HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1986-07-02SRCC/PLANNING COMD SION MINUTES (Special Joi ) 7/2/86 Page 1
In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Wednesday, July 2,
1986 at 7:30 PM.
Special Joint SRCC/Planning Commission Meeting:
Councilmembers present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Richard Nave, Councilmember
Jerry Russom, Councilmember
Absent: None
Commissioners present: Robert Livingston, Chairman
Michael J. Smith, Vice -Chairman
Richard O'Brien, Commissioner
Joyce B. Rifkind, Commissioner
Suzanne M. Scott, Commissioner
Maynard H. Willms, Commissioner
Absent: Albert J. Boro, Commissioner
Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Jeanne M. Leoncini,
City Clerk; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Anne
Moore, Planning Director; Jeff Baird, General Plan
Coordinator; Daniel Iacofano, Facilitator
RE: PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING GENERAL PLAN REVISION - (COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES) - File 10-6 x 115
Mayor Mulryan opened the public hearing.
Planning Director Moore introduced and credited the planning staff
for the time and effort put into the General Plan Revision. She
indicated that staff welcomed any comments on errors or omissions
so corrections could be made.
Mr. Jeff Baird recapped last night's meeting and the General Plan
revision process.
Mayor Mulryan asked the audience to refer to the Preliminary Community
Development Background Report, pages P-8, P-9 and P-10 and the
Recommended Policy Approach. He then called upon Mr. Daniel
Iacofano, Facilitator, who gave a brief recap of community work-
shops and survey results relevant to the jobs/housing balance, and
transportation survey questions that would be discussed at tonight's
meeting.
Mr. Iacofano discussed results from the workshops and community
surveys relating to jobs and housing and transportation. People
were asked to state their length of residence in San Rafael to get
an idea of who the survey represented. The survey indicated there
is a high proportion of long-term residents in the community, about
38 percent.
Regarding methods for improving housing opportunities in San Rafael,
a number of options were stated. Of particular importance is the
relative ranking of some of the housing opportunity strategies that
were on the survey questionnaire. It was noted that a significant
number of respondents indicated that a percentage of housing units or
developments should be devoted to affordable units. High on the list
was senior citizen housing as an important area of need. Also high on
the list is the rehabilitation of existing housing units. Publicly
subsidized housing, mixed use strategies, and greater densities
ranked lower as methods to improve housing in the community.
People were asked to rate what they consider to be effective ways for
reducing traffic congestion. At the top of the list was highway
improvements, with 85 percent stating that they think this would be
very effective as a strategy. Water transportation and van pools were
lower. Buses were high at 82 percent. City street improvements were
high along with the use of railway and flexible working hours.
Development limitation was not very far behind.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 1
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 2
People were also asked what modes of transportation they typically use.
Car use is the overwhelming winner with a significant number of
businesses indicating that they use flexible working hours to navigate
through the traffic congestion problems. Buses come up next followed
by car and van pools, but water transportation is not heavily used by
this survey group.
Looking at the willingness of people to utilize different modes of
transportation shows two different perspectives. Car and van pools
appear, indicating with the right program people would be willing to
use these kinds of systems. Buses are also rated higher in this
category.
On the question of the public's willingness to pay for some of the
transportation systems improvements, a significant portion felt that
they would support bus improvements but they are not so willing to
support car or van pools.
Highway improvements are way up on the list with 86 percent of those
surveyed willing to pay for this type of improvement. Also, there is
a strong desire to support City street improvements relating to
emergency evacuation route planning. Flex -time emerges as a strategy
that people are willing to support or use but may not be willing to pay
for through the use of public funds.
Councilmember Nave stated he believed that a survey response of
"willing to pay" should be interpreted to mean "willing to pay a
small amount".
Mayor Mulryan agreed with Councilmember Nave and added that it should
say "willing to have our already taxed dollars spent on these
improvements rather than additional tax dollars".
Councilmember Frugoli referred to the commuter rail coming from
Sonoma into San Francisco. He stated it would probably only go as far
as Larkspur Landing and that the preceding reference may be a
misunderstanding from the people who would like to use this system.
The meeting then focused on the two policy questions.
