Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-06-15SRCC MINUTES (Special, 6/15/88 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1988 AT 7:30 PM. Special Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk RE SAN RAFAEL DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2000 - REVIEW OF CIRCULATION AND LAND USE (NOT INCLUDING SPECIFIC AREAS) - File 115 Mayor Mulryan called the Meeting to order and called upon Planning Director Anne Moore. Planning Director Moore stated certain Sections will be called out by staff and highlighted, including suggestions resulting from previous public hearings and correspondence. INTRODUCTION TO CIRCULATION GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Senior Planner Jean Freitas referred to the staff report and noted that one group is staff recommendations and the second group is Council Consid- eration items requiring City Council Policy decisions. The second item is a Council Consideration item to Provide a Level of Service "C" goal for all traffic operations. She indicated that many people have requested a LOS "C". Goal C -b could be strengthened by stating, "Striving for a Level of Service 'C 'condition at all times". Mayor Mulryan noted the Plan has two major ways to define LOS "C" and "D"; one is the measured capacity of an intersection or roadway, and the other is delay. Traffic Engineer Rumsey explained the range for LOS "C" is between 70 and 79 percent of capacity. The range for Level of Service "D" is between 80 and 89 percent capacity of an intersection. Using delay, LOS "C" is 15 to 25 seconds average delay at an intersection and LOS "D" is 25 to 40 seconds, making it 15 seconds difference in time between the two. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question as to what the difference is and what projects could be allowed between LOS "C" and "D", Ms. Freitas stated that LOS "C" is a significant reduction over existing commercial intensities built in the City, noting it would require a 25 to 50 percent reduction. Since some of the intersections are currently operating at LOS "C", a LOS "C" Standard would require no additional development until such time as the intersections could be improved. - Ms. Moore noted the proposed Timing Policy requires all projects tributary to critical interchanges would be subject to the priority processing proce- dure. COMMENTS BY COUNCILMEMBERS Councilmember Thayer believed that LOS "C" should be standard, noting it is true that major highway interchanges are close to approaching LOS "D" and Council should have modifications between the two extremes, accept- ing LOS "D" at major highway interchanges only, with all other arterial roads and intersections and local residential streets being LOS "C". She stated these conditions should prevail during peak and non -peak hours. She recommended that C -1(a) be changed to "Interchanges" and that LOS "D" be the standard for major highway interchanges only as opposed to other areas throughout the City. She noted they have a collective responsibility to other cities and the County to share the 101 Corridor. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special 6/15/88 Page 2 Mayor Mulryan stated that in the Plan as proposed, local streets are proposed to have a LOS "C" or better standard and that LOS "D" is the standard only for peak hours at major highway interchanges and on arterial streets and intersections. He asked Councilmember Thayer if she vere suqqestinq they go along with LOS "D" at major highway interchanges but exclude arterial streets and intersections. Councilmember Thayer responded affirmatively, adding one concern in the community is once some of the arterial roads are extended they will encourage a level of development which will lead to a LOS "D" on the arterial roads and intersections, noting unpatterned development is being allowed throughout the City and along the arterials that are proposed, and this is the only mechanism in the Plan by which the Council can control growth. Traffic Engineer Rumsey stated in many cases there are intersections that lead to interchanges that are projected to reach LOS "D": An example is Civic Center Drive/North San Pedro which leads to the North San Pedro Interchange. Other examples are Merrydale/North San Pedro and Smith Ranch Road/Redwood. Councilmember Boro asked for clarification on page 36, C-3 which identifies major circulation improvements. He noted many interchanges have arterial roads connecting directly to them, so to have a different standard for an arterial and for an interchange would not work, because of the arterials linking to the interchange. Ms. Moore stated a narrow definition of an interchange would be the signals at the on and off ramps only. A broader definition of an interchange area includes many intersections in close proximity that are used getting to and from the interchange, and stated if this is included in the definition, they would be talking about locations away from interchanges where there would be difficulty obtaining LOS "D" standard. She indicated these would be in the Downtown area. Ms. Freitas stated long term the interchanges projected to operate at mid "D" are, Miller Creek and the Southbound 101 Ramp, Miller Creek and the Northbound 101 Ramp, Smith Ranch Road at Redwood Highway, Freitas/ Redwood/Civic Center Intersection, Freitas and Del Presidio Intersection, North San Pedro at Civic Center Drive, North San Pedro at Merrydale, North San Pedro at Los Ranchitos, Lincoln at Mission, Lincoln at Fifth, Second at Grand, Andersen at Bellam, Irene Street at Kerner and the Andersen/ 101 Southbound Ramp. Short term, there are six intersections expected to operate at LOS "D" until circulation improvements are constructed. These are Lucas Valley