Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1988-05-09SRCC MINUTES (Specia_, 5/9/88 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 9, 1988 AT 7:30 PM. Special Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING - SAN RAFAEL DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2000 - LAND USE, SPECIFIC AREAS AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS - File 115 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened, and called upon Senior Planner Jean Freitas to present the staff report. Senior Planner Freitas stated the Land Use Element of a General Plan must establish land uses and set standards for density and intensity of proposed land uses. In designating land uses, the Land Use Element must address hazards, natural resources, aesthetics, infrastructure needs such as circulation, water and sewer, recreation resources and other considersations. As can be seen from the substantive changes identified on page 2 of the staff report, the Planning Commission made many changes to the original draft Plan as a result of public testimony. Some ongoing land use issues are described on pages 3-7 of the staff report. Other written comments relating not only to this section but to other sections the Council is considering, have been received and have been forwarded to the Council. She stated much of this correspondence is available in two packets tonight and indicated if new written comments raise new issues, they will receive responses prior to the City Council decision making meetings. The four issues described in the staff report deal with the Marin Islands, Hillside FARs for commerical properties, St. Vincent's/Silveira area and new information on wetlands that relates to Land Use Designations. The Marin Islands land use revision is recommended only because the two islands are separate parcels which could be sold separately, leaving one parcel with no development potential, therefore, staff is recommending that the lowest intensity Hillside Resource Residential Land Use Designa- tion be applied to both parcels. She indicated that Land Use Policy will continue to recommend that any development potential be limited to East Marin Island and that would remain in the Plan. Non-residential Hillside Floor Area Ratios are an issue as a result of recent community workshop comments and two property owner requests for additional development potential. While the City's "Hillside Resource" and "Hillside" Residential Land Use Designations clearly recognize hillside constraints in the amount of density provided, non-residential categories are not broken down in this manner. The reason such breakdowns were not provided in the draft Plan is that nearly all of the vacant commercial and industrial sites in the City are flat. While staff did take into account hillside constraints in providing development allocations to the San Quentin Ridge parcels, there is no overall policy identifying how commercial intensities might be reduced in hillside areas. The proposed revision to Land Use Policy 14 on page 4 of the staff report, describes how an overall policy could read. The revised wording would allow full commercial intensities where slopes are less than 5 percent; 50 percent reductions in FARs where slopes are 5-15 percent and extremely limited development potential where slopes are greater than 15 percent. The approach is consistent with other General Plan policies regarding preserving hill- sides and avoiding higher hazard areas of sites and development projects. The staff report also describes on page 5, how such a policy would apply to the four undeveloped hillside commercial sites that staff has been able to identify. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Specia 5/9/88 Page 2 The St. Vincent's/Silveira properties refer readers to materials in the EIR regarding previously discussed Land Use Alternatives for the properties. There also is background material the Planning Commission used in their deliberations about the relative benefits of jobs/housing. Ms. Freitas concluded that the last staff report item references new wetlands information on Attachment B of the staff report, beginning on page W-1. She stated that information answers previous public and Council questions regarding the extent of Wetlands and diked Baylands in San Rafael, how Wetlands and diked Baylands are protected, and what more the City can do to protect Wetlands. There are recommendations on pages W-9, 10 and 11 identifying recommended Policy and Land Use changes as a result of that further research. Mayor Mulryan called upon people wishing to speak on the general subject of Land Use as opposed to specific area comments. William Bullard, Attorney at 590 Redwood Highway, Mill Valley, said his comments are on behalf of the Ghilotti family trust property in East San Rafael regarding the calculationsof the FARs within the Land Use Element. He indicated that at the meeting of May 3, 1988, he addressed Council with background on the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District stating the Ghilotti family is concerned that their good faith participation in that district will be penalized by the application of the FAR under the General Plan. The dedication made by participants in this assessment district included a lagoon, surrounding access area, bike/pedestrian pathways and a right-of-way easement to the sewer district for the laying of the sewer outfall line. He stated the indebtedness of the Ghilotti family is $1 million or more. He wanted it emphasized that at the time this district was formed an understanding was made with all parties that there would be a good faith participation and the property owners contributed and participated to the extent that their understanding was there would be an upward adjustment in their density. They now find that the complete reverse is true. Although they object to the means by which the FAR will be applied, they recognize that Council will adopt some sort of an FAR. However, it is the way it is calculated in this instance and as applied to the properties within the assessment district that they feel is