3.SHOULD THE CITY BE A REGIONAL JOB CENTER OR SHOULD THE CITY STRIVE
TO BALANCE THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF JOBS WITH THE LOCAL LABOR FORCE
AND AVAILABLE HOUSING?
Jean Freitas, Associate Planner, stated that the relationship between
jobs, housing and employed residents has become a major issue in this
General Plan revision because of the City's current commute patterns
and traffic congestion. Jobs and housing are focused upon because
they are land uses over which the City has some control.
During the 1950's and 1960's, Marin County was a rapidly growing
suburb of San Francisco. The 1963 General Plan characterized San
Rafael as a high income suburban community experiencing rapid
population growth. Terra Linda and Marinwood were residential
neighborhoods of young families and the older parts of San Rafael
had a diverse housing stock and a more mature population. At that
time the planning area had a significant employment base with nearly
one job per employed resident and one job per housing unit. San
Francisco was the focal point of jobs for San Rafael with a high
percentage of commuters. However, San Rafael was the County Seat,
and the County center for light industry. The 1963 Plan noted that
the citizens of San Rafael and the adjacent unincorporated lands
continued to be dependent to a substantial degree on San Francisco
for jobs, shopping, entertainment and cultural activity. There was
concern that the City should maintain its role as the market center
and expand local job opportunities as the County's population
expanded and not become dependent on San Francisco.
In 1970, housing growth was beginning to lag behind job growth
but there had been an increase in people per household. San
Rafael area jobs and employed residents were well matched with
one job provided locally for every employed resident.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 2
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/ 2/86 Page 3
The 1974 City General Plan encouraged additional local employment
to maintain the number of jobs available to area residents and
strongly discouraged disruptive population growth. This plan and
the 1982 Countywide Plan envisioned both low housing and job
growth due in part to environmental concerns and the desire to
maintain the character of Marin communities.
In 1986, using the 1980 census and with the availability of recent
employment data, it is apparent that housing growth had been low but
job growth had not. In 15 years the County gained 20,000 jobs, the
number that was predicted by the year 2000. Half of these jobs were
created in San Rafael. Housing in San Rafael grew by 4,400 units.
San Rafael had become one of several Bay Area communities, such as
Santa Rosa, Concord, Pleasanton and others, which maintained its
local employment base and added to it substantially. Its rapid
job growth was part of a national trend towards suburban, as opposed
to central city job centers, which started in the mid -1970's.
Between 1970 and 1980 there was a significant intensification of
jobs over housing in the San Rafael planning area. In 1970 there
were 1.3 jobs per housing unit and by 1980 1.5 jobs per housing
unit. In 1985 it increaed to 1.65 jobs per housing unit as an
additional 5,400 jobs were added and only 650 housing units were
completed. While San Rafael has historically been an employment
center for the County, this focus intensified San Rafael as an
employment center for rapidly growing Southern Sonoma County cities
as well. This trend is evidenced by low population and high job
growth in San Rafael and Marin County coupled with high population
growth in Sonoma County and significant increases in traffic
crossing the Marin -Sonoma County line. The growth in area jobs over
housing between 1960 and 1980 would have created even more
significant inter -City commute impacts except that it has been
accompanied by large increases in workers per household. In 1980,
Marin County had more working people per capita than the region,
State or nation and was only slightly behind one Bay Area County
as having the highest labor force participation rate.
The number of workers per household is expected to continue to
rise, although more slowly than in the past. San Rafael's job
growth is expected to continue to far outpace the growth of employed
residents in the planning area.
The Association of Bay Area Governments has projected that between
1985 and the year 2000, population in San Rafael will increase by
4,000. Employed residents will increase by 6,400 due to a continuing
increase of workers per household. Total jobs, however, are expected
to increase by 13,000. These jobs and housing projections are very
consistent with the jobs and housing totals expected through the
Northgate Activity Center Plan, the Draft East San Rafael and
neighborhood plans and infill development in the Downtown Area. If
it is assumed that San Rafael will continue to retain or increase its
number of jobs, it is evident that most of the new jobs must be filled
by persons commuting from outside San Rafael.
