Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 2004-10-05SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 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 — SAN RAFAEL DESIGN GUIDELINES. 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. Principal Planner Linda Jackson stated this was the last of four public hearings on the General Plan and various implementing programs. She indicated these were the two final implementing programs staff had worked on for Council to adopt in conjunction with the Draft General Plan. Ms. Jackson noted a number of community design element programs addressing Design Guidelines for various areas and various types of development in the City. The staff report was a compilation of the current guidelines — Downtown Design Guidelines adopted in 1996; Montecito/Happy Valley Design Guidelines adopted in 1996. These are residential Design Guidelines only applying within the Montecito/Happy Valley neighborhood; and The unadopted Design Guidelines prepared in the early 1990s for the Francisco Boulevard area, both east and west. Ms. Jackson stated these were never adopted; however, staff did refer to them to provide some direction on projects in that area. Ms. Jackson indicated that these Guidelines had been compiled into one document, primarily for the benefit of current planners and applicants; therefore, there was now one document in one place with the City's design direction. Noting the Montecito Guidelines had worked out fairly well for residential development, she stated staff wanted to give them a citywide profile so they could be used and applied in other parts of the City as well. Emphasizing that these were interim Guidelines, Ms. Jackson stated staff worked with Anne Laird - Blanton from the Design Review Board, who had expressed a desire for better guidelines. Ms. Jackson acknowledged that these were not intended to be the final comprehensive set of guidelines for San Rafael. Ms. Jackson stated staff recommended these Guidelines and that they serve until preparation and adoption of a more complete and embracing set of Design Guidelines. She indicated that this evening's purpose was to hold a public hearing on the Draft Guidelines and to provide staff direction on any changes Council might have. Hugo Landecker, Gerstle Park, addressing the Second and Third Streets corridor and environs on Page 15 of the staff report, stated he had a concern that new structures on the south side of Second Street would potentially impact the existing residential areas to the south. With the inclusion of density bonuses, height bonuses, etc., he believed it would make the impact on the existing residential more than significant. Regarding residential areas, other than Second and Third Streets, Mr. Landecker noted people purchase a small house, rapidly making it much bigger, and some were getting out of control. He indicated he would like to see in the future a direction towards a floor area ratio program for residential buildings. Regarding Historic and Architecturally Significant Buildings, page 16 of the staff report, Mr. Landecker referred to the second bullet point: "New buildings, additions or major remodels in the vicinity of a building in the survey should respect the pattern, scale and design of the older building, and not create visual distractions." He wholeheartedly supported this and believed it to be a major revolution in historic preservation. He noted a lot of burdens were placed on the owners of these properties while not burdening adjacent properties, and believed this to be a step in the right direction. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 2 Tymber Cavasian, Gerstle Park, stated that throughout the Elements residents had pointed out the areas of deepest concern and she was aware Council was considering these. Ms. Cavasian encouraged clarification that the Residential Design Guidelines applied to all types of issues that affected the exterior elevation, thereby, not creating any loopholes, since sometimes "lift and fill" was not deemed an addition, even though it appeared as though it was. She encouraged broader language to include new construction, addition, lift and fill, renovation, anything that applied to changes in the exterior elevation. Regarding scale or building design, Ms. Cavasian concurred that perhaps FAR (floor area ratio) was the way to go towards neighborhood residential design. Ms. Cavasian noted a lot of people were concerned about the Second and Third (Streets) corridor and suggested perhaps it needed to be expanded, treating the south side separately from the north side with a little differentiation. Ms. Cavasian supported the Historic Preservation section Patrick Murphy, Chair, Federation San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated the basic concept the Federation would like to reiterate was that this was an interim set of guidelines, that was being developed. They wholeheartedly supported working with both the professional organizations and individuals listed in the staff report, i.e., Redevelopment Agency, Planning Department, Planning Commission, American Institute of Architects and other individuals in the community with professional expertise and aesthetic concerns regarding design. He stated they should be a vital part of the committee that develops these guidelines as they affected everyone. Mr. Murphy reported that during the Neighborhood and Homes Task Group meetings in the development of some of the General Plan, the biggest issue was design. He noted design was very important in the community, not only downtown, rather in the neighborhoods, and maintaining the character of the neighborhoods was paramount to those living in them. They believed that some of the comments brought forward should be reiterated this evening. Going forward in the process, Mr. Murphy noted height bonuses were a point of contention. Having discussed polarization at a recent meeting, he stated this was not needed, rather a common sense approach to design within the community. With hillsides all around the community, he stated residents living on these hillsides looked downtown and those downtown looked up. Noting the opening page of the staff report stated "We are living well in San Rafael" he stated what should not happen is to look back in 2020 and state "In San Rafael we are living in a well." Mr. Murphy stated the hillsides provided an integral part of the quality of life in the community. Subsequent to the Downtown Vision providing the Macy's renovation, he noted there were a lot of comments, and this did not need to be experienced again. He stated he had learned from some Councilmembers, together with others in town, that Albert Lofts was a ball that was fumbled and this also did not need to be repeated. Mr. Murphy discussed the following Staff Report — Page 6 — Driveways and Parking Areas — "Where possible, ground level parking areas should be recessed or placed