Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1986-05-12SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 1 In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, May 12, 1986 at 7:30 PM Special SRCC/Planning Commission Meeting: Present - Councilmembers: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Coun,cilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Richard Nave, Councilmember Jerry Russom, Councilmember Absent: Nene Present Commissioners: Robert Livingston, Chairman Michael J. Smith, Vice -Chairman Albert J. Boro, Commissioner Joyce B. Rifkind, Commissioner Suzanne M. Scott, Commissioner Maynard H. Willms, Commissioner Absent: Richard O'Brien, Commissioner Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Anne Moore, Planning Director; Jeff Baird, General Plan Coordinator; Daniel Iacofano, Facilitator RE: PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING GENERAL PLAN REVISION - File 10-6 x 115 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Mayor Mulryan stated that tonight was the first meeting held on the redrafting of the General Plan with three workshops held earlier in the community and two newsletters sent out. The meeting tonight is an opportunity for the City Council and the Planning Comission to jointly review the Health and Safety and Natural Environment sections of the General Plan with comments from the audience. Specifically, discussions will be held on what has been proposed and what may be changed if the preliminary reports are adopted from what the current rules are. Additional factors will be considered if the reports are accepted. Mayor Mulryan introduced Facilitator Daniel Iacofano, who stated that he would review the agenda for the evening and summarize findings of the workshop and Community Opinion Survey after Jeff Baird's overview of the General Plan revision process. Jeff Baird, General Plan Coordinator, used a graphic outline to illustrate the General Plan revision schedule and process to date and after this public hearing. Mr. Baird explained that since January 1986, two main activities have occurred. The community participation process has been initiated with workshops and surveys of community opinion. Data collection with the technical facts needed to revise the General Plan has been performed by staff and consultants. Presently, staff is involved with the City Council and Planning Commission in reviewing these parts together as they pertain to the Natural Environment and Health and Safety portions of the amended plan. The next public hearing will cover Community Development issues, i.e., traffic, housing and land use, with meetings currently scheduled for June 23 and 24, 1986. Out of these meetings, hopefully, staff will receive consensus direction on some of the major issues and overall policies for the General Plan revision. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 1 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 2 During June, July and August, staff will refine all the component parts and have a draft plan available in early September. The plan then goes through formal review and adoption by the City Council after it has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Daniel Iacofano focused on the policy areas under discussion at this meeting: Natural Environment and Health and Safety. With visual colored slides, Mr. Iacofano explained findings of the Community Opinion Survey of residents and businesses, and also noted that noise and transportation surveys were also conducted. The major community asset identified in workshops is the natural environment, which is characteristic of many of San Rafael's neighborhood areas. The second major asset identified is the historical identity of San Rafael, still found in older buildings in very good condition such as at China Camp. The third asset was the location of San Rafael which is seen as the County hub in close proximity to San Francisco, a desirable feature. San Rafael is the activity center of the County, with many office buildings and public spaces downtown, for example. Community services are considered by residents to be provided at a high level, such as fire protection, community parks, police protection and library services. Downtown was also seen as a major asset of San Rafael. The major community liability is identified as traffic congestion on Highway 101, in particular the poor North/South connections within the City and the lack of lateral connections joining the City, especially during peak hours. Development along the ridgelines and sprawl in general were other liabilities. The loss of special environments such as wetlands along with pollution and noise, such as at the quarry, were identified by workshop participants as other liabilities in San Rafael. The lack of affordable housing was also identified. Mr. Iacofano noted that the survey profile was based on relative proportions of the entire population for females/males, owners/renters, adults/seniors and by neighborhoods. When people were asked to what degree they would be willing to pay for the community services, fire, police and flood were the services that a high percentage said they were at least "somewhat willing" to pay for increased services. Re proposed acquisitions of hillsides, marshland and shoreline open space areas, people were very supportive of paying for community open space or possible acquisition for some of the areas. People were also willing to pay for open space management needs. People were particularly concerned about fire protection on open space land. Residents were slightly ahead of businesses in willingness to pay for public access. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Planning Director Moore thanked staff and others who were involved with the General Plan revision including the Technical Advisory Committee, Park and Recreation Commission, Redevelopment Citizens Advisory Committee, Cultural Affairs Commission and the Design Review Board, along with the other major departments. Ms. Moore stressed that the reports are preliminary and subject to change. The Natural Environment section of the General Plan will cover Open Space and Conservation issues while the Health and Safety portion will involve safety, including geology, flooding, emergency preparedness and noise issues. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 2 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 3 Part III of each report contains Planning staff's recommended approach concerning the policy questions that have been highlighted. The reports do not contain all of the detail necessary to stand as a revised General Plan. None of the policy direction decisions made by the Council at this time are irreversible; they are intended to assist staff in narrowing the range of options and policy alternatives being considered. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT POLICY DIRECTION Planning Director Moore referred to page 21 of Major Issues and Preliminary Policy Direction. QUESTION 1: DOES THE CITY NEED MORE OPEN SPACE? Ms. Moore stated that one fourth of San Rafael's land area is secured open space, a phenominal achievement for the City. Staff agrees that San Rafael needs more open space, but the revised General Plan will be different from the existing General Plan in discussing why more open space is needed. The recommended approach is that there be continued use of the following factors historically used by the City for ranking open space, with addition of costs and liability concerns: environmental, aesthetics, importance to the community as a whole or adjoining neighborhoods, proximity to other open space areas, recreation potential, accessibility, development potential and matching funds potential. The map in the report shows open space lands. Staff recommends that the revised General Plan add potential maintenance and management costs and liability exposure for the City as another consideration. This is new and is not in the existing General Plan. QUESTION 2: WHAT ARE THE BEST METHODS FOR SECURING MORE OPEN SPACE? Ms. Moore stated that open space is looked at differently now than in the 1960's and 1970's. Over 2,500 acres of open space have been secured in various ways. Significant maintenance and liability costs are involved. Mayor Mulryan interjected, asking for a breakdown of how the open space has been secured. Ms. Moore responded that staff will gather that information. In addition, over 80% of the bond issue funds have been spent. She indicated that a summary discussion is on pages 15 and 16 of the report. The staff's recommended approach is to maximize securing and preseving open space through development review so that we minimize on-going City costs and liability exposure and still achieve City open space objectives. QUESTION 3: WHAT SHOULD THE CITY'S USE AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES BE FOR OPEN SPACE LANDS? Ms. Moore indicated that this is a difficult area. It covers questions such as: What should the use of the open space be, and how much access should there be? Staff is working with the City Attorney's office on the liability issue and with other departments having primary responsiblities in maintaining and managing open space lands. The work is not far enough along to have specific recommendations yet. The recommended approach is that there be an update of the 1982 Open Space Management study work, which was never completed. For further information, people should contact Mr. Paul Jensen in the Planning Department. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 3 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 4 Ms. Moore noted one letter received from the owners of the Smith Ranch Airport, Mr. William J. Bielser and Mr. Joe Shekou, drawing attention to Figure Two which incorrectly shows the extent of wetlands on the site. In future documents, that will be corrected and accurately represented. QUESTIONS BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS, COMMISSIONERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Councilmember Russom: Page 13 mentions balance of the open space bond fund as $437,000 and asked if this was correct. Ms. Moore responded that because of the commitments for Sun Valley costs for slope and slide repairs and obligations to the East San Rafael wetlands, it is closer to $200,000. Councilmember Russom: Page 13, Do San Rafael citizens also pay the County open space district tax? Ms. Moore replied that since Proposition 13, this is a portion of the one percent limit on property tax; the bonded indebtedness overrides, however. Councilmember Russom: Page 17 - Re properties that should be evaluated for aesthetics and habitat values, the