Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD SMART Civic Center Station Area PlanCITY OF Agenda Item No: 4. b Meeting Date: August 20, 2012 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: Stephanie Lovette Economic Development N City Manager Approval; /, SUBJECT: Resolution accepting the Civic Center Station Area Plan (P10-002(CD)) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution SUMMARY: In 2010, the City received a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to prepare Station Area Plans for both the Downtown Station and the Civic Center Station. The Downtown Station Area Plan was accepted by Council last June and the Civic Center Station Area Plan (Plan) is presented here for Council consideration. Although referenced as a Plan, the Civic Center Station Area Plan is a vision document that sets out a conceptual framework of steps that would need to be taken for long term development and circulation improvements in the Plan Area. It is not a specific plan, does not include zoning or general plan changes and no environmental review has been done. Detailed plans, specific zoning changes, General Plan amendments, with their associated environmental review, will be needed as Council directs in the future, to develop and implement the concepts in the Plan. The Plan, as recommended by the Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee, is online at www.cityofsanrafael.org/stationareaplans; an Executive Summary is attached to this report as Exhibit 1. Plan Area. The Civic Center SMART station is located underneath US 101, north of the Marin County Civic Center and adjacent to Civic Center Drive. The Study Area for the Plan is the land within a one-half mile radius of the station, with particular emphasis given to the area within a quarter mile. Plan Goal. The overarching goal of this Plan is to "set the stage for creating a vibrant, mixed-use, livable area supported by a mix of transit opportunities, including passenger rail service." It focused on pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections, parking, and identifies transit -oriented land use opportunities. Major Achievements of the Plan. The Plan contains detailed recommendations on Station access and connectivity to the surrounding area, parking, land use and urban design. The major achievements of the Plan are: ■ Identifies a route for the North San Rafael Promenade that connects Northgate Mall to the Civic Center. The Plan builds on the work done in the Promenade Conceptual Plan with short and long range concepts for connecting the built portion of the Promenade at the Northgate Mall down to the SMART station and multi -use path. ■ Establishes the concept of Complete Streets and identifies where they are needed in the Area. "Complete Street" designs of roadways keep all users in mind - including bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. The Committee identified several streets where they desired these kinds of improvements. ■ Completes the bicycle and pedestrian network around the Station. The Plan endorses filling in the gaps of the bicycle and pedestrian connections throughout the area, focusing on FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: / Council Meeting: Disposition: rc a I SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 connections to the station and multi -use path. When feasible and in alignment with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, upgrades to bicycle facilities are desirable. ■ Identifies a new pedestrian crossing at the west side of the Station. The Plan identifies a new pedestrian crossing just west of the station platform to facilitate pedestrian connections for residents of the San Rafael Meadows neighborhood. • Organizes bus and rail connections at the Station. The Plan calls for bus and rail schedule coordination and amenities for bus passengers such as scheduling information and shelter. • Identifies additional SMART parking opportunities. The Plan identifies over a hundred additional parking spaces for commuters beyond the 130 spaces SMART plans to provide for its customers. ■ Calls for coordination of parking management by SMART, the County and the City. The Plan recommends that these agencies coordinate their parking management strategies with the goal of protecting nearby neighborhoods from commuter parking. • Identifies housing opportunities in the Area. Keeping within the development capacity allowed in General Plan 2020, the Plan identifies residential opportunities that focus development around the train station. ■ Identifies overall and area specific Design Guidelines. Existing San Rafael Design guidelines are intended to promote pedestrian friendly and people oriented design in all new development. The suggested additional guidelines encourage context sensitive design that is in harmony with existing development. BACKGROUND: General Plan Foundation. General Plan 2020 contains specific policies relating to planning around the two SMART stations. These include: NH -88. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Station. If rail service is initiated, support construction of a Civic Center SMART station. Encourage a plan that provides high density housing, bus transit connections, a parking lot, and incorporates pedestrian facilities and bicycle access (including bike storage facilities) consistent with the San Rafael Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. NH -88a. Transit -Oriented Development. Work with SMART, Marin County, Golden Gate Bridge Transit District and other transit providers to prepare a site-specific design for a transit -oriented development with housing in the vicinity of the rail station. NH -88b. Safe Walkways and Bikeways. Encourage the provision of lighting and sidewalks to ensure safe and attractive walkways and bikeways from the transit center, on both sides of Civic Center Drive, to the Northgate area. NH -148. Residential Use at the End of Merrydale Road. Evaluate amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to promote residential uses at the end of Merrydale Road. NH -148a. Zoning Change. Consider amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow housing at the end of Merrydale Road. H-22. Infill Near Transit. Encourage higher densities on sites adjacent to a transit hub, such as the San Rafael Transportation Center and the Downtown and Civic Center SMART stations, and along major bus corridors. H -22a. Higher Density Infill Housing Near Transit. Study underutilized sites near transit hubs, SMART stations, and transit corridors that are not currently zoned for housing to evaluate potential for rezoning to allow high-density residential uses. H -22b. Station Area Plans. Complete the Station Area Plans for the Downtown and Civic Center SMART station areas. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the final plans. C-20. Intermodal Transit Hubs. Support efforts to develop intermodal transit hubs in Downtown and at the Civic Center to provide convenient and safe connections and support for bus, rail, shuttle, bicycle, and pedestrian users, as well as automobile drivers using transit services. Hubs should include secure bicycle parking and efficient drop-off and pick-up areas without adversely affecting surrounding traffic flow. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa2e: 3 C -20a. Transit Hubs. Work with Marin County, the Marin County Transit District, SMART Commission, the Golden Gate Bridge Transportation District, and other regional agencies to ensure that intermodal transit hubs are designed to be convenient and safe for San Rafael users. Planning Grant. On May 3, 2010, Council authorized the City Manager to accept a grant in the amount of $528,000 from MTC for the preparation of both the Downtown and the Civic Center Station Area Plans. An additional $132,000 in matching funds from various sources was added for a total project cost of $660,000 for both Plans. The Civic Center Station Area Plan was allocated $175,000 of which $140,000 was from the MTC grant. The remaining $35,000 in matching funds were $8,000 from the City, $5,000 from the Redevelopment Agency, $6,000 from SMART, $8,000 from the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) and $8,000 from the County of Marin. Partner Agencies and Joint Project Team. A Joint Project Team (JPT) was convened in 2009 to assist with development of the Plan. The JPT consisted of staff from each public agency associated with the MTC grant, and including SMART, County of Marin, Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, Marin Transit District and the Transportation Authority of Marin. Consultants. The transportation consulting firm of Fehr and Peers was retained to assist the Committee. The consultant fee of $125,000 was from the MTC and matching funds. Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee. A 16 member Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Council on July 19, 2010 to represent a variety of interests the surrounding community. There were also ex -officio members representing the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, City Council, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. The Committee developed the Plan through a community-based process over 24 months with input from the public at 19 regular monthly meetings as well as a special meeting, a tour of other areas, two public workshops and numerous public outreach meetings. Committee Charge. Council charged the Committee to: • Prepare a Civic Center Station Plan that will address Station Access and Connectivity; Transit Oriented Development; Accessible Design; Parking; and Pedestrian Design. • Use area resources and assets to building on the design and engineering work for SMART's Civic Center station to create a functional and attractive transit hub for the north San Rafael community. • Include a multiagency implementation plan that summarizes the plan's recommendations and includes a phasing plan for actions and financing options for the responsible agencies. Public Input. The Committee met monthly in open public meetings held at the Guide Dogs for the Blind facility on Los Ranchitos Road. Email notices were sent prior to every meeting to a stakeholders group identified by the Committee that included Homeowners Associations (HOA's), interested organizations and individuals. As the process proceeded, any person or organization asking for notification was added to the list. Open time, public comments on each discussion item and a Public Comment time were provided at meetings. In the first months of the process, informational meetings were held with organizations and HOAs that responded to an invitation extended by the Committee. Those responding were the Contempo Marin HOA, the Chamber of Commerce Housing and Economic Development Committee, a group of Civic Center commercial property owners, the Marin Conservation League, the Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative, Embassy Suites Management Team, Friends of SMART, the League of Women Voters, and Civic Center employees. The Committee hosted two community workshops. The first was in March 2011 to identify opportunities and challenges and the second in November 2011 for feedback on draft ideas. A total of 67 people attended the first workshop and 37 were at the second. Public notification of these meetings was done by: • Email notification to stakeholder groups and persons requesting