to the rear of buildings." He stated that underground parking should not be discounted in any project. Had the San Rafael Corporate Center been cut and excavated, some of the hazardous material could have been removed, underground parking provided, resulting in a great possibility for housing near the Transit Center. Professionally speaking, he was unsure whether or not this was possible; however, it should have been explored. Staff Report — Page 6 — Driveways and Parking Areas — "Design for adequate vehicle maneuverability in parking areas. Vehicles should not back out from a parking space onto the street." He stated that clear visibility of oncoming traffic should be maintained, and he noted that most of the design criteria for new projects required that. Staff Report — Page 7 — Front Landscaping and Fences — "Fences in the front and street side yards should include detailing in character with the house." Noting certain limitations on the heights of fences - even those over 3 -feet required a permit — he stated this needed more enforcement as along Lincoln Avenue there were 6 -foot fences across the front of many apartment buildings, which could hide inappropriate activity taking place. Staff Report — Page 7 — Front Landscaping and Fences - "Landscaped areas adjacent to sidewalks are encouraged." Indicating a problem with maintenance, he reported that a lot of people plant flowers and trees which they did not maintain, and this was not the City's responsibility. Staff Report — Page 7 — Lighting — "Shield light sources...." Since there were hillsides in this community, he stated lights visible from across valleys should be considered. He indicated having experienced this SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 3 at the top of Dominican near Gold Grade where lights covered by trees, had been mistaken for and reported to the Police Department as vehicles moving up on Puerto Suello Hill. He stated that some of these lights needed to be toned down, as well as shielded locally. Staff Report — Page 7 — Additions to Homes — He was aware of guidelines with respect to privacy; however, believed there also should be guidelines with respect to shading of an adjacent property, noting privacy was something everyone demanded. Staff Report — Page 8 — Parking — Mr. Murphy stated that any underground parking was appropriate where it could be used, noting egress and ingress should not adversely affect traffic flow. Should a development be carried out on Lincoln or Mission Avenues, he noted traffic flow would have to be addressed. He believed that all of the issues discussed over the past several years, LOS, Circulation, Density, would have a cumulative effect on one or another of the various Elements discussed, such as traffic. Mr. Murphy noted Landscaping Maintenance was discussed at the bottom of Page 8 Staff Report — Page 9 — Landscaping — "Retain and maintain existing public street trees and add additional street trees where practical." He wished to ensure in the Design Guidelines that those trees were appropriate and cleared by the Department of Public Works, to avoid sidewalk uplifting by people planting inappropriate trees in those areas. Staff Report — Page 9 — Pedestrian Circulation — "Include a well-defined pedestrian walkway between the street and building entries." In light of the sandwich board signs, he stated they recently documented that some of the tables and chairs on Fourth Street were an intrusion onto the pedestrian walkway. He was aware Code Enforcement had been diligently working on this; however, some instances were recorded and these would be discussed with Mr. Gould on Thursday. Indicating that encroachment of the sidewalk was a further issue that prohibited pedestrian movement on some streets, Mr. Murphy stated the main point he wished to reiterate was that in the neighborhoods with infill housing, a neighborhood association should have on request the right for design review for single- family, one-story buildings. Stating this had been a point of contention for a number of years, he noted FARs were brought up by the previous two speakers and the issue had been pounded on by Harry Winters for some years. He anticipated this would be discussed subsequent to the General Plan when some of the Design Guidelines would be implemented. Mr. Murphy stated they would like to have a balance of what was recommended by staff with respect to commercial development and infill development, and a set of guidelines contractors could use without wasting time or money. The community and staff could be satisfied and projects could move forward. He reiterated they were not against a lot of projects, noting creative response to some of the needs of the neighborhoods as well as the City had to be maintained to achieve the goal of maintaining the quality of life in San Rafael. Staff report — Page 12 — Design Guidelines for Downtown and Fourth Street in the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood - and Staff report — Page 13 — Active Pedestrian Commercial Streets — "Fourth Street and portions of cross streets close to Fourth are active, pedestrian friendly." Mr. Murphy stated this was fine as long as one did not wish to cross the street. He stated thought should be given to pedestrian safety on Second and Third Streets and out near Montecito because these were troubled areas with respect to people crossing the street. Mr. Murphy stated there were a lot of design issues in Montecito with respect to cars. He indicated it was a pedestrian area as long as one parked their cars and they would like to ensure that crossing Hetherton and Irwin was safe enough for people to walk from downtown to Montecito. He commented that he had watched on a daily basis people almost getting hit at the Intersection at Irwin and Second, either right- hand turn lanes or people turning left off Second onto Irwin. Recognizing the Police Department was somewhat scarce he stated crosswalks were a major hazard for pedestrians. Regarding design solutions, Mr. Murphy stated that the building at Fourth and Lincoln (Jennifer Convertibles store location) came to mind. Regarding development and large buildings, he noted a monotonous wall was undesirable, yet this was what could be seen when walking on Third Street next to the new parking garage, which was not very pedestrian friendly. He assumed the top would be stepped back as discussed in the design portion of the project. Mr. Murphy noted that the Fourth and Lincoln building was stepped back; it was a useful and attractive building and opened the space, as residents would like to see in various corner developments throughout the City. Mr. Murphy stated that building designs within the valley in commercial areas should not block hillside views. The quality in San Rafael should not be one that looked like San Jose or Walnut Creek, and this was what people feared when building heights were mentioned. i.e., four and five stories, bonus six, etc. He believed those walking or driving around San Rafael did not wish to experience the canyons they SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 4 were afraid of. Mr. Murphy reiterated that they wanted to be an active part of the design formula. They had a number of issues — FARs, design in the neighborhoods and design downtown, and they would like to assist in resolving those to everyone's satisfaction. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing Referring to page 6 — Windows — Councilmember Heller inquired as to the meaning of fenestration. Mr. Brown explained it was the window and its detailing, i.e., dividers, recesses, pattern, etc. Responding to a comment from Mr. Murphy, Councilmember Cohen stated that at the San Rafael Corporate Center the law was very clear in that there were very defined areas of the site where there could be no excavation and the buildings were sited because of that. The law changed over the course of potential development of that project to preclude taking the contaminated soil offsite and making it some other community's problem; therefore, there was no potential to excavate and have underground parking on that site, no matter what the development might have been. With respect to the FAR and monster homes issues, Mayor Boro stated it appeared to him this should go through the process, ensuring a lot of attention was given rather than inserting something at this point. It was a subject that had been discussed and as the guidelines were finalized would need to be addressed Mr. Brown stated that one of the programs in the General Plan spoke to revisiting the single-family zoning regulations and staff heard loud and clear that issues concerning FARs were something to be investigated. Mayor Boro noted several comments concerning particular attention to the south side of Second Street and Mr. Brown stated this would be responded to. Regarding the outcry with regard to Eichler homes and specifically, one next to the pool, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether or not this home would fit within the guidelines. Mr. Brown stated his guess was that it would have difficulty complying with the Design Guidelines. Referring to page 5 of the staff report — Building Design — he quoted: "Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to maintaining a consistent streetscape." He explained that in that case there clearly was a single -story pattern for blocks around that home. Mr. Brown believed there was further language concerning scale, roof pitches, etc. Stating he was glad to hear that, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether he could rest with some degree of comfort that that design would not pass muster with the guidelines. Mr. Brown explained that the guidelines right now were only applicable to Montecito. Staff believed they were generic enough about residential throughout the City which was the reason for the suggestion that they be applied citywide. He indicated that they were not now applicable in Terra Linda. Councilmember Heller noted that a lot of the neighborhoods were built single -story; however, now with second stories throughout the entire City, she inquired as to how this could be prevented from happening. To permit second stories, she believed they should be allowed everywhere; choosing not to allow second -stories was something different. Mr. Brown stated that these guidelines were not attempting to prohibit things such as this, rather the point was that should there be an overwhelming, consistent character of design, it should be adhered to, to the extent possible. He indicated this was not applicable in neighborhoods with a diversity of heights as it had already been established that diversity was the character of that neighborhood. Mr. Brown noted that other design tricks could be used where a second story could be acceptable should it be set back significantly from the street or it was not visible. He indicated that the Terra Linda case raised by Councilmember Phillips was a bad example because that addition was very visible both from the street and the public pool right behind, and a good effort was not made to minimize the impact. He noted that a second -story could also be added by installing dormer windows in a roof so it truly looked like a one-story structure with some attic space. He reiterated that there were design tricks where an attempt could be made to maintain a consistent character; however, in areas such as Terra Linda where one could go for blocks without seeing a second story, it was difficult under guidelines such as these to suggest that a second story was a good solution. Indicating she still was not convinced, Councilmember Heller stated she wanted the law to state one thing or another. Mr. Brown explained that guidelines were not law, were intended to be somewhat flexible and basically stated these were strong suggestions; however, should a designer have a unique situation or could SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 5 convince the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council of a better solution that although not necessarily meeting the letter of the guidelines, met the intent, this was acceptable, and this was the advantage of the guidelines not being law. Mayor Boro noted that in the case of Terra Linda a special district was passed. 2. Public Hearing — THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS (PSP), APN: CITYWIDE AND SAN RAFAEL PLANNING AREA; CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, APPLICANT, FILE NO.: GPA 03-002 (CD) — FILE 115 (PSP) x 115 (2020) Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Principal Planner Linda Jackson reported that the City currently has a program called PPP, Priority Projects Procedure, used to evaluate the community benefits and traffic impacts of development applications. She indicated the Steering Committee recommended that the PPP program be continued in General Plan 2020 with some modifications. Ms. Jackson reviewed three of the issues the Steering Committee and Planning Commission considered, as follows: 1) What should be the focus of the program? — She explained the current program was an implementing program in the Circulation element. It applied to development in north and east San Rafael only, and was concerned about PM and not AM trips. • The revised PPP had been renamed the Project Selection Process program (PSP); • PSP was relocated from the Circulation element to the Land Use element because the Steering Committee believed the program addressed more than just Circulation issues, but also other more general concerns of the City; • The PSP program was proposed to apply to projects citywide, not just north and east San Rafael, but also Central San Rafael and downtown; and • The PSP program was proposed to apply to both AM and PM trips, consistent with the revised LOS (Levels of Service) policies applying to both peak periods. 