map shows the entire properties as potential open space acquisition areas. Ms. Moore stated that right now, in the revision, we are evaluating the entire property to be able to come to a conclusion as to what is important. Councilmember Russom: Re the funding to acquire and/or maintain open space land, there is no mention or recommendation in the staff report of any procedure through which the City would be able to acquire its share of the County's Open Space Maintainance Fund. Ms. Moore indicated that this will be included, as well as how the County monies have been spent to date relative to San Rafael and the rest of the County. Councilmember Frugoli: We should look at what the best method is to secure open space for the private sector. We should give developers more of the density they require as long as they continue to maintain their ownership for liability reasons. Also, re the Objectives and Use of Open Space - Councilmember Nave indicated he has promoted allowing some of the open space to be used for recreation. He also said we should get a response from the community on this. Ms. Moore commented that this was a good point and that staff would follow up on this. Councilmember Nave: Stated that with 2,500 acres of open space, he strongly felt that there should be a hiking trail with a sign to that effect, having areas for uses such as a formal picnic area with barbecue pits. Councilmember Breiner: Page 12 under Water Quality - would like to have this item agendized for future Council meeting. Page 17 on Purpose of Open Space Management, would like to have a committee meeting with the state people finding out how much of the area is expected to be approved or restricted for development. Page 19, bottom, on Cost of Maintenance, Police and Fire Protection, looks as if a word is missing. Mayor Mulryan pointed out that the missing word is "and" to be placed between "program" and "should". Commissioner Boro: Barbier Park was left out and indicated that it should be cited in the report. Ms. Moore said that it was an oversight. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 4 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 5 Commissioner Boro: Agrees with statement on page 21, second paragraph, but recommendation is inconsistent with the survey that states that over sixty percent of the people would be willing to acquire open space, and this is recommended as the last possible alternative. Ms. Moore: The sixty percent or better includes people who were "somewhat willing" to "very willing" to pay more. It takes a two-thirds majority to pass future tax measures; it is unclear whether the support is there. Staff can go back and identify those neighborhoods that feel strongly about this and are perhaps some of the best candidate areas for the assessment district or special tax measure approach. Mrs. Carol Dillon asked whether the Silveira property was included in the report on page 17, and Ms. Moore replied that it was. Mr. Jeff Rhoades spoke on the Dillingham property at Pt. San Pedro Road and said it warrants another look, and that there should be some waterfront access from San Rafael Bay to McNear. Another issue that should be considered is the lack of public access to open space and the use of open space lands. There should be a cohesive City/County/State holding analysis for the Pt. San Pedro Pennisula area for developing open space access. Mr. Dan Simonsen, member of the Cultural Afairs Commission and the Technical Advisory Committee, referred to page 16, stating that of the eight areas identified as open space, the area shown on page 9 under Redwood Groves "Meyer Road at the end of 'C' Street" was left out and should be included. Ms. Moore responded that staff would review this site which is attracting attention in the neighborhood due to a subdivision application. Ms. Lieberman, resident of San Rafael, wanted to underscore the maintenance of the open space. Ms. Barbara Salzman of the Marin Audubon Society, referred to wetlands on page 7 - re EPA report quoted that 95 percent of the wetlands have been lost. Page 8 - Wetlands are critical to migratory water fowl. Not noted in the report is the number of wetlands, in particular Silveira and St. Vincents which serve a joint agricultural and wetlands use; flood control and water and air quality and should be included. Loons and pelicans are diving birds and do not use wetlands unless they are deeply flooded. Page 10 - On Species, Ms. Salzman submitted a three page list of species and wanted this on the record. The Water Quality section requires further study. Page 16 - Question about the Quimby Act. Does this refer to the Spinnaker project whereby wetlands should have been dedicated, or if Parkland dedication by the Quimby Act is for active use? Ms. Moore replied that such a decision was deferred until a decision on future park locations was made through the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan process. Ms. Salzman continued to state that Silveira should be added and that the whole list should bear re-evaluation as an entity. She stated that comments made by Councilmember Breiner were worth considering and that development carry its own liability. Federal and State laws should be reflected in the General Plan. Page 21 - Under Existing Factors, No. 1, that wetlands be added to the environmental issues. On No. 3, if maintenance and management liability aspects are decided upon for all effective City departments, it should be balanced with some information about development projects. Also, there are marshes at Dillingham that should be added to the list of possible sites to acquire. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 5 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISISON (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 6 Mr. Phillip Downs stated that even though open space is not tax generating property, his question is whether the liability from the open space is significantly less than liability from buildings that would need to be policed, etc. Mayor Mulyran stated that when open space is owned by the City, there are certain factors that must be known about costs, such as liability. It is a complicated matter. Councilmember Russom stated that it is not only whether or not open space should be acquired, but what the use will be once it is purchased. PRELIMINARY HEALTH AND SAFETY BACKGROUND REPORT Planning Director Moore referred to page 29 of the Preliminary Health and Safety Background Report, Part III, Major Issues and Preliminary Policy Direction, and stated that the report dealt with the concept of public safety - 1) Hazards are an unavoidable aspect of life, and 2) Public policy and actions are appropriate for mitigation against hazards. Mayor Mulryan recessed the public hearing and called for a three minute break at 9:02 PM. Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing reopened at 9:05 PM. QUESTION 1: WHAT ARE HAZARDOUS LANDS? Planning Director Moore continued by stating that the existing General Plan is not specific in identifying hazardous areas and ranking the levels of hazard. The current plan has a balanced risk concept, which will be evaluated with the City Attorney's Office. High and Moderate Hazards, listed on pages 29 and 30, are new material and are not in the existing General Plan. Ms. Moore commented on 1) Hazardous Materials - concerning former land fills, sewage treatment plants and industrial uses; 2) Slope Stability - steep sloping uplands, materials such as Franciscan Melange, debris from hillsides and paths, earth flow hillside areas; 3) Geologic and Seismic - deep bay mud areas, earth flow hillside areas; 4) Fires - steep wooded hillsides. Moderate Hazards - 1) Hazardous Materials - fill areas and commercial or industrial areas; 2) Slope Stability - moderately sloping hillside areas; 3) Geologic and Seismic - Alluvium deposits along creeks and shallower bay mud deposits; 4) Flooding - 100 Year Flood Zone; 5) Differential Settlement and Expansive Soils - High clay soils and unconsolidated fills; 6) - Noise - high noise exposure areas. The recommended approach a) Future development to be carefully located to assure that residents will be protected; b) The General Plan will list "high" and "moderate" hazards; c) Utilize policy review maps to identify various hazards; d) Retain the Geotechnical Review Board; e) Prepare standards and policy to review proposals for development in high and moderately high hazardous areas; f) Identify and list types of structures and facilities that will not be allowed in various hazardous areas; g) Identify sites not suitable for residential or sensitive land uses; and h) Revise and update geotechnical maps and procedures. QUESTION 2: WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE CITY TAKE IN REDUCING FLOOD HAZARDS? Ms. Moore stated that City Council determined that permanent solutions to flooding are beyond local means and resources. The City is concentrating on securing federal assistance for permanent flood control while continuing to reduce flood risk. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 6 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 7 Recommended approach is to a) Continue implementing flood control improvements for permanent flood control solutions; b) Give high priority to completion of the Storm Drainage Master Plan for the San Rafael Drainage Basin and when appropriate, North San Rafael; c) Evaluate and most probably increase Title 18 flood proofing elevation standards. QUESTION 3: WHAT IS THE CITY'S ROLE IN REGULATING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS? This is another new area in the General Plan. The City has been a leader in Marin County with the Fire Department sponsorship of the City's "Right -to -Know" Ordinance which governs disclosure of hazardous materials on site. We need to know what role the City wants to play, if allowed by preempting State and Federal regulations, regarding transport of hazardous materials. Recommended approach is a) Refine maps of potentially hazardous material sites; b) Determine sensitive land uses (such as residential) that may be inappropriate; c) Develop procedures for monitoring compliance requiring mitigation measures for approved projects. QUESTION 4: WHAT IS THE CITY'S ROLE IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLANNING? In the three community workshops held, it was the general public consensus that there was none. However, those who serve on the City's emergency response team are familiar with the plan and that much has been done in Marin County and in San Rafael under the leadership of the Fire and Police Departments. The Red Cross is sponsoring Countywide neighborhood