HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 2004-09-27 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 AT 6:00 PM Special Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council 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 HEARING: 1. Public Hearing – DRAFT SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 POLICIES AND PROGRAMS PERTAINING TO LOCH LOMOND MARINA (APN 016-072-02, -03, -04, -05, -06), CANALWAYS (ALONG THE BAYFRONT TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF HOME DEPOT, APN 009-010-22, -23 AND - 24) AND CAL-POX (AT THE END OF SHORELINE PARKWAY, EAST OF HOME DEPOT, APN 009- 320-45) SITES. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, APPLICANT. FILE NO.: GPA 03-002 (CD) – FILE 115 (2020) Welcoming all in attendance, Mayor Boro announced this was a public hearing regarding the Draft San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policies and Programs pertaining to Loch Lomond Marina, Canalways and Cal- Pox, and he declared the public hearing opened. Explaining the process for this evening, Mayor Boro stated it was planned to end this hearing at 10:00 p.m. Each of the three Land Use areas would be taken separately, beginning with Loch Lomond, to be followed by Canalways and Cal-Pox. He indicated that each speaker would have approximately two to three minutes to make their point. A break would be taken at 9:00 p.m., and on resuming at 9:15, staff would answer questions raised. At approximately 9:30 Council would discuss issues raised, together with their own issues and questions, and provide direction to staff. Mayor Boro stated that anyone wishing to speak would be afforded the opportunity. He invited each speaker to state his/her name and address for the record and to try not to be repetitive, and Council would be as fair and pay as close attention as possible to everyone. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated before getting thoroughly immersed into the details of General Plan 2020 at this evening’s hearing, he believed it would be helpful to step back for a few minutes to consider the overall context of this General Plan. Explaining it had been a four-year planning process, Mr. Brown stated the process began with a two-day public visioning session at Dominican University. The 19-member citizens Steering Committee appointed by Council took the input from this visioning session and used it as guiding principles in the new planning effort they undertook. He stated the vision that came from that two-day effort addressed retaining diversity as a community, which had a lot to do with the type of housing people could or could not afford in San Rafael, the importance of retaining a vital local economy which in many ways provided a lot of the services people took for granted, preserving the distinctive neighborhoods in San Rafael, and retaining some of those things which indicated this was a “hometown”, i.e., historic buildings, historic downtown and this type of character. Mr. Brown stated that in the past he had described San Rafael as a canvas that had been painted by predecessors. This General Plan would not radically change the face of the community, rather add highlights to a painting that had been created for over one hundred years. He stated the question, therefore, was how the General Plan would deal with change that would be experienced in the next sixteen years. Mr. Brown stated the Steering Committee’s approach was to accept that change would be inevitable; however, it should be tailored to enhance the community. He noted of interest to them was strengthening the local economy and providing affordable housing that would provide for a more diverse community than otherwise might be seen. He indicated he would address some of the compromises the Steering Committee discussed in terms of traffic, which was a significant concern. Regarding how growth would be managed in the future, Mr. Brown explained that first, it was clear the public wanted much slower commercial growth than had been evident in the 1990s. He indicated that in the 1990s the City had a strategy. It came through the recession of the early ‘90s, there were very poor budgets and it was decided to look for some economic development to help the City’s “coffers” and help pay for services, and this was very successful. However, it became clear that people did not want the traffic associated with new commercial growth, nor did they like the fact that the state required the City to meet a housing obligation based upon the amount of non-residential growth. Mr. Brown stated, therefore, SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 2 that this General Plan provided for significantly less non-residential growth. He indicated that the three bars on the left of a chart displayed, depicted what had been evident since 1990, and the three on the right indicated what was projected for the sixteen years under the new General Plan – very little non-residential growth. Mr. Brown stated the other strategy that was important to the Steering Committee and members of the task groups that helped them was that it was less important to discuss housing density and the square-footage of non-residential development, and of more importance was the design and how these future projects would fit into the character of the neighborhoods. Therefore, there was a great deal of focus in the Plan regarding design. Mr. Brown reported that since 1988, the City had attempted to extract the best public benefits from new development in terms of allocating the very limited resource of traffic capacity, and this General Plan would not only continue that process, but expand it. In terms of housing, Mr. Brown noted there was a local need to continue the current diversity. There also was a state mandated housing need they had been good enough to express in terms of actual housing numbers the City must plan for. On how this could be achieved, Mr. Brown stated it was very important to the Steering Committee that no one neighborhood had to accept the bulk of new housing, rather they wanted this distributed throughout the community, and this was one of the ways they explored to do this. From a table displayed, Mr. Brown noted it broke down each neighborhood in San Rafael by census tract and spoke to the proportion of existing housing in those neighborhoods for the City total. In terms of the incremental growth in the new General Plan, he stated the last column identified what proportion was expected in each different neighborhood. For example, Mr. Brown noted that the San Pedro Peninsula had 9% of the existing housing in the City, and the new General Plan projected approximately 8% of the housing growth to occur on that peninsula. Reporting that the Steering Committee looked at dozens of potential housing sites, Mr. Brown stated they took a “road show” out to many community groups and neighborhood associations to obtain ratings on those various, possible housing sites. In cases where they experienced neighborhoods indicating they would prefer not to have a particular site or area shown for additional housing, he indicated the Steering Committee would ask the question “where else?” They were always looking to add to that list of potential sites. Mr. Brown stated that a further strategy was more mixed-use. He explained the idea was to add housing to the existing commercial areas to take advantage of existing transit lines, put housing near jobs, and also get it as far from the neighborhoods as was reasonably foreseeable. He indicated that another strategy was the addition of second units to try to distribute the housing gain in small units throughout the community. Indicating that the General Plan discussed increasing the proportion of affordable housing created in new housing developments, Mr. Brown reported that presently it was at 10% and the requirement in the new General Plan goes up to 20% of affordability in new projects. He stated there also was a requirement this time to assess new non-residential square-footage for the housing impacts they have by adding lower wage jobs, and this was also one of the proposals in the Housing Element. In terms of transportation, Mr. Brown stated this obviously was probably the biggest issue for the public. He indicated the City had been trying to live with a very limited amount of traffic capacity since the late 1980s. There was a very old circulation system in San Rafael, the City is impacted by the freeway a great deal, there are not a lot of parallel free routes or crossing routes across the freeway, and this very much affected the ability to respond to increased traffic. Mr. Brown reported that Level of Service (LOS) limitations for congestion were established in 1988. These were being “bumped up” against currently at several locations, and this would continue in the foreseeable future. He indicated that the Plan intended to both give and take away flexibility in terms of responding to traffic congestion. Stating that one of the expected improvements was the Highway 101 Gap Closure, Mr. Brown indicated this had the benefit of not only helping the freeway, but also the impacts felt on local streets from freeway backups. He reported that the Plan proposed to create more alternatives to vehicles, i.e., improving pedestrian routes, bicycle routes and transit. Mr. Brown noted the Plan proposed minimal non-residential development and unlike many cities, San Rafael proposed to continue to require that required traffic improvements be created up-front prior to approval of new development, not simply by paying a fee and seeing those improvements built in years hence. Should a new development need the improvement to meet the LOS standards, it must go in before that development is approved, and that policy is continued in the new Plan. Referring to a process instituted since 1988 to dole out limited traffic capacity to projects providing the maximum community benefits, Mr. Brown stated this program had been very successful and would be taken citywide, rather than just covering North and East San Rafael. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 3 In terms of creating less flexibility and more restraints, Mr. Brown stated there now are LOS standards that are only imposed during the evening commute hours. Since the morning in many places is as bad or worse than the evening, these LOS standards would be imposed both in the morning and evening. Also, currently, these LOS standards are applied to individual intersections. Mr. Brown noted this becomes particularly difficult and not very descriptive of congestion when considering areas such as the downtown where intersections are very close together. These operate as a segment; therefore, in the new General Plan, he stated it directs the City Traffic Engineer to either use individual LOS at intersections, or to look at an entire string of intersections as a segment, depending upon the situation. In terms of giving a little more flexibility, Mr. Brown stated that currently LOS up to mid LOS D is allowed at most intersections, equating to an approximate maximum of 45 seconds delay per intersection experienced during the worse commute period. He indicated that the proposal is to allow anywhere within the LOS D range, which goes up to 55 seconds of delay, so it increases the potential delay by 10 seconds per intersection or segment, and this provides somewhat more flexibility in terms of these congestion limits; otherwise virtually nothing could be built in San Rafael. Noting LOS E in the downtown, Mr. Brown reported that the General Plan proposed that this be extended to Grand and Irwin also. He stated that these particular areas of Grand and Irwin are impacted by traffic and development from four areas of the City that all come together, together with the freeway on and off ramps; therefore, these areas are particularly challenging. He indicated the proposal was to exempt the LOS at the freeway on and off ramps, because they are so impacted by what occurs on the freeway, over which the City has no control. Mr. Brown stated that the provision in the new General Plan that would permit the Council to allow projects to be approved with exceptions beyond LOS congestion limits were only for projects that provided either outstanding public benefits (essentially adopting findings similar to override findings for an EIR), or where there are safety improvements benefiting pedestrians or bicyclists. In terms of the importance of design, Mr. Brown reported there now was an entire element in the General Plan devoted to design. He noted there was huge sentiment to improve the appearance of the Canal and attract people to the Canal waterfront, and this was a definite proposal in the plan. Refining Design Guidelines was addressed, so that staff, decision-makers, developers and neighbors all were aware of the techniques that could be used to have projects blend into the surroundings. Mr. Brown stated that additional mixed-use and, more importantly, gathering places for the public were being encouraged. Mr. Brown reported that all of the neighborhood plans had been incorporated into one new Neighborhoods Element, and also there was a call for updating the historic building inventory and the historic preservation ordinance. Mr. Brown stated that despite all of these great concepts, and he was very proud of the General Plan the citizens Steering Committee and Planning Commission had put forward, there was a major problem with it in that there were far more community desires than the ability to pay for them. He indicated that commercial development had purposely been reduced, which actually pays for a great proportion of City services, and there were 170 new programs in the General Plan that called for either new staff studies or new City programs for the public. There were also 32 programs that requested new City facilities or infrastructure improvements, and this included an $86 million list of needed traffic improvements. Mr. Brown stated there were definite desires from the public of things they wanted to see, i.e., a new library, a swimming pool south of the hill, more sports fields, park improvements, a senior center, all of which were valid enhancements to the quality of life in San Rafael; however, the bottom line had to be that while this General Plan was all about tradeoffs, it could not be expected to have it all without some cost involved. Indicating this was the only negative he could present about General Plan 2020, Mr. Brown stated there would be difficulties without an identified additional funding source for some of the things people would like to see in the next sixteen years. Loch Lomond – Regarding the Loch Lomond Marina site, Principal Planner Linda Jackson stated that this evening’s topic concerned the General Plan policies contained in the Draft General Plan document. She recognized there was some tension between the discussion about General Plan policies and that about the details of a site- specific project proposal. She explained that the General Plan was a framework type of approach for the future of the site. The application was not under review this evening and she assured Council there would be many evenings in the future when these details would be discussed. Ms. Jackson reported that earlier this month a joint Design Review Board/Planning Commission meeting was held to discuss three design site alternatives, and there was a consensus that none of the designs were sufficiently oriented toward the waterfront, and she noted that these consensus comments were SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 4 itemized on page 4 of the staff report. Ms. Jackson stated that very early on in the process, the General Plan 2020 Steering Committee recognized that the Loch Lomond Marina was a unique place in San Rafael. It was a beautiful bayfront location, special place for those who boat, walk dogs, those who like to walk along the waterfront, paint, etc., and it provided local shops and services for those living on the San Pedro Peninsula, so they did not have to drive into Central San Rafael for incidentals. She noted that throughout the three years the Steering Committee discussed what the General Plan should state about the marina, there was some agreement:  It should be a better-looking site;  It should continue to have neighborhood resources; and  It should be a place that would continue to have public access for people to be able to enjoy the waterfront. Ms. Jackson reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the Steering Committee’s recommendations for eight months and made some revisions, identified in track changes format in the Draft General Plan (with the yellow cover). She indicated there were two long-range planning issues that Council would hear about this evening. Directing Council to page 45 of the Draft General Plan – Land Use Plan Map, Ms. Jackson identified the Loch Lomond Marina site. She indicated that the blue portion along the waterfront was the Land Use district called Marine Related, and in the current General Plan 2000, that blue portion covered considerably more of the site. Ms. Jackson stated this Draft Plan identified, with pink stripes, approximately 9 acres of neighborhood/commercial land use, while in the current plan, this was approximately 3.5 acres; therefore, the neighborhood/commercial portion was being expanded. Ms. Jackson reported that originally, the Steering Committee recommended ten acres for neighborhood/commercial and the Planning Commission having wrestled with it, decided to reduce the size of neighborhood/commercial and increase the blue area, in order to ensure there was sufficient area for day use parking for day boaters. Also, both the Planning Commission and Steering Committee wrestled with the idea of what kind of Land Use District should go on the site, and if there should be a specific residential Land Use District, (low, medium or high), assigned to the site. She indicated the question then became “where” on the site and agreement could not be reached on where the best place was for residential as opposed to any commercial uses as opposed to boating uses. Ms. Jackson stated that the proposed neighborhood/commercial district allows medium density housing, 6 ½ - 15 units per acre. Currently, the marine related district does not allow any residential use. The proposal was to have residential at a medium density in the marine district; however, the Planning Commission recommended that on this site, residential use not be allowed in the marine related district (blue areas), because of the need for adequate space for marine related uses. Noting a change, Ms. Jackson stated that in the current Plan there was no Conservation district (green area with black stripes) and approximately six acres of this site was now designated for Conservation use. Directing Council to page 114 of the Draft General Plan, Ms. Jackson stated there was a neighborhood specific policy for Loch Lomond. She indicated that this policy was rewritten in large part by the Planning Commission to further emphasize the desire for a high quality, extraordinary waterfront oriented design. She noted that neither the Steering Committee nor Planning Commission foresaw a gated, exclusive conclave of large homes on the site. They wanted housing that was affordable by design, and while the Planning Commission did not agree on a maximum number of units, as could be seen on page 114 in the last bullet, under a. there was a sentence they did agree on adding - “A minimum of 50 multi-family and workforce units are required. Because of the limited area for marine uses on the site, residential use is not allowed...” Ms. Jackson stated that a second Land Use issue concerned dry boat storage. She explained that the Steering Committee recommended there be some dry boat parking storage on the site and the Planning Commission deleted this from the policy, believing there were higher and better uses for the site. Highlighting two design issues, Ms. Jackson reported that both the Steering Committee and Planning Commission emphasized the desire for water oriented design, and again, in the joint meeting, the members agreed that the design approaches do not achieve this. Referring Council to page 4 of the staff th report and the list summarized as consensus items, she stated that the 5 bullet was a description about the view corridor. Ms. Jackson explained that the Planning Commission recommended in the Draft General Plan there be a central view corridor; however, in looking at the alternatives for the site and discussing