unfair. The General Plan proposes that the FAR is a net ratio and states by example, that the calculation would exclude public streets. Their concern is that they will be penalized for having participated in the assessment district and having dedicated property for community improvement. He noted if the property which has been dedicated for the lagoon, bike paths and sewer easement is subtracted from the total land area before the FAR is calculated, they would be penalized for participating in the assess- ment district. The FAR should be calculated for all properties in this assessment district on the basis of the acreage of the property prior to the dedication of the easements made as a result of the district. In conclusion, Mr. Bullard asked that staff provide the property owners with the calculations and specific direction be made to staff concerning this matter so there is no question in the future as to the calculation of FAR. Mayor Mulyran asked staff if Council accepted his point, would the property of his client be treated differently than other properties. Ms. Freitas stated that the FARs do exclude public streets and are net FARs in East San Rafael. The lagoon areas, wetland marsh areas and shore- line areas that were required as mitigation to fill prior existing wetland areas was also not included in FAR calcuations. The remaining land is the net area that the FARs were calculated on. Mr. Sandy Greenblatt, District Manager for Grubb and Ellis Commerical Brokerage Services and a 27 year resident of San Rafael. He recapped the past 20 years and stated that they are dealing with a legacy of past mistakes that can be corrected. He indicated the City fails to recognize that offices, factories, warehouses and buildings create jobs and the ancillary jobs such as retail, restaurant and bowling alleys come as a result of the basic job creation. Because this was not done in the past 20 years the City lost a million and a half square feet of such uses to Petaluma. He stated there was a time when land prices were reason- able here and when it was they missed the boat and did not master plan SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special 5/9/88 Page 3 but spot zoned and failed to realize what would happen as prices went up. He indicated they allowed terrible buildings to be built and ignored the inner core which deteriorated. The Downtown Association complained but never came up with a rational explanation as to what could be done to improve downtown. Mr. Greenblat stated today is a different situation, indicating that residents' children are leaving the County because there are no jobs to attract them or housing to support them. He said the FARs are a disaster to any future development in this County, indicating the mitigation fees make development in this community impossible. He suggested allowing more latitude downtown where FAR mitigation is concerned and maintaining the spectrum they envision in San Rafael rather then saying "goodbye" San Rafael and "hello" to Sonoma County. He spoke on retail, stating when looking at the resurgence of Montecito and what is planned at the PG&E site, they have already addressed the need and if coupled with the rush towards discount retail, we will need to sell more to create the same amount of business to create the same tax dollars that we may be displacing in traditional retail. He indicated his comments date back six months to one year. In closing, Mr. Greenblat stated Council can now set the standards and find a way where some new construction can take place and have a balance between those who want no construction and those who want construction; create jobs for those who want to remain here and this can be done by modifying the FARs and moderating the mitigation fees. The Council could call upon the people to work with them to find some balance. Mr. John Holtzclaw, representing the Sierra Club urged the Council to adopt Alternative 1 of the Environmental Impact Report and make a number of changes as were submitted earlier. He suggested to Council some recommen- dations on Land Use as follows: Eliminate the second assumption of Alterna- tive 1 which prohibits development above .2 units per acre on areas unlain by bay mud. Many of these sites, including the PG&E Corporation Yard are surrounded by development which degrades their value of wildlife habitat. They urge infill development of these sites with densities that are appropriate as discussed in the draft Plan and with the advice of nearby neighborhood organizations. This type of residential growth will encourage the type of development in which you can walk and take transit and will be more efficient and also enhance San Rafael's small town pedestrian character and increase shopping convenience. He indicated with these changes, Alternative 1 can be renamed, Moderate Growth Maximum Environmental Protection or just Maximum Environmental Protection. He stated this is more in keeping with the recent housing and population growth and with ABAG's projection for the Planning Area than the draft Plan's alternative. The infill development would allow San Rafael to remain a regional service center, therefore modifying the seventh assump- tion of Alternative 1. They urge enforcement of LU -1, timing of develop- ment with needed infrastructure improvements and repeated their concerns about water supply and sewage treatment capacity. He stated on the 21st of March, he submitted recommendations of changes in the Specific Area Plan. He stated last Wednesday a public hearing was held in North San Rafael on the Circulation Element, and Anne Moore spoke and had many excellent ideas. One was, that the people of San Rafael should think of this as a Plan that should be revised in 5 years. He indicated most of the arguments the people are getting into concern what will happen around the year 2000 or later. They do not know what the economic, environmental and traffic situation will be. He noted it may be wise to revise the Plan to address 1993 only and revise the Plan at that time when they will have information back from the 1990 census thereby having a better data base for projecting what the future will be later on. Mr. Gordon Terrill, resident at 100 Fernwood Drive, thanked the Council for hearing their concerns regarding the tree portion on April 23, 1988, and reiterated the importance of their concern. He proposed mitigation measures so neither the writing of a Tree Ordinance nor its enforcement would be a financial burden to the City. They pledge their total support to City staff at whatever date they suggest. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Specia- 5/9/88 Page 4 Mr. Tom Solis, Assistant Superintendent of Business for the San Rafael School District spoke on Land Use Policy 58 having to do with the use of closed school sites. He stated they would like to have the Policy phrased so the sites could be used in ways compatible to the neighborhood where the schools are located. One statement made that all schools are within residential areas is not true, because some schools, such as San Rafael High School and Davidson Middle School are not completly in residen- tial areas. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question of having the sites totally within residential areas treated differently than those that are not, Mr. Solis stated it would be more appropriate. Mr. George Burkett, homeowner on Prospect Drive for 30 years, referred to page 21, LU -10 which speaks to maximum densities not guaranteed, and asked if this statement refers to the upper limits of ranges of density for various categories in the previous paragraphs or means that there is no maximum density that can be applied to any residential development, and said the statement is ambiguous. Mr. Burkett then quoted from LU -10, same page, and stated these factors could be interpreted differently by concerned groups and asked if the City would be making the decisions, or should the property owners have some influence on the decisions for higher density. LU -B, bottom of page, Mr. Burkett spoke on densities relating to low and moderate income households, and stated limits should be placed on such neighborhoods. Page 30, LU -30 under Land Use Implementing Programs, LU -A & B which speak to zoning, Mr. Burkett suggested adding under LU -A, after the word policies, "Zoning revisions or alternate changes will also give consideration to the existing zoning and the express wishes of current property owners in each neighborhood." Under LU -B, remove period at the end of the sentence and add, "zoning consistency action complete a comprehensive rezoning of specific areas of the City consistent with land use designations in policies in the General Plan, and consistent with the expressed wishes of local property owners for rezoning or reten- tion of existing zoning." Mr. John Wallace, representing Marin Carpenters Union stated that housing in Marin County costing $160 per foot to build have less than $10 per foot of carpenter work in them. It costs more or at least the same amount in fees for a carpenter to build a house. They represent a payroll of $27 million and each additional dollar added to construction in fees and in lower density puts more market pressure on wages because interest, land, development fees and materials cannot be reduced that much. Afford- able housing seems to be non-existent. He indicated two years ago when he spoke at the beginning of this process, a third of their members lived in Sonoma County and now it is 40 percent. The loss of retail sales tax that the City suffered might in part be due to the $17 million per year in lost wages that his members have suffered. This would be 40,000 man hours per month, or 250 men working 160 hours per month. Mr. Wallace stated the County is at a point where there is no growth and has an aging population which does not sound like a dynamic County but like a dying County. Mr. Neil Sorenson, representing the San Rafael Forward 2000, summarized a letter submitted by stating that it is requested that before the Plan is adopted, consideration be given to the following issues: FARs - They believe that the proposed FARs are too restrictive and should be increased to permit reasonable development consistent with existing developed properties. Establishment of overly restrictive FARs will cut off the only guaranteed source of traffic mitigation funds for the construc- tion for the improvements recommended elsewhere in the Plan. A Plan that recommends circulation and infrastructure improvements but provides no funding sources is inconsistent and subject to legal challenge. Environmental Protection - They are concerned about toxic waste and suppor- tive of mandatory studies to insure safe development throughtout the City. They are concerned about "urban areas be highly efficient and non polluting". Jobs/Housing Balance - They strongly support the goal providing jobs/housing balance within the City. Attainment of this goal is necessary to lower or eliminate the necessity for citizens of all income levels to live elsewhere in Marin or in Sonoma County and commute along the Highway 101 corridor in San Rafael. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 5 San Rafael Forward 2000 believes there still exists in the draft Plan housing and land use numbers that do not correlate with the transporta- tion improvements upon which they depend. Timing of Development - Comments submitted during the consideration of the Circulation Element apply equally to the Land Use Element. If the issuance of building permits is tied to the availability of State and Federal funding for highway improvements, the City must be ready to defend against charges of interim taking and inverse condemnation. Flexibility - They believe the General Plan and planning process which implements the Plan should retain as much flexibility as possible. Mr. Dirk Brinckerhoff representing the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated they are opposed to the restrictive nature of the FAR Policy. He stated the use of the FAR should allow enough flexibility to develop projects that will not generate more traffic than projected by the assigned FARs. Factors such as height, bulk, use and net versus gross floor area