Road at the Southbound 101 Ramp, Grand at Third, Lincoln at Second, Bellam at East Francisco, and-Bellam/I=580/101 Northbound Ramp and Southbound Ramp. Mayor Mulryan referred to the current traffic conditions today, stating they must look at several things; one is that their own Plan states conditions will go to "E" or "F" on Highway 101 with what is approved now. He noted there is a serious problem awaiting them but stated traffic has improved at the Bellam area, although it is temporary because the diversions from Highway 101 are not what they used to be. Once diversions return, congestion will increase. Councilmember Thayer seconded Mayor Mulryan's comments. She mentioned that each City along the 101 Corridor needs to look at their planning in regard to traffic and that no City should think their interests do not impact other cities and this extends to Sonoma. She commented the Highway 101 Corridor Action Committee stated that 35 percent of traffic coming over the hill is San Rafael generated and not from Sonoma County, therefore, San Rafael does have a problem. Councilmember Boro agreed with Mayor Mulryan and stated they need to try to find a way to guarantee to the City and citizens how they could keep the levels they adopt, whether it be "C" or "D". He stated to say across the board at the key interchanges that it all be brought to "C" regarding arterials, realistically, would be shutting the City down economically and that is not the way he felt they should go. At the same time, he indicated they cannot open it up and continue building until "E" and "F" conditions are created and noted there are safeguards in the Plan to main- tain a standard level. He mentioned maintaining LOS "D" at key intersections should keep the status at what it is today. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 3 Councilmember Thayer stated if they do expand the idea of what is an inter- change, they should look at upper LOS "D" as opposed to Mid -point LOS "D" in their deliberations. Planning Director Moore referred to the last item under Circulation, which eliminates the Highway 101 diversions which staff is continuing to include in the East San Rafael traffic model. She noted many people advocate that approximately .04 of capacity not be attributed to diversions which would make things look good,the way they are now, on surface streets. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, that a clause be added to Goal C -B, "Maintain acceptable low circulation system operat- ing additions with a goal toward achievinq "C". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None POLICY C-1 and C-2 Senior Planner Freitas stated that staff looked at other city standards throughout the Bay Area and for the most part, they are low "D" and some cases where cities are using a Mid LOS "D" standard. She noted there is no Level "C" standard except in some of the rural communities such as the City of Lodi in the Central Valley. Ms. Freitas mentioned a video the public is welcome to view relating to what traffic operations look like at various levels of service. She stated LOS "D" allows an 80-89 percent utilization of a roadway during a peak hour. Ms. Freitas referred to the next item for consideration which applied to C-1 and C-2 stating it is a variation of C -1(a). Instead of saying LOS "D" would be permitted at interchanges and arterial roads and inter- sections generally, it says the City would allow them at specified inter- changes and would list what those interchanges are. Planning Director Moore pointed out staff's recommendation that an interim time period be definable so the wording is different in the second sentence, "The City would consider accepting the bottom of Level of Service 'D' for a definable interim time period" for certain kinds of projects. She noted this is a bit more restrictive language than C-2 as recommended to Council by the Planning Commission which talks about an "interim or longer" basis. Councilmember Boro referred to LU -1 (a) which describes Timing of Develop- ment, noting it sounds like the change being recommended complements it and puts the timing phraseology in both sections. Councilmember Thayer moved not to accept less than Mid Level of Service "D" even on an interim basis, and to strike it from the second sentence, both from C-2 and the proposed change. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Breiner requested that Council consider the wording be ex- panded to include going into lower LOS "D" would require a four/fifths vote from the Council, in addition to inclusion of "definable interim time period", similar to what the City has in our Urgency Ordinance. She noted she would look upon something such as this if they were to accept the bottom of LOS"D" on an urgency type basis. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question as to what the capacity difference is between LOS "D", Mid point "D", Lower Level "D", and the time delay difference between the two, Traffic Engineer Rumsey responded that Mid Point "D" is .85 capacity whereas the bottom would be .89 percent capacity. Time difference is, .05 or roughly 7 to 10 seconds average delay. Councilmember Breiner moved that the wording in the new staff report be expanded to require a four/fifths vote by the Council in order to allow the capacity limit to drop to Lower LOS "D". Councilmember Breiner asked City Attorney Ragghianti if there is a problem with the four/fifths vote by the Council and Mr. Ragghianti responded negatively, stating that taxing measures, emergency ordinances and moratc- SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special 6/15/88 Page 4 riums under Section 65858 require a four/fifths vote, and that Council may impose this condition upon themselves by