notification ■ A post office mailing to all property owners, renters, and businesses in the Plan Area as well as Home Owners Associations in the City's database and various environmental and legislative non profit organizations SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 • A press release to local print and online newspapers ■ An article in Snapshot, the City Manager's newsletter ■ A posting on the City's homepage. In June 2012, staff and the Committee presented a Draft Plan at meetings of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, the City's Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, Los Ranchitos HOA, the League of Women Voters, Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative, North San Rafael Collaborative, Rafael Meadows Improvement Association, the Santa Margarita HOA, Transportation Authority of Marin, and received comment letters from the Las Gallinas Watershed Council, the Marin County Bicycle Coalition and Sustainable San Rafael. ANALYSIS: Key Elements. The key elements and considerations in the Plan are: Take Advantage of Previous Extensive Planning Efforts. North San Rafael has been the subject of numerous visioning and planning efforts. Rather than revisit these issues, this Plan includes and builds on those efforts. Specifically, this Plan incorporates elements of the North San Rafael Promenade (Figure 7), bicycle and pedestrian improvements listed in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Figures 8 & 9), roadway improvements described in General Plan 2020 (Section 3.6.2), affordable housing policies from the Housing Element (Section 5.3), environmental resource protection policies from the Conservation Element (Section 5.10), and references to the Climate Change Action Plan (Section 5.10). Focus on Station Access and Neighborhood Connectivity for Bicycles and Pedestrians. A major focus is improving bicycle and pedestrian connections between the neighborhoods and the station. New and/or improved sidewalks (Figure 8), new bicycle lanes (Figure 10), and adequate bicycle parking at the Station (Section 3.4.3) were identified that will make walking and cycling to the train a pleasant experience. Connections between the existing neighborhoods and the Station are improved by Plan provisions for the completion of the North San Rafael promenade (Figures 5 and 7), connections to the new multiuse pathway along the SMART right of way (Figures 2 and 6), the enhancement of the existing pedestrian rail crossing at Walter Place and a proposal for a new pedestrian only crossing on the west side of the Civic Center Station (Figure 8). Ensure that Station Parking Does Not Overwhelm Neighborhoods. Members of the public and the Committee expressed concern that the Station would be a park-and-ride destination, with the resulting parking intruding into existing neighborhoods. In addition, there was concern that SMART's leased parking at the County Government Center is on the east of the freeway and users on the west side of the freeway would find it more convenient to park in the residential areas on the west side. To address this, the Plan identifies new on -street spaces on Merrydale Road north of the tracks, includes new turnarounds on Merrydale Road both north and south of the tracks to facilitate drop-offs (Figure 13), and identifies programs that could be implemented to ensure that neighborhood parking is preserved for residents. It also notes that ongoing coordination and management of parking is needed between the City, County and SMART (Section 4.3.3). Overall, new opportunities for additional parking were identified (Figure 14). New Development Near Station Should Preserve Character of Area. One purpose of this Plan is to identify sites for new residential and commercial development that would encourage use of the train. The Committee endorsed this idea while emphasizing the importance of preserving the existing character of the area, including preserving views and protecting the creeks and wetlands in the area. The Plan recommends new residential development close to the station (Section 5.6), within the traffic capacities identified in the General Pian (Section 5.4), with design guidelines to ensure that the character of existing neighborhoods remains (section 5.11). Specific densities were not identified, but it was noted that it should be higher than the current High Density provisions. Building heights were proposed for evaluation in several areas that are needed to achieve the desired transit oriented development. Implementation: As a vision document and conceptual plan, the Civic Center Station Area Plan lays out the framework for the future projects and reviews that are necessary to achieve the Plan. The Implementation Section contains the specific actions, responsible parties, priorities and general cost GANI&AFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT /Pauo: 5 estimates. The priorities any near, medium and long temn, with near term relating to actions that are associated with the commencement of SMART operations. Specific implementation actions will be considered in the scheduling of future Zoning updates and General Plan amendments and the securing of grant funding and the allocation of staff resources in the City budget process. Committee Split Decision on Height in the Redwood Highway Area. The Committee was not able to come toconsensus on the issue of building heights on the Redwood Highway frontage, the Northgate Storage, Public Storage and Marin Ventures properties, and the 3 properties closest to the Station on the west side of the Highway. They have included two height alternatives in the Recommended Plan (Figures 18Aand B)which are attached iothis report aaExhibits 2and 3. The CnmnniUaa spent several meetings deliberating building heights. Increasing heights had been explored in the second Community Workshop, where some community support was voiced for increases regulated by design guidelines. This endorsement was not unanimous among the Workshop attendees however. The Committee reached averba| consensus position that was mapped and included in the Draft Plan distributed for community review in eleven nnnnmunih/ meetings held in June. At their July 11 meeUng, where the Committee reviewed all the community meeting input. the Rafael Meadows neighborhood voiced their concern with four story buildings on the Redwood highway frontage. the NorthgatoGtonaga. Public Storage and the Marin Ventures properties. Privacy issues, parking and a change in community character were the primary concerns. The Commi#ee, after much dianuooiun, was not able to come to a consensus decision on height, but agreed to forward two alternatives. Exhibit is the No Change a|ternahvm, where the existing 3 story height limit on Redwood Highway and yWerrydo|e Road remain unchanged. Exhibit 3 shows an increase to 4 stories on the Redwood Highway frontage, all of the Marin Ventures and Public Storage lots at the end of K4orrydo|e. and Nodhgato Storage. The Committee was nearly evenly split between a belief that the height increases were needed to achieve transit related development on Redwood Highway and near the Gtation, and concern about privacy in the bank yards ofsingle family lots that backed up to K4errydo|o. The recommended Plan reflects this with the inclusion of the following text: "The Committee reached consensus on the Draft plan to include the italicized text above. After hearing the public comments on the draft. the Committee was not able to reach consensus on heights for the Redwood Highway frontage, the Morin Ventures site, oreither storage lot parce|, and were evenly divided between a No Change Alternative and a Four -Story Alternative." Council could accept the Plan with noaction nnthe Alternatives. |nthat instance, further analysis would occur for both alternatives in future General Plan and re -zoning actions. /Atennetkm|y. Council could accept the Plan and then select one of the Alternatives. In that inshsnoe, future implementation actions would start with the premise that the specified heights could be aooeptab|o, and would be analyzed for impacts. Public Testimony at Committee Meeting. Substantial public comment was made by the public on the Recommended Plan at the |oot Committee meeting. The Committee requested that the minutes of the meeting be attached to this staff report (Exhibit 4). Issues raised by the public are discussed in the petitions section below. The Committee felt that the issues had been discussed extensively in the last years, did not further change the Plan and encouraged the public to get involved earlier. Petitions. Atotal offour petitions are being circulated. Three were brought hnthe Committee's attention at their final meeting; one was hand circulated and two were nn -limy documents. After the Committee mneting, another online petition was generated. Supporters of the petitions stated that they would be submitted to Council. As of the writing of this staff report, one has been submitted. The text ofall four petitions is included inthe attached Exhibit 5, and Exhibit is the hand circulated petition from Rafael Meadows. Rafael Meadows Petition. This is the hand circulated petition attached as Exhibit 6. In response, the request for 3 story height limit is reflected in Exhibit 2, and is in efhan, nnchange from existing zoning. Limiting heights on Dandy Market and Casa de Rafael to less than that currently allowed could potentially be a baking nfproperty rights, Potential concessions (including height increases) to projects providing more affordable housing than that required by the City's Affordable Housing regulations are required by the State (California Government Code Section 65015). Concessions SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL must be reviewed on ooase bycase basis and a blanket prohibition is not possible. Parking for SMART patrons will be provided by SMART in e lot leased from the County, and the Plan identifies other onstreet locations nnboth sides nfhighway 101. |naddition, the Plan recognizes that keeping SMART patrons from parking in residential neighborhoods will require coordinated efforts of the City. County and S[WART, and calls for ongoing monitoring efforts. led by the City. Requiring private property owners to provide SMART parking, as o part ofdevelopment approvals, is beyond the City's authority. Prohibitions on vehicular crossings at Walter Place and K4arryda|o Road are already included inthe Plan onpage 28. Council could amend the height recommendation audiscussed inthe Split Decision section above, and the vehicular crossing issue has already been addressed in the Plan. The other requests would result in conflicts with /and use law. Quiet Zone Petition. This online petition b*x\ was read to the Committee at the meeting. In response, Quiet Zones are oroon designated by the Federal Rail Authority and California Public Utilities Commission and areas where additional safety measures are installed at rail crossings so train horns will not sound except for emergencies. Quiet Zones are not in the charge given to the Station Area Committee. The City's Public Works Department is working closely with SMART on Quiet Zones and a number ofother train related issues. A City Council SMART Subcommittee has been reviewing Quiet Zone issues with City staff and SK4ART, and this petition should be addressed tothat Subcommittee. Stop Terra Linde Railroad Sprawl Petition. This online petition was referenced to the Committee at the meeting. In response, the Committee developed a Plan that followed the direction given by General Plan 2020 policies and their charge from the Council. Therefore, the Plan focused on podestrian, bicycle and transit connections in the Plan Area to the Station and identified transit oriented land use opportunities to leverage rail ridership. The key considerations of the Plan (pages 78-79) included eoUono to improve station auoeaa, ensure that parking does not ovemvhm|nn naighborhonds, and allow limited new development near the Station that preserves the character of the area. These key considerations address many of the issues raised in the petition. 