should be considered. Regarding building heights, they feel throughout the City, there should be flexibility enough to be exceeded if the design of the project meets other criteria. They oppose three story limitations on downtown develop- ment and encourage the development of larger buildings downtown to promote increased retail business. Regarding comprehensive convention space, they recommend that the hotels which are encouraged in the Plan (Civic Center Site) contain 300 rooms and appropriate meeting room facilities to accommodate the needs of Marin County businesses and to draw more convention business to San Rafael. In closing, regarding the Sign Ordinance, they feel that the general statement in LU -J should be revised and the City staff's responses to their prior comments provide no guideline or direction in the Plan. Ms. Barbara Salzman, representing Marin Audubon Society, referred to LU -35, and recommended adding, "sensitivity to natural landscape and natural resources". LU -36B, recommend adding, "require setbacks for habitat protection" and the same recommendation under LU -36D for habitat protec- tion. G - Concerning the Northwest Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way, add a new "bullet" to protect wetlands. Under Design LU -i, add a new policy, "the habitat protection". Ms. Salzman stated they support a revised Environmental Protection Element that would not restrict downtown area being used as the regional commercial area or development on any of the lands that are already developed areas. Mr. Richard Berger, of the Canal Community Alliance, stated part of child care is covered under Land Use, and referred to page 29 of LU -54. He stated that child care is complicated. He indicated they submitted their comments at the end of March, 1988, with some solutions. One is setting a goal for child care whereby a developer or prospective business moving into the area could see that San Rafael is encouraging that, and suggested language for that new goal LU -H: "Which encourages the provision of high quality, affordable and accessible child care opportunities throughout the City to all segments of the community". Another recommendation is to require any environmental assessment of a project to assess impacts of proposed commercial and residential development on child care needs. Regarding incentives - Mr. Berger asked consideration for proposed develop- ment that provides space, land or money to child care by (1) Waiver of traffic mitigation fees and other processing fees for proposed child care centers which is currently recommended in the draft Plan. (2) Consid- eration of waiver of FARs for that portion of the commercial development that provides child care space on site. (3) Consideration of an increase in the density and/or other types of incentives for residential development that either provide space for someone to lease or actually is part of the development for facilities onsite for child care. Mr. Russ Snyder, resident on Cedarhill Drive, spoke on behalf of John Rojas, President of Mont Marin Homeowners Association stating in January, 1987, a petition was sent to the Council signed by 359 Mont Marin homeowners, comprising approximately 2/3rds of the homeowners. He stated they recog- SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Special, 5/9/88 Page 6 nized that the Plan does not call for development of the St. Vincent/Silveira area in the immediate future. However, because of the sensitivity of the land, the size of the development plans discussed in the Plan and potential for additional traffic problems, they support the statements made by previous North San Rafael resident, Mrs. Shirley Fischer and make the following requests: Plans for the development of this land should be discussed by a Master Plan group which includes all interested parties, owners, developers, traffic and utility representatives, environmental experts and representatives from residential neighborhoods, including Mont Marin, San Rafael Park and Marinwood. The development of this land will have a major impact on the environment and quality of life of North San Rafael and deserves separate consideration. The owners of the St. Vincent/Silveira properties have been good neighbors and they feel the City and County should find some way to mitigate a tax burden of these landowners in the interim period before their land is allowed to be developed. They reminded Council that they wrote to the City Council of San Rafael, County of Marin and Novato to urge their cooperation and decisions on land use and traffic. William Bullard, Attorney on behalf of the Silveira family, stated they received the staff report today and requested they be allowed to return at the next meeting with their comments at that time. Mr. Gil Deane, called attention to the City's surveys of residential and business people which show that the people of San Rafael place the natural environment as their number one asset, and the traffic problem as their number one liability. He quoted from Alternative 1 of the draft EIR, Maximum Environmental Protection Alternative, "If, in fact, Council was to adopt that Alternative, Council would have 4,400 fewer auto trips in North San Rafael and 6,700 fewer residents possibly exposed to possible geotechnical hazards". He indicated if the Plan is to be legally and philosophically consistent, that the Council, if they decided not to take the urging of his colleague, Mr. Holtzclaw, and if they are to live up to their own document, should, in fact, adopt the Alternative which supports the words in their proposed General Plan. Mrs. Shirley Fischer, resident at Terra Linda, stated although the City has a lot of interest in meeting the overall needs in San Rafael and the impact of development at the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties, the people who own the land should be recognized. She also stated that the neighboring communities have concerns about the impact on their quality of life, and impacts on diked historic baylands and wetlands; the Municipal Water Board will be concerned about the water sources; the Sewer Board