making such a requirement in the Plan, noting there is nothing illegal about doing this. However, he pointed out once this is adopted, a General Plan Amendment will be required to change it. Councilmember Thayer seconded the motion. Councilmember Boro stated he was voting against the amendment, commenting they have to look at the whole Plan. He indicated when the Plan specifies that funding must be guaranteed, environmental review must be in place and the timing for the completion be made known, that when this unfolds in a public hearing, and it is understood by the property owners, developers and the public, at that point a majority of the Council would be suffi- cient. He added the burden would be heavily on the developer to meet all those requirements. He agreed with having the timing wording as recom- mended by the staff. Mayor Mulryan agreed with Councilmember Boro. Councilmember Frugoli noted if it got to that point, an urgency ordinance could be adopted. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner & Thayer NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Motion failed. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to accept Planning staff's recommendation, that in the second sentence, the following words "or longer" be eliminated, and the words "defined interim" be included. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mr. Gil Deane, on behalf of the Sierra Club, spoke saying it has been clear that the decisions already made tonight and probably those that will be made from comments made by members of the Council are based on financial concerns for the well being of San Rafael. He referred to the staff's citizens guide to the Plan, which states, "The General Plan proposes to balance San Rafael's small town qualities and environmental resources with the City's ability to pay for and maintain its high quality public services". Mr. Deane stated that based on the information for the coming fiscal year, they have been told there is a $600,000 shortfall. The Plan goes through the year 2000. He mentioned if they assume that inflation and other impacts requiring money between now and the year 2000 bring that shortfall to $1 million per year instead of $600,000 average over the next 12 years, and they assume the population over that period of time would be 50,000, according to their math, it would require less than $250 per person from every resident of San Rafael in order to make up that shortfall. Mr. Deane stated this Council or any other Council, should find some way to raise $250 from each resident of San Rafael in order not to sell the environment of San Rafael. Mayor Mulryan stated the Council agreed with Mr. Deane on the point that the services and what is provided by local government is the remaining bargain in our society compared to what is paid at all other levels of government. He indicated they have issued statements that local government costs you just about what your cable service costs a year. The Mayor stated they welcome any suggestions on how they could raise taxes or find the funds, adding that of the measures on the ballot last week, none of those that asked for money were passed and concluded by saying it is a definite problem. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 35, C-1 (a) & (b), suggesting that the word "arterial" be inserted in front of the last word in C -1(a) to make it clear, and naming the major interchanges. Councilmember Boro suggested that at the same interchanges where LOS "D" is expected at peak hours, they expect LOS "C" at the non -peak hours at those locations. SRCC MINUTES ( Special) 6/15/88 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Special, 6/15/88 Page 5 Mayor Mulryan asked if the words, "during peak hours only" could be used in C -1(a) and Mr. Rumsey indicated these words could cause difficulty in the retail oriented areas, Downtown and around the Northgate Shopping area, including Bellam. Ms. Moore explained the noon peaks are typically not as great as the PM peaks, but around Northgate Shopping Center, Downtown and portions of the Bellam area, the noon peaks tend to be at the LOS "D" range. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to include the word "peak hours only", that the intersections be named, and adopt C-1 (a) which has Level of Service "D", and that the word "arterial" be placed in front of "intersections". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Mulryan explained that Council is recommending alterations and those items not discussed are approved as proposed in the staff report. Policy C-3 Ms. Freitas referred to page 3 stating this proposed revision would provide a more flexible timing of development policy allowing new development to proceed once funding is guaranteed only, rather than once funding is guaranteed, circulation project environmental review has been completed and findings have been made that LOS Standards will not be exceeded. This revision would not maintain LOS Standards. In response to Mayor Mulryan's request for a reasonably dependable estimate of what the difference in timing the two versions would bring about, Ms. Freitas said it could vary. She mentioned the Merrydale Overcrossing has been underway for quite sometime, that the funding was guaranteed over two years ago and the environmental review is nearing completion but has not been finalized. Traffic Engineer Rumsey indicated Caltrans stated the environmental review is to be completed this month and Mulryan Mulryan noted the overcrossing should be in place in about two years. Ms. Moore stated the earliest the Smith Ranch Road ramp modifications are scheduled in STIP is 1991, and if there are no problems with acquiring property and the funding is secured, start of construction would be 1991 going into 1992. She stated they are hard pressed to give Council a specific time frame for the Bellam Improvements because the funding package has not been worked out. Councilmember Thayer commented that except for her objection to LOS "D", C-3 is one of the best provisions in the entire Plan, and strongly advised no change. Councilmember Breiner asked that on the second line, "New development is to be constructed once needed circulation project funding has been guaranteed",the word "once" be changed to "only after". Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to change the word "once" to "only after". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Freitas indicated there are no proposed changes to C-4, C-5 or C-6 as a result of any public hearing comments. POLICY C-7 Ms. Freitas said the first Council Consideration item relating to C-7 would require the City to identify and set aside money generated by any new high priority, high tax generating uses to use in that area's circu- lation improvements. The proposed revision would provide an additional source of local funding for area road improvements but like the Gann propo- sal, would preclude those funds from being used for any other City services or facilities. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Speciale 6/15/88 Page 6 Councilmember Thayer suggested that the priority list be expanded to include projects which would provide better paying jobs. After further discussion, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt the revised wording as suggested by Planning Director Moore, "For projects which the City grants priority based on revenue to the City by high generating uses, that priority status may be conditioned upon the City's commitment to allocate some of the tax revenue generated to funding of traffic improvements in the area of limited circulation capacity". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Frugoli referred to C-7, asking that the following be added to C-7, "That those who participated in the assessment district which has funded public infrastructure - the streets and drainage" be given some type of priority in their projects in East San Rafael. Mayor Mulryan asked Councilmember Frugoli if he would agree with the words "Consideration be given" to be added and asked staff for their evaluation of what the effect would be in adding to the "beauty list" properties in assessment districts. Ms. Moore responded saying there are many more areas affected by assessment districts than just those in the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District. There are active assessment districts involving East San Rafael Drainage Assessment Districts No. 1 & No. 2, Francisco Boulevard East Assessment District and Kerner Boulevard Assessment District. She noted if all those maps were overlapped you see a majority of the parcels in East San Rafael, particularly non-residential parcels,are already in an active assessment district that would meet the criteria described by Councilmember Frugoli. Practically, this means the City would have many projects that on their face meet the high priority definition, and the City would have to choose from among those which is the highest priority of the high priority. She indicated this is one of the reasons why staff originally proposed to the Planning Commission, who recommended to Council, a fairly limited number of priorities, otherwise all priority projects will not be able to proceed. Ms. Moore pointed out the next sentence, "Additional high priority uses may be established for different areas of the City". She noted this gives an opening that when the priority projects procedure is before Council, Council can designate in a certain traffic impacted area, something beyond the three categories without specifying it "in concrete", as a General Plan Policy. Councilmember Thayer referred to Neighborhood Serving Uses and suggested having committees in each community set up by residents to help guide the Council in determining what are neighborhood serving uses. Ms. Moore suggested this be part of the Companion Program; the C -b - Project Approval Procedure in Traffic Impacted Areas. After a short break, Senior Planner Freitas spoke on a Council Consideration item: Mapping of Circulation Impacted Areas. She stated these areas may vary annually and maps could be handed out at the Planning Department Counter. These will be areas in which traffic reports will be requested to determine how much of an impact that project will have on certain critical intersections, and staff felt it need not be included in the Plan. Council agreed with Ms. Freitas. Councilmember Frugoli referred to the staff report Council Consideration item to eliminate Highway 101 diversions in the East San Rafael Traffic Model, and asked if other cities include diversions. Ms. Moore responded that all modeling done by the 101 Action Committee Phase II work has those diversions factored in throughout the corridor. Councilmember Thayer referred to C-3, asking if they do not have the funding for areas needing improvements whether it will act as some sort of curb SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Specia_l) 6/15/88 Page 7 on development? Ms. Moore responded C-3 is a listing of the most critical improvements needed for development in each area. She agreed with Council - member Thayer that in various impacted areas they could reach mid -point LOS "D" quickly without those improvements. She did not believe, however, that everything would stop if improvements were not done, indicating there is a policy that would provide some very low traffic generating interim uses on all properties and there could be interim uses that could be identi- fied for all properties