It is important for the City to maintain and enhance the number of
City residents working at local jobs. If not, the importing and
exporting of people traveling to and from work will continue to
increase, aggravating travel demands. Part of the solution would be
to create more housing so jobs do not far exceed the number of
housing units.
Major undeveloped areas in the San Rafael area are the St.
Vincent -Silveira properties, and other parcels in the Smith Ranch
Road area which have potential for additional housing. More
moderate cost housing is needed to maximize the potential for a jobs
to housing match, so people have options to live closer to their
jobs. The housing trends in San Rafael are toward higher cost
ownership housing. Maintaining the historic diversity of San
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 3
SRCC/PLANNING CG__iISSION MINUTES (Special J, pit) 7/2/86 Page 4
Rafael's housing stock and its owner -renter mix will give more
options for people to move closer to their jobs. Another part of
the solution would be through the number and types of jobs that
become available.
In conclusion, San Rafael has been a well-balanced community with
jobs well matched to housing and employed residents. Only in the
recent past and conclusions based on future projections do the
number of jobs greatly outpace housing production and employed
residents. The General Plan revision can influence these trends
through land use decisions emphasizing housing in selected potential
growth areas, while still providing opportunity for job growth.
Ms. Moore thanked Ms. Freitas for her report and added that it was
important to review the historical perspective on the issue to point
out the substantial change in the relationships among jobs, housing
and employed residents. The main recommendation by staff is that the
City maintain what has been the historic existing jobs to housing
balance in the San Rafael Planning Area by minimizing job growth
potential. Staff does not recommend stopping jobs growth but rather
tempering what would otherwise be the market demand for jobs growth in
the San Rafael Planning Area by increasing the lands designated for
residential development potential. There should be more emphasis on
additional and more affordable residential development than there has
been in the existing General Plan.
In recapping from last night's meeting, Ms. Moore stated that Goal 3
of the current General Plan is to encourage economic growth which
supplies jobs and economic self-sufficiency for existing and future
residents, reduces the heavy reliance on commuting to San Francisco
and maintains the feasibility to finance public improvements, human
services and its open space character. Staff recommends that the
revised General Plan do this by having jobs growth potential
minimized by redesignating some parcels from commercial to residential
land use and by providing commercial development intensity limits
which achieve balance between needed transportation improvements and
land development costs. Another important component is to promote
housing types which best match incomes from projected jobs. Most of
the new jobs are in the service sector in the lower to moderate pay
ranges; they are not the kind of salaries with which people can find
rental or ownership housing in San Rafael. The recommendations do not
mean that there should be a change from the City's existing policy of
not allowing disruptive growth in existing neighborhoods. There are
ample vacant or underdeveloped lands in San Rafael for residential
development away from established neighborhoods. Much of these lands
are north of Puerto Suello Hill, where the jobs to housing balance is
better than in the southern part of the City where jobs predominate.
Areas that are expected to be designated primarily for housing
include North San Rafael, Marin Ranch Airport and Smith Ranch
Area, Downtown, Lincoln Avenue, Woodland Avenue and the Montecito
neighborhood area around the high school. These are not firm
designations as this point, but are the likely areas to achieve the
change in emphasis that is consistent with the goals of the 1974
General Plan.
In response to Councilmember Nave's inquiry on the recommendations
made regarding downzoning commercial properties south of the hill
and the corresponding concerns of the property owners, Ms. Moore
responded that staff is focusing on finding areas where higher
density development is most appropriate. Those areas left out, by
implication, would have lower development potential than they do
now. The existing General Plan is not specific regarding densities and
intensities.
Ms. Moore responded to Councilmember Breiner's question regarding
distinquishing between family housing as opposed to senior citizen
housing by stating that there is a special work effort already
underway by staff to look at the amount of senior citizen housing
provided in San Rafael. A role that San Rafael plays in Marin
County is as a provider of senior housing. The market trend
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 4
SRCC/PLANNING C-AMISISON MINUTES (Special ,.int) 7/2/86 Page 5
indicates that there is a potential for San Rafael to become a
supplier of specialized senior housing for the region. The
implications are being evaluated by staff currently.