about increased sewer requirements, and there are concerns regarding the impacts of building on Bay mud; the Schools and the 101 Corridor. Mrs. Fischer suggested that Council appoint a task force to bring together all the various interests and work out a compromise plan that will meet the landowners' needs as well as the interest of the various groups of people concerned about this property. She indicated it is necessary to find some way to mitigate the tax burden on the existing landowners in the interim period. Mrs. Jean Starkweather, representing Marin Conservation League, stated their concerns include the agriculture uses; the vista one gets to see as they drive on Highway 101; they want to have the vista remain open from the Highway by having a golf course or similar use; a need for addi- tional lands for the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District east of the railroad and keeping the wetlands. Mr. James Stark, spoke on behalf of St. Vincent's property, and stated he was asked by Attorney Bullard to refrain from making his comments and instead review the staff report, confer with the Silveira people and continue on with the neighborhood approach in this area. Mr. Dwayne Hunn, spoke on behalf of Peter Calthorp, who wrote the pedestrian pocket concept, asked the Council to consider mixed use overlay map as a planning tool with the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties. He indicated it saves time while going through the General Plan process and provides transit solutions. Mr. Dirk Brinckerhoff, spoke on behalf of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and stated they had not had a chance to review the staff report but indi- cated it appears unrealistic to allocate the majority of the St. Vincent's/ SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Special 5/9/88 Page 7 Silveira site to housing development when the anticipated cost of housing would not address the job/housing balance. They favor a mixed use, includ- ing retail, industrial, office, housing and recreation uses. Ms. Barbara Saltzman, representing the Marin Audubon Society, stated she was glad a new map of the wetlands was made and stated there is a considerable amount of wetlands on the east and west sides of the property and railroad tracks. She stated policies should be included in the Plan to protect the wetlands along with buffer zones to protect their habitat value. She agreed with the suggestion that a citizens group be formed to do planning, and was concerned about having a golf course placed there because it would require fill and would not be capatible with wetland habitat values unless it would fit in between the wetlands. She stated the east side arterial is of concern because the plan shows it going through wetlands. Other concerns are that it would be growth inducing throughout the whole corridor up to 37 and would have considerable impact on not only filling wetlands along its whole route, but impacting wetlands that happen to be adjacent to it. Ms. Saltzman commented on the McNear Quarry in the Peacock Gap neighborhood, stating that the map shows two wetlands and the text states, "return to tidal action the tidal wetlands". She was not certain if this was a conflict or not but stated that the County's Plan indicates that the big wetlands is referred to be the one to return to tidal action. She indicated the County's Plan does not show the smaller wetlands but the City's does show them. She said there are five other ponds on the site and two look like they have substantive habitat value and these should be protected. Mr. George Burkett spoke on residential neighborhoods and referred to page 79 of the Plan, paragraph on "future direction" which states, "A major guiding policy of the new General Plan is to continue to protect the established residential area". He indicated this statement should be kept in mind when establishing and implementing policies for specific neighborhoods. He stated his neighborhood on San Rafael Hill consisting of Prospect, Coleman, Graceland and adjacent streets is a neighborhood and stated it should be recognized as such in the General Plan, and suggested that since the San Rafael Hill and Lincoln neighborhoods are two distinct neighborhoods they should be shown in the General Plan as two neighborhoods, each with its own description and policies to satisfy its own needs. The policy for the San Rafael Hill neighborhood should specify single family residential zoning, precluding inclusionary zoning and density bonuses. The boundary between the San Rafael and Lincoln neighborhoods should be as currently described in the glossary of the definition of the Lincoln Avenue Corridor, page 85 of the Appendix. Mr. Robert Copple spoke on 157 Woodland, an infill lot of 24 acreas. He stated this lot has been zoned low density R-3, and stated he would like to have affordable and low-income housing on this property. He stated he approached the Planning staff and asked how to go about changing the designation of low density in the Plan to medium density and they told him to submit plans which he did. Mr. Copple stated he was told that the plan was a good one but the City had some concerns about massive grading and the driveway access. Mr. Copple described his project and again asked consideration to change the designation of low density to medium density in the General Plan. Mayor Mulryan called for a short recess at 9:05 PM and resumed the meeting at 9:20 PM. Mrs. Gloria Whitney, owner of property at 157 Woodland, indicated the Planning staff recommended that her property should now have a low density designation which is inconsistent with what the General Plan indicates that the City wants and needs, stating her property could reasonably hold 35 to 45 low and moderate income units. She further explained that low density would mean only five units for sure with a maximum of 16 units with bonuses; at medium density only 16 units for sure up to a maximum of 37 units with low and moderate bonuses. The Plan indicates the need to use infill sites for housing and stated this site is six blocks from downtown San Rafael and stated the Plan indicates there is a need for low and moderate income housing so that the local employees could live in San Rafael rather than in Petaluma or Novato. All of the proposed multiple units will be for moderate income renters and a number of low income units will be in accordance with the City of San Rafael's policy. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 8 Ms. Celeste DiGiovanni, resident at 235 Irwin Street and representing the Bret Harte Homeowners Association, referred to H-8 in the General Plan where it states, "Discourage the conversion of existing residential units" and believes that the wording is weak, noting the paragraph should either be omitted or change the wording to "prohibit". She indicated H -e has the same wording, "Encourage developers to have neighborhood meetings with residents as part of the application process" and indicated this too is not strong and suggested the word, "require" should be in its place or omit the paragraph. Regarding H -f, Neighborhood Plans, she stated their neighborhood is bordered by Lindaro and West Francisco and includes Woodland Avenue, indicating they have to drive through this industrial area to get to their homes. Due to the development changes in this area, the extension of Andersen, the PG&E site and changes on Francisco Boulevard, their neighborhood is becoming a neighborhood in transition. There are severe flooding problems in lower -Woodland and Irwin Streets that are not addressed in the General Plan and asked that they have this included in the Plan. Harry Winters, president of West End Neighborhood Association, stated part of their association is included in the Downtown Neighborhood Map and part in the General Land Use Map but does not have a specific section in the General Plan. Mr. Winters referred to the Downtown Map's zoning from Miraflores through West End Avenue on the South side of Second Street which shows the front lots to be high density housing and the back lots are low density housing. He stated some policies in the Plan speak about the west end of Fourth Street and the map shows West End Avenue and Fourth Street and referred to the Plan's Summary, page 14, last paragraph, "Density should be compati- ble with the surrounding uses", and noting that the use at the rear lot line is low density. He mentioned that medium density would be more appro- priate. The Downtown Plan Policy 28 states, "The two story character should be preserved" and West Fourth Street and Second Street are the same in that area. He asked that the south side of Second Street from East Street on through West End should be medium density. Mr. Winters referred to the upper Fremont area stating they asked for special signs because the road is extremely narrow and steep with no parking. He asked that the area be zoned at a very low density so there can be no further subdivision of the lots. Mr. Daniel Simonsen, resident at 9 Wolfe Avenue, stated he submitted a petition regarding the designation of Hillside Resource Residential, on the parcel at the end of "C" Street and bordered by Meyer Road. He indicated Planning staff responded that the property, although steeply sloped and geologically unstable, does not fit within the criteria of a community -wide visual resource having limited local significance. The staff based their reason on a 1974 study when the old General Plan was being adopted and revised in 1975. He indicated the view was taken from downtown, City Hall and Fourth and "A" Street including the Safeway loca- tion, and they felt the study done in 1975 could not reflect the develop- ments happening at the end of Clorinda, along the hillside, Upper Spring Grove and along Fremont. Mr. Jeff Mulanax , addressed the Montecito status in the Plan and stated the area was developed without any concern about traffic, parking, sewerage, fire, safety and the quality of life. He indicated funding has not been addressed to modify the problems and asked Council to reduce the density from high to low density, especially for Union Street. Ms. Patsy Ford, resident at 131 Ross Street in Gerstle Park urged Council to decrease the number of units to be built on lots in that neighborhood. Mr. Bill Reid, resident at 10 Bay Court, Seastrand Subdivision, stated the General Plan shows Parcel "B" in the Seastrand Subdivision as open space, but it is in the process of being developed, and he asked that this be reviewed. Mayor Mulryan asked staff to have this item agendized for the regular Council meeting to be held on May 16, 1988. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Specia_ 5/9/88 Page 9 Mr. Dennis Parsons referred to property he owns on Mary Street near Fourth Street. He indicated there are 15 parcels on this street and four are not designated as commercial and stated the Plan indicates changing their commercial property to residential. He asked Council to retain this parcel as commerical. Mr. Bryan McCarthy representing Loch Lomond Marina, stated the first draft of the Plan showed a section of Loch Lomond Marina designated as neighborhood/commercial and the second draft shows a significant portion of Loch Lomond designated as wetlands. He stated the area is completely landfill and not wetlands. He suggested Council review this area and change it back to its original classification of neighborhood/commercial and/or Marine Related. Regarding Marine Related, Mr. McCarthy asked that the Plan be specific in identifying what can or cannot be done, i.e., does Marine Related include residential, mixed use residential office, etc. Mr. Bill Joost referred to the CalTrans air space under the 101 freeway at Gary Place at Andersen Drive. He stated he was advised by the Planning Department that trips and FARs have not been assigned in the Plan to the 68,000 square feet of air space of which he holds a 50 year lease from the State of California, Department of Transportation, because the Planning Department considered it to be a non -developable parcel. He indicated he completed a major upgrading of that parcel costing him $132,000 to date, including grading, drainage, paving, fencing, landscaping, lighting