2) What constitutes a benefit? — Ms. Jackson explained that Pages 15 and 17 of the staff report contained lists of benefits, which were vastly expanded from the current list. She noted one of the concerns over the years was what the City was looking for in PPP benefits, and staff had worked with the Steering Committee and a sub -committee of the Steering Committee to identify some of the facilities desired at this point in time, based on General Plan policies and programs. Ms. Jackson noted on Page 16 a specific list of Needed Community facilities and at the bottom of the page, Needed Community Uses, which was quite explicit about some of the benefits. 3) What are the evaluation criteria? — Ms. Jackson stated these were defined for each benefit. They are more quantified than those used today with more gradations than the current procedure. Referring Council to page 15 of the staff report concerning Housing, she stated staff discussed quite a bit the issue of how to encourage affordable housing through the PSP program. Over 90 additional affordable units had been achieved through PPP in the past and the City did not wish to have a program that would result in residential projects not being competitive in the PSP comparisons. Ms. Jackson stated staff recommended a change in the gradations in the rating system. To receive the Excellent rating, she noted originally it was necessary to have 20% or more additional affordable units, and this is recommended to be lowered to 11 % or more. Referring to 1) — Page 15, she quoted: "For ownership units, PSP units shall be affordable to moderate -income households. For rental units, PSP units shall be affordable to low-income households." Ms. Jackson stated current policy is that affordable units are split 50/50 ownership for moderate and low-income and rental for low and very low, and this proposed program was to apply at the higher level of that income range for PSP units only. Noting there were exceptions, Ms. Jackson stated these included childcare facilities and projects that do not generate ten or more trips, and 100% affordable housing projects. Councilmember Miller requested further explanation on the difference between the PPP and PSP programs and inquired whether the essential difference was that PPP was for traffic trips and PSP for square -footage. Ms. Jackson explained the trigger was the number of trips. Under PPP the trigger was critical moves and under PSP it was additional trips. Mr. Brown stated they both were growth management programs. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 6 He believed PPP had been sold as a traffic allocation, which was probably misleading. He explained that presently, PPP operates by looking at impacts at three specific locations: Bellam Intersections, Freitas Interchange and the Lucas/Smith Ranch Interchange, as it was realized in 1988 those were the ones the City had problems with. In the case of Bellam, Mr. Brown stated it was a very clear impediment and metering point for traffic, and Mr. Mansourian would determine whether there were any available trips to even run the program. He explained that in North San Rafael it was not that finely broken down because of dealing with two interchanges with a lot of different locations feeding into them; therefore, it was less definitive. Going to a Citywide program, Mr. Brown stated it would not be confined to three locations. It would be more complicated from Mr. Mansourian's perspective as he was really looking at the effect on all intersections and how the City's Level of Service criteria were affected by this cumulative development at all intersections. Mr. Brown reiterated it was a growth management program looking at whether vehicular trips from this development could be accommodated and secondarily, what the community benefits were of the development being examined. He reiterated that it was a growth management program, looking at whether the vehicular trips from a project could be accommodated and what the community benefits of the proposed development were. Councilmember Miller suggested it was not a traffic allocation program, rather going back into the adage of square -footage, and from the square -footage, the trips needed were determined. He inquired how an intensified use would be dealt with. Mr. Brown explained that PSP was only so fine a mesh in terms of what it caught through it, and part of it was simply practicality. He indicated that staff was looking to regulate new or expansion of square - footage. Staff was not proposing to regulate changes of use that could indeed create intensification, for example, a downtown retail store going to a restaurant. This could increase traffic, or not, depending upon the success of the restaurant; however, staff believed it impractical to try to catch everything, as in some cases these did not require planning approvals, just a building permit. He reiterated that to try to have a process to catch everything involving an intensification staff considered to be over the top in terms of ability to regulate. Noting some things could not be anticipated, Mr. Brown gave an example of a Whole Foods taking the place of another grocery store could have an entirely different trip generation; however, staff could not forecast this until what the new store did was determined. He noted this had been the subject of quite a debate. Indicating this was somewhat of a belts and suspenders approach, Mr. Brown stated PSP was a means of controlling growth; however, even those items not caught in PSP still had to be examined in terms of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). Through the planning entitlements, should there be a use change that was discretionary, even if it did not trigger PSP, he stated there still would be an environmental assessment and traffic study that Mr. Mansourian would review, and should there be significant impacts, they would have to be dealt with in a different forum, not necessarily through PSP. Councilmember Miller noted that should intensification really blast traffic, traffic was really not being controlled. Agreeing, Mr. Brown stated that on the other hand, some use changes would intensify traffic, while others would lower traffic. Councilmember Miller noted that the catch would be when the impact of traffic was examined, given the number of trips. Mr. Mansourian stated that generally it was possible to calculate the different number of trips between the old and new use, and the impact of the new use is evaluated. Councilmember Miller confirmed with Mr. Mansourian that the control mechanism lay with the traffic. Mr. Mansourian explained that staff would evaluate the Level of Service at the intersections impacted by the proposed projects. Councilmember Miller stated that the proposed resolution was very helpful to him. He quoted: "...following determination by the Community Development Director, in consultation