him whether or not it really would meet inflated dollar costs
because the Traffic Engineering Project Summary stated the projected total cost was $97.7 million, which
he assumed was the inflated number. Elsewhere in this evening's material, he stated he read a figure of
$86 million; therefore, he was unsure of the real target. Mr. Roberts stated that if the goal was to raise
only $58 million in 2004 dollars, that was all well and good, however, it was known that these projects
would be built in the future and the City really needed to be looking for inflated dollars to cover future
costs as these projects were programmed to be built over a period of years.
Mr. Roberts questioned whether these fees were reviewed annually or some periodic basis to allow them
to be adjusted in order to meet targeted needs. Was this really a top down or bottom up analysis of how
the funds would actually be collected and if the total projected improvement costs were really $97.75
million, he stated this was all the more reason why they needed to be adjusted periodically to meet the
City's needs.
Elissa Giambastiani, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated that in reviewing the staff report and list
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 23
of proposed traffic improvements, they understood why staff was proposing this huge increase in Traffic
Mitigation Fees. However, they were very concerned that this increase would have the result of stopping
any new housing or commercial developments proposed for the City. They believed the City would be
killing the golden goose if the proposed fee increases were adopted. She stated that the General Plan
already reduced the amount of future commercial development and if the fees are adopted, there would
be none.
Ms. Giambastiani stated it was very unlikely that San Rafael would have any new housing developments
with 50% or more of the units restricted to low or moderate -income households; therefore, the 50%
discount was meaningless. However, the increase meant that even a small project of 6 units would
trigger a fee up to $42,000 based on the $7,000 per trip proposal. Multiplied by 99 for the Loch Lomond
development and the fee goes up to $693,000.
Indicating that the discount for downtown cultural and entertainment projects would not be sufficient to
encourage the type of development required downtown, Ms. Giambastiani explained that Century
Theatres was estimating about 439 new trips on Friday evenings. At 400 trips with a 40% discount, the
Traffic Mitigation Fee would be $1.7 million, and this did not include the in -lieu housing fee they would
have to pay. She reported having talked to Century today and they were very concerned about the
viability of their project with this type of Traffic Mitigation Fee.
Should Circuit City expand in its new location with an increase of 200 trips, for example, Ms. Giambastiani
stated that the Traffic Mitigation Fee would be $1.4 million. Regarding Marin Square, she stated this was
a redevelopment the City really wanted. The property had over 100,000 square -feet and the
redevelopment would certainly be more than 5,000 square -feet, and she inquired how much the new
owner would have to pay for traffic mitigation. She questioned how much the Marin Community Clinic
would have to pay should they wish to open a clinic in the Canal.
Ms. Giambastiani stated she understood other communities had traffic mitigation fees but Marin's land
cost plus the cost of the planning process, which was not minimal, put the City near the top in the eyes of
developers.
Ms. Giambastiani listed the following suggestions
1) The list of traffic improvements should be reviewed and all improvements that were unlikely to be
developed within ten years should be removed from the list of Planned Circulation Improvements
to bring the cost down. Examples: Kerner Boulevard to Andersen Drive undercrossing - $8
million; pedestrian bridge to connect the Canal with Andersen Drive - $4 million. She noted there
were a number of pedestrian projects included that really did not have anything to do with the
circulation;
2) Since the City desperately needed sales tax revenue, she suggested it include a substantial retail
discount;
3) It would be difficult enough to achieve the ABAG numbers without fee increases; therefore, they
believed the 50% discount should be extended to all housing developments that included an
affordable housing component; and
4) They believed the City should hold an informal discussion with the developers to ascertain the
types of fee increases that would be economically viable. Developers understand this also;
however, there was a break-even point where it just was not economically viable. The Chamber of
Commerce would be happy to bring together such a group of business people to meet with the
City.
Ms. Giambastiani stated they felt strongly that more discussion needed to occur prior to making a
decision, particularly with prospective developers, before adopting an increase as extreme as that
proposed in this report.
Joanne Webster, Director, Business Improvement District, concurring with Ms. Giambastiani stated she
also wished to point out that downtown merchants were seriously concerned that Century Theatres might
walk on the deal if they find they have to pay $1.7 million. She requested Council to direct staff to
ascertain what other cities were doing, as this was missing in the staff report. There was no comparison
as with the in -lieu housing fees as to what other cities were doing.
Eric Anderson, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, reiterated his earlier point concerning using Traffic
Mitigation Fees to pay for bicycle and pedestrian projects and stated that one of the great things about
long range planning was the chance to innovate. He was aware the conditions for using mitigation funds
for these types of projects were based on being able to prove they improve traffic conditions relative to the
impact in a different area and indicated there were methodologies that allowed this to be quantified for
biking and walking. He explained there was a latent demand methodology that allowed looking at a
bicycle or pedestrian project and determine it would generate x number of trips, of walking and of biking.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 24
Mr. Anderson believed it was worth a second look and would like to see staff take a closer look at the idea
of using these funds for bicycle and walking projects.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Mr. Mansourian explained that the improvements were listed in two sections: The top 24 needed for the
Level of Service and operations totaled $57 million. He noted the Mitigation Fee was calculated based on
this amount. The $97 million total mentioned was comprised of the $57 million plus the other circulation
enhancement projects.
Mayor Boro inquired whether these were inflated dollars or today's dollars.
Mr. Mansourian referred to the staff report, Background section, where it stated that these were based on
2004 dollars and these numbers would be adjusted annually. He indicated that the cost estimate was
based on today's dollars.
On the Bicycle and Pedestrian question, Mr. Mansourian stated there were no methodologies to calculate
the number of trips per bicycle, per project; however, he would investigate further.
Realizing the Mitigation Fees were very expensive, Mr. Mansourian stated that staff looked at other cities'
websites and he reported that the City of San Diego for a single-family home, the charge is $21,492 with
retail being charged some huge number per 1,000 square -feet. He noted that the County of Marin
charges a little over $5,000 and they are adjusting it currently. Mr. Mansourian indicated that different
cities do this in different ways, i.e., some per trip, some per use, per square -footage; however, the end
result is the number of trips and dollars spent to mitigate. He did not believe San Rafael's numbers were
very different from other cities, albeit they would be higher than they are currently.
Responding to comments from Ms. Giambastiani, Mr. Brown stated this related to either exempting
certain types of projects or eliminating from the list projects that were not likely to be funded. He indicated
there were both legal and practical problems with doing this in that if all of the improvements the EIR
indicated were necessary were not shown, there would be a CEQA problem and the City Council would
have to adopt additional overriding considerations. From a public perspective there was a desire to see
improvements made so that traffic congestion did not continually get worse and worse. Mr. Brown stated
the alternative was reducing fees or exempting certain types of development applications from paying
fees; however, the same situation would prevail in that the amount of money the EIR indicated as
necessary would not be collected.
Mr. Brown stated this was what staff had struggled with. They recognized in this development climate it
was difficult to continue to raise fees; however, there was a practical situation over the next sixteen years
where a certain amount of development was assumed. The City was almost at breaking point in terms of
traffic and a lot of improvements were needed, and to not accomplish those, he believed put the City in
greater jeopardy in the long run.
As no Council action would be taken this evening, Mayor Boro stated this would be returned at a date to
be determined. The Chamber of Commerce and all those interested would be kept apprised and should
there be information of interest to Mr. Mansourian, he suggested sharing it with him.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2005
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/28/04 Page 24