8peoifioaUy. Station aoouus was addressed in Chapter 3, and parking was addressed in Chapter 4. Chapter Land Use and Urban Design proposed that development be focused within a quarter mile of the Station and proposed height and density inonaaeoa on O properties plus the Redwood Highway frontage. Specific zoning provisions are not propuued, as they will require future lot specific analysis and environmental review. The plan identifies those lots which should bestudied and sets general development parameters. Overall, the Plan recommends the amount of development not exceed the amount accommodated and mitigated bythe traffic improvements included in General Plan 2020 (Section 5.4) which are further specified in Implementation Measures 10. 11 and 12. Increases in density and height aro accompanied by a sot of design guidelines (Section 5.11 Design Guidelines). The Plan further supports and includes the natural environment policies contained in the General Plan (Section 5.10 Natural Environment). The issues raised in the petition are the issues that the Committee considered over the course of a 2 year process and addressed in the Plan. Limiting building heights tn3stories isrequested inthe petition. The Recommended plan proposes 4 stories with e potential 5 story building on 3f|at properties closest tothe Station (Figura 18 Aand 8). The 5mfloor would befor development that proposed a significant public benefit or amenity in the Plan Area. The benefit could be itonnu such as additional affordable houoing, additional creek improvements, public plazas orother similar items (Page 81). During the development of the height recommendations, the Committee considered that transit na[abad development should be located near the ntodun, and these lots were across Civic Center Drive from the Station. They also considered building heights in the Plan Area. Under current regu|otiona, the building height is 36 fooL generally stories. A4 story building would be about 48 ft. and Gstories about 6Ofeet. East of Highway 101, 3900 Civic Center (Auto Desk) im38feet and Embassy Suites ia57feet. |nthe Northgatearea, Macy's isS7feet, Sears ia54feet and Kohl's in43 feet. The Committee reached consensus that these heights were appropriate with design guidelines. Keep San Rafael Quiet and Safe Petition. This online is an petition that has been sent to the Mayor, but was not presented to the Committee. In response, the Civic Center Station Area Plan is avioion SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 for the future, and proposes a framework for future actions. An such, it does not contain the specifics needed todothe level on analysis requested in the petition. Specific densities and development standards have not been developed. No environmental assessment has been done, which is the vehicle for determining areas ofpotential impacts. As such time as Council directs that zoning or policy changes be developed, additional study will be done on the actual proposals. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Plan sets forth a vision for the area around the SMART Station and identifies areas for future study. As the City Council is accepting the Plan at the completion of the Committee's work and directing staff to consider the recommendations for future study, the Plan in not subject to CEQA review. The plan is classified as a planning and feasibility study which are exempted under CEQASection 152G2. Any future implementation actions will besubject toCEOAreview. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct budget implication of accepting the Plan. Subsequent implementation of the Plan will require a budget on well as staff time for grant applications and project management. Council will review and approve any grant funding and staffing allocations for these future actions. OPTIONS: 1. Accept the {}k/io Center Station Area Plan with the Committee's split decision on height. Council could accept the Plan with no action on the Height Alternatives. In that instanoe, further analysis would occur for both alternatives in future General Plan and re -zoning actions. 2. Accept the Civic Center Station Area Plan with modifications. Council could accept the Plan and select one of the Alternatives. In that instance, future implementation actions would start with the premise that the specified heights could be acceptable, and would be analyzed for impacts. Council could indicate other specific modifications. 3. Decline to accept the Plan. This option is not recommended. The majority ofthe Station Area Plan addresses connectivity and parking issues which would incorporate the Station into the surrounding area and make it easier for residents and workers to get to and from the Station. These improvements are separate from the concerns raised onheight and land use. Not accepting any part of the Plan would mean that these items would not move forward on a timely basis. In additinn, this planning effort is funded by grant funds that will not be released until the Plan is accepted. ACTION REQUIRED: Adopt resolution accepting the Civic Center Station Area Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 1. Executive Summary nfthe Civic Center Station Area Plan 2. No Change Height Alternative 3. Four Story Height Alternative 4. Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee Minutes of July 25, 2012 (unapproved) 5. Petition text G. Petition from Rafael Meadows RESOLUTION NO. 13401 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO ACCEPT THE CIVIC CENTER SMART STATION AREA PLAN WHEREAS, in20N,the City Council adopted General Plan 2020, which included unumber of policies related to the two planned Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit ("SMART") rail stations in Sun Rafael, to be located in [)ovvniov/n and u1the Civic Center; and WHEREAS, staff pursued grant funding for planning the urooa around \humc stations consistent with General Plan 2020 policies and programs including: C -23b Grunts, N8'88o Transit Oriented Development, NH 88hSafe Walkways and Bikeways, NB36 Hethodon0[ficeDistrict, C|7 Regional Transit Options and SMART, C 18 Local Transit Options and C20 Intermodal Transit Hubs; and WHEREAS, in 2009, City staff and staff frorn other agencies met to prepare and submit a Station Area Plan grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC"). The public agency partners for the Civic Center Station Area Plan were the City of Sun RuCuc|, S8J/\KT, Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, Marin Transit District and the Transportation Authority of Marin ('^T/\M"),collectively the Joint Project Tconu("JPT");und WHEREAS, the JPT partner agencies provided grant matching funds in the amount of $35,000. The City of San Rafael provided matching funds of $8,000, the Redevelopment Agency provided $5,000, SMART provided $6,000` the Transportation Authority of Marin provided $8,000, and the County of Marin provided $8,O00;and W&UE&k]OAB^ on May 3, 2010, the City Council authorized the City Manager to Accept and Expend a Grant in the Amount of $528,000 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Station Area Plans for the Downtown and Civic Center San Qutuc| Stations, of which u{otu| o[$|4O,000was for the Civic Center Station Area Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council appointed u 16 member Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee, representing many different interest in the Plan Area to develop the Civic Center Station Area Plan and to advise the City Council on such Area Plan; and WHEREAS, between September 2010 and July 2012, the Committee worked on the Draft Station Area 9bm at nineteen meetings and one special meeting; reviewed background data; participated in atour o[the area and utour o[other areas; hosted two community outreach workshops, and u series of presentations on the Draft Station Area Plan including presentations to the Marin County Bound of Supervisors, the City`y Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, the Federation of San &ufbe| Neighborhoods, [us Dunchitos BOA, the League of Women Voters, Marin Environmental Housing Co||aburu1ivc, North San Ru[ue| Collaborative, HLubae| Meadows Improvement Association, the Santa Margarita HOA, Transportation Authority ofMarin, and received comment letters from the Las Gu}|inay Watershed Council, the Marin County Bicycle Coalition and Sustainable San Rafael. WHEREAS, following release n[the Draft Civic Center Station Area Plan and through the course ofsubsequent public meetings and outreach, additional public input was received including the circulation and submittal to the City of four petitions from neighborhood and special interest groups including the Rafael Mcudov/a Neighborhood Association, Stop Terra Linda Railroad Sprawl and Keep San Rafael Quiet and Safe. The primary concerns and comments presented in these petitions include, but are not limited to: a) opposition to extending allowable building heights to 4- and 5 -stories east of US 101 and in the Redwood Highway area (west of US 101); b) opposition to allowing residential use on the developed commercial sites located east of US 101; c) SMART station parking; d) the establishment of "Quite Zones" for the SMART rail service; and e) potential environmental impacts associated with the recommendations presented in the plan; and WHEREAS, consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Civic Center Station Area Plan has been reviewed to determine appropriate environmental review. As the Civic Center Station Area Plan is a planning study that would not result in any actions to change or amend City policies or municipal code regulations, it has been determined that this project is exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies); and WHEREAS, the custodians of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Civic Center Station Area Plan review is based, are the City Clerk and the Department of Community Development. The documents which constitute the record for the Civic Center Station Area Plan process are listed in attached Exhibit A of this resolution; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2012 the City Council conducted a public meeting in which the Committee presented its recommended Civic Center Station Area Plan to the Council. The public meeting was attended by over 200 residents and included testimony from 40 members of the public; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael accepts the Civic Center Station Area Plan as a "vision" document, along with the record of the proceedings and documents presented in attached Exhibit A; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does hereby thank the Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee for it's extensive work on the Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does hereby direct staff to consider the Station Area Plan and the record herein (Exhibit A) when making future amendments to General Plan 2020 to incorporate relevant policy objectives and programs and to pursue implementation of the Station Area Plan as infrastructure grant funding and staff resources become available. I, ESTHER BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, the twentieth day of August, 2012 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Connolly, Heller, Levine, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Oct C -C ESTHER BEIRNE, City Clerk Exhibit A: Civic Center Station Area Plan Record of Documents and Proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 O S [us EXHIBIT Civic Center Station Area Plan Record of Documents and Proceedings City Council Agenda Report August 2O.2O12 City Council Meeting Minutes August 2O.2O12 Executive Summary August 2012 Final Civic Center Station Area Plan August 2012 Background Report January 2012 Workshop #1Summary Report March 2011 Workshop #2 Summary Report November 2011 Alternatives Analysis Report January 2012 Advisory {}O0O1iUee yWiDUte8 • Minutes September 2, 2010 • Minutes October 13.2O1O • Minutes November 1O.2D1O • Minutes December 8, 2010 • Minutes January 12.2011 • Minutes February S.2D11 • Minutes April 13.2O11 ° K8iDUteS May 11,2O11 • Minutes June O.2O11 • Minutes July 13.2D11 • K8iOUteS August 1U'2O11 ° Minutes October 12. 