it with the Design Review Board, it was realized that a wider entry corridor was more in line with what the site layout and view lines were, and that wide entry corridor should be created down Lochinvar toward the bay with a view of the Bay at the end. Regarding traffic from Loch Lomond, referring Council to page 5 of the staff report, Ms. Jackson stated that SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 5 staff modeled future traffic impacts resulting from new development throughout San Rafael, and the results were shown in terms of the increase in delay at the intersections of particular interest to those who live east of Highway 101. She noted Mr. Brown described traffic LOS measured in terms of seconds of delay, with LOS A being the least amount of delay, and LOS F, the most. She indicated that for Third and Union, in the PM peak hour, the delay currently is at 46.7 seconds, which was below the current standard of 45 seconds, and there was no more development capacity out on Point San Pedro Road, given the current LOS standards. Ms. Jackson reported it was proposed to modify the LOS standards to cover the full range of LOS D, which is up to 55 seconds. Referring to the table on page 5, she stated that with all the development proposed, not just that on Point San Pedro Road, but also in downtown, the Canal, Montecito, Dominican, the delay would be 50.1 seconds, which is within the LOS standard of up to 55 seconds. Referring to the table on page 5, last column, Ms. Jackson stated it was found when conducting the traffic modeling for the EIR, that with some proposed improvements at Third and Union Streets, the LOS became E. She indicated that the proposed improvements at Third and Union Streets would result in a deterioration in LOS, and this was due to pedestrian crossing time, not necessarily additional development proposed in General Plan 2020. Ms. Jackson reported that the General Plan traffic modeling indicated that Loch Lomond Marina would add to delays somewhat. It represented approximately 40% of the development projected out on the peninsula; however, development was also proposed throughout the area. She emphasized that when there is a specific project for traffic modeling (an application), detailed project modeling and analysis would occur and would determine the real specific project impacts that needed to be mitigated as a result. Ms. Jackson stated that City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian was present and could provide travel time information and answer questions. Referring to page 373 of the Draft General Plan – Housing Sites Table – Ms. Jackson stated this was a table required by state law. The City had to demonstrate to the State of California how it was planning to meet the needs for housing in the City of San Rafael. She noted that third from the bottom of the page, it could be seen that Loch Lomond Marina was listed as a specific site, estimated at approximately 9 acres, with approximately 11 units to the acre, having a capacity of 99 units. There were more units possible by the Land Use range; however, other factors on the site were taken into consideration. Ms. Jackson stated it was noted in the staff report that a project did not have to be approved at that level; however, state law requires that a finding be made that should it be approved at less than 99, those units could be built elsewhere. She pointed out that in downtown, there was sufficient capacity to make up should a project be presented at fewer than 99 units. At the commencement of public testimony, Mayor Boro reiterated he would appreciate if speakers would state their name and address and maintain their comments to two to three minutes. Initially, he invited a spokesperson for Loch Lomond to address the Council. Jeanne Cohn distributed copies of her remarks to Council and thanked the City Council for the opportunity of addressing them this evening. Ms. Cohn reported that Mr. Al Barr had announced he no longer would serve in a leadership position in the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association as of October 15, 2004. She indicated he was retiring for a very well deserved rest and they would inform the City within thirty days of the identity of the incoming president, with whom she was sure Council would work as closely as Mr. Barr. Indicating she was a strong proponent of workforce housing, Ms. Cohn stated that the development plans for too many homes in the Loch Lomond Marina should have been squashed a long time ago. She stated that last year at one of their homeowners meetings in Loch Lomond, people were incensed, and a committee to proactively fight this development was appointed. Since that time, their “Save the Marina” committee had gone to many Planning Commission meetings, met with the City planners and commissioners, written letters and informed them of their concerns. Ms. Cohn stated it was useless to meet with the developers, even after having a facilitator to attempt to control the meeting. Since then, the developer had called off all meetings with them. Noting this was a very special site abutting San Pablo Bay and the Marin Islands, Ms. Cohn stated that Senator McCarthy, who developed the area, had to be turning in his grave. She indicated that his vision of replicating the lovely areas of Scotland overlooking the waters and having them accessible to all people was in jeopardy. Ms. Cohn stated that the so-called marina commercial plan was being considered to be replaced with an horrific, crowded housing plan. She noted in parts of the United States where marinas had become threatened by developers, legal action, and even referenda, had taken place to stop them; they hoped they would not have to resort to these measures. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 6 Stating that the neighborhood/commercial use had already been diminished with the loss of the video store and beauty parlor, only to be replaced with a drug rehabilitation center, Ms. Cohn indicated that the other remaining businesses, cleaners, Bobby’s Cafe, Yacht Club and dentist’s office, were on a month-to-month basis, and should this trend continue, even more traffic would be going to Montecito Plaza from the many neighborhoods along Point San Pedro Road, adding to the pollution. Ms. Cohn stated that the owners of the marina had shown bad faith with environmental concerns. Tens of thousands of dollars in fines had been levied by BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) for environmental damages. She indicated they produced a required bird list for the marina of only about 30 species, and there was no mention of other wildlife that takes advantage of this environment. Ms. Cohn stated that Doctor Robert O’Briant did an actual bird count of over 100 species documented with photographs; he did this for several years on a frequent basis, which was how one determined the accurate bird species for an area. Noting water resources were quickly diminishing, Ms. Cohn stated the Marin Municipal Water District suggested desalination and conservation. Recalling the brown lawns and “don’t flush if it is yellow, yellow is mellow,” she stated that quantities of new housing must not be overdone. Stating that the land was situated on a flood plain, Ms. Cohn stated this meant the developer needed to add 3 – 4 feet of fill over existing fill. Adding to that the height of the buildings being proposed, picturing the height of a telephone pole, she stated one could get an idea of what the development would look like. She stated this site was filled land and was reminiscent of the Marina district of San Francisco, and all remembered what happened to that district after the earthquake. Ms. Cohn stated that the proposed development was not only too dense, rather it should be deleted from the San Rafael General Plan 2020. She requested that Council consider the plan very carefully as it would destroy forever the marine ambience and recreational activities provided by the Loch Lomond Marina. Mayor Boro invited a representative of the Loch Lomond Marina to address Council. He issued a reminder to the audience that Council was not considering the proposed project this evening. What was happening in the planning approval process was independent of tonight’s discussion, which only concerned policies in General Plan 2020 that ultimately would drive whatever was presented to Council. Mary McEachron, San Rafael LLC, distributed two site plans, indicating this was not because she wanted Council to focus on the site plan or even approve a site plan, rather to illustrate what a fool’s chase it was to try to incorporate specific design guidelines into the concept of a General Plan, which was intended to control density, mass, housing types and usages. Ms. McEachron stated the first illustration attempted to respond to the many very critical comments they heard at the September 8, 2004 joint meeting of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. She indicated they pointed out that the development must be oriented towards the water, the housing types must be integrated together and not segregated, the park must welcome the entire community, and the housing should be affordable by design, hence the single-story small cottages, which basically encircled the site, facing San Pedro Road and all of Point San Pedro Cove. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. McEachron stated this was their attempt to respond to the specific comments about design and orientation which they heard from the Design Review Board members and Planning Commissioners, yet looking at the way the design guidelines themselves were written, she stated the second illustration depicted the design directions they received from the Planning Commission. She indicated that this was how at least three of the Planning Commissioners interpreted the design guidelines as written:  The housing could not be oriented on the water as it must be restricted only to the northeast and northwest quadrants of the site;  The entry corridor, interpreted by one Planning Commissioner as being required to be 300-400 feet wide;  The commercial must be single story. Ms. McEachron stated some would suggest that the design guidelines as currently drafted need not be interpreted this restrictively, and they hoped not; however, three Planning Commissioners had interpreted it this restrictively. She stated that the design review guidelines, which were intended to be at a General Plan level to control uses, density, massing and types of housing, instead were being drafted to control the site design. Indicating that the Land Use map was also problematic, Ms. McEachon explained there were 17 upland acres on this site (excluding the current marina, spits, breakwater and all wetlands). Their last proposal was for 88 units, which, of course, was within the province of the General Plan to determine. Of those 17 acres, she stated that the Land Use map attempted to restrict the housing to only 9 of those 17 acres. The SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 7 problem, she noted, could be good or bad; however, it pushed the entire development away from the waterfront, setting a much wider corridor than the first plan would, and pushed the housing much further away from the waterfront, in contrast to the Design Review Board’s comment that it should be water oriented. Ms. McEachron stated that pushing the housing into 9 of the 17 acres created, of necessity, a feel of a much higher density than necessary, so they could not respond to the neighbors’ concerns that to the extent possible, this reflected their values, lots and type of housing development. Thus, the interplay between the Land Use map and the design guidelines in NH 121 unduly restricted the opportunity for an extraordinary development there. Noting that when this was first presented to the Planning staff, one stated this would be a crown jewel of San Rafael, and Ms. McEachron stated all they were asking was for the opportunity to allow the design review process to create a crown jewel of San Rafael; however, she respectfully submitted, this was not it. Ms. McEachron requested that Council direct staff to return to the City Council with a revised Land Use map, simply allowing greater flexibility, not greater density, and revised language for NH 121 which would ensure that the General Plan requirements were sufficiently flexible to allow for the creation of a water oriented development of the extraordinary design they were aware architects BAR was capable of, and that they would provide with the assistance and direction of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Al Barr, Loch Lomond area, correcting a minor remark by his neighbor, stated he was not retiring, rather he intended to participate in the process until its completion. Mr. Barr stated that the representatives of the three homeowners associations surrounding the marina had been meeting with City staff and the developer for over three years, and he wished to clearly state that the Planning Commission had been very supportive and had spent a great deal of time on this, noting a joint meeting of both the Design Review Board and Planning Commission was held recently. He stated that this group heard the reaction to the developer’s three proposed plans and basically sent them back to the drawing boards. Commenting on wording in NH 121 – page 114 - Land Use a. – final bullet “A minimum of 50 multifamily and workforce units are required”, Mr. Barr stated they believed the wording in that one sentence was ambiguous. He suggested it be deleted in favor of “A minimum of 50 modest sized one family and below market rate units is required.” Aware that 20% of the units had to be below market rate currently, he stated that since the Planning Commission specified 50 for some reason, he believed this would be unduly restrictive. Mr. Barr also suggested that the developer’s revised plan be referred to the Park and Recreation Commission for their input on the recreational aspect. In the meantime, he suggested Council request the Public Works Department and staff to find an alternative day use and boat storage area to be ministered by the City on either marginal land or leased land in San Rafael. He indicated that the capital improvements for that land should be paid for by the developers. Since the Planning Commission quite clearly designated dry boat storage as being a low priority, he believed it would be unreasonable to have over 200 people in San Rafael having to find another location for their boats. Mr. Barr noted the fees to be charged for the rental of these spaces on this leased land would more than cover the administration and maintenance of this location. (Mr. Barr complimented Councilmember Heller on her attendance at all of the Planning Commission meetings). Mr. Barr stated that staff requested the Planning Commission to give the developer some guidance and similarly, the City Council should give staff some guidance regarding density. He did not believe the Planning Commission requested the developer to lower the density to the low end of medium range and he hoped staff would follow through when analyzing the developer’s plans on re-submittal. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Barr for all his hard work. Ian Sammis, Attorney and employer in San Rafael, re-emphasized the fact that there was a major housing shortage for lower income people. He indicated that his paralegals and secretaries and others working with attorneys had to commute from out of the area for at least an hour because they could not afford housing in San Rafael. While he respected the design problems being faced, he believed it could be done in a way that would be attractive, would not block the views and still provide the 99 units. Changing that, he indicated, would require that other units be found somewhere in San Rafael, which would be extremely difficult, noting that any neighborhood where the City tried to place more units would have a similar reaction. Mr. Sammis stated the City would not find any place in San Rafael that would welcome a higher density, which was partly because people did not understand the statistical results of what happens. He indicated that the higher density of lower types of housing for workforce people meant more commuters on busses and public transportation, whereas building expensive houses resulted in more automobiles, and this needed to be avoided. He believed higher density was good, design could take care of it and it would help the employment area as far as workforce people were concerned. Howard Cohn, Loch Lomond, stated that several months ago he was standing in a long line at Trader SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 8 Joe’s and he encountered a member of the General Plan 2020 Steering Committee. He reported having inquired as to why they designated the Loch Lomond lands for such a large housing project, and the Steering Committee member replied by stating there were very few large vacant lots in the City of San Rafael. There was a requirement for additional housing and affordable housing and this seemed like the most appropriate location from other sites investigated. Mr. Cohn inquired of the Steering Committee member whether he had received in his deliberations specific data concerning those who used the marina for public bay access, day boaters, fishermen, etc., and he replied that he could not recall anything specific, rather they discussed the uses taking place at the marina. Mr. Cohn reported that some weeks later he attended a meeting, attended by City planners, the developers and the community, and Ms. Jackson was asked whether any specific data was brought to the attention of the Steering Committee to use in determining the validity of designating that site to be housing, and the reply was that there was nothing specific. Mr. Cohn stated that the marina frequently looks like a vacant lot; however, on busy days, it overflows with trailers, parked even in the streets. With today’s rules, he indicated that approximately 90% of the units built on that site would be luxury, market rate houses. He stated this was not an issue of affordable housing as 80% to 90% of the units built would be luxury market rate housing, and the percentage would be between 10% and 20% affordable housing. Mr. Cohn stated he would love to have a teacher, policeman, firefighter as his neighbor; however, was not excited about the other 90% of those who had these homes at the expense of the entire community. He believed the wording needed to be changed to include the community, aside from the planners, in the decision-making as to what eventually would be built on that property. Al Vipiana, 51 Locksley Lane, stated he was quite concerned about what was being planned for the Loch Lomond Marina. He indicated that the existing General Plan points out on page RB 18 (of General Plan 2000) that parts of the Country Club neighborhood and the Loch Lomond neighborhood are poorly served by public recreational facilities. He noted that the City in the proposed General Plan 2020 seemed determined to further diminish Loch Lomond’s access to recreation by transforming the Loch Lomond Marina into a housing development. Mr. Vipiana stated that the marina serves as an informal recreational area for Loch Lomond residents, and others, and a place where people could exercise, fish and meet and enjoy visiting with friends in a bayside setting. Although the City was keeping the boat slips, its plan severely restricted boaters’ access to the Bay because of the planned housing. He noted there would no longer be adequate parking for the day boaters’ rigs or adequate maneuvering space on the newly planned narrow streets. Dry boat storage would also be greatly restricted, all of which would impact on the streets of Loch Lomond, with trailer parking. On page RB 4 of the current General Plan, Mr. Vipiana reported that boat access to the Bay was ranked as a high need. Boating related recreation and bay access could only be located in very limited areas, and he believed that Loch Lomond had the only public deep-water boat launch area between Sausalito and Petaluma. Contrary to the proposed plan for Loch Lomond, the proposed plan for the Canal area required low scale buildings that provide public view and more access to the water, which he believed was great; however, they also should be shown the same consideration. Mr. Vipiana stated he did not believe it fair that Loch Lomond could lose its only recreational area that is accessible to all people. The open space land above Loch Lomond could only be accessed by very athletic people, whereas, in contrast, in the Dominican/Black Canyon area, the proposed plan looked to include a new neighborhood park and other recreational facilities, while this area already had free access to much of the Dominican University grounds and to Forest Meadows. David Tattersall, Bayside Acres, stated he had addressed in the past some of the concerns neighbors had about the marina and the principal issue was the concern that some form of development would take away from the marina. One school of thought believed this was a development site and another that it was a marina, and they wished to ensure that the General Plan language clearly identified this property as a marina and a recreational asset, and that what remained might be suitable for residential development. Mr. Tattersall stated the sentence he believed Mr. Barr referred to “A minimum of 50 multifamily workforce units” may not be appropriate, because the preceding sentence already called for a mix of housing types that meet design and housing objectives. They believed that setting those target numbers as a minimum could compromise design and development at the marina and put pressure on the existing marina uses. Noting that a previous speaker mentioned the issue of day use trailer parking, Mr. Tattersall stated this was a real fear for all of the neighbors, in that should there not be an adequate area allowed for this, those trailers would end up on Point San Pedro Road or in the neighborhoods, and once the space was gone, it would not be brought back. He noted this was one of the only boat trailer launch ramps in the County, and therefore, a really important asset. Mr. Tattersall stated he supported changes in the Land Use plan increasing the marine related aspect of the Land Use and also designating a conservation district. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 9 Mike Nelson, representing San Pedro Cove, stated he would contain his comments to NH 121. He complimented the Planning Commission for all their work, noting three Planning Commission members actually walked the site, meeting with neighbors, etc. He believed their conclusion was that this was a unique site, and not just another chunk of land for housing. Mr. Nelson stated the language in general was very positive in its attempt to make this something the entire City, and not just the neighborhood, was proud of. Noting a couple of areas a developer could be confused on, he thought perhaps some of the language could be cleaned up somewhat. Specifically, he referred to the language “The view through the center of the site is the major view corridor. To enhance this corridor, housing should be compact and clustered on the eastern and western portions of the site, on the north side of the property”, and believed this was based on the faulty assumption that there was some better view corridor up the center of the site. Mr. Nelson stated that to walk from one part of the site to the end, the view corridor is virtually the same, with no center view corridor to take advantage of. Therefore, taking everything and moving it to the east and west struck him as a particularly bad idea as it would be super congested. Indicating that his area at San Pedro Cove was the closest to the marina, he stated it was probably affected more than any other site. Mr. Nelson confirmed having sent a letter to the Planning Commission in this connection, and provided a copy to the City Clerk. Sara Jensen, Loch Lomond, noted the Mayor and Council had a role similar to a physician in that they look out for the health and welfare of the City, and she believed the same guiding principle should apply – “Do not harm.” She indicated there was a lot of concern that should the marina be converted to such a massive housing project, harm would be done. She noted some of those concerns:  Diminishing of Bay access, which is believed to be a high priority need;  Severing of visual connections with the Bay (something the City repeatedly pledged to preserve and enhance) - allowing high structures threatened this; and  Exacerbating the existing problem of the area being underserved by parkland, already discussed. Ms. Jensen believed that some of the newly revised language in NH 121 sounded as if it were attempting to guard against this kind of harm. While it sounded good and hopeful, she stated it also appeared to be in direct conflict to what the Draft General Plan stated on pages 376 and 377, that 9 acres were available for housing - 99 housing units and 36-foot height for structures (which on top of fill would make approximately 40 feet). She indicated that with this density and height, it appeared impossible that many of the goals stated in NH 121 could actually be achieved. Ms. Jensen believed that both the residents of the City and the owner/developers of the property needed to know very clearly what the City intended for this property, as should the City state that this very high number (99 units) was available in a bayfront property, it would attract the type of owner interested in making profit from housing. If this were toned down, it would be more likely to have an owner/developer interested in maintaining the slow, steady profits for the marina, preserving this asset for the City rather than losing it to housing. She indicated that those who live there and visit it daily saw perhaps 2 acres underutilized, and it was difficult to understand where the 9 acres were coming from. Ms. Jensen requested that the City Council consider reducing the height and density allowed there. Also, as already pointed out, Ms. Jensen stated the basic description of Loch Lomond contained a couple of inaccuracies concerning having bayside lots, which she stated they did not. She explained that the marina was designed to stand in front of Loch Lomond and allow visual access to the Bay. Ms. Jensen stated that should Council be interested she would be happy to arrange neighborhood coffees so they could talk to the residents of Loch Lomond, hear their concerns and afford them the opportunity to understand the City’s thinking on this issue that is of great concern to them. David Simonson, 110 Loch Lomond Drive #5, stated he had live-aboard status through BCDC regulations and lived on his 50-foot motor yacht at the marina. Believing the marina to be a beautiful site, he indicated he had been worried over the past two years seeing all the “Save the Marina” signs. He stated the marina was not going any place, rather the developer just wanted to make it better. Reporting he was from Petaluma, Mr. Simonson stated that Petaluma built a City marina on what used be Schollenberger Park, trading land elsewhere to recreate Schollenberger Park again on the water of the Petaluma river, and he wondered why this developer had to supply so much of his land for public access. He stated it certainly had a lot of public access; however, as indicated previously, it was perhaps only 7 – 10 weekends per year that all this empty land was full of trailers and trucks because of day use boating, and he believed it appalling that the developer had to supply so much public access. Frank Garine, 55 Main Drive, stated that Robert McCarthy Sr. and Charles Bormley did quite a job out there, explaining that the marina was on the south side of San Pedro and the housing on the north side. He noted it was and still is beautiful, and if more needed to be done, the marina should be developed as a marina. He understood the developer was not local, and being such a desirable area, was interested in SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 10 profit. He subsequently would depart leaving density. Mr. Garine stated that the real estate people would be happy, they would sell and residents would have density. He expressed the wish that the City Council would listen to those who reside in the neighborhood who did not want homes built there. He wanted to see who the City Council represented, believing it was them. Martha McNear, Peacock Gap, stated she was present last Monday and had several sleepless nights not knowing what she could do to make a difference. She reported having generated a petition reading “We the undersigned strongly support the need for affordable housing in San Rafael and back the development at Loch Lomond Marina, which would provide 99 housing units.” Having obtained permission from United Market to stand in front of their door, she indicated she spent 4 ½ hours there on Friday and received 130 signatures, and reported having spent a couple of hours walking around Gerstle Park on the following day and received more signatures. She noted that on realizing only 20% of the 99 units would be affordable, some people did not sign the petition. Ms. McNear reported that state law indicates that up to ten feet above the high tide mark is public property and no one could change this; therefore, presently, it was public property. She noted the City’s objective about keeping it marine related, and that it would include parkland and a community center. She believed that with proper traffic management there was plenty of room on Point San Pedro Road. Indicating she personally would favor workforce housing people move into her neighborhood, noting that none of the workers at McNear Brickyard could afford to live in San Rafael; therefore, they had to commute on Point San Pedro Road to the freeway. She noted also that a lot of those complaining about traffic conditions sent their children to private schools, driving to schools such as San Domenico, while instead, they could walk across the street to San Pedro School. Ms. McNear submitted the petitions to the City Clerk. Elissa Giambastiani, CEO, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated that tonight she represented the Chamber of Commerce and the Marin Workforce Housing Trust. Ms. Giambastiani stated she missed the September 8, 2004 meeting, having been on vacation, and was quite astonished to see that the Loch Lomond design had been totally revised by the Planning Commission, and also at the specificity of the Planning Commission’s directives. Indicating their support for the designation of the 99 units for the site, Ms. Giambastiani stated they had some concerns about the Planning Commission’s directives. Ms. Giambastiani stated that if the total count was 99 there must be some clarification as to what the Planning Commission meant by “a minimum of 50 workforce units.” She questioned whether they meant attached units, small units, or affordable units. Should the language mean affordable, as much as they would be welcomed, she did not believe this was a financially viable option. Strongly believing that the site should be developed with attached units and not low density single-family residences, Ms. Giambastiani stated that attached units would be very appropriate for the site, creating a smaller footprint than single, detached residences and more room for recreational uses. Reporting that she lived for 20 years on the peninsula, Ms. Giambastiani stated her children attended San Pedro and Glenwood schools. She knew the area well and her husband, being a fisherman, had frequented the site. Ms. Giambastiani reported that they recently sponsored a workshop for first-time homebuyers who were interested in applying for the lottery for the affordable units at Redwood Village in Terra Linda, which was very well attended. She noted the City was losing young people from the community because of the cost of housing and much more first-time homebuyer housing was needed. Not needed were more multi-million dollar homes, which was what low density development would provide. She indicated that there could not be workforce housing with low-density designations. Noting Program H-18b of the Draft General Plan stated “the minimum of the prescribed density range for a property should be achieved unless there are significant environmental constraints” and “residential projects should be approved at the mid to high range of the density range” she indicated they supported this program and felt strongly it should be applied to the Loch Lomond site. Ms. Giambastiani stated she was aware there were many residents present this evening who wanted no housing built at the Loch Lomond site and she wished they had been present at the time of fighting for housing at St. Vincent’s/Silveira. She noted that California had 35 million people presently and by 2025, would probably have 50 million. Marin County and San Rafael would not be able to stop that growth and it should be planned for. Stating that no neighborhood had the right to be the sole determiner of housing that is built next to that neighborhood, Ms. Giambastiani noted that Los Ranchitos, whose lots are much larger than the Loch SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 11 Lomond lots, accepted a 132 unit project right across the street – Redwood Village. She stated that the entire community had the responsibility to provide for future housing, including the San Pedro Peninsula. Other neighborhoods in San Rafael had taken their share of housing development and now it was time for East San Rafael to “step up to the plate.” Ms. Giambastiani encouraged the City Council to approve the draft plan for Loch Lomond that specified densities, and include language that more clearly delineates the term “workforce” units. Frank Battat, 62 Lochinvar Road, stated he had lived in Loch Lomond since 1959 when the sign on San Pedro Road indicated the population of San Rafael was 13,000. Supporting the people from Loch Lomond, he indicated he specifically wished to address traffic. He believed the problem at Third and Irwin and Third and Grand was not confined to just rush-hour, rather all of the time and seven days a week. Mr. Battat stated that one of the problems with the forecasts was that no one had looked at who lives in East San Rafael. He indicated that presently, a great number of people were empty nesters, with two cars. Over the next 10 – 15 years this would be replaced with families with children, and because these were not starter homes for the most part, the number of cars would increase, and there was nothing about this in the study. He stated it would be necessary to conduct a total study of the age ranges of those who live out in East San Rafael, estimate when those houses would turn over and what would happen to the population of car drivers, none of which was contained in the traffic study, which he believed was totally flawed. Mr. Battat believed there should not be any further development in East San Rafael until that is decided, and then some way of handling the anticipated traffic is provided, before burdening residents with additional traffic. For those who might remember, Mr. Battat stated that San Rafael at one time had its own marina, which turned into Montecito Shopping Center, losing an asset forever. He noted the one remaining marina was under siege and would be destroyed with housing, destroying the quality of life and burdening the value of existing homes. Mr. Battat reported having spent a summer in Puget Sound in British Columbia where everyone is marine- oriented. He stated the developments were beautiful, with businesses and money being made because they are water-oriented, and he requested that one of the last water-oriented sites in San Rafael not be destroyed. Roy Chernus, Executive Director, Legal Aid of Marin, stated it appeared interesting to him that quality of life is talked about for those fortunate enough to live in Marin County, together with how bad traffic is, rather than discussing the requirements of state law. He reported that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), of which San Rafael is a part, set numbers of housing units that needed to be created. He noted these were not negotiable, nor could they be erased. It was not just housing for others, rather housing for the community’s children and parents, those who could not afford to live in Marin as it is now. People moved out and relatives had to follow to be close to their grandchildren because of what was happening in Marin presently; therefore, he stated affordable housing was desperately needed. Mr. Chernus stated that a community had been created of people hanging onto their home equity. They worried about a developer making money; however, he did not hear anyone indicate they would give up some of their home equity. He stated that a value had been created of everyone looking at their home like it was their biggest asset, and not like members of the community, and certainly not like members of the community who wanted to share with others. Mr. Chernus believed that housing needed to be created for teachers, community workers and people coming to Marin to work who were blocking up Highway 101 so those on San Pedro Road had trouble getting onto it. Housing needed to be created for those going through Marin from Lake County, Mendecino, Sonoma and Napa Counties to work in the City, and by not doing this all these years, the highway problem had been created that now was being used to stop affordable housing, which he believed was wrong and unfair. Noting affordable housing units take less car trips per unit and have fewer cars per unit, he stated that to blame the problem of traffic on affordable housing was wrong, and leaders are counted on to acknowledge when things are wrong. Indicating that smart use of land was higher density, Mr. Chernus explained this was fitting more units on the available land so that the open land and views in Marin could be retained. Having gone by Loch Lomond and observing the “Save Loch Lomond Marina” signs, and living in Marin for 26 years, he believed good and smart development could make that a jewel of San Rafael and Marin County, which is not what it was presently. He indicated that it would be necessary to be smart and use the land wisely. Mr. Chernus noted that Marin County residents had voted several times against funds to make traffic better, and now use traffic as an excuse to fight all development. When that goes in the face of state law, which dictates how much housing units the City needs to build, he believed it was up to City leaders to lead the voters and not just listen to those who did not want it here. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 12 Thor Christenson, suggested that the requirements of the BCDC, which is a 100-foot setback line, be written into the overall Plan. Presently, he stated, that requirement was totally disregarded. “Rocky” Birdsey, Marin Center for Independent Living, stated he was not speaking specifically to Loch Lomond, rather also the Cal Pox and Canalways sites. He stated there was a need for affordable, accessible housing for the disabled, and also senior move-down housing. He noted many seniors lived in homes with great equity but they could not move down, and Loch Lomond would be great for this type of housing, allowing them to remain in the community. Mr. Birdsey stated that approximately 50% of their consumers were looking for housing and there was nowhere to send them. With the dire need in San Rafael and the County, the responsibility needed to be shared to address the affordable, accessible housing needs for very low and low income. Regarding traffic, Mr. Birdsey stated there was no mention of pedestrian gap closure projects and with two schools in the Loch Lomond area, Glenwood and San Pedro, (San Pedro school having no accessible sidewalk), he believed this should be addressed as mitigation, should the project go forth. On a personal note, Mr. Birdsey stated he did not see any bicycle improvements, even though they were in the San Rafael General Plan. He indicated this does reduce traffic and the traffic mitigation report did not address the bicycle improvements listed for that roadway in the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. He noted the Plan stated that the majority should be completed in five years; however, this had not been the case, which was frustrating. Mr. Birdsey stated they would like to see the inclusion of mitigation for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Mr. Birdsey again stressed the severe need for affordable, accessible housing in Marin County. Jeff Schoppert, 587 Montecillo Road, stated he was part owner of a business located in downtown San Rafael and was speaking on his own behalf, on behalf of his co-business owners and his wife, a City Schools’ teacher, and supported the need to adopt a plan that adequately addressed the workforce housing needs of the community. He noted several speakers preceding him had very eloquently addressed that point and he urged Council not to abandon language contained in the Draft General Plan that would help achieve that goal. With all due respect to the work done and the suggestion that it could be possible to make up a loss of units elsewhere should this particular site not provide its adequate share, he urged the City to stay the course in adopting the Plan, and later, in reviewing the application from whomever for specific site development, to ensure the maximum number of units was achieved. Mr. Schoppert indicated he found the developer’s suggestion that some of the specific site design language be taken out of the Plan rather persuasive, believing it constrained the ability to achieve the goals enumerated elsewhere in the NH-121 language. He reported having attended the September 8, 2004 joint meeting of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, and went away believing it was a difficult site to develop, to achieve the goals and do so within the constraints of the very specific language contained in NH-121. He stated that taking another look should be considered, especially the specific siting of housing on the site. As was pointed out by a resident, he did not believe the view corridor policies should be regarded as cast in stone and necessarily viewed as something to be included in the General Plan that described how a street would extend into a particular development. Disagreeing with Mr. Barr, Mr. Schoppert did not believe the language should be changed in any way to limit the types of housing developed on the site as, in fact, attached or multi-family homes would be needed to achieve the densities required to obtain the maximum number of workforce units. Dirk Brinckerhoff, 43 Maywood Way, stated he represented himself, businesses, his employees and as Chairman of the Affordable Housing Committee of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, the Marin Consortium for Workforce Housing. Understanding the concerns of residents in the area, Mr. Brinckerhoff stated that everyone gets disturbed when something new happens, especially if it takes up some open space. Noting he lived in a place where he used to play as a child, he stated he was really upset when the houses were built because they took away his play space; however, had they not been built, he would not have his place today where he had been for the past 25 years. Mr. Brinckerhoff stated the entire community needed the social and economic benefits of affordable housing. He noted the Housing Element proposed 99 units, which was approximately 8% of the total required units, and should these not be built there, they would have to go elsewhere with just as much upset; however, no matter what, the total had to be built, both because of the law and the needs of the entire community. He requested that a high minimum number be set for the total number of units at that site to ensure starter castles were not built, and to achieve as many as possible of the percentage requirements of affordable units. As indicated by Mr. Schoppert, Mr. Brinckerhoff stated they were somewhat uncertain as to exactly what multi-family meant, and should it mean rental housing, they were unsure whether this was appropriate in that location. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 13 Finally, Mr. Brinckerhoff stated that as stressed throughout their review of the Housing Element, it was important to ensure that the heights, densities, other kinds of envelopes and zoning restrictions actually allowed the total number of units proposed in the Draft General Plan. Lynn Mason, 18 Jewel Street, stated she had lived in the Montecito area for the past 40 years, was president of the Montecito Area Residents Association and spoke for a lot of residents. She reported that residents were concerned about the safety at the intersection at Union and Third Streets. She noted that a high volume of traffic is created by shoppers using the Montecito Center, especially Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods across the street, and it was difficult for pedestrians to get all the way across the street before the light changed. These pedestrians also felt threatened by cars coming dangerously close; often impatient drivers were more concerned with beating the light than whether anyone was in the crosswalk. Ms. Mason noted her area had two senior complexes with over 200 senior residents – Rafael Commons and Aldersly – and dozens of these seniors signed a petition, submitted to the City earlier this year, stating they felt afraid to cross at that intersection. She noted there were many other seniors residing in this area who had not been polled; however, she was sure would feel the same. There also were handicapped residents using motorized wheelchairs and seniors with walkers who never attempted to cross at that intersection. Ms. Mason reported that on Park, Union and Valencia, apartment buildings house a high-density population with many mothers and small children who walk to the stores, albeit not very safely. She indicated there were over 900 students at San Rafael High School, many of whom were dropped off and picked up by parents, which increased the traffic in the area, and hundreds of these students walked to the Montecito Center and back at lunchtime using the intersection at Union and Third. Add to this mix the traffic jams at the entrance to Whole Foods, which block the street back to the stoplight and beyond, she stated it was a miracle that no one had been seriously injured. Ms. Mason stated the Montecito Area Residents Association believed it important that the City address the problems at this intersection so that it is no longer a danger to the community. Dr. Ted Murray, Locksley Lane, Loch Lomond, stated he was one of the neighbors who circulated the petition presented last week and he hoped the City Council would take the time to read the positions they supported. He believed Council would recognize many of the names of constituents among the 1,100 plus signatures. Indicating they did not request no development, Dr. Murray stated that, however, they were strongly in favor of a low density development, not a medium density development as allowed for in General Plan 2020. As he went door to door, almost to a person, once he described the proposed very dense development, the neighbor would inquire “what about the traffic, don’t they understand the traffic situation?” He indicated that General Plan 2020 as submitted allows for degradation of the stoplight waiting times at the intersections from Montecito Shopping Center to the freeway. Should the City intend to allow development of the very large tracts of lands on the peninsula in the next fifteen years, Mr. Murray stated the traffic infrastructure needed to be a priority. A lower density development would be more appropriate for this site and for traffic reasons, and urged that the intersections not be turned into the Hub. Noting NH-121 addressed access to open space, Dr. Murray stated that technically, there was access; however, realistically, it was unusable and even dangerous. He stated that access was lost when Loch Lomond Unit 10 was built out just a few years ago and the land that had been used for over 40 years by their neighborhood to get to Barbier Park and China Camp became someone’s private driveway. From his home, he reported he could see the ridgeline above Loch Lomond. There used to be many people hiking and walking their dogs up there; however, not any more. Mr. Murray stated that Councilmember Cohen was aware of the situation and had been very helpful, even hiking up onto the hill to observe the problems with the new access. They understood there were serious financial concerns at both the State and City levels and this had been put on the back burner; however, he requested that Council please consider the important access issues the marina presented. He urged that they not make another mistake by not carefully studying and preserving all the access sites that are present there. Lastly, Dr. Murray stated that two weeks ago the developers and architects presented the plans for the marina to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. One of the architects (DRB) inquired as to the exceptional and unique features of the plans, and the marina architect had great difficulty in answering the question. The Planning Commissioner indicated that it was not a unique design, rather it was driven by density. Another Commission member stated that the City of San Rafael had “blown” every waterfront development along Montecito Road. Dr. Murray suggested making this an exceptional development, exceptional like Pac Bell Park was an exceptional baseball stadium - one that would benefit the neighborhood and the City, keep the marina development friendly to the community, keep the neighborhood-serving businesses and keep it low density. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 14 Dave Currie, stated he was representing people with developmental disabilities, and speaking in hope of a broader consensus. He noted Mr. Chernus mentioned the ABAG numbers in terms of administrating growth for the area and explained that the truth behind those numbers was that most of the growth was endemic to those already here. One could not build houses with the hope that people would not come, as they were already here as sons and daughters, people in need of affordable housing, etc. In terms of building a consensus, he hoped the neighbors would contribute to a good design of needed housing. Given the cost in Marin, he feared the people in need of the housing, low income, special needs and those with developmental disabilities, could not afford medium density housing and the only way to build the correct type of housing needed for the future was medium to high density. Should it be done correctly and the owners were not heavy traffic users and used fewer resources than the neighboring homes, he believed the overall tenure of the neighborhood could actually improve with the correct design. Mr. Currie expressed the hope that by keeping in mind the goals of housing in general, and San Rafael and this neighborhood in particular, meeting the needs of those who needed it, the neighbors would contribute to building a better design. Paul Clark, Inverness Drive, stated he was very concerned that this had been turned into a contest between affordable housing and a marina. It appeared that sight had been lost of the fact that Loch Lomond Marina had always been a marina first and foremost, and this needed to be kept in mind. Noting ABAG requirements are constantly quoted, he believed the Community Development Department could clarify, despite the comments of lawyers, that these requirements were up for revision and were only for planning purposes. He noted the term “building” purposes had been used and he would appreciate the Community Development Department restating this so everyone understood. Mr. Clark emphasized to the City Council that whatever went into Loch Lomond Marina would be their legacy and he doubly emphasized that this was a marina and only the City Council, ultimately, could save Loch Lomond Marina. Louis Poso, stated he was a resident of Loch Lomond and a boat owner. Regarding NH-121, he noted that the term “dry boat storage” had been specifically omitted. He believed dry boat storage was very important for the residents of San Rafael and the North Bay community. As mentioned earlier, this particular facility was the only deep water launch facility in the entire general area, not only servicing Loch Lomond’s community, rather also the City of San Rafael and other North Bay communities, and it was imperative that this particular marina be kept open and operating efficiently. With respect to the dry boat storage area, Mr. Poso stated that very stealthfully, the owners of this location had raised the storage dollar amounts from approximately $80 per month to $160 per month over the last two years. He believed this particular maneuver was very important as it set them up later to indicate they no longer had anyone for dry boat storage, when in fact, doubling the rent made them leave to try to figure out some other location on a temporary basis. Mr. Poso stated this dry boat storage area was important to all the community and he would like to see the language reinserted. In addition, Mr. Poso stated the day boat parking also was an extreme issue. At a recent Planning Commission meeting he noted the owner’s representative stated it was only an average of three boats per day; however, with the rain in Marin, no one would be at McNear’s beach either. He stated it was necessary to provide in any plan on a go forward basis the ability to have adequate day boat parking. Being a retired builder and real estate developer, Mr. Poso stated that from his vast experience, these two issues were really relevant and important on a go forward basis, noting his other issues had adequately been discussed. Chris Peterson, stated that tonight Council would have heard many valid reasons not to go forward with the proposal plans as currently set forth in NH-121 for the Loch Lomond Marina. He believed most people would agree that some development for the site would be a welcome addition to the surrounding neighborhoods of Loch Lomond and San Rafael; however, he was continually struck with the ideas as presented in NH-121, as well as the developer plans, that this site was a big project for jamming in as much building as possible, while minimizing and reducing the most important aspect, that it is a marina. Mr. Peterson indicated that he continues to live in San Rafael and Loch Lomond because there is a Loch Lomond Marina. He stated that as he walked about his neighborhood requesting people to sign the petition to “Save the Loch Lomond Marina” that was presented to Council last week, the question most often repeated was why there was so much interest in putting all this building on such a small site, the marina. Having lived in Marin County most of his life, Mr. Peterson stated he appreciated the amenities of what a marina offered. Marinas by their nature were big land users. There needed to be space for daily parking of rigs, trailers and boat storage and for some reason there was a concerted effort by both the Planning Department and Planning Commission to remove these most critical uses from the site plan, and he inquired why. Mr. Peterson stated that attempts would be made to paint people opposed to the existing plans as “NIMBYs” that did not want housing; however, this was far from the truth. Indicating that housing should SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 15 not be the predominant usage of the site, Mr. Peterson stated that a marina was like a park, except it was done with water; therefore, as an example, he questioned why anyone would wish to locate building at Pickleweed or McInnis Parks. They were parks and this logic held true of the marina. Mr. Peterson stated that neighborhood/commercial and workforce housing needed to be incorporated in NH-121, albeit not at the expense of the marina being reduced to an afterthought and shadow of its former self. First, the marina aspects needed to be planned for, then neighborhood/commercial and housing needs incorporated. He urged the Mayor and Councilmembers to please keep these points in mind in deciding on the merits of NH-121 and the Loch Lomond Marina. They needed to think about the future needs of all the Point San Pedro Peninsula. Hugo Landecker, speaking as an avid boater of over 50 years, stated that the marina as it was now was an outstanding facility. It was a 24/7 operation facility, parking was a tremendously important aspect of any marina, and he believed parking would be squeezed, affecting the recreational aspects of the marina as they existed presently. Indicating that how boating had changed in the last 20 years needed to be evaluated, Mr. Landecker explained that a commercial sport fishing boat could easily utilize 20-30 parking spaces, and with a couple of these, plus the other recreational users, a tremendous amount of parking was required. He noted that nothing would ruin a marina faster than a squeeze on parking. Stanley Bala, 772 Tamarack Drive, Terra Linda, stated that over 40 years ago the state was paying monies to cities and counties collected from gas tax which was used for boats, and not highways. This money was used for building harbors and launching ramps in many cities. He reported that at that time the City of San Rafael decided they did not need this money from the state as it already had a harbor and launching ramp, i.e., Loch Lomond. Mr. Bala stated he had used this launching ramp since that time; however, it had changed somewhat in that the price was doubled. He reported that to launch a 12-foot boat, the cost was $20, and he had been informed that this was to get rid of the launching ramp. Should the project be proceeded with, Mr. Bala recommended that launching ramps and appropriate parking be built at the developer’s cost in some other park, noting there was a lot of land along the shore. He stated that presently it was not possible to launch a boat between Sausalito and Petaluma, and he requested that Council consider this. Renee Rushin, 9 Marian Court, San Rafael, stated it appeared to her that this would be an improvement to the marina and would provide access for the general public. Having lived in Marin since 1978, she had not been aware this existed and welcomed the proposal for parks, walkways, etc., that could be used by the general public as opposed to just those with boats. Mayor Boro announced that there would be a five-minute break before proceeding with the next item. The meeting resumed at 8:11 p.m. In response to a question raised at the break, Mayor Boro confirmed that on completion of the following two items, Council would provide reaction and input to staff on what they heard this evening and direct staff on what should be brought back for further consideration, and he invited all to remain for this. Canalways – Mayor Boro stated that Canalways would now be discussed and the ground rules were similar to the last item in that each speaker would have approximately three minutes to make their points. Principal Planner Linda Jackson reported that as with the previous item, the Canalways site was equally deliberated on by the Steering Committee and Planning Commission. She referred Council to page 45 – General Plan Land Use Map, and identifying San Rafael Bay on the lower right, indicated that directly to the left was the Canalways site. She explained that the green with black stripes portion had a Conservation designation, and a piece of the dotted blue portion to the left of the oval pond was Light Industrial/Office on this site. Ms. Jackson stated that the current plan essentially had the same designation, except for the top brown area above the green striped square, which was designated for medium density residential. Ms. Jackson stated that the Steering Committee recommended deletion of the residential area because of the environmental impacts and they also recommended that the current designation of Open Space with the Conservation overlay be replaced with the new Conservation District. She explained that the Conservation Land Use District had been revised, and referred Council to page 43 and the description for the Conservation District – “Areas identified as having visual or other natural resource significance to be protected through the development review process.” Ms. Jackson stated that the Planning Commission added the wording “.... that is applied to environmentally sensitive areas that are part of a larger site.... Absent evidence that some portion of the area is appropriate for development, no development ..... shall be allowed. The City will consider some level of intensity and density of development upon evidence that SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 16 the use is appropriate. Upon that evidence, the Land Use designation may be revised through the General Plan amendment process.” In addition to these Land Use designations given to the site, Ms. Jackson referred Council to page 93 of the Draft General Plan and the specific site policy for Canalways – NH-82. She noted that page 8 of the staff report included the complete revised wording for that policy. Joe Lemon, Jr. indicated that his father, Joe Lemon, Sr., was a partner in the Canalways project and had appeared before the City