with the City Traffic Engineer, that traffic capacity is available.." and noted that someone wishing to develop could not go forward should the analysis indicate that the traffic capacity was not available. Mr. Brown stated this was not done on an individual project -by -project basis. He explained this was referring to the fact that it was staff's intention to run PSP at least once a year, and there was no point in initiating that process if no traffic capacity was available. Because it had now been turned into a citywide process, he believed it unlikely there would be no traffic capacity anywhere in town. Mr. Brown stated that while there might not be traffic capacity in certain areas such as East San Rafael (people could certainly be discouraged from applying, as running the traffic model would not result in positive responses for those projects), PSP would be run should there be traffic capacity somewhere in town that SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 7 could be applied for. Councilmember Miller inquired whether sub -systems or total systems of circulation were being evaluated in determining traffic capacity. Mr. Mansourian explained that when running the model the entire system is evaluated. He noted that perhaps areas such as, Bellam and Kerner could reach capacity, while other areas in East San Rafael, Francisco Boulevard West, Downtown or North San Rafael could have some capacity, and the impact of the project would show in these areas also. He reported that in the annual or bi-annual update, certain hot spot areas could emerge, i.e., those at or near capacity, and Community Development would be informed that these areas might not be suitable for more intensification of new projects, while other areas such as North San Rafael would. Councilmember Miller confirmed that sub -segments are taken into consideration. Mayor Boro recalled an earlier remark that with an existing use, if a new use came in which at least in square -footage was less than the existing use, it would not go through the process. Mr. Brown concurred. Mayor Boro stated that on the other hand the use could be successful enough that it could potentially intensify traffic. Concurring, Mr. Brown stated that was the risk; however, the alternative was creating discretionary Use Permit processes for almost any type of use change staff believed was intensification, which was significantly more than what was currently done and which would turn the zoning ordinance and staff workload upside down. Councilmember Cohen noted that projects not generating ten or more vehicle trips in the AM or PM peak hours above the historical baseline were exempt, except that the exempt opportunity was valid only once. In the case of a small addition project that added a trip or two and they wished to add a further trip or two, he noted that under this language, that second time, they would to have to wait and go through PSP. While he understood it was not desirable to have someone add nine trips and then another nine to avoid the process altogether, he was unaware whether it was possible to do a change that triggered an impact of one or two trips; however, he believed that perhaps this was dialed in a little too tightly and he suggested that staff take a look at this. He also requested staff to check on what triggered an impact of one or two trips, and should those types of changes not really happen, he would like to be informed of this also. Mr. Mansourian stated that staff carried out a field test some years back and ascertained that anything less than ten trips was not impacting intersections, even if they were mostly left turns. He noted it was overwhelming for small projects to conduct a traffic study where the impact was .1 seconds. Councilmember Cohen suggested taking a look at whether two small changes could be done with significantly less than ten trips. Referring to page 3 of the staff report "....refinements by the Planning Commission as noted below" Councilmember Cohen directed attention to the second to last bullet which discussed the quantitative versus qualitative ratings and quoted: "Without a scoring system, the Planning Commission and City Council can more easily factor in non -quantifiable benefits that a project may offer." He noted discussion further on with regard to attached Planning Commission minutes (Special) dated 3/30/04, bottom of page 11 and quoted: "Chair Alden noted that the Commission and Council are not necessarily required to select a project that has the highest score", to which Ms. Jackson responded in the affirmative. However, Councilmember Cohen stated that in reading the staff report and recommended outline of the review process, and the resolution of the City Council with attachment laying out the Project Selection Process, he did not see anything affording that flexibility. He noted language stating: "all applications shall be evaluated using the specific criteria established below." Councilmember Cohen stated it raised the following hypothetical situation and used the following example: A high tax generating use just making it into the Excellent category and ready to go with all planning approvals; and An affordable housing project that gets to 30% affordable is presented, which left it Preferred and only one unit short of Excellent. They did not have all their planning approvals, although they could clearly demonstrate they would be able to get through the planning process. In terms of Circulation impacts and project readiness, they did not have all this in place, and were therefore, either Acceptable or Preferred, depending on their position in the process, while the commercial project was ready to go and Excellent across the board. Councilmember Cohen inquired where in the staff report it indicated that good public policy stated the housing units were needed and the commercial project would be held off in favor of giving the housing project a chance to reach its 30% affordable units. He stated the language appeared to indicate going SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 8 with the Excellent, even though the preference was for the Preferred Ms. Jackson reported that the Planning Commission discussed this in July, 2004 and decided to delete the numbers of the previous quantitative rating system. Referring to the Staff Report, Page 15 — Exhibit A — she stated the first paragraph contained the sentence: "In addition to the categories listed below, the evaluation includes a qualitative assessment of all benefits or disadvantages not addressed by the criteria." The Planning Commission, in discussing the entire process of the qualitative assessment of the different rankings of each one, noted the option still remained with the Planning Commission and City Council to weigh the different projects and select those offering the most benefit. Ms. Jackson stated that the Planning Commission, in looking at the rating system, noted that a