2011 • Minutes December 14.2O11 • Minutes January 11. 2012 " Minutes February O.2O12 • K8iDUteS March 14.2O12 • Minutes April 11' 2012 • Minutes May 9, 2012 • Minutes July 11.2O12 • K4iDUteS July 25, 2012 Correspondence • North San Rafael Collaborative August 1O.2D11 • Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative August 1O.2D11 ° Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative October 31.2011 • North San Rafael Collaborative December 12.2D11 • North San Rafael Collaborative March S.2U12 • Las Ga||iD@GValley Watershed District March 31.2O12 • Shirley Fischer January 1O.2O12 • San Rafael Meadows Improvement ASSC. January 11.2O12 ~ Sue Mace January 18.2U12 " Sustainable San Flatge| February 8. 2012 • Letters and e[nai|ssubmitted for Draft Plan o Bay Trail May 15.2U12 o Terra Linda HOA May 22.2O12 o 8@D Rafael Meadows |0p. /\sSc. June 5. 2012 o North San Rafael Collaborative June 11.2012 o County gfMarin June 21.2D12 o C@FD|yDLenert June 28.2O12 11 12 o Sustainable San Rafael o Marin Environmental Housing Collab. o Marin Bicycle Coalition o Janet and Bob Phinney o Gallinas Watershed Council • Transportation Alternatives of Marin ■ Sustainable San Rafael ■ League of Women Voters ■ Chamber of Commerce ■ Marin County Bicycle Coalition Additional materials submitted to the Advisory Committee ■ Lea Ann Bernick ■ Harriot Manley Additional materials submitted to City Council • Dr. Bari Levinson ■ Dan Monte ■ Robert Chilvers; • Dr. Jonathan Artz ■ Lea Ann Bernick • Richard Hall 13. Petitions ■ San Rafael Meadows Improvement Association ■ Keep San Rafael Quiet and Safe ■ Voters for a Quiet and Safe Terra Linda • Civic Center SMART Train station "Quiet Zone" 14. DVD Recording of City Council Meeting June 28, 2012 June 28, 2012 June 29, 2012 June 29, 2012 June 29, 2012 July 5, 2012 August 9, 2012 August 16, 2012 August 16, 2012 August 20, 2012 July 25, 2012 July 25, 2012 August 20, 2012 August 20, 2012 August 20, 2012 August 20, 2012 August 20, 2012 August 20, 2012 August 20, 2012 RECOMMENDED Civic Center Station Area Plan Executive Summary This project is funded in part through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Station Area Planning Program. The preparation of this report has been financed in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U. S. Department of Transportation. The full report can be found at www.citvofsanrafael.org/stationareaplans. The San Rafael Civic Center Station Area Plan is the culmination of nearly two years of work by the City of San Rafael and a citizens committee to identify a community vision for the area around the future Civic Center SMART station in North San Rafael. The Plan builds on previous planning efforts, and sets out a conceptual framework for development and circulation improvements in the area. No environmental review has been done as part of this conceptual planning effort. Future, detailed plans will be needed to further develop and implement the concepts in the plan and conduct environmental analysis. SMART The SMART District is proposing implementation of passenger rail service along a 70 -mile rail corridor extending from Cloverdale in Sonoma County to a station located near the Larkspur ferry terminal. Two stations would be constructed in San Rafael, one Downtown and the other in North San Rafael at what is called the Civic Center Station. The first phase of the SMART project will connect the Downtown San Rafael station to the North Santa Rosa station and will include the Civic Center station. The Study Area and Citizens Advisory Committee The Civic Center SMART station is located underneath US 101, just north of the Marin County Civic Center and adjacent to Civic Center Drive. The Study Area is the land within a one-half mile radius of the station, with particular emphasis given to that within a quarter mile. 1 utile and % mile radii around SMART station EL IIibi 11 A 14 member Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council to represent all aspects of the surrounding community developed this Plan through a community-based process over the course of 24 months. The Plan was developed by the Committee, with input from the public at regular monthly meetings as well as two public workshops and numerous public outreach meetings. Goals of the Plan The overarching goal of this Plan is to "set the stage for creating a vibrant, mixed-use, livable area supported by a mix of transit opportunities, including passenger rail service." It focuses on key pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections, and identifies transit -oriented land use opportunities. Other goals include: ■ Leverage investments to maximize riders ■ Explore the opportunity for a bus hub ■ Improve access for pedestrians and bicyclists • Maximize opportunities for adjacent land uses ■ Leverage the rail station for housing and econom is development Key Considerations Through the course of developing this Plan, key considerations evolved. These considerations and how they were addressed are: Take Advantage of Previous Extensive Planning Efforts. North San Rafael has been the subject of numerous visioning and planning efforts. Rather than revisit these issues, this Plan incorporates, and builds on those efforts. Specifically, this Plan incorporates elements of the North San Rafael Promenade, bicycle and pedestrian improvements listed in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, roadway improvements described in General Plan 2020, affordable housing policies from the Housing Element, environmental resource protection policies in the Conservation Element, and references to the Climate Change Action Plan. Focus on Station Access and Neighborhood Connectivity for Bicycles and Pedestrians. A common theme that emerged was a focus on improving bicycle and pedestrian connections between the neighborhoods and the station. New and/or improved sidewalks, new bicycle lanes, and adequate bicycle parking at the Station were identified that will make cycling or walking to the train a pleasant experience. Connections between the existing neighborhoods and the Station are improved by Plan provisions for the completion of the North San Rafael promenade, connections to the new multiuse pathway along the SMART right of way, the enhancement of the existing rail crossing and a proposal for a new crossing on the west side of the Civic Center Station. Ensure that Station Parking Does Not Overwhelm Neighborhoods. Members of the public and the Committee expressed concern that the Station would be a park-and-ride destination, and the resulting parking intrude into existing neighborhoods. In addition, there was concern that the SMART's leased parking at the County Government Center is on the east of the freeway and users on the west side of the freeway would find it more convenient to park in the residential areas on the west side. The Plan identifies new on -street spaces on Merrydale Road north of the tracks, includes new turnarounds on Merrydale Road both north and south of the tracks to facilitate drop-offs, and identifies programs, such as residential parking permits, that could be implemented to ensure that neighborhood parking is preserved for residents. New Development Near Station Should Preserve Character of Area. One purpose of this Plan is to identify sites for new residential and commercial development that would encourage use of the train. The Committee endorsed this idea while stressing the importance of preserving the existing character of the area, including preserving views and protecting the creeks and wetlands in the area. The Plan recommends new development close to the station, within the traffic capacities identified in the General Plan, with design guidelines to ensure that the character of existing neighborhoods remains. Summary of Recommendations The Plan includes many recommendations and implementation actions. The following is a compilation of the recommendations included in each section of the Plan. More details and illustrations are provided in the plan and should be consulted in all im plementation actions. Access and Connectivity: Provide "Complete Streets" treatments, such as wider sidewalks, improved bicycle facilities, calmed traffic, and improved streetscaping on all streets within the Study Area, but specifically on Merrydale Road (both north and south of the railroad tracks), the Merrydale Overcrossing, and McInnis Parkway. These treatments may be challenging to implement due to right-of-way, cost, or engineering constraints. However, the City should pursue improvements on these streets as opportunities become available. Complete the Promenade from Las Gallinas Avenue to North San Pedro Road, along Merrydale Road, the SMART Multi -use Pathway and Civic Center Drive. As a longer-term recommendation, consider extension of the Promenade north from Merrydale Road, through the Northgate III parcel to the Las Gallinas Road/Northgate Drive intersection if the Northgate III parcel were to redevelop. As another longer-term recommendation, consider construction of a Class I shared bicycle/pedestrian path along Civic Center Drive instead of the Class II bicycle lanes proposed as part of the North San Rafael Vision. 3. Complete the sidewalk network, including portions of Civic Center Drive, North San Pedro Road, and Los Ranchitos Road, such that all streets have adequate facilities on both sides of the street. Long -Range Vision Concept for Promenade Neto, if fei* jj fou tru > psti wap ars ulvd along ( Cioic Contrr 0tr4p from l lnnia Fwka ay ro Nortfr San pedro koad and afc North was P"sty Read tremors civic 4. Maintain and improve the Walter Place Crossing. This important connection facilitates access between the residential neighborhood south and east of the railroad tracks and west of US 101 with the Northgate Shopping Center. In the future, when the SMART Multi -use Pathway is constructed, this at -grade connection will facilitate access to the regional pathway from neighborhoods on both sides of the tracks. Prior to initiating rail service, SMART proposes to upgrade this crossing to meet current safety and design standards. The crossing could be upgraded to meet minimum requirements for a Class I shared, two-way bicycle and pedestrian facility. Access to the crossing could be improved across Los Ranchitos Road. One option would be to install a new crosswalk across Los Ranchitos Road and ADA -compliant ramps at either end. However, this requires further study and potentially special crossing treatments to address safety concerns. 