Council on many occasions, most notably Villa Marin, Toys R’ Us, Borders Bookstore, and the relocation of PG&E to Andersen Drive, among other projects. Mr. Lemon, Jr. indicated he would be one of the participants in this project as it moved forward in the years ahead. Mr. Lemon stated that the proposed designation of down-zoning Canalways with the label of Conservation needed to be discussed. He noted the Chinese used a similar term for crisis as for opportunity, and his opinion was that for too long Canalways had been discussed as a crisis, and he believed it time to think of it in terms of an opportunity for the City of San Rafael, i.e., what could Canalways provide for the people and the environment of San Rafael. Explaining there were 85 acres in Canalways, Mr. Lemon stated this could be used for much needed workforce housingand resulting traffic abatement, a disposal site for dredge spoils and an enhanced wetlands park. He noted the proposed General Plan 2020 would impose significant barriers that would impair not only their ability to do something there, rather would place restrictions on the City from achieving some of its goals. Addressing the history of Canalways, Mr. Lemon stated that the natural state of Canalways, like the entire region of East San Rafael, would be under water but for the levee built many decades ago and it was not proposed to return to that natural state. He explained that once the levee was built the land was very dry, and when the drainage pond built by the City, with the faulty pumps, led to the flooding of Canalways, the land became wet again. Now that the pumps were working and the pond operating better, Mr. Lemon observed that time was permitting Canalways to dry out, and they were awaiting it to return to its natural condition, to the extent that this was possible. He indicated that this time there was no reason to do any type of formal delineation of what would be wetlands until the actual status of the land in a natural condition was determined. Similarly, Mr. Lemon stated there was no reason for the City to impose a restriction such as this Conservation title in the absence of any scientific environmental review to warrant so doing, as it was all purely speculative at this point. He requested that the City not impose this severe restriction and to retain the elements of the current General Plan. Regarding what could be achieved, Mr. Lemon stated everyone was aware of the need for affordable workforce housing in San Rafael and in Marin generally. On traffic and transportation, he believed it was a specious argument to infer this would necessarily create worse traffic conditions for several reasons:  Workforce housing meant those working in San Rafael and Marin County generally, could be living in San Rafael specifically and in Marin County generally, instead of commuting from outlying counties such as Vallejo, Richmond or beyond, and this would alleviate a lot of congestion throughout the County and specifically San Rafael;  It would also allow for the now interrupted Kerner Boulevard to be completed, providing an extra artery in the entire East San Rafael area;  It would present an opportunity for a freeway overpass. Indicating their commitment to the idea of having this be an enhanced wetlands, Mr. Lemon stated that nobody wanted to have a large Oklahoma style dustbowl, which it would eventually become if left to its natural state. In concert with some modest development of less than a third of the entire property, he indicated they would like to provide an environment suitable for people’s enjoyment, and one he believed most of the environmentalists who discouraged the project would actually like to see there. Mr. Lemon encouraged the City Council to consider the broad range of the City’s needs and not listen to any interest group simply representing a single issue. The workforce, traffic, dredging questions, etc., should all be considered prior to making a decision. Should further restrictions be imposed, Mr. Lemon believed it appropriate to set aside some time to discuss the property more fully as it was their view that throughout the citizens Steering Committee process and Charettes, they had been “aced” out of the debate. It was true they had been able to make a number of appearances before the Planning Commission; however, they observed that the record gets set and the next reviewing body appears to rubber stamp what happened previously. He indicated they would like to discuss their position openly, and hopefully this would provide an introduction to that. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 17 Thanking Council for their time, Mr. Lemon stated he hoped they could move forward with something that takes advantage of Canalways as an opportunity and not treat it just as a crisis. Zander Gladish stated he was the son of one of the owners of Canalways and was present tonight because his family had farmed and ranched their land in California for over 130 years. This was by way of making Council aware that as part of the next generation of owners, they would continue to hold Canalways until the time was reached when the needs of all the members of the San Rafael community were taken into consideration. Indicating that he had always been an environmentalist, Mr. Gladish stated he thought of the environment as the sum total of influences under which everyone lived. This must therefore, include firemen, policemen and women and teachers who drive 100 miles round trip to service Marin. He stated that his environment included the thousands of children who did not have sufficient fields to play on, it also included the fish in the Bay and ocean, whose habits and habitats were ruined every time a barge full of Canal dredging was dumped on their heads. As an inclusive environmentalist, Mr. Gladish believed it would make good sense to allow something for the birds, fish and strange as the concept might seem, something for humans. He stated that presently for nine months of the year Canalways is as dry as a bone and the most often seen bird was the Corvus Corone, more commonly called the Crow. Speaking for the next generation, Mr. Gladish stated they would prefer to see a variety of birds frolicking in the gorgeous habitat twelve months of the year. Families could picnic while watching the birds, and further to the west would be the development that made it all possible. He stated that his bird-watching, bird-loving self wanted Canalways only for birds; however, his environmental, community side saw the need for a reasonable compromise. Mr. Gladish stated he would appreciate Council not arbitrarily burdening them with the Conservation designation until science, carried out by scientists, determined what was best for Canalways. He stated this would be most easily done with a mixed use designation on the site, and he requested that a mixed use designation be returned on Canalways. Bruce Bajema, 420 Prospect Drive, stated he found it somewhat disingenuous of these gentlemen to indicate they wanted to return it to its natural state. He stated that all they had to do was stop pumping and there would be a wetlands. He noted that when it was not pumped there were gorgeous wetlands with a lot of birds and he also noted the discussion of improving the wetlands by bringing in spoils so they could get the dredgers to pay to permit them to put spoils there, thereby making money on both ends. He stated that keeping it as the Planning Commission had designated was the best thing. Anytime there were wetlands such as this, major buffer zones were necessary before development, or the birds would not be there as they do not like it and would not remain, preferring distance from people. John Boland, President Baypoint Lagoons Homeowners Association, stated that Baypoint Lagoons was a lovely community of 193 homes on the edge of the Bay just south of Baypoint Lagoon and just to their south were the Canalways wetlands and Cal-Pox sites. Mr. Boland reported they were enthusiastic supporters of the San Rafael Planning Commission’s Draft General Plan 2020 as it sought to provide for the safety of the community, consideration of acceptable noise levels in the community, assurance of protected open space and wetlands surrounding the community, wise allocation of those remaining natural habitats that still existed, prevention of additional traffic congestion, which was truly a problem in their area, and planning for clean air and clean waterways. He indicated their homeowners association continued to enjoy a very close working relationship with the City of San Rafael, most recently with Andy Preston, Public Works Director, and his staff, in ensuring that their tax assessment dollars were used wisely to maintain and enhance their treasured Baypoint or Spinnaker Lagoon. Indicating they were a very active group of homeowners, Mr. Boland stated that as such, they would be doing everything possible to see that the insights and recommendations embodied in the Plan were fully realized and implemented. He thanked the City Council for providing them with this General Plan wisdom which promised to maintain safe, clean and enjoyable community conditions, in which their homeowners could live for many years into the future. Jim Lenhardt, Dowitcher Way, Baypoint Lagoons, urged the City Council to approve the General Plan as revised with regard to Canalways. He explained that prior to attending tonight’s meeting, he and his wife walked along the Shoreline pathways and passed the Canalways, something they did almost every evening. He indicated that this shoreline pathway represented a marvelous natural environment that the ethnically diverse population of the Canal District enjoyed. He noted many families took advantage of this resource and added that as a runner, he jogs around the Canalways property at least twice weekly. As a result of these observations, Mr. Lenhardt believed he could make a few comments on the condition of the area. He stated that Canalways was an important wetlands habitat, based on four observations:  Each rainy season Canalways fills with rain water and briefly attracts a plethora of wild life until the water is pumped out; SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 18  The U.S. Department of the Interior had identified Canalways as a wetland;  The City’s own experts concluded that Canalways met the textbook definition of a wetland in a written report dated November 12, 1998; and  Wildlife surveys had documented over 100 species of birds in Canalways. Mr. Lenhardt stated that the pumping of rainwater out of Canalways, combined with the current neglect of the property, was ruining the wetland and surrounding environment. For example, he stated that nesting areas for local birds had dried out and were unusable, portions of the land had dried out and were barren of vegetation, leading to dusty winds that coat neighboring residents, particularly in Baypoint Lagoons. Invasive plants, such as Scotch Broom, had been allowed to grow unchecked in the Canalways, choking off native species that were part of the food chain for native animal life. Additionally, he stated that seeds and spores from these unwanted plants germinate in neighboring gardens and along City maintained areas of the Shoreline pathway, resulting in a negative economic impact to residents in the City of San Rafael. Third, Mr. Lenhardt stated that the current owners had fostered an unsightly, unhealthy and potentially dangerous environment for families, especially for children, by continuing to allow a number of unpleasant activities to take place in the Canalways. Specifically, he referred to widespread littering on the site, including trash, old tires, rotting metal tanks, cans and broken bottles, the dumping of potentially toxic computers and old appliances, public drinking and intoxication, smoking on the site, which led to a fire last year that could some day result in a major disaster, the construction of encampments by the homeless that introduced an undesirable and potentially dangerous element to a residential area frequented by children, bicycle ramps that encouraged children to engage in unsupervised and dangerous activities, motorcycle and truck racing in the area that was not only a violation of the City Noise Ordinance, rather also widely destroyed vitally needed Pickleweed. In summary, Mr. Lenhardt stated it was heartbreaking to witness the neglect the Canalways property was currently enduring. As a concerned resident of the area, he strongly urged the City Council not to modify the General Plan by expanding residential or commercial development of this unique resource, rather to encourage responsible behavior by the current owners and to endorse the General Plan as revised. He indicated that the residents of Baypoint Lagoons wished to see restoration of the Canalways to the wildlife habitat it rightly was, which would allow future generations to enjoy this beautiful area of San Rafael. Tymber Cavasian, Gerstle Park, stated that with regard to Canalways, she commended the consideration given to the site by the citizens, staff and Planning Commission, and she strongly agreed with the language as written in NH-82; however, she requested additional language regarding appropriate stewardship of the land until when and if a different determination by science was made. She echoed the previous speaker’s comments and believed it sad and tragic that while all these points were hammered out what was happening out there was allowed to continue. Jim Ganzman, believed that as a member of the Board of Directors of the Marin Audubon Society he could speak officially for the them in the absence of Barbara Salzman, President, and as a Board Member of Marin Baylands Advocates he could also speak for that organization. He stated that their primary activity and interest was in acquiring properties such as Canalways, noting they had acquired a number in Marin County, the most recent of which was Bahia in Novato. As with the first speaker who addressed this property, Mr. Ganzman stated they saw this as an opportunity to restore in however small a manner, a Bay ecosystem that had been horribly degraded over the past 150 years. By most estimates, he reported that approximately 90% of the Bay that existed 150 years had been lost, to the great detriment of the animals, birds and fish that lived there, to the detriment of residents and those who used the Bay for economic gain. He stated they would like to have the opportunity to purchase the property and restore it, if not to what is was before, to something that would be very useful and valuable. Mr. Ganzman stated they had been very pleased with the support the City and City Council had given to the protection of this property. They strongly supported the General Plan on this issue; however, would have preferred to include the 11 acres currently recommended for commercial development. Should the Bay be restored, Mr. Ganzman stated it could only be done in the Bay, and this site was important. Jean Starkweather, Marin Conservation League, stated that Canalways was one of the few remaining areas along the shoreline of the Bay that was the old bay bottom. There were a few other small sites; however, since Canalways had never been filled, it was the floor of the Bay. She indicated it was approximately 3-feet below sea level, noting that at the Planning Commission level this summer, there was a map that depicted the elevations of the site, most of which was minus 3 ( – 3-feet below sea level). She indicated that the leveewas approximately 7 or 8 feet. Ms. Starkweather stated that even the western side of the site proposed in the General Plan for possible development, was approximately minus 2; therefore, anything built there had to be filled, with its associated problems. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 19 Ms. Starkweather stated the fact that it was below sea level meant it ponds water when it rains. She noted the applicant had complained that the City’s drainage problems had overflowed into Canalways creating the wetness; however, as it rains there it had always been wet. Having watched it for many years, she stated they regularly carry out bird census from the edges of the site, had records from 1968, and monthly records since 1989. Ms. Starkweather stated it was the largest area of ponding along the entire San Rafael shoreline. With regard to the San Rafael Shoreline Park, she stated Spinnaker Wetland and Spinnaker Lagoon were at the north end, then Canalways, a stretch, and then MMWD pond, Bayview marsh and the south pond. She stated that Canalways was the keystone, the important link in that necklace of wetlands along the shoreline that made it special. She stated it was the largest remaining wetland, over 110 species could be found there and it was a place the migrants rested in the winter. She indicated it was also used in spring and early summer by the herons and egrets. It was used for feeding, resting and nesting, and not only the areas that were wet most of the time, noting the western area was also part of the wetland habitat as it was where wetland birds went when the water was too high. Ms. Starkweather recalled that San Rafael used to have wetlands that extended to B Street, and with filling out to the east, as this was the last place, she believed it should last. It was the largest and had a real feeling of what San Rafael used to be like. Noting the General Plan spoke to a sense of history, a history of buildings and uses of land in San Rafael, she stated this also was a legacy and part of the history. Concurring with the language in the General Plan, she stated that should there be development on the western side of the site it would be subject to full environmental review. They preferred the language the Steering Committee presented to the Planning Commission, which the Planning Commission changed, which related to a non-profit organization purchasing the land. Dwayne Hunn, representing the Canalways property, stated he would like to address some of the misperceptions. Prior to his slide presentation, Mr. Hunn stated that their reason for requesting the minimal changes, and the concerns expressed in their writings to Council, were presented by the previous three speakers. He noted they consistently indicated they wished to purchase the property and leave the designations as they were, and he believed this property was being downzoned because it was easier to purchase it. He noted this had occurred at Bel Marin Keys, Bahia, and at properties throughout the County as the County moved towards 91% preserved or conserved space. He believed this was another tactic here and was the reason for their concern about what appeared to be little changes. On a map from the 1990s, Mr. Hunn identified the 15-acre City flood control pond, and as the City was aware, he stated the pumps were not working properly, automatic pumps that were supposed to be installed in 1973 were not installed, the 60-inch pipeline running from the pump house taking water from the flood control pond out to the Bay settled, whereas the pump house did not, and at high tide, the water flushed back through that pipe and geysered back onto the property, flooding the property more that it would have. Displaying a picture, Mr. Hunn indicated a partner constantly looks at it and states “Why can’t we do that – the ponds at Baypoint homes, at Canalways?” as he would like to have that done. He stated that the pond in question was built with dredged spoils from the Canal, it was also opposed by several present and the development was also opposed; however, at the conclusion of it, some of those present indicated they liked what was happening out there. Mr. Hunn stated they were not inferring this could not happen next door, and, in fact, they would like to see it happen. When they discussed taking dredged spoils and putting them there to increase whatever wetlands was determined, it was because environmental engineers stated 200,000 cubic yards of dredged spoils were needed to enhance the wetlands. Mr. Hunn requested that the City remove the Conservation downzoning from Canalways, as Canalways would do the science required for a jurisdictional determination. It would do the required science for salt marsh harvest mouse trapping, the last of which was done more than 22 years ago on rather suspicious occasions. He stated there was no need for the redundancy of a Conservation downzoning designation on this site. Mr. Hunn requested that the conservation definition also be edited by striking the words “visual or