in the City. Staff does not envision a time when absolutely nothing can be done on any property in a traffic impacted area, but that does not mean that property owners, during a time frame when they are interested in developing, will be able to achieve the highest and best use of the property. There will be a reasonable range of economi- cally viable interim uses for any of the properties. Councilmember Thayer referred to C-8 under 5, and commented on the Eastside Arterial and McInnis Parkway Circulation Section and elsewhere indicating it is premature to consider the Parkway until they really know what will be done with it, where it is going and what it is going to impact. She suggested this be deleted from the list. Councilmember Boro stated one of the problems in the County of Marin is that there is only one roadway, Highway 101 that goes North and South throughout the County. The City should state its intention that the City recognizes the need for a second arterial and at least conceptually get it in the Plan, and as things become more firm the City can then plan it, noting there is no way the City will go through existing communities with an arterial now and emphasized the arterial should be done before development or with development. He felt it imperative that the City call out this kind of arterial in the Plan, noting the vagueness is unfor- tunate but at least the City will be on record that it plans to do it. Mayor Mulryan called upon the audience for comments on Circulation and there were none. LAND USE Ms. Freitas stated the first Land Use Consideration item is to add a more explicit preference for infill development after Policy LU -4 - Urban Service Area Policy. Staff is not recommending that an infill preference policy be stated. Staff believes the Urban Service Area Policy clearly identifies phasing policies and there are other policies in the Plan that also identify how development should be phased with needed infrastructure improvements. She cited it would be redundant to have this in. Council, with the exception of Councilmember Thayer, agreed with Ms. Freitas. Ms. Freitas referred to, "Including a potential hillside floor area ratio policy" and stated there have been some objections to the policy. She referred to the staff recommended changes. which were passed out to Council tonight, second page. She stated staff contacted several surburban Bay Area cities that have hillside areas and asked whether they had industrial or office uses on hillsides. The cities responded the industrial projects are nearly universally limited to flat sites but there are some cases where office projects are on hillsides up to 15 percent slopes, but within the 5 to 15 percent slope areasdevelopment potential typically is more limited to avoid significant cut and fill. She noted while staff feels there should be a cutoff at the 15 percent slope for industrial and office, the revised language provides more flexibility on limits for floor area ratios in the 5 to 15 percent slope range. Ms. Freitas read the proposed wording change for LU -14, "Commerical and Industrial Areas have been assigned floor area ratios to identify appropriate intensities. (Then it identifies how you calculate Floor Area Ratios.). Maximum allowable floor area ratios are not guaranteed, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas such as hillsides. Intensity of commercial and industrial development on any site shall respond to the following factors: Site resources and constraints; traffic and access; potentially hazardous conditions; adequacy of infrastructure and City design policies. FAR limits apply only to non-residential projects". The policy describes the designated floor area ratios for different areas of the City and the change would add a Hillside Floor Area Ratio Policy. It would state, "Undeveloped commercial or industrially designated properties shall be limited to the following development intensities based on slope: On flat sites, or those with less than 5 percent slope, they would get the full SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Species_, 6/15/88 Page 8 FAR. On hillside sites with slopes of 5 to 15 percent, the FAR would be limited to 50 to 75 percent of the applicable FAR described for the various sub -areas of the City. In hillside areas with slopes greater than 15 percent, the FAR would be extremely low". Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt LU -14 as proposed by staff. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to amend LU -14 to include a reference to non -leasable atriums. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner referred to bottom of page 3, revision to LU -10(b) ..."For projects which provide more than 15 percent". She suggested having "a minimum of 15 percent of the total units". She also suggested including the range that further limits what the affordable range is in terms of income to make it consistent with other housing. Ms. Moore indicated the definitions are contained in the Housing Section of the Plan, and stated as long as they are defined in one place the defini- tion stands for the term used throughout the Plan. Ms. Freitas noted they would try to make it exactly consistent with H-20. Councilmember Thayer commented on density above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density. She felt that this is inconsistent with RES -1 Residential Neighborhoods..."The City will protect and conserve existing neighborhoods by requiring that new development be harmoniously integrated into existing neighborhoods in terms of density intensity and design". She did not feel a density in a particular area should be out of keeping with the general area, adding it also is inconsistent with RES -3, which states..."Prevailing densities in developed portions of single family neighborhoods will be maintained". Councilmember Breiner wanted to clarify for the record that for places such as Gerstle Park, where a (Neighborhood) Plan has been previously adopted, the Council be very cautious with doing anything outside the realm of the constraints of such a plan. After further discussion, Councilmember Thayer stated rather than have densities above the otherwise maximum allowable residential limits, she preferred to keep. the densities within the maximum allowable residential density within a given area, realizing this would "gut" the idea of density bonuses. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt LU -10 (b) as suggested in the staff report on the bottom of page 3, includ- ing providing a minimum of 15 percent or more of the total units affordable to low and moderate income households as defined in policy H-20, with at least 8 percent for low households, and that the loan be based on 40 years. Density bonus provisions are limited to Medium and High Density areas located throughout the City. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None TREE PRESERVATION Ms. Freitas recommended that LU -29 be expanded to preserve not just specimen trees or oak groves but large trees in general. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt LU -29 as stated on page 4. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Specia.. 6/15/88 Page 9 Ms. Freitas referred to a Council Consideration item re: LU -48 to maintain adequate Police services. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to amend LU -48, to "improve Police services" rather than "maintain adequate Police services". Ms. Moore noted staff was not recommending this amendment because of budget implications. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli & Thayer NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner & Mayor Mulryan ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Motion failed. WATER LAND USE POLICIES Ms. Freitas referred to staff recommendation to include two new water Land Use Policies; one supports a program already in the Plan to promote and encourage water conservation measures. She also stated in response to new information from the Marin Municipal Water District, the City needs additional water supplies to serve not only new development but existing development to provide an adequate measure of safety; therefore, this Policy would support MMWD in developing those supplies. Mr. Gil Deane referred to the comment made under item 4k by Mr. Holtzclaw in an EIR response, whereby he recommended that the draft EIR document, add additional strong water conservation measures and their impacts. He stated it seemed to be in the wrong place to respond to 4k, which is a recommendation for strong water conservation measures to then add a recom- mendation that supports development of additional long term water supplies. Ms. Freitas agreed the policy would better respond to 6f, which was a request that staff provide additional updated information on new water supplies. Mayor Mulryan agreed with Mr. Deane stating that water conservation measures are the number one priority. Councilmember Breiner moved and Member Frugoli seconded, to adopt the two additional LU -51 features. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ODORS Ms. Freitas stated LU -52 is in response to comments from the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, that odor easements be zoned. Staff stated they cannot zone an odor easement but will consider odor impacts when evaluating land uses and development projects near waste water treatment plants. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to consider odor easement impacts when evaluating land uses and development projects near waste water treatment plants. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Thayer commented on LU-52,..."Encourage the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District to initiate a study to evaluate how and when the plant should be expanded to provide capacity consistent with the San Rafael General Plan". She did not believe Council could do any encouraging independently of the County. Mayor Mulryan indicated that LU -52 encourages the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District to do what they legally are required to do, and that is to operate within the confines of the City's General Plan. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (species 1 6/15/88 Page 10 WAIVER OF FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR CHILD CARE CENTERS Ms. Freitas referred to LU -54 for the Council to consider waiving Floor Area Ratios for child care portions of non-residential buildings. Staff's concern is that it would be difficult to monitor and enforce over time. She stated many developers could propose additional space for child care and it would be built but then because of lack of operating subsidies there may end up being no effective use of that portion of the building. At that point, there would be pressure to convert that portion to some other use. Staff feels the implementing program for LU -54 calls for a child care assessment Citywide and this issue could be looked at more closely as part of that program. Ms. Moore noted another major advantage currently in City policy for child care centers is that they are not charged traffic mitigation fees. In the PM peak time, traffic analyses show that child care centers are high traffic generators. Staff has found they are primarily captured trips on one hand and on the other, there is a need for such facilities in the community. Councilmember Boro responded that child care in the future will be needed and once it is provided it will not be