and irrigation, and felt that the designation is wrong. He stated the City of San Rafael participated in all phases of issuing building permits and have had building inspections as has the State of California and the Federal Highway Commission. He was told the parcel can only be used for storage or parking. At a meeting with City staff and two members of the State of California's legal department, it was agreed that the Planning Department would not refuse to zone the parcel and agreed he would not sublease or put permament buildings on the site because of a possible different future use, but not mentioned was that it could only be used for parking or storage. He proposed to sublease the 22,500 square foot parcel at the tip of Andersen and Gary Place for a carwash facility with a portable building but was told they have no trips or floor area ratio. He asked that the City assign trips and a floor area ratio to this parcel. Planning Director Moore said the parcel has a long history and indicated that the City Council denied a CalTrans request two or three years ago to have a Park and Ride lot here because of concern in increasing the number of trips in a congested area. She indicated the site does not have an assessor's parcel number but is shown as a public right-of-way and Planning has allowed interim storage uses in the past and staff recom- mended denial of the container storage because it was inconsistent with the redevelopment of the Marin Square property across Gary Place. She stated however, the property owner at Marin Square had no objection to the storage and either the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission authorized the use, but stated Mr. Joost's representation that there are no trips or floor area ratio designated for the site is accurate. She indicated that while the Park and Ride lot is not appropriate now, in the future, as Bellam transportation improvements are implemented, it could be an excellent place for such a public use. The rationale for no trips/FARs was based on public ownership, functioning as air space with the viaduct and the anticipation of public uses in the future. The area has no assessor's parcel number. Mr. Robert Ecklund, Architect, stated he has been working on the 69 acres acquired by the Marin Sanitary Service in East San Rafael. He referred to maps on the bulletin board showing how they proposed the land to be developed and what the impact would be when the project is completed as seen from Highway 17. He indicated they propose to break the land into three categories. Unit I is directly behind Ghilotti Brothers, Marin Recycling, the Transfer Station and Marin Resource and Recovery Facility and is approximately 19 acres. They are proposing that 185,268 square feet of light industrial buildings be constructed there which is consistent with the prescribed trips for this project. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Special, 5/9/88 Page 10 Unit II, in the upper slopes of the site, proposes to be a land reserve until after the year 2000 when, with traffic permitting and the City's agreement, the property might be developed. 28 acres will remain as open space. Mr. Dennis Horne spoke on Seastrand Subdivision and stated he purchased this subdivision from the First Interstate Bank a few years ago, and indicated that the parcel west of Seastrand was open space. In selling the houses, his wife, who acted as the agent for the broker, informed the buyers that this parcel was open space. Mr. William Bullard, Attorney, referred to the Marin Ranch Airport and stated this was previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearings. He said the Commission discussed the Land use designations as well as the densities, specifically, the square footage for the commer- cial center. The Planning Commission recommended a mixed land use for the Marin Ranch Airport including residential, a golf course use as well as a neighborhood/commerical area at 73,000 square feet which was endorsed by an independent economic analysis. He stated that the owners of the property requested that these land use designations and the density for the commercial center be accepted and adopted into the General Plan. Mr. Bullard stated the owners of the Marin Ranch Airport support the recommendations in the staff report regarding wetlands and baylands. He indicated that a determination has been made by the U.S. Army Corps for this property. Mrs. Jean Starkweather, addressed the Marin Ranch Airport and stated they support the continued use of the airport site as it now stands and not as shown in the new Plan, indicating its edges support endangered species. They also feel the airport serves the community well stating in case of emergencies it would be useful to this part of Marin County. She referred to page 89, description of the Northgate Activity Center, and asked that when printing this Plan in the future, the word "because" be stricken from the sentence as follows: "Because the site (Marin Ranch Airport) was designated as an agricultural and"...She indicated it was not because the site was designated as agricultural and open space areas that the circulation was lost but because density was removed from the site, therefore there was no circulation. On page W-9, mentioning the modification of the Canalways designation, she stated the 85 acre site in East San Rafael is all wetlands, and indicated the entire site should be preserved as wetlands and urged reducing the office/housing designation of that site. Mr. Phillip Buskirk of Corte Madera spoke regarding the Marin Airport site stating he represented a 3 -par golf association set up at the time the Las Gallinas Golf Course was put out of operation. He indicated the County's look at the future suggests that a tie-in to a McInnis Park golf course is considered on the Marin Airport site and noted it would be an advantage. He endorsed having a 9 -hole golf course in addition to the McInnis Park course. Mr. David Coldoff, representing Mr. James Bledsoe, owner of Canalways, stated they are in total support of the current General Plan as it applies to East San Rafael