project presenting with a score of 12, as against others with 6 or 7, would think it should get approval. She indicated the Planning Commission did not want this expectation because there was a qualitative nature to looking at the different benefits and impacts and to be able to adjust them. Councilmember Cohen noted that the referenced sentence was struck through; therefore, the qualitative assessment was no longer there. While he understood the discussion about having a rating system that was Excellent versus Preferred versus Acceptable, as opposed to 10, 9, 8, etc., he still believed an applicant could argue that as his project was rated Excellent, while another was rated Preferred, his should be chosen. He indicated that the intent should be specified as he would prefer the Planning Commission and City Council to have that discretion, particularly, among competing projects of a different nature. With two high tax generating uses Councilmember Cohen believed the Excellent versus the Preferred would probably be favored; however, with a housing project competing with a commercial project, the City could want the ability to evaluate them and consider that the overall public policy indicated the housing should be pursued. Even though the funding generated by the high tax generating use could be Preferred, opportunities for housing should be assessed as they arose, and he did not see anything in the report that afforded the discretion to make those types of judgment calls. Ms. Jackson stated the sentence could be reinstated Noting another premise on an earlier description by Councilmember Cohen where he indicated the housing could be the higher, better use, although it was not quite ready, Mayor Boro stated it appeared to him that when the process is initiated, should the project not be ready it did not participate, no matter how good the use. Councilmember Cohen stated that assuming this was not a fundamental policy change from the way the PPP was administered, the City indicated all along that an application could be made without having all planning approvals complete. In inferring "not quite ready" he explained there could be a project that had gone through the application process, had planning approvals complete but did not have their traffic allocation, while another was moving through the process, albeit not yet having complete approval, but wished to be in the evaluation process, and when the Community Development Director declared it was time to do PSP, that project had to apply for its entitlement review, regardless of where they were for their entitlement review. Councilmember Cohen noted thus there could be one project just finished its entitlement review and another still going through the process. Mayor Boro noted from the paragraph on Extensions that PSP provided for a two-year time period of approval which was more realistic for an applicant to receive final approvals and begin construction than the current one year. It appeared to him, therefore, they would have to get some "nod" before starting the clock, as he believed the procedure was that an application was filed, the case prepared and then the PSP process would begin. Mr. Brown explained that most applicants chose to reduce their risk by putting forth their concept and trying to get through the first hurdle of what formerly was PPP, now PSP, before going to the expense of developing a detailed design, etc. Staff suggested this was fine and should they receive the PSP allocation, they would have two years to obtain their entitlements, rather than one year which is not very realistic. Mayor Boro inquired whether they were competing with each other through the entire period of time Mr. Brown stated they typically wished to apply for PSP up front to have that allocation in hand and could move forward with their other entitlements, reducing the uncertainly and risk. Mayor Boro confirmed with Mr. Brown that they would be given the PSP entitlement without all the issues resolved. Mr. Brown stated it was typical to see a concept of units, square -footage and use and not typically see detailed site plans and elevations. Mayor Boro returned to the example used by Councilmember Cohen where there could be two competing projects. He confirmed with Mr. Brown that should one be "ready to go" and applied for the PSP, and the other had a good idea; albeit a long way to go, no matter how good the idea, the former had a "leg up." Mr. Brown stated this was how the rating was structured. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 9 Councilmember Cohen stated this was his point — the former had a "leg up" but the question was whether they were guaranteed because they had been through the entitlement process, or did the City Council have the discretion to state that under Project Readiness, while the first was Excellent and the latter Adequate, within the two-year time frame Council believed the latter would get through the entitlement process, and the City would have a project that better met its needs. Noting the entitlement process and the green light from PSP, Mayor Boro questioned whether a project having a green light from PSP had a lock at that point. Councilmember Cohen reiterated that with two projects competing to get the "green light" from PSP, according to the rating system the one already having the entitlement under Project Readiness would get rated "Excellent." Should someone "roll the dice" and go through the entitlement process not having the traffic allocation from PSP, be ready to go and state "give us our traffic allocation and we will build tomorrow", Councilmember Cohen noted the City could be locked into approving such a project over one that could be more publicly desirable with more community benefit that had yet to go through the entitlement process. Councilmember Cohen did not favor being locked into the rating system and to have to go with the project that got the entitlements first. Mayor Boro stated he was having a problem, not with the entitlements, rather getting to the "green light." Councilmember Cohen referred to page 18 of the staff report and the categories on which the projects are rated: Affordable Housing, High Tax Generating, Needed Community Facility, Needed Community Use, all of which compete with one another. In addition, there were two other rating categories: Circulation Impacts and Project Readiness, and he explained that should there be two projects within these other types of use categories that competed with each other, with one on Project Readiness ready to go, as written, he believed the applicant could make an argument that with three Excellents as opposed to two for the other project, they should be chosen. He did not see discretion written in for the City Council to give the lesser -rated project a chance to make their project happen. Mayor Boro stated there should be some discretion and did not believe there should be a numeric score to select