Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1988-09-19SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/19/88 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 AT 6:00 PM. Special Workshop 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 1. WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS PROPOSED PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE, AND TO SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 3, 1988 (Pl) - File 115 Mayor Mulryan called the special meeting to order and stated this workshop was to discuss the proposed Priority Projects Procedure the Council is working toward adopting to implement the key provisions of the General Plan 2000. He noted this is one of the most challenging parts of the General Plan, that San Rafael is one of the first cities ever to actually attempt to track development proposals and the City's capacity to handle those proposals' impacts. He stated decisions on priority projects need to be made, indicating the City cannot continue to approve proposals on a "first come first served" basis. Planning Director Moore Planning Director Moore summarized the draft Resolution recommended by the Planning Commission and referred to Minutes of several Planning Commission meetings. She briefly discussed the opening sections of the Resolution which reference General Plan Policy C-7, Projects in a Circulation Impacted Area and Program C -d, Project Approval Procedure in Traffic Impacted Areas which are followed by the sections defining the Priority Projects Procedure. She noted a first section would be Definitions, and said the City Attorney and Planning staff are still working on those definitions. The Applicability section sets forth which projects are subject to the procedure. The Exemptions section sets forth which projects are not subject to the Priority Projects Procedure. The key exemptions are: (a) New uses which generate no more than one p.m. peak hour critical move at affected critical intersection(s). (b) Repairs, modifications, alterations and/or replacements of existing structures or uses when such repairs, modifications, alterations and/or replacements do not result in more than one p.m. peak hour critical move at affected critical intersection(s). Ms. Moore stated the traffic threshold to define exemptions recommended for Council consideration is no more than one p.m. peak critical move. She clarified that this exemption would allow a one time p.m. peak critical move which defines Level of Service because critical moves are the trips that reduce capacity at the critical intersections. Regarding exemption (c) Construction, maintenance and repair of public or private roads, sanitary sewer, water, drainage, parking or other utility facilities which would generate no more than on p.m. peak hour critical move at affected critical intersection(s), she pointed out this exemption is not intended that roads, sewer, water drain- age and parking type projects be subject to the procedure. Regarding exemption (d) Construction of residential dwelling units on legal residential lots in existence on July 18, 1988, the date of the adoption of the General Plan, which would result in no more than one p.m. peak hour critical move at affected critical intersection(s), she stated this covers residential projects, again with the key thres- hold of one critical move. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/19/88 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special) y/19/88 Page 2 Regarding exemption (e) Second dwelling units which are consistent with the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance and for which all appropriate planning permits have been obtained, she said second dwelling units clearly do not exceed the traffic threshold. Regarding exemption (f), Child care facilities, she noted this exemption is consistent with the City's long term policy that child care facilities be exempt from traffic mitigation fees. The rationale is the Transpor- tation Systems Management aspect of child care facilities. Regarding exemption (g) Residential subdivisions that are part of a previously authorized and presently valid Planned Development or similar zone, are more than 75% constructed, and contain or provide in lieu fees for a minimum of 10% units affordable to low or moderate income households, she noted this probably only affects the Spinnaker Point Unit 5 project with perhaps another small project or two, and mentioned the Council has already approved Spinnaker Point Unit 5. Regarding exemption (h) Construction deemed necessary by the City Council to preserve the public health and safety or to abate a public nuisance, she stated Council has the discretion in these areas to take action without regard to the Priority Projects Procedure. In response to Mayor Mulryan's request for an example where (h) would generate traffic, Ms. Moore stated perhaps a new public facility such as a new Fire Station. She noted staff's inability to come up with many examples meant this exemption would probably rarely if ever be used. It is recommended so if there were a catastrophe, the option to operate outside of the Priority Projects Procedure would be clearly available to the Council. Regarding exemption (i) Construction of projects containing only low income affordable residential units, she noted this exemption is a policy consideration as it is not traffic derived but provides a special category for any project that would be 100 percent low income. She stated there are not many of these projects and noted that even "non profits" have a difficult time being able to deliver a project like this. Mayor Mulyran stated by comparison, when the San Rafael Commons was built with grant monies it was 100 percent low income. Regarding exemption (j) Minor changes to already approved or otherwise exempt projects when the changes would result in no increase in p.m. peak hour traffic generation, she noted this exemption is intended to make it clear that minor changes to already approved projects would be exempt, or when it is found there is no increase in p.m. peak hour traffic. She said exemptions (a), (b), and (d) allow a one time one p.m. peak hour critical move per property. It is not intended that people come in time after time with individual minor expansions, each with only one critical move. Ms. Moore stated the Resolution authorizes the Planning Director to determine those exemptions and the Appeal Process is spelled out in another section of the Resolution. Application Requirements. Ms. Moore stated the Planned Development Zoning District application requirements are wide ranging, with very detailed information on project descriptions, phasing and the team to develop the proposals including designers and engineers; property owner's written authorization, and checklist with all the General Plan Goals and Policies. Applicants will be required to indicate how their project is consistent with General Plan Goals and Policies; also the Standard Environmental Information Form required from all Applicants now, and p.m. peak hour traffic analysis specified by the City Traffic Engineer. Mayor Mulryan asked if each Applicant would be required to include its own traffic analysis from a recognized Traffic Engineer on an objective format. Ms. Moore responded affirmatively, noting City staff would define for Applicants what the format and contents of the report are to be. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/19/88 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/19/88 Page 3 Section 4.0 - Procedure. Ms. Moore stated this section starts with the City Clerk publishing a Notice which is an invitation to submit applications. Ms. Moore stated the next time frame is how long are property owners or their representatives going to be given to prepare the application materials. Planning Commission recommends 60 days be allocated. She noted that Planning staff would also be given 60 days to evaluate the applications, prepare staff reports and recommen- dations and set a public hearing for the Planning Commission. Section 4.1 - Planning Commission Review and Recommendation. - The Planning Commission, within 30 days of its first public hearing, is to make a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Moore stated these time frames should be reviewed by Council very carefully, noting there are two types of recommendations regarding timing. She stated there are people who do not have applications pending and perhaps because of that, have not formulated a concept of what they want on their property. Ms. Moore indicated that at Planning Commission hearings, these property owners emphasized the importance of this major program for the San Rafael General Plan 2000, and recommended that the City should take its time adopting the Procedure so that it be done right and that there is plenty of time for Applicants to develop applications, and staff, Planning Commission and Council reviews. The opposite of this recommendation is argued by proponents of projects currently pending or expected to be submitted in the near future, such as Costco and Spinnaker -on -the -Bay. She stated this recommendation is that time should be kept as short as possible for projects to be under construction in the 1989 construction season. She explained if a fair amount of time is taken by the Planning Commission and City Council in adopting this procedure and the time frame within it is lengthy, the time requirements could jeopardize the 1989 construction season for those projects having priority determinations. She noted Planning Commission recommended that 60 days was fairly ample for Applicants but even at that they would need to work efficiently to put together a complete application. She explained that 60 days would be difficult for staff, but they have decided a single planner will work under the direction of the Principal Planner. Section 4.2 - City Council Review and Action - Ms. Moore stated this is to be done through public hearings, that the decision is final and that decisions be made by Resolution with appropriate findings. A time frame is not mandated to Council in this draft Resolution. Section 5.0 - Evaluation Criteria - Staff recommended and Planning Commission agreed the most important thing to measure an application against is first, the General Plan and second, other applications. She stated it may be likely, particularly in the area tributary to Highway 101/I-580 interchange, that Council will have more projects that meet the priority definitions and because of traffic capacity limits at the critical intersections, the next step will be to evaluate those projects against each other. Ms. Moore stated there are real incentives for property owners and developers to design projects they believe are most consistent with City policy and most likely to be projects the City wants to happen. Section 6.0 - Time Limits - Ms. Moore stated one of the criticisms of having the application process open to all property owners and their representatives is "real" versus "paper" projects. She noted it is not easy for staff, Planning Commission and the Council to identify which are the "real" projects and which are the "fantasy" projects. She stated the best way to sort the "real" and "paper" projects is to require within one year of Council's determination of priority projects, that all Planning and Building Permits be secured and construc- tion underway. Ms. Moore indicated if a project secures Priority Project determination but does not have planning applications, those applications must be completed within 60 days of receiving the Priority determination. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/19/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special) /19/88 Page 4 She stated time extensions may be requested but noted this section is being further discussed by the City Attorney and staff. The intent is, if applicants have not secured the approvals and gotten under construction in one year, the burden is on them to show there was good faith, diligent effort. Council would need to have an opportunity to evaluate that project in the context of all the other projects a year later interested in proceeding to construction. Mayor Mulryan questioned how to deal with the great number of Applicants who have done considerable work and shown a genuine interest in putting proposals together and where they stand in relation to others who have done nothing so far and who otherwise would be motivated to join in this "beauty contest" during the 60 day period. Ms. Moore stated this situation is complex. For example, right now there are applications for Spinnaker -on -the -Bay that are inconsistent with the General Plan, and staff has been advised those applications will be withdrawn, includ- ing the pending appeal, and new applications consistent with the General Plan will be submitted. The legal representative for Daphne/Baciocco indicated the same thing. She noted some of the complete applications on file only became inconsistent with the General Plan in the final round of Council action. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he did not have an answer tonight but did state there is an answer whether by way of an exemption or Council direction that certain projects are, in Council's opinion, the best suited for the City of San Rafael, given the limited traffic allocation. His major concern has to do with the legal aspects of the procedure. There is a way to do it, but it requires thought. He pointed out what makes it difficult to draft this procedure is, to staff's knowledge, there is no other City or County in the State of California that has done this. There have been "beauty contests" in other cities and counties but not involving mixed uses; Petaluma being the primary example where residential applications compete for permits even though the 500 unit permit level has never been reached. Section 7.0 - Appeals. Ms. Moore stated any Planning Director interpre- tations are appealable direct to the City Council. Council Discussion Councilmember Boro referred to the ongoing process and the new procedure, and noted there are some projects with planning applications consistent with the General Plan. He asked how the City will deal with those versus what else might come about. Regarding "paper" projects versus "real" projects, he suggested staff think of requirements in the procedure section to ensure the Applicant was serious, and asked what level of detail could be required of a serious Applicant versus someone who just might have an idea and would throw his line in the water to see if he would get a bite or not. Councilmember Frugoli referred to the Procedure regarding the 60 days for the Notice of Invitation and Application submittal deadline. He suggested 45-45-30 day intervals for the first time rather than 60-60-30, in order not to miss next year's construction season. Councilmember Frugoli mentioned the Planning Commissioners stated they were willing to have extra meetings regarding this first time because of the amount of projects coming through. Ms. Moore recommended getting testimony from the people who are likely to be Applicants and their reactions to the 45 days. She stated 45 days will be difficult for Planning staff; what would probably happen is more staff resources would be put on the procedure and there would be some adverse affects on other operations in the department. She noted the benefit is a shorter period of time that the department would be impacted. Councilmember Frugoli suggested keeping the 60 days for Planning staff and 45 for the Applicants so they would then have the burden to get their projects and applications completed. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/19/88 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Special) _/19/88 Page 5 Councilmember Breiner suggested having a two-tiered approach for the first year, for those who are ready and will be allowed to begin on the condensed calendaring. She asked staff if it would help to designate the priorities within the three types of projects previously discussed. She referred to the interim use of property as mentioned on page 11 of the Planning Commission Minutes of August 23, 1988. She stated she hoped they could be in a position whereby anyone could come in at anytime and be able to build something so they are not caught in a legal bind having people waiting for a long time. Some will be able to go ahead but others will be assured of something but they will not get the maximum on their property that they would if they wait until some of the intersections are improved. City Attorney Ragghianti responded that Councilmember Breiner is correct and stated staff is in the process of proposing appropriate language to bring to the Planning Commission in an Overlay Zone that would address this very issue of reasonable interim use of property in traffic impacted areas of the City. He explained General Plan Policy LU -2 was inserted at the request of his office for exactly the same purpose Mrs. Breiner stated, as the Constitution requires some reasonable economic use of property. Planning Director Moore stated there would be a very wide range of uses that would fall within that one p.m. peak hour critical move threshold based on the way the exemptions are drafted. City Manager Nicolai commented that during the General Plan review process and in staff's opinion, it probably would not be helpful to have the three types of uses in priority order, because it could vary from location to location and part of the review process would be to look at what are the greatest needs for each traffic impacted area and how do projects measure up against those needs. She stated these are priorities, so the City has flexibility from one location to another to allow different priorities to exist; and over time, different priori- ties might exist than those set out now. Ms. Moore added that Council would also need to look at what kind of development the market place has brought to the City outside the circulation impacted areas; if there was one type of new land use in the Downtown area, that might diminish its priority in one of the circulation impacted areas. Councilmember Thayer referred to Procedures where it states only one application for priority project determination may be submitted per property, and noted overall it is a good policy for the future, but because she felt the procedures will be in a state of flux the first year she suggested allowing a developer to submit an alternative appli- cation. She stated they then might get the very best during that first year, noting the procedure will get clearer with time. Mayor Mulryan stated a property owner could apply every year, noting the one time only is the one time exemption with respect to traffic moves. City Attorney Ragghianti referred to the two-tiered procedure, stating if it is adopted by Council, a substantial amount of available traffic capacity will be taken up by projects Council believes are in the best interest of the City and may alleviate the need for developers to make alternate proposals. He indicated if the City considers alter- nate proposals, it would be an administrative nightmare and impossible to deal with in the short time for the procedure. Comments from the Audience Planning Commissioner Paul Cohen stated relative priorities should be distinguished as different needs for different areas, noting in fairness the Council should strive to publicize those and encourage the marketplace to find solutions to the City's problems. If the Council could identify the problems, they would be giving developers the best chance in coming up with creative solutions. He stated a limited allocation on the first round was discussed. He said it is possible that in the first round of approvals, all avail- able capacity will be used up until 5 or more years down the road when highway improvements are made. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/19/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Special) /19/88 Page 6 Mr. Cohen stated if Council established a first round where they did not use all the capacity in a given area, those existing applications could be given some priority but not deny the process to others who have not completed applications for those 5 years. Councilmember Thayer asked what the legality would be of holding over trips, given the way the General Plan is phrased, which suggested to her that they use up the remaining traffic capacity as soon as possible. City Attorney Ragghianti responded by stating what Commissioner Cohen suggested was not contrary, but if traffic capacity is withheld, it is not intended to be secreted someplace but made available for others to compete for. He felt there was no legal problem in what Commissioner Cohen said. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 4 of the staff report regarding exemptions and requested the following wording be used: "All exceptions granted shall be in writing and shall specify the grounds therefore, under exemptions (a) thru (j), with copies to be sent to the Planning Commission and City Council". She also recommended that priority proce- dures should not be limited annually, but should allow an extra "round" in any one year. After further discussion, Council accepted the staff report and set the public hearing for October 3, 1988. Planning Director Moore stated that Special Notices of the public hearing will be sent to property owners. JEANNE. LEONCINI, Cit Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 9/19/88 Page 6