training programs because preparedness is best planned in homes, businesses and schools. Recommended approach is to facilitate and encourage the Red Cross program and update and much more widely publicize the City's Disaster Preparedness Plan. QUESTION 5: WHAT EMERGENCY ROAD CONNECTIONS OR ALTERNATE ROUTES ARE NEEDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE? City Police and Fire personnel have stated that better emergency road connectors over Puerto Suello Hill between the north and south portions of the City are needed. Recommended approach is a) Pursue the development of local emergency connectors in short term and develop additional permanent roadway connectors between Terra Linda and Downtown San Rafael, b) Study the feasibility of the following specific connection alternatives: (1) Securing approval for and constructing a solid surface; (2) Provide emergency connector between Chula Vista Drive and Red Rock Way or between Ridgewood Drive and Dias Way; and (3) Provide permanent street connections between Terra Linda and Downtown. QUESTION 6: WHAT ARE APPROPRIATE NOISE STANDARDS THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN SAN RAFAEL? This area in the revised General Plan will have more specific information than there exists in the 1974 plan. A major noise issue is how to treat existing residences developed along major roads when no noise standards were in effect and where traffic has and will increase over a period of time. Recommended approach a) Is to use the State Office of Noise Control Land Use Compatibility chart which gives noise levels for different kinds of land uses; b) Noise performance limits will be established; c) Develop standards for existing residential areas along major roads; and d) The Smith Ranch Airport has been identified as a high noise generator. SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 PAGE 7 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 8 Regarding Smith Ranch Airport: Ms. Moore indicated that the revised General Plan will need to make a decision as to whether it is an appropriate interim or long term use. The existing General Plan does not resolve this issue with the agricultural and recreation review area designation for that property. Mayor Mulyran thanked Planning Director Moore for the summary of the revised General Plan. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question of what is expected over the next century re flooding, Ms. Moore replied that staff would strive to have a specific recommendation in the draft revised General Plan. The report released by Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) within the last month is new. The BCDC hydrologist, who is also consultant to the City, has made the recommendation that increased finished elevation standards for levee heights and floor elevations in the flood prone areas be adopted. Staff is presently evaluating that recommendation. Councilmember Breiner was concerned about the consumption of time in reviewing the flood issue and suggested that a public hearing be incorporated in a regular Council meeting first. Ms. Moore stated that if a recommendation to add a half foot or one or two feet to finished elevations is received in advance of release of the whole General Plan, staff will probably bring it forward as a separate matter. Councilmember Nave inquired if there were engineers from another firm other than the ones from BCDC, and Ms. Moore replied that there were none, but that staff would be working very closely with them and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) might be involved with other public agencies in the Bay Area. Councilmember Breiner informed staff that she would like to have the fire road between Ridgewood Drive and Manuel Freitas Parkway used as an emergency connector road in case of spills on the freeway or other road closures, so people could get from Las Gallinas to the San Rafael Basin Valley. Ms. Moore suggested having this item agendized separately from the General Plan because it would need more time for review and evaluation. Commissioner Willms inquired as to any plans to repair the levees in the Canal area, and Ms. Moore responded that an analysis is being done and will be incorporated into the General Plan. Councilmember Frugoli suggested to staff that other areas be looked into for circulation road needs, especially within the Canal and Dominican areas. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 31, Monitoring of Geological and Seismic Lands, stating that there are some cases where recommend- ations have been made, but that improvements may have not been installed correctly, and it should be spelled out clearly. Commissioner Smith had concerns regarding wood planking along the outside of the railroad rails as to why it is only from Mission Street to North San Pedro Road and not going from Mission South to Larkspur Landing, and staff responded that this will be reviewed and brought back. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY COUNCILMEMBERS, COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. George Silvestri, Jr., attorney representing Ross Hospital, commented on the following: Page 4 (1) - Land Use, inquired if the City would be adding more to the information, and that a provision be made relating to traffic problems that impede large portions of the public during critical traffic hours going SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 8 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 9 to the two major hospitals of the County, and that by relocating Ross Hospital to the Smith Ranch Road area, this would bring the service closer to the community and help alleviate traffic problems. Mr. Dan Simonsen referred to the Health & Safety Figure 7 map and stated that "D" Street/Wolf Grade should be included, indicating that if it is not considered a major road now it will be in the future. Mr. James Weese referred to page 34 - re the Smith Ranch Airport and to Figure 6(a) showing the decibel reference chart and the noise contour map re the noise level study. Mr. Weese stated that the noise level study should be redone. Ms. Beth Shedetta from the Canal area asked if the issue of a health clinic in the Canal for the low-income multi-ethnic group in the Canal has been addressed. Planning Director Moore stated that it will be addressed in the General Plan, but staff is not to that level of specificity yet. Ms. Shedetta asked about people living aboard boats in the Canal, including tugs, and was concerned about the raw waste materials. She suggested that if they are doing something illegal, enforcement should be considered. Ms. Moore indicated that this matter will be looked at and that there will be more restrictions put on live-aboards. Mr. Jeff Stahl, resident of East San Rafael, stated that one of the weakest elements of the 1974 General Plan was the Noise Element. Mr. Stahl commented that the Draft indicates an improvement but that he had concerns about it being utilized in reality. Mr. Stahl referred to pine trees that had provided a sound barrier on the Exogan site that were uprooted within the past three weeks. Ms. Moore commented that she did not know if the development approvals for the zoning and subdivision for that property precluded the removal of the trees, and indicated staff will look into this matter. In answer to Mayor Mulryan's suggestion on a Tree Ordinance, Ms. Moore responded that it could be considered in the Design and Aesthetic section. Ms. Lieberman referred to page 32 stating that there was no mention materials or new development that of hazardous discharges. (3) -Regulating Hazardous Materials, of the transportation of hazardous might bring in the possibility Ms. Moore responded that it was an oversight and will be within the scope of staff work. Also, in regard to new development and discharges of hazardous materials, Ms. Moore stated that it is easier to deal with in terms of environmental review and various permits required by regional water quality control boards. Mr. Rich Berger, representative of the Canal Community Alliance, referred to the hazardous waste section, under F and G, identifying types of structures that would be allowed in such areas, and identifying sites and portions of sites that may or may not be suitable. Mr. Berger commented that the Bellam site had some preliminary geotechnical studies, and asked if further studies would be done and how they would be able to have specifics to identify what will or will not be done. Ms. Moore stated that staff is doing further analysis to prepare an adequate EIR for the General Plan revision, but in some cases, they might conclude that unless studies can show that the site is suitable for residential, it would be precluded and that SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 9 SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECIAL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Pagd 10 the burden of proof would be in favor of the environment as is the current policy of the existing General Plan. Mr. Berger recommended that the City try to find out ahead of time if public land, particularly land owned by the City which has been looked at for housing, such as the PG&E site, is clear of hazardous materials. Mr. Berger then referred to reducing flood hazards. He did not see within the recommended approach that the coordinated Flood Control Master Plan continues to be needed, and it should be included. In response to Mr. Berger's comments on flood hazards, Ms. Moore referred to page 32 (b) that relates to the matter. Mr. Berger referred to Hazardous Materials (3), re the land fills and stated that the City should take an active role in requiring hazardous materials testing and monitoring of all former landfills, commercially and industrially zoned sites, and early fill sites when new projects are proposed. Mr. Berger commented that the Canal area is isolated and needs alternative routes there. Mayor Mulryan stated that once these definite studies are concluded and converted into specific recommendations, it will have a great impact for development potential. Mayor Mulyran asked if there were any major disagreements or suggested changes from the direction that staff included in the report. None were given and Councilmember Breiner commended the Planning staff for doing a good job. Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned as there was no further need for continuation of the public hearing to Tuesday, May 13, 1986, as previously scheduled. JEANN�.LEONC�INQI,ity Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1986 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION (SPECAIL JOINT MEETING) 5/12/86 Page 10