other” as these were very subjective words, and it was the type of wording “view corridor from St. Vincent’s” that may have hurt St. Vincent’s. In requesting the words be struck, Mr. Hunn explained they were too broad, too subjective and too open to interpretation. He stated people could argue ad infinitum about what they needed in the future, they were open to misuse and he believed they were included so that some other group could purchase the property before Canalways could do something beneficial. Mr. Hunn requested that the following sentence be added to NH 52: “Encourage and support the beneficial reuse of dredge materials on local sites as the Federal Long Term Management Plan called for.” As to the objective of adding that sentence, he explained it was there because it could help reduce costs to taxpayers and the environment, it could beneficially reuse dredge spoils, environmentally fill the site with beneficially used dredge spoils that would just wash back into the Canal anyway, it would clean the waterways and could cost effectively bioremediate toxic spoils that periodically exist in the Canal because of the runoff from the streets, the oil, rubber, etc., and also the chlorinated contaminates. In terms of community regional needs, Mr. Hunn believed the City, Federal Government and property owners could SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 20 save money, enhance the environment, improve boating and clean toxics by using this site for the benefit of the community. Using a slide, Mr. Hunn explained there were two ways to dredge, Clamshell and Barge which was wasteful, and it was smarter to hydraulically or suction-pump Canalways. He identified on the slide the comparable costs for the 1990s, and presently. From a further slide, Mr. Hunn identified an example of some of the toxics that tended to pile up at the front of the San Rafael Canal – low tide near Seafood Peddler (Restaurant). Had this been bioremediated at a place such as Canalways, approximately $40,000 would have been saved over what was saved by taking it to Port Sonoma. He then identified on a slide what could have been saved had the dredged chlorinated contaminates that went to Winter Island instead had been sent to Canalways – a savings of $390,000. Regarding the federal, private and across the mouth portions of the Canal, Mr. Hunn stated that having done 300,000 cubic yards of dredging during one of those cycles, by putting it at Canalways @ $4.00 per cubic yard versus somewhere else @ $10.00 per cubic yard produced a potential $2 million savings. On the beneficial uses of dredge materials, Mr. Hunn stated they believed they could bolster the levee, fill the uplands site, provide for potential recreational area, enhance the wetlands and the Starkweather Shoreline Park, which was what beneficial reuse was all about. Mr. Hunn identified on a slide some of the areas where dredge spoils could be placed, indicating it would help everyone and save money. It was better than dumping it in the Delta or at Alcatraz because as mentioned by Mr. Gladish, it harms the fishing, etc. Mr. Hunn reported that he spent a day with a dredger who removed material from the San Rafael Creek and dumped it at the designated areas of the Delta, and it took hours pushing against the tides, creating a lot of pollution. Regarding the Long Term Management Study’s Dredge Materials Placement/Costs – Mr. Hunn indicated they stated this was the best way to do it. The City had to pay should it not provide a beneficial reuse uplands disposal site. Presently, the City surcharges property owners – a long time ago it did not have to – and it was proposing an Assessment District. He stated that even if an assessment district was created, it would be cheaper for those in an assessment district to use a place like Canalways. Historically, he stated, this was the way dredging had been done – hydraulic dredging almost all down the line because there were disposal sites like Baypoint Lagoons, and recently, Clamshell dredging. Mr. Hunn reported that 3 million cubic-yards had been removed from the inner and outer canal and across the mouth, and in the future some of this hydraulic dredging could be done to an uplands fill site and beneficially reuse it. He identified the areas it was being taken from and they would like to see some encouragement to help it be done at a site like this. He noted that hydraulic dredging was three to four times cheaper and better. From a slide Mr. Hunn identified the approximate dredgings from the last dredging cycle, approximately $2.9 million, all of which could have been done at Canalways. He noted the Army Corps’ budget was shrinking for recreational canals, etc. Identifying some of the reasons they hoped the City would remove the “Conservation” downzoning from Canalways, Mr. Hunn stated it was touching 91% open space, last month’s median home price was $825,000, worthwhile development could be done at Canalways, and they did not wish to see the site down zoned so that some group could purchase it and the opportunity had been missed to do something worthwhile that would be beneficial to the environment and people. Jane Winter, Baypoint Lagoon, stated that as a resident she would like to address the traffic issues that would develop should there be a change in the plan as it had been revised that would allow development sometime in the future. On a graph she highlighted the area in question, and explained the entire area had quite a few homes feeding traffic into that area during commute hours, going both directions. Traveling along Bellam Boulevard during commute hours, she stated the entire section could get backed up, resulting in an approximate fifteen minute wait to get onto the freeway; therefore, any increase in traffic would make a really bad situation worse. She identified intersections already deeply clogged and the City’s studies had shown two intersections rated at LOS E. Ms. Winter believed it would be irresponsible on the part of the City to consider further development in this area, particularly in view of the already bad traffic situation. Andy Easterlin, Board of Directors, Baypoint Lagoon Homeowners Association, stated he was speaking on behalf of the 193 residences and approximately 350 voters in that area. He believed that NH-82 as written, and even with its revision, provided a win for all sides in San Rafael. For the City, he noted that the revised NH-82 did allow for a development proposal and this could help expand the tax base and also meet some of the building requirements. It also provided a chance to enhance the beauty of an area of the shoreline that was incomplete presently, and it was a low cost conservation site. Mr. Easterlin stated that by moving forward on this, an end could be brought to 20 years of bickering, wasted legal fees and wasted SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 21 planning staff resources. He stated it also provided a win for Kerner Boulevard LLC, as it did allow them to submit a development plan from which they would profit on a piece of land they paid very little for, and permits them to sell the other portion of the land, from which they could also profit. It also afforded them the opportunity to provide a beautiful lasting legacy in the area. He indicated it also provided a win for the Canal and neighboring areas because as written, it prevented congested roadways, it would facilitate the clean-up of a blighted area a lot of people in the canal were using as a park and recreation site and it allowed for completion of the shoreline path. Finally, Mr. Easterlin stated it was a win for the wildlife and future generations. In terms of plant life, there could be more natural plant life that supported this type of biodiversity. Being a sizeable neighboring community, he stated they had been working with the City to weed the park, maintain the lagoon and they looked forward to working with the City and the developer to bring this to a reasonable conclusion. Cal Pox - Principal Planner Linda Jackson referred Council to page 95 of the Draft General Plan – Policy NH-87. – Cal-Pox Site - and the question of whether residential use be considered as a use on this site. She referred to the third line as written by the Steering Committee, “Residential and/or Hotel use may be considered for the site” and explained that the Planning Commission deleted the “Residential” use, retaining the “Hotel” use. Reporting there were three concerns with residential use on the site, Ms. Jackson explained that: 1) The site was a former dump site, with environmental concerns needing to be addressed should there be a development proposal; however, the Steering Committee debated whether it was serious enough; 2) Regarding the issue of basic land use compatibility, she stated this site had no other residential use in the immediate vicinity, it was adjacent to Home Depot and Auto Dealers and resulting noise; and 3) This was one of San Rafael’s last vacant economic development opportunities in the entire City. She noted a recent survey demonstrated a very low vacancy rate for industrial uses in Central Marin. Attorney Lee Jordan, 47 Skyview Terrace, stated it was important to note at the outset that the vote of the Planning Commission to exclude the word “residential” from the description of possible uses at the Cal-Pox site was by a 4:3 vote – 3 Commissioners voted in favor of retaining that language in the General Plan and 4 voted against. He submitted that the reasons advanced by those voting against it would not stand up under scrutiny, and he believed Linda Jackson had properly enumerated the basesof their votes. Regarding the geologic conditions at the site, Mr. Jordan stated that some Planning Commissioners, and some comments from the public during the course of the public hearings on this matter, indicated a concern over the liquefaction problem that exists with respect to Bay Mud. The other concern with the landfill and it being a former dump site was the specter of a methane gas hazard on the site. Mr. Jordan stated that the documentation before Council, and all of the engineering evidence available to them, did not support either concern. First, Mr. Jordan believed that no one pointed out to the Planning Commission, and most people were not aware, that the problem of liquefactionwas greater in alluvial areas in the City of San Rafael , i.e., valley bottoms, creek areas, than on properties that were underlain by Bay Mud. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for this General Plan stated: “The probability of liquefaction-related damage was moderate in the alluvial areas, low in the Bay Mud areas, and remote in bedrock areas”. He stated this was a comparative thing; however, the danger existed to a greater extent in areas not normally considered to be subject to liquefaction, but which are, and it had been demonstrated throughout the state that appropriate residential developments could take place under current building codes, not under the building codes that applied in the Marina area of San Francisco, where adequate safeguards could be included in the structures to permit safe housing on areas underlain by Bay Mud. In fact, he stated that the EIR prepared for the City in support of the General Plan made that point when it states that the Loch Lomond Marina area was underlain by the same Bay Mud conditions as the Cal-Pox site, yet the General Plan recommends the inclusion of residential housing on that site. With respect to that and relating to the Building Code provisions that now apply, Mr. Jordan stated that the City’s own EIR stated that with respect to the Loch Lomond Marina: “However, this greater shaking potential is recognized in the Uniform Building Code, which provides for more stringent earthquake resistant design parameters for such areas. Thus, while these shaking impacts are potentially more damaging, they also will tend to be reduced in their structural effects due to the UBC criteria.” Mr. Jordan stated the liquefaction problem was greater in areas where routinely housing was permitted to be constructed in the City of San Rafael, than on sites underlain by Bay Mud, and under current building restrictions, the type of circumstance that arose in the Marina District in San Francisco as a result of that earthquake, was highly unlikely under present conditions. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 22 Mr. Jordan stated that the second geologic concern related to the alleged hazard from methane gas. This had been repeated at public hearings consistently and had grown in people’s minds, and they were not aware of a number of facts. He explained it was well established that in landfill operations, the generation and emanation of methane gas from such sites diminishes over time. For that purpose, when the state approved the closure plan for this site, they established a period of time over which methane emanation from the site must be monitored by the owner, and he noted it had been monitored constantly since the closure plan was completed. Mr. Jordan stated that the state set a period of 30 years (a very conservative and generous estimate), at the end of which there would be no significant emanation of such gasses, and seventeen years of that period had now passed. He stated that the actual monitoring of methane gas emanating from that site had proven this to be correct. Mr. Jordan explained that when the Team Chevrolet project was constructed, Cal-Pox was required to install two new vent stations on the property, and to do this they had to apply to the Regional Air Quality Management District for a permit. He reported that the District reviewed and monitored what was emanating from the site and concluded that the volume of methane gas had now diminished so that Cal- Pox was exempt from obtaining a permit, as it fell below the standard where a permit was required. Mr. Jordan stated that, understandably, this was something people became concerned about as they picture vast explosions, etc., which was not supported by any credible engineering evidence. Regarding the other point mentioned by Linda Jackson that this was one of the last economically viable commercial sites, Mr. Jordan stated that in reviewing the documentation supporting the General Plan, it could be found in those documents and in other documents prepared by the Planning staff on prior occasions relating to the Cal-Pox site, that unless in some fashion the City was able to break out some additional peak hour traffic movements, the only kinds of uses that would be permitted on that site under the present zoning classification would be such things as corporation yards, warehouses and storage locker facilities. Mr. Jordan stated that should this be the type of thing the City considered economically viable revenue producing, the type of commercial development it wanted, he would be quite surprised. He indicated that the only residential facility they even suggested might be located on that site would be a senior assisted living housing facility. He invited Council to envision a properly designed, attractively landscaped senior assisted living facility that blended with the shoreline park, and contrast that with a corporation yard, warehouse facilities and such, adjacent to the shoreline park. Mr. Jordan stated that just as the General Plan points out that the Loch Lomond Marina was one of the sites that presented one of the greatest vistas the City of San Rafael has, he invited Council to go out at the end of the Cal-Pox property where it was absolutely magnificent. As one citizen of San Rafael, it appeared to him to be an abomination to surrender that site to the type of use which would deprive a large segment and considerable number of people of the value of utilizing that as a residential area. Recalling a point made by Mr. Brown in his report to the City Council, Mr. Jordan stated it suggested that another limitation of this site was the lack of adjacent public services. He indicated this overlooked the point that senior assisted living facilities were largely self-contained. Their dining facilities were self- contained, recreation facilities were there and to the extent residents required accessories for personal needs, they were available there. He noted they would not use public transportation, which was not typical with such facilities, rather they relied on the shuttle services provided by the facilities. Instancing the Spring Lake facility in Santa Rosa and the Oakmont facility in the Merrydale area, Mr. Jordan stated there were no public services that could be easily accessed by the residents; however, that was not necessary for this type of a residential facility. Mr. Jordan submitted that even if there was any legitimacy or validity to the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission members who voted against inclusion of residential, it was adequately taken care of by the language in the Draft General Plan before the Planning Commission voted to exclude it. He quoted: “Residential and/or Hotel use may be considered for this site, provided that environmental analysis demonstrates that potentially hazardous soils conditions are in compliance with state and federal laws and that geoseismic conditions and commercial use conflicts have been mitigated.” Regarding commercial use conflicts, Mr. Jordan recalled Mr. Brown also mentioned his concern regarding nuisance conditions in the surrounding commercial activities, and he invited the City Council to visit the site and report as to what nuisances existed. He stated that one could go to almost any other multiple-family area in San Rafael and find just as much traffic. He noted there was very little traffic there, no dust was generated, and there was less pollution than in most areas of the community because there was less through traffic, and they could not see the nature of the nuisance to which Mr. Brown was referring. Mr. Jordan requested that this language be retained as under the Shoreline Park Master Plan, no use could be established out there without a Use Permit from the City and the City would have every opportunity to determine whether the concerns of those Planning Commissioners voting against it were justified. Roger Roberts, Southern Heights, stated he had been a resident of San Rafael since 1981 and a resident of Marin since 1970. He noted it was not just a methane problem at the Cal-Pox site, explaining it was an unregulated dump for many years and no one knew what was in the ground there. He indicated that even SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 23 carrying out six-foot drilling plots, that battery acid, tanks of toxic materials, etc., could be missed. Putting any type of residential use on the site he believed inappropriate. In addition, Mr. Roberts reported that having called a neighbor who had worked at Home Depot for approximately six years to ascertain whether at Home Deport, as had been at other sites throughout the Country of large commercial structures built on former landfill, there had been any odor problems, noxious gas problems, headaches, illnesses, etc. The response was “No”, he had not noticed that at Home Depot. He noticed settling in the building and cracks developing in the structure as a result of settlement on consolidated fill. Mr. Roberts stated that something he did point out that no one had thought about, was that in the wintertime, one almost gags from the smells from the Sanitation District facility just across the road. Mr. Roberts stated that to use that site for any type of residential use, etc., probably did not make any sense, because of the “stink” from the Sanitation District. Jean Starkweather, Marin Conservation League, stated they had a longtime concern regarding this site due to health and safety problems. Land use wise, she stated it did not appear to be the best use of the site, due not only to the Sanitary Plant, but also the other commercial uses there. She stated this site was unregulated when the filling occurred. The property owner had stated in the past that it was compacted to modern standards, and she believed it probably was; however, when the dump began everything went into it. She stated it was in the era before Joe Garbarino and recycling - draining fluids from batteries, removing lead content, etc. Ms. Starkweather stated she used to walk the levee with her dog and had a friend who would not walk by the drainage ponds that came out from underneath the landfill because of the smell. Ms. Starkweather stated the concern of Marin Conservation League was not particularly liquefaction, rather the unknowns under the site. Scientists indicate that it is not “if” but “when” there is a major earthquake, and she stated that when such an event occurs, should there be people asleep on that site, the “toxic brew” bubbling up from the surface would not be safe. She believed it was a health and safety matter for the City to take care of future residents of those who use the site. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that at Council’s pleasure, staff would respond to some of the questions raised concerning Loch Lomond, and thereafter, discuss some of the recommendations for changes in the policy language. Mayor Boro suggested staff clarify issues and comment on some of the recommendations prior to hearing Council’s recommendations. In terms of the questions raised, Mr. Brown addressed these as follows: 1) Did the Planning Commission recommend the low end of the density range? Responding in the negative, Ms. Jackson stated that the Planning Commission endorsed the policy of density being at the mid to high end and reflected that in its Housing Site listing for Loch Lomond Marina in the Housing Background where it stated 9 acres at 11 units to the acre. Mr. Brown stated, however, that the Planning Commission was concerned about counting all of the residential density, both from the neighborhood/commercial and the marine related, which would be many acres. Therefore, for that reason, they added language indicating that density would not be counted from the marine related portion, only from neighborhood/commercial to keep it within what they considered a viable range. 2) Was the Steering Committee provided data about the suitability of the Loch Lomond Marina site for housing development? Mr. Brown stated he believed that part of the question was whether they were given information about the level of recreational use at the site. Ms. Jackson stated the Steering Committee had a lot of information about potential housing sites and General Plan level of information for the site; however, in terms of the amount of specific boat parking needs and use, this was project specific analysis that would be used on a specific project application, and that level of detail was not gone into for the policy. Mayor Boro stated that should the current General Plan encourage marina boat type usage on that site as something the City valued, it should be possible to quantify at some point what that was, and if it were still valued, ensure that the new facility would allow it to continue. Mr. Brown stated this would happen as part of an EIR on a site specific. He indicated that consultants SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 24 were conducting counts of the amount of parking on busy weekends, etc. Returning to question #1, Councilmember Heller inquired as to how many units constituted mid-level density. Ms. Jackson stated that medium density ranged from 6.5 to 15 units to the acre. On the question of ranking of marina uses and other uses on the site, Ms. Jackson stated the Steering Committee deliberately put marina uses as the first use listed. Mr. Brown stated he calculated the medium density as being between 59 and 135 units, based on 9 acres of neighborhood/commercial. Councilmember Cohen believed the issue of dry boat storage should be considered in evaluating what constitutes supporting long-term marina use. He also believed it appropriate to state that during consideration of the project there ought to be a full discussion of whether or not there needed to be dry boat storage on the site, and if not, what the alternatives were and how it would be addressed. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not believe this really happened during the Steering Committee review, and it was not necessarily appropriate to happen there or as part of this process, rather at a project specific level. However, because there was no reference to it in this language, he believed it gets left out unless some language was included that stated it needed to be looked at and what the impact was of eliminating dry boat storage from the site altogether. Recalling that the Planning Commission specifically eliminated dry boat storage, Mayor Boro stated one of the comments received was “Well, they were storing boats from people all over the County” and it would appear one of the issues to be looked at was the dry boat storage needs of the community in East San Rafael, not just Loch Lomond, and at least have it an amenity for those who live there. Mr. Brown stated that as part of the EIR, the applicant had been requested to provide ownership data by zip code of the boats in dry storage. Mayor Boro stated that this Plan states it should not be done and he would like to see it evaluated as a potential thing to do. 3) What is the relationship between the Loch Lomond policy in NH-121 and the Housing Appendix B? Mr. Brown stated they are for different purposes, explaining that Housing Appendix B was for the state’s review and was to demonstrate to the state that the City had adequate zoned capacity for the housing units it needed to create. It looks at these areas in terms of the land area, the maximum zoning potential being recommended and maximum height limits, etc. He indicated it essentially was attempting to convince the state reviewer that there are a certain number of units being planned for that could be achieved practically. Mr. Brown stated it had a figure of 99 units being assumed at Loch Lomond, and was based upon a lot of assumptions; however, the City was not near that point in terms of actual development review. Ultimately, should a plan come forward and the City Council approved a lower density than the 99 units listed in Appendix B, Mr. Brown explained that then the City Council would have to make findings that the difference in unit count, from 99 to whatever was approved, could be built somewhere else in the community. This, he indicated, was state law. 4) What is the definition of workforce units? Mr. Brown stated that this really was not defined and what the Planning Commission was getting at was that they wanted to see a high proportion of the units “affordable by design”, i.e., smaller square- footage units although not deed restricted like affordable units are required to be, would still be more affordable to moderate and above-moderate income households, based upon the size and amenities of these units. He believed Council had already started discussions about how it might be redefined or clarified. Councilmember Cohen stated he was not entirely comfortable with the sentence under the “Residential” bullet. He noted Mr. Barr suggested an edit; however, he was unsure whether it achieved any clarity for him either. Specifically, he referred to the line “minimum of 50 multi-family and workforce units” and stated that as drafted, it was unclear and needed some work. He also believed that this General Plan for this site did lay out some guidelines and the specifics would be part of the project review. Councilmember Cohen stated that the 50 appeared to be a number that presumed an outcome in terms of what the ultimate number would be and from 99 units, 50 multi-family workforce housing units might be a reasonable number; however, should it not be 99, rather a lower number, he questioned whether it made sense to indicate 50 was a “locked in” portion. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 25 Councilmember Cohen stated he was not concerned if a single million-dollar single-family home was built there as in his view it would not do anything to provide public policy benefit for this community. He would favor them all being single or multi-family units that could be affordable by design, i.e., whatever was built should all be in that character. He did not believe this language was appropriate, rather suggested stating in this document the policy goal to be achieved and push for that outcome, rather than a hard target, and he believed the language should also be worked on, as he believed there were some valid comments regarding the meaning of multi-family and workforce. Councilmember Miller stated it was a real problem area for him when it got specific to the 50 units. He favored changing the language to within the medium density range of 59-135 units, which would give people something to think about. He hoped they would tend towards the high rather than low number, precisely because of the policy question presented by Councilmember Cohen. Mr. Brown stated he was not sure whether there was a really strong rationale for a specific number such as 50. He indicated that the Planning Commission was grappling with the policy language, while simultaneously considering the development application in its very preliminary stages. He believed they wished to see a majority of the units be workforce as opposed to larger starter-castles. Mayor Boro stated the problem he was having was that the term workforce had historically been used to mean affordable and now it was being used to mean something else, and this should be clarified. Regarding density, Mayor Boro stated he supported attempting to go with the medium density; however, design would impact how this would play out. On the other hand, he stated the low end of medium was the high end of low; therefore, there was another way to get to a different end should the design not turn out too well. He stated he favored trying to build what was possible there while at the same time it had to meet the needs, not only of the City, rather also with respect to community needs. He noted that good density could be developed and designed well; however, he was concerned about the 50 and the interchangeable use of affordable workforce housing and this needed to be very explicit as people present this evening were rather confused about this. He indicated he was not dealing with the applications, rather more the principles, and believed NH-121 needed to be rewritten. Mayor Boro stated this issue gets into what the view corridor is, noting it was not the football field in the center of the site, rather it was coming down Lochinvar, and how to design with that in mind. Concurring, Councilmember Heller stated she recently listened to fourteen people (Commissioners and DRB members), plus assorted people from the audience, each one drawing a different picture, which was a fascinating experience. She believed the fact that this plot was a marina should be foremost. It was water related and the entire peninsula’s place to go to enjoy the water. People lived on the marina and their needs needed to be considered. She noted that with live-aboards, parking could not be located five blocks away as they had to unload groceries, etc. Councilmember Heller believed the commercial use was absolutely crucial and with good neighborhood/ commercial uses, people would not drive into the City; however, this depended on the community and whether they supported it. She reiterated it should be remembered that it was a marina, with bird-watching, fishing, etc., and believed NH-121 as written was too constrained and more appropriate for a site specific rather than a General Plan. Regarding the application of the provision, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether there was this much confusion concerning the reading of this section, as it appeared there was lack of clarity. Mr. Brown stated it depended on whom you asked. He explained that when the policy discusses housing development in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the site, it could be anticipated these were a quarter of the site each, which meant the center was the half and was not developed; however, he did not read it that way. He believed the greatest benefit of the joint Planning Commission and Design Review Board session was how fourteen different people in decision-making capacities read this policy, and clearly there were differences of opinion. This, he indicated, was why at the end of that session he inquired of the group sitting on the dais whether the view corridor was in the center of the site or on Lochinvar, which was not the center of the site, and they all agreed, it was Lochinvar. Mr. Brown believed there was need for clarity. Councilmember Phillips stated he had some degree of sensitivity with regard to the issues expressed by the residents. He did not believe the nature should be significantly changed and disagreed to some degree with Councilmember Cohen with regard to nothing but workforce housing. He believed the nature of the community, just as Gerstle Park, needed to be preserved to some substantial degree. He also believed there was considerable concern about traffic and would share that if he lived in the area; therefore, sensitivity in that area would tend to carry a large part of his conclusions, understanding that this was not the application at this point. He stated he was a little bit concerned about mid-level and was leaning towards low. Councilmember Heller stated she heard many people this evening referring to four to five feet of fill; SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 26 however, had been informed by Mr. Brown that this would be one to four feet, with four being down by the water. She believed staff should assist people with their visuals so they could be sure they were protected. Mr. Brown stated this again was part of the confusion between talking General Plan language and having a specific application. He indicated that clearly, as part of the application there would be grading plans, cross sections, story poles would be used so that people could envision the heights of buildings, all of which would occur as part of the EIR and design review of the project. He stated it was difficult at this stage as those specifics were not available. 5) A technical question about the Traffic Study and to what extent Mr. Mansourian, Traffic Engineer, anticipated turnover from elderly residents that exist there today to younger families and what impact this would have on traffic generation. Mr. Mansourian stated that MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) and ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) assumptions were used for the entire Bay Area for population, age and housing. He indicated that the assumptions for the modeling for the General Plan were based on the County CMA (Congestion Management Agency) assumptions. He stated that as the elderly move to other neighborhoods and those of his age became older and remained, the numbers would not change significantly, as far as could be ascertained scientifically. In terms of the demographics looked at in the General Plan (background reports in the Housing Element background), Mr. Brown stated that clearly, this was a graying community. The end result would be more seniors in sixteen years proportionally than today; therefore, he agreed with Mr. Mansourian’s remarks that while some existing seniors would move on and those homes would be taken over by younger households, residents today who could be in their 40s and 50s would still be in their homes in sixteen years. 6) Regarding ABAG, would there be new numbers shortly? Aren’t they being revised? Mr. Brown stated the answer was “No” they were not being revised. The City would have these numbers and must show compliance with these through the year 2007. He indicated that in the next couple of years a new set of numbers would be provided that also would have to be achieved in the next Housing Element; therefore, these numbers did not go away. 7) Must we plan for this amount of housing or must we see this amount of housing built? Mr. Brown confirmed it was “plan.” The City had to demonstrate it had zoning capacity for this number of housing units and there were not any inherent built-in constraints to development through regulations or restrictions, and staff believed this had been done. As mentioned to Council, Mr. Brown stated that Ms. Jackson and he had a conversation with the City’s HCD (Housing and Community Development) reviewer today, who indicated she had blessed the City’s Housing Element. She would try to obtain a letter from Cathy Creswell, Director, HCD, for the public hearing on October 4, 2004 on the Housing Element. He indicated that in any event, a letter would be received prior to adopting the General Plan that HCD had indeed endorsed the Housing Element. Regarding the recommendations concerning changes, Mr. Brown stated one was low versus medium versus high density Land Use designation, which Council had already discussed. He noted Council had already addressed the uncertainty regarding the workforce units and the specific number of 50. He noted there was a recommendation that the design policies were too specific regarding the view corridor, which had also been discussed, and the location of housing in the northwest and northeast quadrants as being too limiting. Mr. Brown stated that the developers also requested some flexibility regarding the size and location of the 9 acres of neighborhood/commercial use, believing the Land Use map shows it as a hard line depicting exactly where the 9 acres were, which may not necessarily be where the development occurs. Regarding the request to retain dry boat storage, Mr. Brown stated this had been touched on. Indicating there was a suggestion about including a reference to the BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) setback line, Mr. Brown noted it was stated previously in public meetings that it was not a setback line, rather a jurisdictional line. BCDC allows things to be built in that setback, and it was state law; therefore, staff did not see the need to state every jurisdiction that had a piece of this particular site. Regarding the request from Mr. Birdsey concerning requiring improvements from the Bike and Pedestrian Masterplan of this development and an additional sidewalk to the San Pedro school, Mr. Brown stated there could be some nexus questions regarding these. Clearly, he stated, should there be aspects of the SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 26 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 27 Bike and Pedestrian Plan that made sense and there was a legal justification to associate them with the impacts of this development, they would, of course, be required. Councilmember Miller stated he was curious about the BCDC control over the area. Mr. Brown stated they had land use and design control within that 100 feet. They indicated to the developer BCDC required a fourteen-foot wide promenade along the waterfront (there presently is proposed an eight-foot walkway, which they stated was not adequate), plus behind that they desired a certain dimension of landscaping, possibly 20-feet, to separate the pedestrian walkway from the vehicular traffic, etc. He indicated they have begun employing those same types of requirements at waterfront locations throughout the Bay Area. Councilmember Cohen believed a better job needed to be done concerning providing some design guidelines without providing a design. In looking at the draft site plan provided this evening, he indicated that one of the things that concerned him about this design, attractive as it was, was that it provided some very interesting waterfront orientation for the development itself; however, created a barrier to the marina and waterfront for the remainder of the community. This was not nearly as bad as what had been done in the Canal neighborhoods in previous years; however, he believed this was something the City needed to be very careful about. Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with Councilmember Heller’s comment concerning ensuring the viability of the marina. He was also concerned that another section of wall, walling off from the Bay, was not created, noting it would be very challenging to try to accommodate everything under discussion. Councilmember Cohen stated he concurred with the Planning Commission’s order and indicated it needed to be taken seriously as a housing opportunity site, albeit doing this within the mix of all the other goals the neighborhood very legitimately addressed this evening, and through the entire process. Councilmember Heller inquired whether it was agreed that staff would re-write NH-121. Mr. Brown stated he believed staff’s direction was to re-examine some of the design policies that could be constraints more than guidance, to look at defining workforce housing and re-examine the specific number. While it was an important goal, he believed the number could be too specific. Councilmember Heller stated she believed it was too specific for a General Plan. Councilmember Phillips indicated that the ABAG numbers appeared to bother a lot of people, and he was still somewhat confused, noting they were a significant force in everyday lives. He commented that there had been a number of workshops; however, he did not recall having one that proposed what the matrix looked like, and he was curious as to whether or not that might be useful. He stated he was reluctant in this context alone to state that the number should not be 50, rather 25, without knowing the impacts, and he was not comfortable he had a good sense of what the consequences were. In making his own decisions, he was curious as to what level of development might be appropriate down the road, or what kind of burden he was adding to staff by indicating it should be medium rather than low. He explained he did not have a keen sense of what this was all about and invited staff to discuss this at some point with him. Mr. Brown stated it was less of an impact on staff and more on the community because it was a zero sum game, i.e., what was moved from one quadrant would have to be located somewhere else. Councilmember Phillips stated he recognized this and believed staff was doing a marvelous job of the entire task. With regard to that balance, looking at the site, listening to the input and understanding the concerns of the traffic, etc., he was reluctant to indicate it be reduced without being in staff’s shoes recognizing the consequence, and weighing those approaches. Understanding the viewpoint of the neighbors, which he had heard repeatedly last year, he believed there needed to be sensitivity to this; however, presently it was in the abstract to him. Mayor Boro stated he spoke with Ms. Jackson today to get a sense of the site with regard to the total acreage out there. He understood there were 100 acres under water and 28 acres in the so-called uplands. He noted the neighbors’ statement to “Preserve Loch Lomond Marina” and he agreed with Councilmember Heller that this was the prime goal. It was not only a neighborhood use, rather it was a citywide and countywide use, as people came from all over to use the marina. Mayor Boro stated his concern was that when he looks at a plan such as that presented, he did not know where the marina was, i.e., the housing infringed on it. Using the marina in San Francisco as an example, he noted there was housing on one side, and on the other the marina green and the yacht harbor, and it was possible to see where the marina was. He believed this should be done here, i.e., have the marina be the marina, and still find a way to locate attractive housing there; however, don’t use the bayfront property as a way to make dollars on the development at the expense of losing the marina. Acknowledging the architects as being very bright and creative, Mayor Boro believed they could work with this. He stated it was also necessary to work with the community as the goal was to preserve the marina; however, at the SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 27 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 28 same time enough people had indicated they understood there had to be something there, and with the right design and approach, he believed reasonable people could reach a conclusion. Noting fear of the unknown was always an issue people had on projects, Mayor Boro stated he would like to see Computer Aided Design used on this, as it would be to the benefit of all to physically preview what it would look like. Regarding traffic, circulation, etc., Councilmember Cohen noted there would be another opportunity to discuss Third and Union and the traffic Level of Service (LOS) there. He indicated he had some questions that arose specifically from the presentation in this staff report concerning the traffic impacts related to development versus those related to pedestrian safety and circulation caused by the commercial success there. Councilmember Cohen stated staff provided Council with a chart that stated, based on the development potential contained in General Plan 2020, that intersection stays within LOS D, and the request was to go to LOS E in order to accommodate the pedestrian safety issues raised. Because the standard had been set to be LOS E, he questioned whether this allowed for more potential development along the peninsula than would otherwise be permitted if the standard was left at D. Mr. Mansourian stated that when the bar is raised to a longer delay more traffic could be handled; however, it depended on where it came from and what movements it was making. He stated the reason the intersection would go from D to E after improvements, was because the cycles were being lengthened by separating the traffic for the northbound left turn and the pedestrians walking southbound, or vice versa. He stated the cycle presently is approximately 80 seconds and would go to 120 seconds in the future. Regarding adding development, he stated this would need to be tested as it was not tested beyond 200 plus units. Should it change to 300 just for this intersection, he believed it would fine; however, further than that he did not know. Mr. Mansourian stated staff would also evaluate the impacts of the additional development from Union to Shaver, including the Third Street arterials, and should segments of the arterials fail, this would show up with the additional development. Mr. Brown noted that the question, “If you have an exemption process to allow a different LOS for a safety improvement, then what’s the established LOS allowed for additional development?” arose at the Planning Commission, and because of that a program was added. He referred Council to page 172 - program C-4c which stated that the City Council would set the acceptable LOS at the time of granting the exception. He noted that at that time, Council could state this could take up to 60 seconds of delay with the safety improvement and perhaps set the acceptable LOS at 63 seconds of delay to allow a little more capacity for future development. Mr. Brown stated that essentially, the City Council would work with Mr. Mansourian at that point to determine what additional cushion or additional LOS should be provided for future development, beyond just the safety improvement. Councilmember Cohen stated this needed more clarification as he believed a red herring was being created. While he heard reference to traffic, he did not hear as much specific testimony tonight as previously about this particular intersection and the impacts; however, he believed the perception was strong in the community that the City intended to go to LOS E in order to accommodate development, and staff contended this was not the case. He stated a way needed to be figured out to more clearly communicate this. It was the pedestrian safety changes issue at this intersection that required this exemption, and it would be limited to accommodating that; therefore, Councilmember Cohen stated it could be that the policy limits were all included, but a good job was not done of communicating this. Concurring, Mr. Brown stated staff had not got the message across. It had been articulated repeatedly; however, as soon as LOS E was mentioned, he believed any further listening ceased. Mayor Boro stated that when he first looked at the chart he noted every other intersection having an improvement meant the LOS went down, and with the PM peak at Third and Union it went from 50.1 to 68.7 with the improvements. He suggested inserting language which explained why this was different from the others because very deliberate improvements were being made to deal with pedestrian safety and turn movement safety, rather than development. Councilmember Miller stated he appreciated the way the President of the Montecito Neighborhood Association approached this in terms of safety, which made sense. He was aware of the perception and realized it needed to be changed to match the reality. Canalways - Summarizing the requests of the property owner, Mr. Brown stated: 1) Not designate it “Conservation”, instead keep it designated as a mixed-use site; 2) Should it be retained as Conservation, change the definition of Conservation to remove the language concerning the reasons for conservation, including visual reasons; and 3) Insertion of language that supported the use of the site for dredge spoils. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 28 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 29 Mr. Brown stated that two other speakers addressed adding a statement about trying to promote better stewardship of the property as it was currently maintained. He noted there could be legal issues associated with this. There also was a suggestion that language the Planning Commission removed concerning the potential purchase of the site by non-profit organizations be added back in. Referring to page 93 – NH-82 – Mayor Boro stated there presently was wording in the Draft General Plan along those lines. Ms. Jackson referred Council to page 8 of the staff report and confirmed the final wording of the Planning Commission which was in “strike through”; therefore, the question was whether the sentence should be included or not. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like some elaboration on why “visual impact” belonged in the Conservation section. Mr. Brown explained there were several sites designated Conservation. He agreed this site did not have a real visual impact from offsite; however, sites, including the Garbarino property which includes a very prominent ridge, were also designated Conservation; therefore, there were other sites where visual was an important issue, much less so on this one. Councilmember Cohen believed there were legitimate reasons for the designation of this site as a Conservation site. Should the science not be good, as was repeatedly heard from the property owner and their representatives, then they had a wide open door to prove that this designation was in error or could be met while still allowing more development than contemplated. He believed the language of this section indicated that if the science could be proved, the opportunity was there to do so; therefore, the language afforded the property owner the opportunity to make that case. He wondered, however, whether there was another way to get to discuss visual impacts, as it clouded the issue somewhat here. Councilmember Cohen believed the dredge spoil issue was a red herring as one dredging of the canal would deal with the amounts of dredge spoils the site could handle, and there still would be a long term problem of what to do with dredge spoils. He stated it was not a valid public policy reason to change the City’s approach to this property. Mr. Brown stated staff had indicated that the Conservation District did not preclude dredging. They would have to go through many of the environmental studies to determine the extent of Pickleweed, what could or could not be filled, and go through the various permitting processes from the other agencies; however, there was nothing in Conservation that would preclude using it for dredge spoils. Councilmember Phillips stated he was persuaded by the presentation to leave the wording as is. Councilmember Miller believed this correctly handled it, noting residents did not belong out there. Councilmember Cohen stated it really was not about Canalways, rather whether there was another way to get at visual impacts and he would like staff to define Conservation designation, not as it pertained to Canalways, or whether there was another way to address this. Ms. Jackson stated that the Land Use Element would be discussed tomorrow evening, September 28, 2004, and she would generate some information concerning that district. Councilmember Cohen stated it had no implication for the discussion of Canalways and he was comfortable with the language as proposed. Councilmember Heller concurred. Cal-Pox - Mr. Brown stated that the only clarification he would like to make concerned a remark by Mr. Jordan about the economic uses for the property. He noted Mr. Jordan cited policy LU-4a – page 24 – (Interim uses of property) - properties that have other constraints, such as traffic, that have no other options, and for those sites language had been inserted about allowing interim uses. Mr. Brown stated this was not under discussion at the Cal-Pox site. He indicated staff believed there were some uses that would both benefit the property owner in terms of return on the property and benefit the City in terms of an economic return, and they had tried to work with the property owner over time to identify some of those users, e.g., most recently interest was expressed by a national used car retailer. He stated there were uses staff believed were possible there, not these interim uses, which still could fit within the limited traffic capacity available. He noted this was how Mr. Bramante had been able to have the car dealers out there – they were low trip generators during the peak period, and Mr. Mansourian had worked very carefully with his traffic engineers to tailor the size and types of those uses to fit within the limited capacity. Mr. Brown clarified that staff was not referring to these types of interim uses. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether staff’s principal objection to this type of use (senior assisted living facility) was an economic trade-off, i.e., a used car lot would be more economically beneficial to the City. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 29 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 30 Mr. Brown stated this was one of three. Staff was also concerned about soil conditions. He noted a question was raised earlier concerning whether there was a difference in soil conditions that could favor a hotel versus residential use, and they believed there was. He explained that in the situation, for example, where Hamilton got a clean bill of health and then the methane migrated, they were lucky in that situation because they had not started building homes on that area. Should residences have been built there they would have had to evacuate the homes while studies were being conducted and the methane revamped. Mr. Brown stated the problem would not necessarily be similar with a hotel as it would be much easier to vacate a hotel, as it dealt with transients, rather than with actual residents in a facility. Mr. Brown stated the third was the lack of services and the concerns with compatibility with adjacent uses. He indicated he dealt with a residential site built next to Home Depot and reported they loaded all hours of the night. While there were ways to deal with this in terms of erecting large walls, etc., it still was an impact. Councilmember Phillips questioned whether these considerations would not be taken into account and debated by the landowner and prospective developer, and inquired to what degree they would be protected of all eventualities. Mr. Brown reported that on the Northview development, which backs up onto the industrial uses around Redwood, the developer built the homes and was able to sell them. He noted complaints had been received about the backup beepers, etc., with some of the warehouse uses below those homes. Mayor Boro inquired whether this would come out in an environmental hearing, and Mr. Brown stated it could. Mayor Boro stated he believed that site was one of the most beautiful remaining. On the issues, including safety, they would have to be dealt with, whether they could be met or not. Personally, he would not have a problem with specifically senior assisted living housing and a lot of the concerns were taken care of through a senior assisted living facility, i.e., they have their own shuttle service and are pretty self- contained. Regarding the car dealer calling people on their public address system and the action with Home Depot, Mayor Boro believed that an applicant would be concerned whether they could sell the units. Simultaneously, he believed environmental review would determine whether or not that was possible. Mr. Brown stated that environmental review would quantify the nuisance noises; however, he did not see a way of mitigating those. Mayor Boro stated a judgment would have to be made on whether they were severe enough or whether they could be mitigated, etc. Mayor Boro stated that to him, Mr. Jordan was convincing that the physical potential problems could at least be evaluated and obviously, if they could not be dealt with, it could not be built; however, he believed there were safeguards. Councilmember Phillips stated this was an attractive site and more attractive than a used car lot, and he would like to explore it further. While there were legitimate concerns, to rule it out altogether because of the reasons cited, he did not fully agree with yet. Councilmember Miller believed it should be further explored as to just wipe it out was unfair. Councilmember Cohen believed this to be a difficult issue. He noted the Steering Committee debated the issue and passed it forward on a split recommendation. From the Planning Commission minutes he noted the first split was 3:3 and ultimately 3:4 on a motion to leave residential in. He stated it appeared to him that the hurdles were pretty high. There were valid concerns that led to the belief that residential was not an appropriate use out there, mostly around the environmental questions. Given the amount of work being done to try to identify housing opportunity, to slam the door entirely did not make sense. Councilmember Cohen noted the property had consistently mentioned senior housing, which was a different type. To leave the word “residential” in meant leaving the door open to the development of single- family homes, which for all the reasons expressed by staff and those who opposed it, would be problematic. He suggested that perhaps a senior housing project could be done out there that could demonstrate these concerns had been addressed and met. To insert language that allowed for residential, it would need to be very clear that the burden of proof fully remained on the property owner to establish all these issues could be met, and he favored this type of language. Councilmember Heller stated she had a problem with this as it did not strike her as a site to locate an assisted living facility. She had no problem changing the language and seeing if the hurdles could be overcome; however, she believed them to be very high. She noted the weather was not good there with wind blowing nine months of the year. She had not been there when there were wonderful odors; however, given time, she would be. Councilmember Heller indicated she had a lot of questions about locating elderly people there, and she inquired whether assisted living housing was credited to the City by ABAG or whether it was similar to the college dormitory. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 30 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 31 Mr. Brown stated that in the past congregate housing had not been counted, i.e., where meals were shared in a common kitchen; however, HCD was making movements towards counting such units. The specifics had not been discussed; however, there was a possibility they would count, and this would be known by the time an application was received. On the dormitories issue, Mr. Brown stated staff was still pushing to count these as units. City Manager Gould reminded the City Council to consider the economic impacts of these various uses. To put senior housing out there would be a net cost to the rest of the taxpayers in San Rafael as it would not pay for the cost in property taxes of the services demanded, especially emergency medical services. On the other hand, Mr. Gould stated that to locate a retail project out there, not only would it pay for the cost of serving that project, rather it would help pay for the rest of the cost of serving the remainder of San Rafael. He urged Council to keep in mind the huge difference in economic impact. Mayor Boro believed the City Council would like staff to at least bring back some wording on this for consideration. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Brown and Ms. Jackson for their work, also thanking those remaining in the audience for their endurance. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. ______________________________________________ JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF _________________2004 ______________________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/27/04 Page 31