5. Construct a new pedestrian crossing at the west end of the Civic Center Station (connecting Merrydale Road). Providing a new pedestrian crossing at the west end of the Civic Center Station would facilitate easier access to the station from neighborhoods south of the railroad tracks and is strongly endorsed by the Plan.. It would also facilitate easier access between neighborhoods in the Study Area that are currently bisected by the railroad tracks. Implementing this improvement may be challenging due to the CPUC approval process, which typically does not favor new rail crossings, and due to the costs associated with safety amenities, such as gates and lights, that m ay be required. 6. Complete the Citywide Bicycle Network, as identified in the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. A number of local improvements identified in the City's 4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan would not only facilitate improved local circulation and connectivity by bicycle, they would also provide much needed connections to major regional bicycle facilities proposed in Marin and Sonoma Counties, including the Bay Trail, the North/South Greenway (SMART Multi -use Pathway) and the North/South Bikeway. When feasible and in alignment with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, upgrades to bicycle facilities are desirable. Specifically, construct the following improvements: Class 1/II Bikeways: • North San Pedro Road, from Los Ranchitos Road to Civic Center Drive (Class 1/11) (If feasible, Class I facilities are desired on North San Pedro Road between Los Ranchitos Road and Civic Center Drive) • Civic Center Drive, from North San Pedro Road to Merrydale Overcrossing (Class 1/II) (If feasible, Class I facilities are desired on Civic Center Drive, from North San Pedro Road to McInnis Parkway) • Merrydale Road, north of SMART tracks to Merrydale Road, south of SMART tracks, including new at -grade crossing on west side of SMART station (Class 1) • SMART Multi -use Pathway, from Northern City Limits to the Puerto Suello Hill Path at Los Ranchitos Road (Class 1) • Walter Place Pathway, from Las Gallinas Avenue to Los Ranchitos Road (Class I — although this pathway already exists, the Plan calls for upgrades to meet design standards for Class I facility.) Class 11/111 Bikeways • Los Ranchitos Road, from Northgate Drive to North San Pedro Road (Class II/III) • Merrydale Road, from Las Gallinas Avenue to Puerto Suello Hill Path (Class 11/111) • North San Pedro Road, from Civic Center Drive to Golf Avenue (Class II) (If feasible, Class 11 facilities are proposed between Civic Center Drive and Golf Avenue and desired between Golf Avenue and Woodoaks Drive) Class III Bikeways • Las Gallinas Avenue, from the Walter Place crossing at the SMART MUP to Merrydale Avenue • Merrydale Road, from the Merrydale Overcrossing to the SMART MUP (This improvement could be done as an interim step prior to completing this section of the Promenade, as recommended above.) • Merrydale Road, from the Merrydale Bridge, just south of the SMART MUP to Las Gallinas Avenue. tact If femqbk. mufti-wa pathwar we deaf of" Ow contof 06w from Wrn"A #ts fkway to hcolh San r` dw AcAd and nq NofTh Sans al4o Road fra m Ovc Centel € OV4 to tali Noclulof ROM, PROPOSED BICYCLE CON CTI 7. Implement planned SMART -proposed shuttle service to major activity centers in the Study Area. SMART has proposed two separate shuttle routes serving the Civic Center Station. One route would travel along Redwood Highway, north of the Study Area, serving Professional Center Parkway, the Regency Center, and the Marin Commons office complex. The other route would travel south and west of the station, and would connect to the Civic Center, Kaiser Medical Center, and the Northgate Mall. Service is dependent on funding availability, and final route details would be developed in consultation with the service provider. Employers should be encouraged to coordinate shuttle service to and from the station, and shuttles and transit service should complement each other. 8. Construct a transfer point for bus and shuttle service connecting to the SMART station. A transfer point should provide users with information on connecting transit service as well as weather protection and seating. These amenities should be constructed as part of the SMART station on the west side of Civic Center Drive, near the bus pull out/turnaround area as shown on Figure 2. In addition, the use of real-time bus arrival technology is encouraged for all transit vehicles at the mini -hub. A procedure for regular updates of information by all transit agencies should be established. Local transit service schedules should be coordinated with SMART train schedules to ensure convenient transfers. C:1 9. Construct vehicular turnaround areas at the ends of Merrydale Road north and south of the railroad tracks. These improvements would allow residents on the west side of the tracks to drop off and pick up passengers without having to cross US 101. The turnaround at the end of Merrydale north of the railroad tracks could be constructed within existing right-of-way; the turnaround at the end of Merrydale south of the tracks would require some space from the existing mini -storage site, and would thus only be possible as part of potential redevelopment of that site. Vehicular turn -around and bus pull-out at station 10. Construct improvements at Las Gallinas Avenue, from Merrydale Road to Del Presidio Boulevard: Remove parking and widen the street to provide four travel lanes (one southbound, two northbound, and one two-way left turn). 11. Construct Improvements at US 101 / Freitas Parkway Interchange as specified in the General Plan 2020 : a. Freitas Parkway and Del Presidio Boulevard: Explore the feasibility of providing double turn lanes for northbound right turns form Del Presidio Boulevard to eastbound Freitas Parkway, as well as widening the on-ramp to southbound US 101 from eastbound Freitas Parkway. This improvement should be considered carefully, since double right -turn lanes can be dif ficult for pedestrians and cyclists. b. Freitas Parkway / Northbound US 101 Ramps 1 Civic Center Drive / Redwood Highway: Widen ramps and signalize. (Note that this improvement requires acquisition of right-of-way.) c. Freitas Parkway / Northbound US 101 Ramps / Civic Center Drive / Redwood Highway: Construct new flyover ramp from Civic Center Drive to Freitas Parkway. 12. Signalize US 101 Southbound Ramps / Merrydale Road Intersection 13. Install directional signage for all modes directing people to and from key destinations in the area. This information should be accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers, with a particular focus on pedestrians and cyclists. M Parking: 1. Explore residential parking permits and time limits. Residential parking permits coupled with 2 or 4 -hour time limits can protect neighborhoods from long-term commuter parking spillover. Permit programs would be at the request of the impacted neighborhood in response to a documented problem. Parking opportunities for SMART commuters 2. Provide more commuter parking opportunities throughout the area. Three additional parking opportunities have been identified for SMART commuter parking. This will be public parking and therefore they will be open to non -SMART users as well. They are: a. McInnis Parkway, approximately 80 on -street parking spaces b. Merrydale North, approximately 65 on -street spaces (depending on how the roadway is configured without compromising the planned promenade extension) c. Vacant parcel northeast of station, approximately 32 spaces (can include some ADA parking for SMART and possibly more bike parking for station) d. If more parking is needed, the City and County should pursue the use of public lots for SMART parking. e. Consider using new technology as it develops to communicate real-time availability of parking to station users. 3. Coordinate parking controls. A successful parking strategy will require extensive on- going coordination and planning for increased parking demand between the County of Marin, SMART and the City of San Rafael. The City should survey the SMART related parking situation annually to identify problems and seek solutions. Coordination among the jurisdictions is essential to insure that SMART parking does not intrude into the residential neighborhoods such as Rafael Meadows. Every effort should be taken to prevent this from happening. E3 4. Reduce parking requirements. If coupled with other strategies that can demonstrably show a reduced demand for parking, such as transit incentive programs, carsharing, shuttles, unbundling parking, and shared parking, new development may need less parking than the current ordinance requires. Developments seeking to provide less parking may be subject to periodic review for efficiency. 5. Provide bike parking. Provide adequate bike parking at the station and in new development. The demand for bike parking at the station should be monitored over time and additional space provided if needed. Land Use and Urban Design: 1. Protect existing residential neighborhoods. No changes are proposed for the existing single-family residential neighborhoods. These neighborhoods should be protected from adverse impacts of new development. New development should be both in scale with the existing neighborhoods and complementary in community character. 2. Encourage residential uses within walking distance (generally a 1/4 -mile) of the station. Inclusion of additional multi -family residential development near the station will help increase ridership for the transit station. Affordable units will be included in new housing throughout the Station Area through conformance with existing and future City housing policies. 3. Allow limited retail in proximity to the station. Current market demand does not appear to be strong enough to support significant additional retail in the area. However, some additional station -serving and neighborhood -serving retail should be allowed, though not required, in areas appropriate for mixed-use development. 4. Develop design guidelines to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhoods. Higher densities demand greater attention to high quality design, and design guidelines can help ensure compatibility of new development with the existing neighborhood character. Design guidelines should reflect the unique character of each of the three planning areas, based on the guidelines in this plan. East of US 101 Area Design Guidelines need to: o Preservation of views from the hillside residences o Establishment of view corridors along Avenue of the Flags to the hills, Mt. Tam and the Frank Lloyd Wright designed Civic Center o Height step -backs and buffers from single-family neighborhoods o Continue the City's creek and wetlands policies. Redwood Highway Area Design Guidelines need to address building height transitions, building facade articulation and massing, and setbacks to ensure compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhoods and prevent the appearance of a solid wall to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. Northgate Area Design Guidelines need to buffer existing neighborhoods from the height increases of new development. 5. Restore and enhance the natural resources in the station area. The station area has an abundance of natural open space, hillsides, creeks, and wetlands. These resources should be restored and enhanced per the General Plan and zoning designations. They should also be celebrated by new development. C9 New development should celebrate natural resources. Restore and enhance the natural environment by improving and protecting creeks, wetlands and hillsides as provided in the General Plan and zoning provisions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that mean sea level rise will rise between one and three feet by the end of this century. A three-foot rise would inundate much of eastern and central San Rafael, potentially impacting the study area. In accordance with the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan, the City will monitor sea level rise and plan for shoreline defense; develop a program of levee analysis; participate in Marin County's regional vulnerability assessment, and prepare a local vulnerability assessment for San Rafael; and continue to provide emergency planning and community awareness. Allow an increase in building height, allowable FAR and/or residential density in focused locations. In addition, amend the General Plan and zoning designations on Planned Development (PD) zoned parcels to allow for additional uses. The increases in density are contingent upon the identified limits of traffic capacity in the area. They reflect the development potential of each of the three planning areas. East of US 101 Area • In the current office and commercial areas, investigate and implement increases in retail and office FAR above 0.30 and increases in residential density above 44 units per acre within the identified limits of traffic capacity. Amend the General Plan and zoning designations on PD zoned lots to allow residential use. • Density increases can be higher on the level lots (MCERA APN 180-410-06; Autodesk parking APN 180-124-06), than on the more distant flat lots or on the hillside lots. • The Christmas tree lot is under County jurisdiction. If changes to the existing master plan are contemplated in the future, density and FAR increases to the same level as the (MCERA APN 180-410-06 and Autodesk parking APN 180-124-06), are appropriate. • Include requirements for facilitating pedestrian access to the Station from the sites at higher elevations on the hillside. • On development sites close to the station, amend the General Plan and zoning to increase height limits to 4 stories for residential and mixed-use development only, subject to design requirements. Allow an additional story (for a total of 5) for developments that propose a significant benefit or amenity in the planning area. Redwood Highway Area • On the properties closest to the station, specifically the Public Storage and Marin Ventures sites, investigate and implement increases in retail and office FAR above 0.30 and increases in residential density above 44 units per acre within the identified limits of traffic capacity. Amend the PD zoning to allow a mix of residential and retail. • Increase height limits on Redwood Highway to 4 stories where residential is constructed over ground floor retail. The Committee reached consensus on the Draft Plan to include the italicized text above. After hearing the public comments on the Draft, the Committee was not able to reach consensus on heights for the Redwood Highway frontage, the Marin Ventures site, or either storage lot parcel, and were evenly divided between a No Change Alternative and a Four -Story Alternative. Northqate Area • On the properties closest to the station, specifically the Northgate Storage site and Northgate III, investigate and implement increases in retail and office FAR above 0.30 and increases in residential density above 44 units per acre within the identified limits of traffic capacity. • Amend the General Plan and zoning for Northgate III to increase densities to the levels assigned to the areas within walking distance of the station, and to allow 4 stories for residential over retail uses. • Consider the extension of the Promenade through Northgate III in any major reconstruction of the site. • Amend the General Plan and zoning to allow height increases to 5 stories for residential development at Northgate Mall. Is Nyi t o� CO o «� o 'r a> a> > a> Of CO X Z, L ar o Q o oa o VJ r ai U} Lo V ZC O cf? U y g (, O _ LO O O O a. W fn > c Q °! Z u � W U F. Q W c 0 @ v3 z i U Z Ob x U ox U y g (, O _ LO O O O a. W fn > c Q °! Z u � W U F. Q W c 0 @ v3 z i U Z 1 Civic Center Station Area Plan Advisory Committee Draft Notes for 07/25 Meeting Civic Center Station Area Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Notes: Wednesday, July 25, 2012; 7:00 — 8:30 pm Guide Dogs for the Blind, 350 Los Ranchitos Rd. Civic Center Station Area Plan Advisory Committee Emily Dean Casey Mazzoni Jeff Schoppert Mike Fryer Preston McCoy* Roger Smith Elissa Giambastiani Rich McGrath Jean Starkweather Nicholas Kapas Larry Paul* Craig Thomas Yates "Ex officio, non-voting member `*Ex officio alternate Absent: Barbara Heller*, Bob Huntsberry*, Brigitte Moran, Andrew Patterson, Tammy Taylor, Gayle Theard Observers: Maureen Degnan, Jonathan Artz, Bari Levinson, Kenneth Louie, Heidi Alegaur, Victor Manovi, Greg Andrew, Stuart Shepard, Janet Shirley, David Schonbrunn, Wayne Rayburn, Steve Mansfield, Debra Mansfield, Geraldine Judas, Linda Saldana, Fawn Yacker, Chris Daniels, Bill Frink, Jennifer Wallace, Sue Ciolino, Gary Ciolino, Valerie Taylor, Tim Sullivan, Kathie Sullivan, Glenn Bossow, Jenean La Roche, Mary Collie, Linda Balestrieri, Sandra Chilvers, Bob Chilvers, Dennis Johnson, Tony Taubert, Stephanie Taubert, Carolyn Lenert, A Sideris, Patricia Direnzo, Kate Powers, Gaye Lauchenhauer, Veronica Gondouin, Francis Gondouin, Cindy Hiroshima, Lea Ann Bernick, Richard Hall, Morgan Genolly, Mary Donlan, Hariott Manley, Chris Henzel, Carl Kontz, Julie Lavezzo, Ken Dickinson an Fryer announced Open Time for comments on items not on the agenda and requested that speakers limit comments two minutes. Linda Balistrieri, President of Vista Marin HOA. Voiced strong objections to proposed zoning changes; said Homeowners' associations should be notified; zoning changes will impact the �xi i 'i -1- Civic Center Station Area Plan Advisory Committee Draft Notes for 07/25 Meeting architectural integrity of their neighborhood. She stated desires for wetlands protection, protection against noise generated by the construction of high density housing, and the construction and operation of SMART, and believes property values of Vista Marin will decrease if high density residential allowed. ■ Richard Hall, past president of Vista Marin HOA. Before any additional residential zoning occurs, as is being considered, the Freitas freeway interchange would need to be updated as it is already the number one most dangerous intersection in Marin according to Caltrans. He was surprised at high density housing proposed. Civic Center should have charged parking in order to encourage county employees to use the train and not place any further strain on parking; employers should provide bus and shuttle service to allow employees to get to station. ■ Jenean La Roche. There was public outcry last time a multi -story public safety building was proposed for the dog park at the Civic Center area, and it was moved to another location; Plan description of a "vibrant, mixed-use liveable area supported by a mix of transit opportunities" is not what people want in their neighborhood; this is a residential area with a beautiful landscape; the lack of density is what Marin wants; opposes recommendation for multi -story, high density residential. • Lea Ann Bernick, Vista Marin resident. Vista Marin is a private gated community without a gate; the proposals in the Plan do not preserve the character of their neighborhood; wants low density as high density will have an adverse impact; remove 5 story proposal from east side of freeway; the reason for position is that too many people and housing will cause congestion, it will reduce their housing value, the provision of SMART parking will attract more cars to the area and the provision of amenities referenced in the Plan should be closer to the existing amenities and services at the mall. ■ Harriet Manley, Vista Marin resident. Clapper rails are her passion and they are not on the list of protected species in SMART EIR and the impacts to them are not mitigated. Therefore the SMART EIR cannot be relied upon for this development. • Glenn Bossow, Vista Marin resident. 101 access is bad; traffic during the Marin County fair and Civic Center events is bad and will be exacerbated by high density housing; maintain the integrity of single family housing by allowing nothing but 2 -story residential east of the freeway. • Sandy Chilvers, Vista Marin resident. 4 to 5 stories on Civic Center Drive will be a profound change to the area; will change the suburban environment to an urban environment. Vista Marin is impacted by parking during the Marin County Fair and must retain security to keep people out of the neighborhood and from blocking their driveways. ■ Janet Shirley, San Rafael Meadows resident. SR Meadows petition has collected 140 signatures so far and is not complete yet. They will be some of the people most impacted by the Plan. The petition includes: Limit development on storage lots and Marin Ventures to 3 stories, limit Dandy Market to 1 story, limit Casa Marin to 2 stories, do not allow height increases as concessions for affordable housing, parcels on Merrydale and Redwood should provide SMART parking, no vehicular crossing at Walter Place or Merrydale Road. They want to maintain the character of the neighborhood. ■ Bob Chilvers, San Rafael Meadows resident. How many units are proposed in the Plan? SMART train is supposed to take cars off the freeway, high density housing will add cars, block views, and decrease property values. ■ Greg Andrew, San Rafael Meadows resident. The comment analysis presented at the last meeting had 40 of the 72 comments noted as "no change" or "comment noted" responses from staff. He was disappointed by that. ■ Jonathan Artz, Vista Marin resident. Opposes height/density increases on east side of freeway because of pollution and congestion; there will be health issues for runners and people walking their dogs. ■ Carolyn Lenert, North San Rafael Coalition. It is well known that high density housing units use more water than single family units. The City cannot zone for high density until it is known where the water will come from for these units. • David Schonbrunn, TRANSDEF. The Plan takes a regional focus with regard to planning; people complained when Vista Marin was proposed and now the Vista Marin is protesting the next development; strongly supports Committee's work. -2- Civic Center Station Area Plan Advisory Committee Draft