Councilmember Russom inquired if there are studies or data that
demonstrate that commuters coming in and out of the community to
work, contribute to the overall traffic congestion more than full
time residents. Senior Planner Brook responded that commute traffic would
account for approximately 20 percent of traffic on the highway during
the peak period.
Councilmember Russom, concerned that if a policy was adopted to
minimize job development and maximize housing, stated that the
rationale would be to reduce the traffic impact and that it be
certain that this would be the actual result of the policy.
Mayor Mulryan stated that if there are fewer jobs, San Rafael would be
less of a magnet for people coming in from out of the area, and
that they have to be aware of how many jobs are being created and the
number of people, local or non -local, that would be using the roads.
Councilmember Russom indicated that he did not see it to be a
question of reducing the magnet for jobs but rather that the policy
is to put an increase on residential rather than job development.
Ms. Moore stressed that the reasons for the recommendations are
not solely based on traffic, but that the character of San Rafael
has changed significantly in the last several years, and policies
have not been developed which adequately reflect this change in
relationship between jobs and housing.
Regarding the jobs/housing balance, Councilmember Frugoli indicated
that the suggested density should be stated in the plan and also that
housing could be made affordable by giving developers a density that
could make it affordable in the areas that have either been commercial
or that are planned for residential. He also commented, in regard to
senior citizen housing, that construction of Villa Marin freed up many
of the residential homes in the outlying areas of San Rafael. He
stated that the senior housing issue cannot be overlooked, noting that
San Rafael does have its fair share, but pointing out that seniors use
less services and should not be completely excluded.
Mayor Mulryan indicated that the City does not want to exclude senior
citizens but wants to be sure that other opportunities and needs are not
overlooked.
Commissioner Willms asked for clarification of Ms. Moore's statement
regarding homes leaning toward the higher end of the economic scale.
Ms. Moore responded that an additional factor comes into play through
resale of existing homes. For someone who has lived in a home for 20 or
30 years and the home is paid for, their housing costs are nominal. That
existing home in an older neighborhood in San Rafael may meet
Federal low-income housing standards. However, when the house is sold,
it is no longer in the low income housing category and becomes
expensive housing. It is this resale that moves the housing stock
into the more expensive category. In the last two to three years,
most of the housing approved has been condominiums, but over the past
five to 10 years housing approvals and construction were predominantly
higher priced single family detached homes.
Commissioner Rifkind inquired if any other policies could be pursued
to keep housing costs low by creating more family homes. Ms. Moore
replied that there are excellent programs in the existing Housing
Element adopted in 1985. She continued to state that projects in
the last two to three years with higher densities, i.e. Captain's
Cove and Meadow Oaks, offer affordable and non -subsidized housing.
Other programs are rebates for renters, review of City -owned property
for use as affordable housing, negotiations with PG&E and housing
in -lieu fees, all of which are already in the Housing Element.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 5
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 6
Mr. Frank Rinaldi of 117 Union Street stated that he has property in
the Montecito area and wanted to know if there is a possibility that
property could be taken from an owner, through redevelopment, for
housing.
Mayor Mulryan responded that any public agency has the power of
condemnation. The matter under discussion is citywide housing
policy, not condemnation. He added that condemnation is seldom used by
the City.
Mr. Harry Winters of 201 Spring Grove recommended that the City take an
active role in van -pooling. Mr. Winters described how the City of
Larkspur has been instrumental in promoting van -pooling by providing
parking for van pool parkers in the Bon Air Shopping Center remodel.
Mr. Winters suggested that since the City has parking areas under its
control (including private parking areas), the City should consider
this type of provision in future projects as a way to promote
van -pooling. The City could allocate parking places on the top floor
of its Third Street parking structure for van pools. He noted that
when van pool accommodations are provided at the starting point and
destination, it works.
Mayor Mulryan agreed that Mr. Winters' ideas on projects regarding
van -pooling are good ones.
Regarding affordable Housing, Mr. Winters stated that although it
was one of the top five issues, statistically it has only 20 percent as
many mentions as the top issues, i.e. Environment was top with
250; Traffic with 210 and Affordable Housing with only 50. Mr.