taken away, also, there is a need for safeguards and having a center at the work location would start a trend. After further discussion, Council agreed to add the following suggestion by Mayor Mulryan, "may waive FAR's for permanent child care portions of non-residential buildings". USE OF SURPLUS SCHOOL SITES Ms. Freitas referred to two recommendations to LU -58 stating these are in response to the School District's comments that City provide more flex- ibility for the use of surplus schools regarding the types of uses. One suggestion made is to incorporate home occupation uses in school sites. The primary concern staff has had is that business uses are not appropriate in residential areas. She indicated most of these school sites are in residential neighborhoods but home occupations are allowed in residential neighborhoods and it would allow an artist, accountant, consultant, etc. to lease school space. Ms. Freitas mentioned that they have sent this language to both School Districts but have not as yet received any response. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to amend LU -58 as recommended and adding, "shall be used preferably for public and quasi -public uses". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Ms. Freitas stated the next two items deal with a Tree Preservation Ordinance, including standards for protection of trees greater than a certain size, such as 18 inches, etc. The second could be added as part of LU -n or sepa- rately to a) have View, Light and Air Corridor provisions in the Tree Preservation Ordinance, or b) to evaluate them. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to include in LU -n "to insure preservation of significant view, light and air corridors" with the rest of the language as shown. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None No action was taken by Council on the protection of trees greater than a certain size, such as 18 inches, at this time. LAND USE PROGRAMS - WATER CONSERVATION AND SUPPORT FOR RECLAIMED WATER USE Ms. Freitas stated the next three items on Land Use Programs encourage water conservation.and support reclaimed water use. A recommendation from SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Specia. 6/15/88 Page 11 the Water District states that the City could expand the reclaimed water use, and suggested in most areas of San Rafael the City should use drought resistent landscaping, but in an area where reclaimed water is available, more flexibility should be utilized. Ms. Freitas indicated there could be a conflict with LU -aa, and if the language suggested by the MMWD is used the City should modify Lu -aa to read, "Except where reclaimed water use is possible, the City will establish all these landscape standards that limit the use of water". Councilmember Breiner referred to the tier rated structure and billing schedules which discourage water use, stating there are areas in town where the lots are large with a lot of land that needs to be watered. She did not want to encourage billing practices that would be detrimental to the aesthetics. She suggested striking the wording that refers to the billing schedules, etc. Councilmember Frugoli stated that MMWD will do what they want, noting it is in their jurisdiction. He suggested striking out the wording, "tiered rate structure and billing schedule", and stay with, "discouraging high water use by providing drip system irrigation". There being no objection, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt LU -aa with the change suggested on page 5, excluding the phrase, "through such measures as using tiered rate structures and billing schedules", including going to the end of the semicolon. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt the following wording as suggested by the Marin Municipal Water District, "Support Water District and other agency efforts to expand reclaimed water use". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None LD -cc - Odor Easement Mitigation Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt LU -cc which refers to the appropriate Agency acquiring the property or mitigating the problem, on page 5, re Ordor Easement Mitigation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None LII-hh - CHILD CARE PROGRAM Ms. Freitas referred to a Council Consideration item addressing Environmen- tal Impact Reports regarding child care impacts. Planning Director Moore stated staff is not recommending that this item be included in the Plan, but if Council has concern regarding the child care issue, when projects come forward, residential or non-residential, this could be part of the staff's analysis. Ms. Freitas stated that LU-hh, the Child Care Program to assess Citywide child care needs, would provide a better overall picture of child care needs and a basis for evaluating them, while having it done on an EIR basis is much more case by case. Council agreed, without motion. LII -j - Neighborhood Meetings Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt LU-jj - Neighborhood Meetings. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Specia-) 6/15/88 Page 12 CIRCULATION BACKGROUND, LAND USE BACKGROUND AND LAND USE MAPPING Ms. Freitas referred to page 6, a Council Consideration item dealing with Circulation Background, Land Use Background and Land Use Mapping. She stated it includes identifying Wetland areas on the Land Use Map as well as on the Wetlands Map, and noted this is not recommended indicating that it would be preferable for the Land Use Map to refer to the Wetlands Map which will be the most up to date. Council agreed, without motion. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. JEANN&.V L.-E..ONCTINS-NI, pity Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 6/15/88 Page 12