Notes for 07125 Meeting Julie Lavezzo. Wants to align the feel of the area with the environment; has no confidence with the follow through for intentions or design guidelines; Committee should uphold the vision of Frank Lloyd Wright for the area and Marin; maintain feel of the area; public comments are not reflected in the Plan; high standards for development are important. Bari Levinson, Vista Marin resident. Needs to sleep in the morning and is concerned with the noise generated by the train. Knows the Committee does not deal with that issue, but a Quiet Zone is essential. Wayne Rayburn, San Rafael Meadows. The Plan takes revenue into concern more than the public comments; high density housing means more revenue to the City and there is more interest in money than concern for residents. Fryer asked for the staff presentation on Agenda item III, the Final Plan Review. Staff member Katie Korzun gave a presentation about the split decision on height from the July 11 meeting. The committee had directed staff to include both alternatives in the Recommended Plan and to indicate that the decision was almost evenly split. In response to this direction, staff placed the following text box in four areas in the Recommended Plan noting the decision, and included the two Alternatives as Figures 18 A and B. The Committee reached consensus on the Draft plan to include the italicized text above. After hearing the public comments on the draft, the Committee was not ale to reach consensus on heights for the redwood Highway frontage, the Marin Ventures site, or either storage lot parcel, and were evenly divided between a No Change Alternative and a Four -Story Alternative. Korzun stated that the various pages where the insert was made had been distributed to the Committee. The Parking Section was completely reorganized to reflect the Committee's decision to emphasize their concern that SMART parking not impact existing neighborhoods, and Korzun referred the Committee to the online version of the Plan to see the changes. Korzun also explained that the other changes made at the last meeting had been incorporated throughout the document. Co-chair Fryer asked for public comment. Public Comment: ■ Opposes 4 or 5 story building heights ■ Objects to any expanded parking near the train station; the train is supposed to remove cars from the roadways ■ There is already too much traffic in the area now ■ High density housing will impact the neighborhoods • The Plan applies urban standards to a non -urban area • What happens with the split decision language at the City Council meeting? ■ No one is asking for tall buildings; people want 3 -story buildings or less ■ Opposes height changes on the east side; development should be confined to the other areas Kapas made a motion to incorporate the requests of the petition in the Plan. Starkweather seconded the motion. Fryer said it would be better to include the petition with the staff report to Council. Giambastiani disagreed with incorporating the petition. Dean said the petition issues were considered at the last meeting, were debated intensively and the Committee arrived at the split decision. She noted that SMART was providing parking and the Plan tried to insure that parking would not go into neighborhoods. She also noted that the Plan already includes statement on no vehicular crossing at Walter Place and Merrydale. She doesn't agree with incorporating the petition into the Plan. Smith asked how they would be incorporated. Kapas said staff could incorporate them into the text. Civic Center Station Area Plan Advisory Committee Draft Notes for 07/25 Meeting Starkweather said she thought Kapas meant that the petition would be reflected in the minutes and the minutes attached to the staff report. Kapas asked to revise his motion to mean that the petition be reflected in the minutes and attached to the staff report. Schoppert said the petition will be part of the public record and the Council be made aware of it regardless of committee action. Smith said there was no harm in the committee asking the petition be attached to the staff report. Korzun said it would be normal staff procedure for the staff report to include the petition and address the petition's concerns. Vote: 8-1; approved. Schoppert made a motion that the committee present to the City Council for its consideration and acceptance the recommended plan as submitted to the committee for approval at the July 25, 2012 meeting. Giambastiani seconded the motion. Public Comment: ■ The Committee should include in the motion that the City look at Comment # 35 on the Plan's parking recommendations and consider applying them citywide, especially with regards to providing certainty for affordable housing projects. The Committee should also include in the motion that conditions of project approval be used to require mitigation for traffic impacts of projects more than say 1000 ft from the station: create a fund for shuttles to the Station and to require commercial and multifamily building owners to contribute annually to the fund. Vote: 10-0; approved Korzun explained that the Plan was scheduled for consideration by Council at their August 20 meeting, but cautioned that the meeting date could change. • Vista Marin neighborhood is signing a petition for quiet zones and opposing 5 story buildings. The petition has 34 signatures so far. ■ Is staff asking the Council to do something different than it originally planned in terms of accepting the Plan? ■ Concerned about public health issues for cyclists and runners due to increased congestion. Requests that a public health assessment be done. • Good intentions as regards parking are not good enough. • What is the best way to submit public comments if unable to attend council meeting? Dean encouraged residents to become involved earlier in then planning processes so the comments can be considered earlier. Yates said he understood concerns about public safety, parking, and building heights. Kapas thanked the public for participating and encouraged them to stay involved. Giambastiani congratulated the four members with perfect attendance. Kapas thanked staff for their work over the past 2 years, especially Rebecca who was on staff for the entire process. Korzun thanked Committee on behalf of herself and Rebecca. -4- Civic Center Station Area Plan Advisory Committee Draft Notes for 07/25 Meeting Fryer closed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. -5- I N ? w? T?? a w T m r W uj T ? W ? U EQ o W ? W ? ? 7 ? ? ?ca 7 ? a ? W ? ? ? ? T 7 W ? ani N ? ? W ? t d r _U C m 7 ? 7 P ry Fn 4 N _N E C7 � U O �U ? W 7 ? W ? W ? 7 ? ? ? T W ? mQ N as o m U C7 d (D � O 3 2 O vT ? ? T ? W W ? ? ? W ? ? W ? W ? � ? ? ? ? W ? W ? 7 = 7 ? ? ? m ? WLLJ ? 7 ? y U ? 7 D O ? ? ? T 7 ? W c d o T LLJm ? ? 7 ? ? ? m ? ? ? T ? ? W ? ? ? W W ? a o m W? > U)r M Y 7 ??? ?? ? W > ?? T o c W ? ? 7 ? 7 ? ? ? ? cr CD N N v p O @ U 'ti -i w o ? ? W ? ? ? ? ? m a U to m U�> v O 0 m` ^ 7 7 T 7 ? ? ? 7 ? ? ? ? T 7 ? ? W m O c N E C5 o L ? ? ? ? E o O o C> y ? W ? ? ? ? ? 7 ? W 7 ? W ? ? ? ? o � C) r N m E o > N U rn W ? ? ? ? ? ? W ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? T o Q a N C E E O _ ❑ N c E m w U to < �C {� >LO ami m CL t� c U ❑ C7 CL m CL i� o * m C} { c c io 0 'C O O flT _ Q. N O o .c Qom`} N O N O '0 N N t5 m O C �' E N r -On l O — US N U N O * cL QS = X @ E p X U c o 2 � �° °' d C 3 Z c O ¢� ( c m c Y c 0� 2 a� �� o u} CA >, t- F- uj iu m .0 o E .�` m .Q Z o _ c Y , o O T L �+ (� >+ c T .LST 7 i U (6 U G "Q O C? t❑ ❑ w w m m Z cn t� Y a. U of m @ ¢ , rt I I present to your Committee as a private homeowner living very near your proposed site for development. Vista Marin is a private community, a gated community without a gate. We bought our homes because of the value we all share for tranquil, uncongested living that is so apparent in our area, including the beautiful wetlands, hillsides and views, that we so enjoy. So strong was that regard of the developers and purchasers, that the 55 acres of what is noted on your maps as either "park" or "open space" is indeed private land owned by Vista Marin homeowners- to never be developed as was the legal agreement at it's purchase. In reading many versions of your reports and final recommendations, you have authored a strong sense of commitment to and I quote, " preserve the existing character of the area, and in addition, "these neighborhoods should be protected from adverse impacts of new development". Your current proposals—as written in your report I do not believe protect us from adverse effects, and this is why we are here. Before I mention those, i want to be clear in communicating that I am not in opposition of the proposed plan in it's entirety. The map called FIGURE 18A with the removal of the blue sections of proposed housing on Civic Center Drive near our community and off McGinnis parkway adjacent to our community are what I oppose. The reasons being: 1) Congestion — too many people and too many cars --which is not why we live here and would drastically change the peace and quiet that we have known for over 12 years. 2) Reduction in housing values —a high density congested area will negatively impact what draws buyers to our homes —an open, peaceful and quiet private community without traffic or people congestion. 3) Parking — bringing more cars and their Cot emissions into our community negatively impacts our health, our environment, and the wetland habitat ecosystem. 4) Amenities — new housing should be located close to consumer amenities -which is not on the east side of the freeway—but rather on the purple area outlined on the aforementioned map. Your report references that current market demand does not support additional retail in the area. Thank you for your serious consideration to our concerns. Submitted to the Ci of San Rafael: July 25, 2012 by Le A n Ber ck homeowner from impact area July 25, 2012 To: SMART Train Advisory Committee/Civic Center Station Re: Recommended Plan Dear Committee Members: As a voting resident in North San Rafael, I am thankful that our laws allow for things like "Advisory Committees" and citizen input. I know how much time it takes to come to consensus on complicated issues with major impacts, and I appreciate the efforts of those who have come up with the current Recommended Alan. That said, it is extremely unfortunate that this plan does not take into consideration the concerns of people like me, who live right next to the proposed Civic Center station and the future SMART train tracks. Specifically, I'd like to address environmental impacts along the federally designated wetland area bordering North Gallinas Creek. As you know, the tracks run parallel to this wetland. Proposals to upgrade and alter the current rails will significantly impact this area. Wetlands in this region have been designated as critical habitat for the federally endangered California clapper rail, an wetland species that requires special consideration and protection under federal law. It's ironic that the clapper rail does not even appear on the animal species list created for this project (attached here). I heard one there last night. This wetland is going to be impacted and changed forever. Your current recommendations to "celebrate natural resources" along the SMART train corridor and at the Civic Center station don't do enough to ensure that the existing habitat and its native (endangered) species are not impacted, especially when those species aren't adequately identified. This is not acceptable, and is deeply troubling as the project moves forward. What are facts are being ignored or glanced over in the name of "progress"? Thank you very much for your time. Harriot Manley, Registered Voter 47 Vista Marin Drive San Rafael CA 94903 415.472.2116 SMART Appendix G: Wildlife Species Detected in the Project Corridor WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TYPE OF DETECTION* Amphibians Hyla regilla Pacific tree frog :0 Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog 10 Reptiles Clemmys martnorata Sceloporus occidentalis Diadophis punctatus Pituophis melanoleucus _- - ----- -- ---- -- Birds Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Phalacrocorax auritus Ardea herodias Ardba alba Egreffa thula Nycticorax nycticorax Cathartes aura Branta canadensis Cygnus olor Aix sponsa --11 ..... ....... Anas arrieficana, Anas platyrhynchos Anas cyanoptera Anas clypeata Circus cyaneus Buteojamaidensis Falco sparverius Phasianus colchicus Meleagris gallopavo Callipepla calffibmica Charadrius vociferus Himantopus mexicanus Recurvirostra americana Urnnodromus sp. Sterna forsteri Western pond turtle Western fence lizard Ringneck snake Gophersnake American white pelican Double -crested cormorant Great blue heron Great egret Snowy egret Black -crowned night heron Turkey vulture Canada goose Mute swan Wood duck American wigeon Mallard Cinnamon teal Northern shoveler Northern harrier Red-tailed hawk American kestrel Ring-necked pheasant Wild turkey California quail Killdeer Black -necked stilt American avocet Dowitcher Forster's tem 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 - - -------- * Type of detection: B = burrow, C = carcass, F = feathers, N = Nest, 0 = visual observation, S = scat/ guano, T = tracks, V = vocal detection (i.e., call, song) Sonoma Mann Area Rall Transit G-1 DEIR November 2005 _..��ndix &GW!Id�llfeS Species Detected in�thePrD�lectCorr�idor SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME TYPE OF DETECTION* Columba Livia Rock dove (domestic pigeon) � 0 Zenaida macroura Mourning dove i ON Bubo virginianus Great horned owl 10 Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird 1 0 Melanerpes tbrmicivorus Acorn woodpecker 0 Picoides nuttallfi Nuttall's woodpecker 0 Colaptes auratus Northern flicker !0 Empidonax difficifis Pacific -slope flycatcher 0 Sayomis nigricans Black phoebe !0 Aphelocoma californica Western scrub -jay 0, V Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow 0 Corvus corax Common raven 0 Tachycineta bicolor I Tree swallow 0 Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough -winged swallow 0 Petrochelidon pyrrhonota0, Cliff swallow N Hirundo rustica I Barn swallow 0, N Baeolophus inomatus Plain oak titmouse 0 Psaftriparus minimus Bushtit 0 Certhia americana, Brown creeper 0 Sialia mexicana Western bluebird 0 Mimus polyglottos 1 Northern mockingbird O,V Stumus vulgaris . ..... .... . European starling C Icteria virens Yellow -breasted chat 0 P010 crissaft California towhee 0 Melospiza melodia Song sparrow 0, V Pheucticus melanocephalus Black -headed grosbeak 0 Agelaius phoeniceus Red winged blackbird 110, V Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird 0 Molothrus ater Brown -headed cowbird Carpodacus mexicanus House finch 0 Carduelis osalthe Lesser goldfinch 0 Carduelis histis American goldfinch 10 Passer domesticus ---------- House sparrow ON Mammals Lepus californicus Black -tailed jackrabbit O'S Spermophilus beecheyi -------- --- -- California ground squirrel 0 Canis latrans Coyote O'S Felis cactus Feral cat 0 0docoileus hemionus Mule deer 0,T S 0170ma-Marin Area Rail Transit G-2 DER November 2005 Petition Text Rafael Meadows Petition. This is the hand circulated petition. "The residents of San Rafael Meadows respectfully request that the Civic Center Station Area Plan include the following elements to protect the character, privacy, and property values of San Rafael Meadows: ➢ Any new developments on Merrydale Road, Redwood Highway, or at the Northgate Storage parcel be limited to three stories. ➢ Any new development at the Dandy Market parcel be limited to one story; at the Casa de Rafael parcel to two stories. ➢ These building height limits should not be exceeded by any concessions to accommodate affordable housing. ➢ Parcels along Merrydale Road and Redwood Highway should provide parking for SMART users. ➢ Specifically state no vehicular crossing of the train tracks at Merrydale Road or Walter Place. " Quiet Zone Petition. This is an online petition. "Make 1 mile either side of Civic Center SMART Train station a "Quiet Zone". We the undersigned are residents of San Rafael who live near the SMART train tracks adjacent to the Civic Center Station. We are San Rafael voters who are funding the train through our taxes. We need your commitment to designate the area 1 mile either side of Civic Center SMART station a "Quiet Zone" so that the train does not use its horn disturbing residents and their children from sleep. Furthermore we need your commitment that the train will only operate in this zone during reasonable operating hours between lam and 8pm and that no trains of any kind - whether passenger or freight - will operate outside of these hours." Stop Terra Linda Railroad Sprawl Petition. This is an online petition. "As a San Rafael voter, I am deeply concerned that the community and natural habitats most affected by the Civic Center SMART train station are not being taken into consideration with current plans and advisements. San Rafael residents have funded this project through taxpayer dollars. However, the current proposals suggest that the Civic Center station should include high-density housing and extensive environmental and community impacts. This proposal goes far beyond the concept of a train and a station, as originally presented and passed by voters. In fact, a small city is being proposed at the North San Rafael site, without regard for the character of the existing neighborhood or the vision of the master architect Frank Lloyd Wright, whose signature county campus lies immediately to the south of the proposed transit village. As concerned voters, we stress that we are opposed to any recommendations, policies, or plans which do not have the primary goal of preserving and protecting the existing community and habitats impacted by the SMART train construction. Key factors include: Adequate designation and enforcement of quiet zones in impacted neighborhoods, and a clear effort to preserve the current quality of life for all North San Rafael residents. Careful attention to Frank Lloyd Wright's original vision for the area. ➢ Real efforts to negate any environmental impacts on critical habitat for endangered and threatened species and ecosystems. Realistic proposals for development that do not significantly impact existing homes and residents. For instance, avoidance of plans that include high density housing and parking plan, buildings over 3 stories or zoning that changes current office buildings to high density residential with ground floor commercial units. Er r+ ➢ Negation of any risk of a reduction of property values for existing homeowners and businesses. We strongly urge that SMART planners, the City of San Rafael, and Marin County supervisors and other agencies truly aim to reflect what's best for the region and its existing and future voters." Keep San Rafael Quiet and Safe Petition. This is an online petition sent to Council but was not given to the Committee as it was developed after the Committee meeting. As a San Rafael voter, I am deeply concerned that the community and natural habitats most affected by the Civic Center SMART train station are not being taken into consideration with current plans and advisements. San Rafael residents have funded this project through taxpayer dollars. However, the current proposals suggest that the Civic Center station should include high-density housing that will bring extensive community and environmental impacts. This proposal goes far beyond the concept of a train and a station, as originally presented and passed by voters. In fact, a small city is being proposed at the North San Rafael site, without regard for the character, safety and quiet of the existing neighborhoods including the vision of the master architect Frank Lloyd Wright, whose signature county campus lies immediately to the south of the proposed transit village. As concerned voters, we stress that we are opposed to any recommendations, policies, or plans which do not have the primary goal of preserving and protecting the existing quiet and safety of the community and habitats impacted by the SMART train stations and adjacent zoning and development. We petition the following: • The Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee provide members of the voting public the rational demonstrating the need for new housing in this area. • A Community Plan is developed to help define the characteristics of the existing and future neighborhood. • A Community Impact Study is prepared for north San Rafael based upon the Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee recommendations. • These specific studies are conducted to ensure quality of life for neighborhoods affected by the Civic Center Station and development proposal of the Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee: 1. An independent Traffic Study of impacts from the Civic Center Station Area Plan. 2. An Environmental Health Assessment considering the impact public health associated concerns from high density housing developments. 3. A study determining how any new and proposed development plans will increase demand for public safety services including fire and police, how these developments will affect response time of emergency services, and how the increased demand will be paid for. 4. All other impacts based upon the Civic Center Station Area Plan Committee recommendations. • San Rafael City officials understand that existing homeowners and businesses deserve realistic proposals for development that do not significantly cause risks of reduction of property values in connection with the Civic Center Smart Train Station development. This means rejecting plans that include the following: 1. Rezoning that changes current office buildings to high density residential housing with ground floor commercial units. 2. High density housing and parking plans being imbedded into existing neighborhoods. 3. Development of buildings over 3 stories. 4. Any zoning changes to parcels along Merrydale Road, Redwood Highway and on the east side of 101. • Real efforts are made to negate any environmental impacts on critical habitat for endangered and threatened species and ecosystems by preparation of a Watershed Plan for Gallinas Creek. • Designation of the Public Storage and Northgate Storage parcels as potential parking sites in the Civic Center Station Area Plan, mitigating impact of additional cars on already limited parking in adjacent neighborhoods. • A clear effort to maintain areas free of private nuisance for all San Rafael residents by making the whole city of San Rafael a Quiet Zone for the SMART Train affected areas. We strongly urge that SMART planners, the City of San Rafael, and Marin County supervisors and other agencies truly aim to reflect what's best for the region and its existing and future voters.