Winters suggested that consideration be given as to what the
citizens recognize this issue to be.
William Bullard, Attorney representing Santa Barbara Savings and
Loan, owner of Spinnaker Point Unit 5, stated that this project is
the last remaining unit in the project and relates to the housing
emphasis suggested in the background report as a means to ease the
job -housing balance. He noted that the project is an in -fill
residential development, relatively non -controversial, providing
middle income housing that would eliminate a blight in the community
which the undeveloped property now causes. It would also provide
through traffic and circulation in East San Rafael, and urged the
Council to consider adopting a strong policy which would allow and
preserve options for this type of housing.
Jay Paxton, Attorney with Bianchi, Paxton & Engel, representing
AMEX Life Assurance Company, formerly known as Fireman's Fund
American Life, with its national headquarters in San Rafael, referred
to future office expansion in San Rafael and asked that Council keep
in mind the needs of the existing businesses in the community. He
asked that the revised General Plan permit the company to expand its
operations and that the Plan also incorporate a policy statement
providing that preference be given in the allocation of development
rights to projects substantially devoted to use as expansion space
for existing businesses in the community.
Mr. Jerry Craner of 16 Oakridge Road, representing Los Ranchitos
Property Owners, commented on pages P8 & P9 to the question, "Should
the City be a Regional Job Center?" The Los Ranchitos Property
Owners do not feel that it should. They do agree with the question,
"Should the City Strive to Balance the Numbers and Types of Jobs with
the Local Labor Force and Available Housing?".
Mr. Craner referred to Section C, page 18, on Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) and employer size. He stated that one to five
employees is 38 percent of the workforce and that he would like
to know the distribution within the North, South, East and West areas.
He asked that this be included in the next meeting in September.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 6
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 7
Re page H-12, Mr. Craner wanted to know why San Rafael wants to have
higher densities than other areas in Marin County. Re page LU -17,
Mr. Craner commented on sprinklers along the strip between Los
Ranchitos Road and Zims Restaurant parking area. He stated that
much water was being wasted. He asked that there be a breakdown of
water usage numbers in the Residential and Commercial land uses
between pre -drought and post -drought.
Ms. Moore commented that she met with Mr. Richard Rogers (General
Manager, Marin Municipal Water District) this morning and
discussed the concerns brought up by Mr. Craner. Issues pertained
to how much water consumption occurs in the non-residential growth
area, that there are large consumers of water most of which are
non-residential consumers, and that there is a water conservation
effort now in effect. There are incentive programs to have people buy
drip irrigation systems for their homes. Ms. Moore indicated she
had asked Mr. Rogers for more specifics that Planning staff could
work into the General Plan to emphasize water conservation.
Re page P-9 - Mr. Craner stated the Los Ranchitos Property Owners
agree with (a) and (b). However, they would like to have the
opportunity to change some of the limits established in the Northgate
Area and proposed in the Draft East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan.
They agree with (c), but want an explanation on - higher density
housing.
Mr. Don Dickenson of 327 Jewell Street spoke on Regional Job Center
versus Housing Balance. Mr. Dickenson commended the Planning staff
for producing an incredible amount of information in a short period of
time, adding that this effort is the first thorough assessment of San
Rafael's past, present and possible future. In addition, staff has
gone through an extraordinary effort to include the community through
the workshops and survey and newsletters.
Mr. Dickenson indicated he understood that the information is to set
up the general criteria to be used in the remainder of the process,
and to develop the building and population intensities that are
required by State Law.
He referred to the Ross General Hospital site and stated that the
1985 Housing Element spoke of the diminishing availabilty of lands
suitable for housing development. In response, the element
designated housing opportunity sites and the Ross General Hospital
property was designated as a housing opportunity site for 150 to 200
residential units, following a complete assessment of land use
alternatives. He assumed that this assessment would occur during
the remainder of the General Plan process.
Mr. Dickenson noted that whenever the City does have a potential
housing site, which in the past has been considered for alternative
uses, it should be important to look at how the site measures up
against the criteria established in terms of traffic, converting
commercial sites to residential use and identifying sites that are
appropriate for housing.
Regarding the Jobs - Housing balance, