Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1988-05-03SRCC MINUTES (Special 5/3/88 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1988 AT 7:30 PM. Special Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor (arrived at 8:55 PM) Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING - SAN RAFAEL DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2000 - CIRCULATION ELEMENT - File 115 Acting Mayor Breiner declared the public hearing opened, and announced that Mayor Mulryan would be arriving later in the evening. Planning Director Moore announced that staff was in the process of schedul- ing dates in June for decision making by the City Council on the General Plan 2000. Senior Planner Jean Freitas gave a brief summary of the staff report by stating that the Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes policies for maintaining and improving the City's circulation system correlated with proposed land uses. It identifies needed circulation improvements as well as acceptable levels of traffic service, timing of new development with needed circulation improvements, and priority projects in traffic impacted areas. She stated that Circulation policies have been a major focus of prior Plan hearings with continued divided opinions regarding what levels of traffic service should be provided, how development should be timed with needed improvements, whether "off peak" standards should be provided as well as peak hour standards,and whether Andersen Drive or Bellam Boule- vard improvements should be constructed first if funding is not available for both and how a priority project procedure might work. She noted the staff report addresses these issues. Ms. Freitas stated Mr. Larry Sauve of JHK & Associates, a traffic consult- ing firm working for the City, would be presenting a video show describing in lay terms, what levels of traffic service are in order to better eval- uate the proposed traffic standards in the Plan. Ms. Freitas noted that many persons requested "off peak" standards as well as peak hour standards. She said that while off peak traffic impacts are addressed in the EIR and Plan through provision of Average Daily Traffic levels, off peak standards are not proposed. This is because there is no data to project off peak traffic generated by proposed land uses, and data collection and modelling are highly labor intensive. She indi- cated only in rare instances does the worst level of service occur outside of the traditional AM or PM peak and in those cases, immediately around the Northgate Shopping Center and high schools, the level of service is no worse than that projected for the PM peak. She said staff is recom- mending continued monitoring of these specific intersections. Ms. Freitas said the Andersen Drive and Bellam Boulevard discussion identi- fies relative benefits of Andersen Drive and Bellam Boulevard improvements as well as potential funding sources for these projects. Bellam improvement would allow significantly more development in the East San Rafael and Francisco Boulevard West areas at acceptable traffic levels. Andersen Drive functions primarily as a parallel arterial but has other beneficial local impacts. No additional funding sources can be guaranteed for either project at this time. She said the policies which relate new development with needed circulation improvements were extensively discussed by the Planning Commission and public at many prior meetings and were significantly changed through deliberations. The Planning Commission recognized that it could take SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 2 several years to construct some needed circulation improvements. In such areas where limited circulation capacity remains until major improvements are needed, the Planning Commission recommended that certain highly desired projects receive priority for limited short term remaining capacity. Some Councilmembers requested additional information as to how such a priority project procedure might work and which projects might be exempt since the City must allow for some reasonable interim use of parcels and how previously identified priority projects might be better defined. Staff is still working on how various priority projects might be ranked in relation to one another. Preliminary information was in the staff report. Associate Civil Engineer -Traffic Rumsey stated through the workshops and Planning hearings, it was found that the intersection levels of service, which is the primary constraint in the City, has been a difficult concept. He then introduced William T. Reilly, and Lawrence Sauve, from JHK Associates a major traffic engineering firm to further discuss traffic levels of service. Mr. Willam T. Reilly stated Traffic Level of Service video about to be presented was developed by their firm for the State of Maryland in Mont- gomery County. He stated they have used the video extensively in the East and in some cities in California and Arizona, noting that level of service is a measure of quality flow on a transportation facility and how good the flow is with vehicles, pedestrians or buses. The film disusses "stopped delay" at intersections, and reduced travel speed along freeways and arterial streets. Mr. Reilly indicated they would be looking at level "A" which