the winner. Councilmember Cohen stated his concern was that even though the numeric score had been changed to Excellent, Preferred, Adequate, it was still a ranking with no language to specify the City was not bound by that ranking. Regarding the paragraph on Extensions, Mayor Boro quoted: "PSP provides for a two-year time period of approval which was more realistic than the one year. Under this proposed `use it or lose it' provision, an applicant would have to apply for a new PSP determination if construction had not begun within the two- year time frame." He confirmed with Mr. Brown that there would not be an automatic extension after the two years and the applicant would begin again competing with whomever was there. Mr. Brown confirmed that no extensions could be applied for should the project not proceed in the two-year allocation and it would be back into the competition from square one. While the project could score well in terms of Project Readiness, perhaps having gone through some additional steps, etc., it was still back into a competition at that point. Regarding Needed Community Facilities 2004-05 Priority List, Councilmember Phillips noted it included items such as Fire Stations. He quoted: "The contribution should be in proportion to the project size. Construction of or a substantial financial contribution to the construction of a facility listed below is of highest priority" and stated that presumably, based on that statement, something that resulted in Fire Stations' rehabilitation was desirable. Believing this to be a function of Revenue Generated under the first criterion, and those funds go into the General Fund, he inquired how a project could be related to Fire Stations' rehabilitation. Responding, Mr. Brown stated they were separate. He explained that should a retail project score as providing sales tax revenue, those funds go into the General Fund and could be allocated through the budget process as seen fit. He indicated that the Needed Community Facilities was a separate rating category. He explained that should a retail project want to rack up points, providing the retail sales, and in addition, they wished to provide further funds for renovation of Falkirk, they would score in two benefit categories. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether they had to come forward with an arbitrary contribution. Mr. Brown stated not necessarily, it was their choice, and depended of what they viewed as their competition for capacity or what they wanted to put on the table, i.e., it was their proposal in terms of trying to advance their project. Indicating that typically retail projects did quite well, he stated that the Needed Community Facilities and Needed Community Uses were more for those projects which could not score well. While they were providing housing, they were not providing retail sales, i.e., office buildings, and these were areas where they could get some benefit. He noted that in the past it was essentially not defined and there had been some pretty bizarre proposals, i.e., providing computers in classrooms, etc., that did not relate to any identified City priorities, whereas this was attempting to put forward a list the Council favored and Council would have the ability to modify the list periodically so that it reflected priorities. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 10 Mayor Boro recalled a situation with the Pell building where a childcare center was to be built; however, it could not be proceeded with at that site because of contamination; however, a church site was used for the childcare center as part of the mitigation to go into that building. Following up on Mr. Brown's comment regarding office buildings, Councilmember Cohen used the example of in some alternate universe, where all the office capacity was used up and there was sufficient demand which made it financially feasible, an applicant could indicate they wished to build an office building and as part of the competition, supply the ground floor for use as a library in exchange for building the second and third floors to rent out as office space (it could not compete in any of the other categories). While this might not happen, he believed it would have to be evaluated as a contender. Councilmember Phillips stated it appeared as though traffic trips were being sold and he was not completely comfortable with that concept. Returning to Needed Community Facilities, he quoted "Contribution should be in proportion to the project size" and he questioned whether this should read "...in proportion to the competition." Mr. Brown stated this was entirely up to the applicant and explained that one of the problems encountered was that, for example, a Costco could score extremely well because they generate a lot of retail sales dollars, whereas, a smaller downtown retailer could not compete because of the $300,000 annual tax threshold. He stated this was now broken down by the amount of retail sales dollars per trip generated to result in more of a level playing field. Explaining further, Mr. Brown stated that with a 100,000 square -foot project, more would be expected from it than from a 10,000 square -foot project. Mr. Brown explained that in rating the projects, should a 100,000 square -foot project require 100 trips and a 10,000 square -foot project require ten trips, if the 100,000 square -foot project was offering a $150,000 benefit and the 10,000 square -foot project was providing a $100,000 benefit, on a proportional basis, the small project was offering considerably more, and this was how it would be addressed. Councilmember Phillips stated it was not offering more in terms of rehabilitating the Fire Station. Mr. Brown stated the dollar value would be assessed and related to the amount of traffic generated. He agreed with Councilmember Phillips in that there was a certain practicality in terms of what contribution did the job. Should someone propose to renovate an entire fire station while another just proposed a small contribution the City could not match or be in a position to accomplish the remainder, it made a difference in terms of how the benefit was viewed. Responding to Councilmember Phillips' comment on whether the City was selling the traffic capacity to the highest bidder, Mr. Brown stated this was not the intent; however, in cities other than San Rafael, development was being allowed to go first come first served, and there was no ability to look more cumulatively at the overall benefits received for that limited resource. He indicated this was an attempt to maximize the public benefits obtained for allocating that amount of growth. Councilmember Phillips stated that while he liked the program he was not exactly sure yet how it worked. Elissa Giambastiani, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated that prior to making her comments concerning the PSP, she would like to clear up statements she made last evening, indicating she misspoke. Having spoken with Mr. Mansourian before writing out her comments, she stated it appeared she had the correct numbers and the incorrect multipliers. She stated that Mr. Mansourian gave the Loch Lomond Development a trip generation number of 1.7 trips per unit; therefore, 99 units @ 1.7, doubled for AM and PM, was the reason for the high number. With the recalculation, the Traffic Mitigation Fee for Loch Lomond would only be $714,601, which still was a considerable sum. Ms. Giambastiani stated she did not see how it could be only 1.7 trips per day because figures from a study carried out by MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) identified low income households generating 5.5 trips per day and high income generating 10.5 trips, with Seniors 2.7, which was a considerable difference. Addressing Councilmember Miller, Ms. Giambastiani stated that when the Housing Committee looked at this today, one member stated "how do you expect us to understand this, its so complicated." However, having listened to the discussion she understood it better. She read comments from the committee, which were indicative of their thinking process. In terms of housing "We are very concerned that if housing projects only comply with the now new 20% inclusionary requirement and are ranked as minimal, they would not be able to compete with high tax generating projects. The example used in the staff report was a 100 -unit project; however, most likely, the housing developments would be less than that, so if the project was only 50 units, for example, can they be expected to spread the cost over fewer market rate units to reach 31 % affordability?" She indicated this related to for-profit developers as opposed to non-profit developers. The non-profit developers would hopefully be able to come in and be exempt from PSP. She continued "But as much as we want these units, is it realistic? Has the proposal been presented to any housing developers to see if it can pencil, and if the housing requirements are too great and are placed on top of Traffic SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 11 Mitigation Fees, can we realistically expect any to be built?" Ms. Giambastiani believed discussion was needed on this issue. Regarding high tax generating uses, Ms. Giambastiani inquired as to which type of retail generated more than $3,000 per trip — auto dealers, hotels — and what the basis was for determining this rating. In terms of Needed Community Facilities (NCF), Ms. Giambastiani stated they had some trouble with it and wished to know how much weight this category would have in determining which projects moved forward. She noted this category appeared to ask a great deal of a developer on top of the Jobs/Housing fee and the new Traffic Mitigation Fees, and it appeared that "buying your way up" could leave many smaller projects unable to qualify. She indicated that some in the group wished to know whether all the funds generated for NCFs were dedicated funds not going into the General Fund. Ms. Giambastiani stated they had a lot of discussion on Project Readiness, which had been somewhat clarified; however, questioned the appropriateness of requiring all planning entitlements to be completed in order to achieve an Excellent rating, which involved a lot of expenditure. While possibly having to wait for twelve months to ascertain whether the project qualified, plus the cost of an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) on a project that might not get the go-ahead, this could be a prohibitively expensive option, and she was pleased with the discussion in this regard. Ms. Giambastiani stated they favored applicants having their standing much earlier and wondered how this requirement for full readiness would be achieved. Ms. Giambastiani stated that during the entire General Plan process she had not gone before the City Council once to ask for more commercial development, nor had they gone before the City Council to express displeasure that it had been cut down so much; however, now they were really concerned about the impact of PSP and the Traffic Mitigation Fees and what that would do to the possibility of the limited development coming forward. Patrick Murphy, stated that in listening to the conversation initiated by Councilmember Cohen, he believed there should be flexibility. He was aware tax generating dollars were very important; however, with the high priority of affordable housing, this flexibility should be underlined. Tymber Cavasian, stated she appreciated Councilmember Miller's comments because this was really confusing and she agreed with Ms. Giambastiani that this discussion went a long way to explaining the process. She inquired as to how the exceptions interacted with the PSP projects and assumed they worked their way on through the normal planning project timeline. Referring to comments regarding the capacity being re-evaluated, the intensification of use and exceptions, she indicated she was still a little confused about how that all interacted; however, she understood the objective was to time new development and prioritize Preferred projects for current capacity. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro stated he assumed staff would take Council comments plus questions raised this evening, and provide some alternatives. City Manager Rod Gould stated that based on the hearings to date, staff recommended holding a Special Council Meeting on October 19, 2004 to receive comments from staff and allow Council to provide final direction on the items still outstanding, where there was a desire by Council for further discussion or re- writing of sections. Based on the direction received from the City Council that evening, it could be possible to move to Council adoption of General Plan 2020 on November 1, 2004. Mayor Boro stated the pleasure of the Council was not to have a regular meeting on October 18, 2004 as the agenda was quite light; therefore, there would be a Special City Council Meeting on October 19, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. and this would include further comment from Cal -Pox. Regarding an agenda item date specific to October 18, 2004 for adoption, he suggested that an emergency item be introduced to consider changing the date to October 19, 2004. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to change the date for adoption of the following item from October 18, 2004 to October 19, 2004. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ON MEDWAY ROAD BETWEEN FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST AND CANAL STREET (PW) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 12 Mayor Boro stated it was anticipated that General Plan 2020 would be adopted at the regular City Council meeting of November 1, 2004. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2005 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/05/04 Page 12