and the Canalways site. Ms. Barbara Salzman, Marin Audubon Society, stated she supports the staff's report of a two for one mitigation. She added they do not want extensive development on the Marin Ranch Airport site because no planning has been done on circulation improvements; also because they do not support the roadway arterial at this point, and it would be difficult to develop the site without traffic problems. Regarding Civic Center North, they suggest that the Policy NG -11 require existing wetlands habitat to be buffered from development. California Park Policy under Francisco Boulevard West should state that this site has fresh water wetlands on it and that it should be preserved and buffered. Spinnaker Policy ESR -26 should state, "adequately buffered between the projects" rather than "buffer the project from the wetlands". SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 11 Canalways - they urged that no development be done on this site. She suggested rewording regarding the San Rafael Canal to protect the existing wetlands and wildlife habitat areas on CB -6 to read, "The North San Rafael Bay front contains wetlands and other environmental sensitive lands". CB -19, Shoreside pumpout facilities, should be "required" and not just "encouraged". She noted BCDC recommended ordinances concerning houseboats and urged that this be adopted. Wetlands on the Loch Lomond property - she stated that the lands on the site are designated wetlands and are indeed wetlands. Mr. Richard Berger, representing Canal Community Alliance, asked since the notice of the Land Use and Specific Areas is both on May 9 and 17, 1988, if both dates would include the same topic. He was assured by Mayor Mulryan that this was true. Mr. Fred Grange, owner of the property adjacent to Mr. Joe Shekou's Bay Park development on Francisco Boulevard, stated there is an agreement that because of the property's peculiar layout, he would only have to donate a 40 foot shoreline park. He referred to the map in the Plan that does not clearly show there is a 25 foot park and requested this to be done in the Plan. Regarding Bayview Business Park, Mr. Grange stated that Bayview's Master Plan showed eight buildings rather than seven, indicating the eighth building is shown on his land adjacent to Phoenix Leasing. He stated the FARs showed .40 indicating that is the minimum FAR necessary to be economically feasible. Under the General Plan, he could only build about .26 FAR building on that property. He stated that either the property cannot be developed or half a building could be built now and the other half later or a new building concept be developed that would not be in keeping with the Bayview Plan originally envisioned. Mr. Grange asked that when Council votes on the Plan they consider what they have already done in East San Rafael for flooding, recreation and the environment and that they would be allowed to develop their properties with at least a .40 FAR. Mr. Jack Wilkinson, resident of San Rafael, stated the FARs are too low and urged the Council to consider the FARs be changed to .40. He stated when Highway 580 is interlinked with Highway 101, there will be a great flow through of traffic and indicated that jobs will need to be created, and stated high paying jobs would need to be available. He stated when a building is built at a FAR of .26 that after 50 or 60 years that building would not make good economic sense because the building at FAR .26 is too small. He referred to a change in the tax law from Proposition 13, stating he did not know if the population of the State of California would allow a change in Proposition 13, but also did not know if they would be against having commercial buildings reassessed which represents potential revenue to a City in need of revenue. Mr. Jack McDonough, stated when one comes from Second Street toward the Grand Avenue Bridge which has many buildings, if a change could be made on the left hand side by having a green area, and unlock the fence behind the Dexter Toyota property and the whole Beach Park area, the Canal would become visible as one comes across the bridge. He suggested a sign could read "Welcome to East San Rafael". He referred to the entrance into San Rafael from across the bridge, stating this is a gateway when entering San Rafael where one sees the whole County laid out but then sees "junk" on the right hand side of the road. He thought about having a hotel or travel center in this area which would have practical uses. He stated perhaps a trade-off is possible in getting some of the auto dealers off Francisco Boulevard and then widening Francisco Boulevard with the auto dealers in front and a "Marina Green" in back. Mr. McDonough asked if sources of funding could be found perhaps through the Buck Fund to help people who are now renters get some equity out of their property. He suggested if old buildings and ones needing repairs could be identified, that the Redevelopment Agency purchase them and turn them over for community use or tear them down, indicating no one in private business would want to buy them. He indicated if this was SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 12 done the density would be lessened in the area where it is most dense now and density would be freed up for people such as Sidney Hendricks and Dennis Horne who would replace old buildings with new buildings and still allow for density. Planning Director Moore stated she believed the optional date reserved for Monday, May 23, 1988 would not be necessary because of progress made thus far. Councilmember Frugoli indicated his desires for staff as he would not be attending the next meeting. He asked that the Tree Ordinance be consid- ered. He also requested a possible mixed use overlay in the St. Vincent's/ Silveira properties, and the changing of the density on Woodland Avenue, to bring low up to medium. There being no further business, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing and the meeting was adjourned. JEANNE�LEONCINI, Ci y Clerk APPROVED ON THIS DAY OF 1988 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/9/88 Page 12