is good, as opposed to level "F" which is poor. Mr. Reilly stated there are four key items which go into describing levels of service: 1) Traffic volume -which if increased, level of service would be reduced; 2) Number of lanes; 3) Traffic signal timing and 4) Traffic signal scyncronization or progression. Councilmember Frugoli asked if the level of service at major city inter- sections is predicated on the level of traffic on Highway 101. Mr. Rumsey stated that highway conditions affect intersections in some limited cases. For example, two or three years ago there was a constraint at the Irwin Street onramp which affected city intersections. He stated another factor is when the freeway is congested, vehicles divert off the freeway and use local streets causing a problem in the Bellam Boulevard area, and noting that today it is not as high as it was in previous years. A diversion factor has therefore been included in the City's traffic model. Planning Director Moore stated the level of service standard recommended by the Planning Commission applies to critical intersections on City streets, and the Commission is not recommending a level of service for Highway 101. Councilmember Thayer agreed the level of service on Highway 101 affects major intersections such as Bellam and Lucas Valley. Ms. Moore stated that in the past the worst example of Highway 101 conges- tion adversely affecting City street conditions was the Irwin Street on-ramp. She indicated very few cars were getting through the intersection and if one looked at volume, one would think the level of service was excellent, however, a single vehicle would operate at extremely poor level of service resulting in the congestion of Highway 101. She indicated at the present time, the effect on Highway 101 and I-580 was a diversion phenomenon they had when Highway 101 congestion was worse prior to comple- tion of the HOV Lane and the auxiliary lanes, particulary the auxiliary lane from Irwin to North San Pedro Road. She stated vehicles in the PM peak period backed up over Cal Park Hill and into Larkspur and Corte Madera, and vehicles destined to the North were diverting off Highway 101, to Sir Francis Drake and into East San Rafael which affected the City streets. She stated they are assuming and have modelled that the poor congestion experienced one to two years ago will return over time with increased traffic levels along Highway 101. Mr. Rumsey explained that standard trip generation manuals give themPM peak and AM peak generations with daily traffic for some land uses. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special, 5/3/88 Page 3 He indicated there are few resources available to address projection of the off peak periods. Staff has looked throughout the City and found only a few isolated instances where conditions are higher than the PM peak; in the immediate vicinity of the Northgate Mall Shopping Center and nearby schools. He stated around schools, traffic peaks when school lets its students out. Mr. Rumsey stated the Northgate Shopping Mall managers have been very receptive in working with City staff to reduce noon peak conditions and have begun a shuttle system in Terra Linda to serve the Mall, although it is not doing as well as they would have liked to attract ridership. Councilmember Boro suggested staff could attempt to speak with other cities in the Bay Area who have similar problems and see what types of controls they have for a solution. Acting Mayor Breiner stated there is no way to project what off peak traffic is going to be, but stated it might be worth their while to utilize this as part of traffic assessments when looking at future development in terms of what the overall quality will be throughout the day. Councilmember Boro indicated the point is not to foster commercial use but noted as additional development enters they will have problems and the people in the neighborhood should not become prisoners in their own neighborhood. He stated the City wants to sustain the tax dollars but needs to have other ways rather than other regulations, like utilizing shuttles and traffic control officers on the site during the times traffic is heavy. Councilmember Thayer mentioned that decreasing levels of service in the retail areas have diminishing returns after awhile and it becomes undesir- able for people to shop. She stated some downtown merchants have complained that on occasion traffic has deterred people from coming to the downtown area. Acting Mayor Breiner called upon people wishing to speak. William Bullard, Attorney representing the Ghilotti family, stated he was addressing property on Francisco Boulevard in East San Rafael owned by the Ghilotti family. He stated there are three relevant circulation policies affecting the traffic impacted areas: C-1, which sets Level of Service "D", C-3, establishing Timing Policy and C-7, creating the Priority Processing Policy. Mr. Bullard stated these policies are adverse to properties burdened by assessment districts which have provided significant public infrastruc- ture. He indicated that C-1 sets the level of acceptable traffic but would need to be enforced and implemented. Policy C-3 makes C-1 mean something, however, and as a result of those two policies the City has a situation of off and on development where projects could be approved or disapproved depending upon road capacity. Thus Policy C-7 is devised because the City has identified certain categories of projects it feels are beneficial to the entire community and those are Affordable Housing, High Tax Generating Uses and the Neighborhood Serving Uses. He noticed the staff report has a fourth category for High Salary Companies and these categories would have priority processing over all other projects in those areas. He stated his client and those similarly situated are involved. He introduced another category to C-7 stating it is property that has provided significant public benefits in the form of public infra- structure to include streets, sewage, drainage and conservation areas. He said the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District parties including the owners, City of San Rafael, Marin County, State of California and Federal officials met for extended meetings for months which resulted in the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District, thinking each would benefit from the assessment. However, the policies mentioned could mean that these properties would not get project approval. He stated the reasons are a combination of limited capacity and limited funds for traffic improve- ments. Mr. Bullard suggested the additional policy for high priority status for the Tax Generating Uses. He stated that the City would receive part of the tax benefit and should commit it to the traffic improvements to provide for more capacity and allow other properties to develop. Addition- ally, he noted they should consult with the City Attorney because there SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special, 5/3/88 Page 4 is case law stating that if you deprive a property owner burdened by an assessment district of all the benefits for which they have paid, that the Land Use Regulations are invalid. He felt there is an equitable argument in this direction. As a further measure to provide increased capacity in East San Rafael, Mr. Bullard stated temporary transfer of Redevelopment Funds from Ander- sen to Bellam would provide a greater benefit to more people. Mr. Bullard concluded by stating he had submitted other written comments and asked staff to review and respond to those comments, and if the Council, as part of its implementation, creates a Circulation Committee which is Implementation Program C -c, that one of his clients from the Ghilotti family trust be allowed to serve on that committee. Mr. Robert Scales, Vice President with Barton -Ashman Associates, spoke on behalf of Mr. Larry Tolomei of the Reid Corporation and the 101 Action Committee. Mr. Scales referred to the Bayview Business Park in East San Rafael, stating they are in a "Catch 22" situation, and there is no feasible way for them to develop the property they own at this time. Traffic is controlling the growth even though the critical sections at the Bellam Intersection area are operating in the low to mid-low Level of Service "C". Landowners who want to develop are told they are not on the "priority list" because they are not the "beautiful" ones. He stated this means that the "ugly" ones have to wait until $20 million is invested in the Bellam Interchange area in order for them to go ahead. He stated that the State and Regional Funding allocations are the questionable items with respect to support by the State which is mentioned in the Circulation Element as follows, "Since these improvements are not yet in the STIP, no preliminary schedule even exists to project when these improvements will be built". Mr. Scales stated when looking at the real source of funding, such as the potential one-half cent or one cent sales tax increase for the County, it is speculative as to when this will go forward. He indicated even if the General Plan 2000 is adopted there is no hope to proceed without having $20 million. Mr. Scales and his staff have been trying since March 1987, to demonstrate that movement is possible. He stated they tried to deal with the Level of Service Policy which was at that time going to be Mid -Level of Service "D" or full range of Level of Service "D". He stated many cities around the Bay Area accept the full range Level of Service "D" as their policy. Mr. Scales pointed out if they accepted the full range of Level of Service "D", there was quite a bit of development that could occur in East San Rafael with the residual capacity that was in hand. This would include 700 residential units, 30,000 square feet of retail, 190,0000 square feet of office/industrial, 45,000 square feet of warehouse/child care center and perhaps a hotel or its equivalent. Mr. Scales recommended that staff go back to the drawing board to see if there is another type of improvement of the Bellam Interchange with 580. Referring to the 101 Corridor Study, Mr. Scales stated the draft Circula- tion Plan has specific language pertaining to the transitway on the North- western Pacific Right -of -Way as to where stations will be located and what intersections will be graded and controlled. He indicated after two years of study two finalists came about. One, an HOV way or freeway for a two -person car pool and buses; the other, a light rail system. He said the level of traffic on the two -person car pool will require full grade separation. Regarding the light rail alternative, Mr. Scales indicated that the head - ways between trains might be no greater than 7k minutes. He asked Council to provide flexibility in the Circulation Element regarding the description of the transitway. Mr. Gil Deane representing the Sierra Club referred to the 1,100 letters from people in San Rafael in support of the Maximum Environmental Protec- tion Alternative. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Special 5/3/88 Page 5 Mr. Deane requested clarification of the following from Councilmembers: Directed to Councilmember Breiner - Referring to the Maximum Environmental Protection Alternative, he stated Mrs. Breiner stated this is a "no growth" plan, and asked if this is also the understanding of other Councilmembers. He stated this Alternative supports Level of Service "C" allowing 3,000 residential units to be built in various areas and they did not consider this to be "no growth". He also stated that Councilmember Boro referred to a need to balance the Plan, and asked whose interest is being balanced against whose interest, and mentioned that it is time to "cure" the imbalance of growth and traffic. Directed to Councilmember Frugoli - He stated Mr. Frugoli was stated in the press as saying, "He was more concerned about people than some of those environmental things." Mr. Deane indicated they did not know that there was any portion of the environment that did not have an affect on all people, and referred to "second-hand" air pollution as being respon- sible for numerous birth defects. Mr. John Holtzclaw, representing the Sierra Club referred to comments submitted to the Council on March 21, 1988. He stated they do not believe that any anticipated Highway 101 improvements will reduce traffic on 101 for any length of time, but suggested the Council could offer the citizens an alternative such as transit or housing closer to jobs and shopping areas. He urged that the Northwest Pacific Right -of -Way become a light rail system with "street cars". His examples were the San Francisco Muni, Muni Metro and the San Diego trolleys. He offered the Council help in finding funding to have the system built, and urged strict limits on new development until the 101 Corridor Committee study is completed and guidelines for development and transportation improvements throughout the 101 Corridor have been established. He urged the Council to set a goal of achieving Level of Service "C", traffic flow on local streets and arterials and to approve no further development for the Bellam Boule- vard area until interchange improvements are completed and traffic flow improves to Level of Service "C". He also urged the Council to review plans of major traffic changes in detail with the neighboring communities such as East San Rafael, Terra Linda, Santa Venetia and Marinwood stating these are the communities that will be impacted by the new development. (Mayor Mulryan arrived at meeting at 8:55 PM) Mr. Douglas Colbert, President of the Board of Directors for the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, referred to the EIR on page 51, "Mitiga- tion Measures addressed in the General Plan". He stated one of those measures is to protect the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District's publicly financed property. He suggested that Council add, "reclamation project." Mr. Colbert referred to the proposed road going through the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District property, stating if this alignment goes through the district property there will be a contradiction, adding if the road goes through the property and they choose not to fight it, it would inter- fere with the existing reclamation project and possible future expansion of the plant. In response to Mayor Mulryan's inquiry if this road is detailed enough to be making determination exactly where it will go relative to property lines, Planning Director Moore stated the easterly east side arterial alternative alignment came from a series of meetings held with agency and property owner representatives, and that it is further east than any alignments that have been proposed in the Plan. She stated it is not evaluated as an alternative in the EIR. Ms. Moore informed Council that they have authorized San Rafael entering into a Joint Powers Agreement with Marin County and the City of Novato to have a specific study done which might become an expanded study along with an Environmental Assessment that will look at this type of alternative. She indicated City staff would have numerous concerns about an east of railroad track alignment because it would be on diked historic baylands, there would be growth inducing effects, and interference with reclamation projects, and raises a host of questions. Ms. Moore stated that staff would not recommend delay of the General Plan process to revise the EIR to add an alternative, stating this could SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Special, 5/3/88 Page 6 be looked at later and that there is much more detailed alignment study that needs to be done. Mr. Colbert concluded there is a push to put the road east of the Hamilton Air Force Base runway, but that it will push the road more east than what is shown on the map. Mr. Herb Nienstedt of Marin Builders Exchange disagreed with the Floor Area Ratios. He stated there are real problems in the dogma of traffic Level of Service "D" standards. They oppose C-2 as being too limiting in its range; Oppose C-3 and its sub -paragraph as being unrealistic as to traffic improvements requirements; Oppose C-4 as being highly restric- tive since traffic calculations are based solely on peak hour trips and FARs. Oppose 5, 6 and 7, feeling these sections increase constraints on all projects. They support Sections C-8 through C-16, agreeing with the content and intent of these points. Regarding C-17, the strong advocacy of funding sources is fine and the focus of obtaining ready funds is moved from construction project mitigation fees to other sources which have not been impacted the way the construction projects have. They approve of C-18 and are in support of circulation coordination with other communi- ties as stated in C-20. They are in agreement with C -E through C -F. C -B gives them concern as to the approval procedure being too dogmatic and inflexible and makes effective project compromise and appeals more diffi- cult. They feel the committe concept is important with regard to C -c and could have merit even if "adequate staffing", which is indicated in the staff recommendation is not available. Mrs. Susan Bishop, employed as a Safety Engineer, noted that the level of service concept completely ignores the issue of traffic safety. She referred to the intersection of Highway 101, North San Pedro Road and Civic Center, stating one can "zoom" out of the free flowing 101 at level "A" only to find a blind curve at proposed Level of Service "D" or possibly "E" encountering a traffic safety problem. She suggested that each inter- section should be looked at individually. Mrs. Shirley Fischer, resident of Terra Linda and speaking as an individual but also chairing a newly formed steering committee called the San Rafael Coalition of Residents, asked Council to look at the Plan as an overall Plan, specifically going back to the introduction to review what the citizens have said on their desires for development for the future years. She asked Council to consider the recommendations of the Marin Conservation League, noting that the Sierra Club also made the same recommendation of a modification of Alternative One for the Plan. Mrs. Fischer suggested that Council look at the fiscal needs of San Rafael and what this would mean in terms of costs and benefits of proposed development, particularly high sales tax generating types of development that also generate more traffic and many other city services requirements. Mrs. Fischer referred to a map she presented to Council which speaks directly to McInnis Parkway, stating there are five areas where the routing of this roadway is in question or has problems ranging from where it would connect to Highway 37 in Novato to how it ends on Civic Center Drive and will the routing of it handle traffic from local development along it. She referred to Map B regarding the Northgate area from North San Pedro Road to Freitas Parkway and asked Council to look specifically at the routing of the 101 bypass arterial and what it is supposed to be. The Plan indicates it will run one lane of traffic up Los Ranchitos Road, through one lane of traffic down Merrydale Drive, over one lane of traffic over the Merrydale Overcrossing and down two lanes of traffic at Civic Center Drive and out two lanes of traffic at McInnis Parkway. Mrs. Fischer proposed that the real bypass arterial would be the alterna- tive route. One could travel on one of two lanes of traffic on North San Pedro Road and two lanes on Civic Center Drive which takes only 3 stop lights as opposed to 4 stop lights and does not go through traffic at Northgate Mall. This gets people into a geographically shorter route to McInnis Parkway. She stated this route is shorter, has more lanes available and has fewer traffic lights and should be studied at length. Mrs. Fischer asked Council to review the area around McInnis Parkway, where there are a number of traffic improvements and additional stop lights that are made at the Freitas Parkway Intersection area. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 7 Mrs. Fischer asked Council to also review her Freitas Interchange Map "C". She noted there are three traffic hazards which will be aggravated by the new proposed change, which is a new on-ramp. Mrs. Fischer asked Council to review the interchange at North San Pedro Road and Highway 101, stating this area poses a traffic problem which is not addressed in the Plan. Her recommendations are as follows: Revise portions of the Circulation Element: Policy C-2 and C-7, traffic improvements which increase congestion on Las Gallinas Avenue, routing of a bypass arterial through Northgate, inadequate traffic improvements at the Freitas Parkway and North San Pedro interchanges. She also objected to increasing the job/housing imba- lance and increasing urbanization of San Rafael as a regional employment center. She recommended that attention be given to adoption of a variation of the EIR Maximum Environmental Alternative as recommended by the Marin Conservation League and others. She recommended no new development in Northgate and its surrounding areas until plans have been developed to improve traffic flow to eliminate hazardous conditions at Freitas Parkway and the North San Pedro Road Interchanges. Ms. Susan Little, on behalf of Neil Sorenson, read from a letter submitted by Mr. Sorenson. The letter was submitted on behalf of the San Rafael Forward 2000 and its members to clarify their position on the Plan, partic- ularly on the Circulation Element. They object to the adoption of the Circulation Element as drafted in the Plan, stating it determines the amount and type of development to a greater degree than the Land Use Element which does not make good plan- ning sense and prejudices the rights of property owners and is based upon methodology and policy incapable of careful scrutiny. They asked Council to consider the following points: Traffic Driven Plan - It is inappropriate and unworkable and decisions based on traffic considerations fail to recognize the complex correlation between the goals and policies in the Plan. Land Use and Circulation must be considered together rather than letting one totally determine the other. The Plan recognizes one of the major causes of the current traffic problem, which is that local agencies have limited the development of low and moderate priced housing forcing people to commute from Sonoma County to jobs in Marin. She said the current information on trip genera- tion and levels of service is incorrect, including a "fudge factor" of one half of a level of service. Though staff recommends mid-level "D" as acceptable, projections include a "fudge factor" of one half of a level of service. They object to this extraordinary and unnecessary methodology. Timing of Development Issue - They believe building permits should be granted upon guarantee of developer/owner funding contributions to traffic improvement plans, and that tying issuance of building permits to nebulous sources of funding is inappropriate. Flexibility - They recommend that the City Council retain flexibility in City planning decisions by allowing restrictions to be implemented through City Ordinances, rather than through the General Plan. They believe that the General Plan amendment process is cumbersome and limited by State law, providing a difficult forum for responding to the changing needs of the community. Beauty Contest - They are opposed to the "Beauty Contest" as a substitute for rational land use planning, because it presupposes an economic basis which does not exist in the Plan and substitutes politics for good land use planning. It also allows for too much discretion unencumbered by objective guidelines, and encourages the attainment of immediate goals at the expense of the Plan's long term goals and objectives. Mary Jo Lazear, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated they support the reasonable approach taken by the City to balance its SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 8 concerns and interests. She referred to Timing of Development stating the Chamber supports the position that building be allowed when funding for infrastructure improvements is identified, such as an assessment district being in place or a circulation project being included in the STIP five-year program. They support Level of Service "D" as the standard for acceptable traffic operations during the PM peak period at major intersections and arterials except during periods of roadway construction. They support the creation of an eastside arterial roadway as a transporta- tion alternative to reduce the number of vehicles on Highway 101. They support the criteria which will prioritize future developments in circulation impacted areas, and recommend that it be used solely for new development. They support the immediate extension of Andersen Drive to alleviate traffic congestion in the Bellam Boulevard area and oppose diversion of funds to the Bellam Boulevard I-580 project. They feel it is inappropriate for the General Plan to require mandatory TSM programs for new development before voluntary programs have been tried. Mr. Robert Caspar, with the Terra Linda Homeowners Association, stated they are concerned with the development and growth of San Rafael, partic- ularly in Terra Linda that will impact their quality of life. He stated they are concerned over the number of projects approved and projected in the area north of Puerto Suello Hill, which include a hotel at the Civic Center, Costco on Redwood Highway, and the Kaiser Hospital expansion program that will have an adverse affect on the traffic in their area. He indicated that the General Plan states neighborhoods will be protected, but that Nova Albion Way is already impacted at 3:00 PM daily and none of these projects has even begun. He asked that atten- tion be paid and solutions given to this serious problem. Cecelia Bridges, Attorney, representing Michael McGruder and the McDonald Corporation, requested that Council adopt Policy C-5, the Trip Transfer Policy, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Dr. Julian M. Lifschiz, resident at 27 Dunfries Terrace, noted that most of the poeple living in San Rafael would prefer maintaining the "small town" effect in the community. Ms. Marie Schooley, member of the Northbay Transit Committee and 101 Advisory Committee, stated their group is for rail transit, and asked that the Council not cater to the automobile, that there be no more shop- ping centers and to envision the use of the Northwest Pacific Railroad as the main source of transit. Mr. Sidney Hendricks, stated that during the General Plan revision process, numerous letters were submitted from individuals and San Rafael Forward 2000 regarding concerns of the Circulation Policy and other elements of the Plan. He stated that the Circulation Element seems to provide the basis to determine the amount and type of all development and presum- ably no new development would be allowed once Level of Service "D" has been exceeded. He stated this is short-sighted and prejudicial to many of the other goals and policies set forth in the Plan, and inconsistent with the very premise it appeals to. Mr. Hendricks also objected to the City's methodology used in the traffic calculations of the "fudge factor" and urged evaluation of this practice. Mr. Robert Neuhaus, spoke regarding traffic in the Diamond Lanes permitting two passenger vehicles. In a conversation with engineers from Caltrans, he stated this could increase the flow of traffic from 30 to 45 percent during the peak hours and indicated this to be a considerable factor. Mayor Mulryan stated they have looked at this but indicated this is not directly within their jurisdiction. He stated there is a controversy as to whether the three person requirement actually carries more people than the two and stated an experimental period will be taking place. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Special 5/3/88 Page 9 Councilmember Frugoli indicated the 101 Action Committee will have this programmed for a 60 to 90 day trial basis, and hoped this will be effective by August or September of 1988. Mr. William Bullard, Attorney on behalf of the Silveira family and Silveira Property, stated he was reserving all of their comments for the time when Council discusses these specific areas. Mr. Robert Hoffmann, stated he was pleased that the Bellam Intersection has been changed from Level of Service "E" to "D" during deliberations, and that the timing of improvements should be coordinated with building permits. Mr. Harry Winters, spoke on permitting development in spite of the fact that the City may not be able to improve traffic level at an adjacent intersection. He referred to Policy C-7, Affordable Housing Projects, High Tax Generating Uses and Needed Neighborhood Serving Uses, and Busi- nesses that Pay High Salaries stating there could be a growing number of priority projects as time goes on which could be the "achilles heel" of trying to couple development with traffic generation, noting as the list grows people will come up with more priority project definitions. He referred to Businesses that Pay High Salareis, indicating the only justification is that these businesses would have more higher paid workers better able to afford local homes, but when salary raises are made the price of housing is also raised. Mr. Winters stated he agreed that the traffic impact happens only during commute hours, but noted other people also drive on the same streets during commute hours and suggested the City focus on what is happening during those peak hours. Mr. Don Foster, representing Bahia Rafael Homeowners Association in East San Rafael, stated that the traffic problem is what they deal with every day, and asked Council to review traffic problems in the South and East Bays, and think about what is happening here in San Rafael. He stated they favor Level of Service "C" as the standard goal, and urged Council to go back to earlier wording in the draft Plan with respect to permit- ting projects to go ahead in areas where there are traffic problems, i.e., "it (projects) should not go ahead until the improvements were under contract". Mr. Peter Finck, Attorney on behalf of Francisco Properties, agreed with the following speakers: Herb Nienstedt, Robert Scales, William Bullard, Susan Little, Mary Jo Lazear and Sidney Hendricks. Mr. Fred Grange, stated JHK and Associates indicated the Plan regarding traffic would need to be quantified on a computer, stating that San Rafael Forward 2000 has committed the funds to do that modelling. He said that results from the modelling will be done within the next few weeks and asked that this be presented to the Council at that time. Mr. Grange referred to a few years back when residents in the East San Rafael area along with the City formed the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District which created a number of improvements that consisted of a wild- life mitigation pond that was enhanced, a shoreline park constructed, a number of streets constructed including Kerner Boulevard, Grange Way, Pelican, Morphew and others. He indicated that all these improvements cost $6,445,000 which was to be paid over the next 18 years at 8.2 percent interest, with the interest adding an additional $6,339,000, totalling almost $13 million. He noted this money was solely paid by the property owners; the improvements were completed by January, 1986, just days before the City adopted Ordinance No. 1524 creating a moratorium because of the General Plan. The assessment district improvements were accepted by the City on February 14, 1986. He said the property owners had committed nearly $13 million with the assurance that they would be able to develop their properties. He stated the City has changed the ground rules prohibi- ing them from developing this property and stated this is unfair. Regarding FARs - Mr. Grange stated a document was produced by the Planning Department which listed approved individual projects in the East San Rafael area, including trip generations, projects in process and those that have not been applied for as yet. He realized some of those not approved, such as Spinnaker, have a set number of buildings and amount of traffic. There also is Mr. Tolomei's project which is approved but SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 10 cannot be built although the traffic is known. He asked if the FARs are changed from .26 to .50, what amount of traffic does that change? He mentioned there are very few projects that would grow to the .50 FAR, and offered to help the Planning Department to quantify what .50 really is. He suggested that all the guidelines that used to be in effect such as 30 percent landscaping coverage and front yard setbacks, etc, be rein- stated, because it would add some development that otherwise will not be possible. Mrs. Edith McKenna, representing owners of the Daphne/Bacciocco Properties, stated Mr. Fred Grange made the same statement on the FARs they wanted to make and wanted this on the record. Councilmembers Comments. Councilmember Breiner stated if they required Level of Service "C" at major intersections, there would be no future building, and asked if this was correct. Planning Director Moore responded if there were substantial transportation improvements and some balancing of FARs residential densities back to Level of Service "C", it would be another approach, but right now, they are at or exceeding Level of Service "C" at all critical interchanges in San Rafael. In response to Councilmember Thayer's statement that impacts of various alternatives, specifically Alternative "B" which addresses Level of Service "C", that the rate of development would be reduced by approximately 50 percent, Ms. Moore stated it would be the amount of intensity for develop- ment and not the rate. In response to Councilmember Breiner's inquiry of the "fudge factor", Traffic Engineer Rumsey stated this is the diversion pattern that has existed on 101 and that staff feels could still exist in the future. He stated in the Bellam area it amounts to a little less then .04 capacity. Until very recently he indicated there have been significant diversions going up Redwood Highway through Freitas, but with the completion of the 101 auxiliary lane between Ignacio and 37, staff has noticed traffic diversions have fallen back. Councilmember Fruogli asked City Attorney Ragghianti to come back at a later meeting with an answer to the following question: If the land use regulations on the assessment district have legal problems, will the City be in violation because their time frame has stopped? Mr. Frugoli also asked staff to look at the possibility if they changed the configuration of Bellam and put the Northbound on -ramps up further using the money from Andersen, if it would decrease traffic by 30 to 40 percent on the Bellam Boulevard area. Mr. Rumsey stated they could take the funding from Andersen plus have local funding through traffic mitigation fees and between those two, could possibly construct one of the two major projects, with the preferred one being relocating the Northbound ramp, and this would take about four to five years. Councilmember Boro referred to Mrs. Fischer's comments and asked staff to review those comments and come back to Council with their input. Also, a number of speakers expressed their concerns about McInnis Parkway and asked staff to have more on what the projections are for this area. Councilmember Breiner referred to the Safety Element and suggested that reference be made back to the Circulation Element, so it is not seen as an oversight. Mrs. Breiner suggested having a workshop on the Andersen Drive Extension vs. the Bellam Interchange improvements, and referred to a letter from Attorney Albert Bianchi who suggested having an assessment district to help raise funds to improve the Bellam Interchange. Mrs. Breiner referred to page 181, the background material, stating there are differences projected by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) from the figures given by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 11 Planning Director Moore stated transit is the big variable and that there has not been a significant increase in the number of people commuting to San Francisco but there has been an increase in the number of vehicles. Different assumptions were used in terms of traffic and staff would look into this to see if there is more recent data. Councilmember Thayer asked staff to bring back to Council, why the provi- sion of the former draft Plan relating to building permits not being issued until needed traffic improvements are under contract, was deleted, and what the purpose of the current C-3 is. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing and the meeting was adjourned. JEANNE EONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 5/3/88 Page 11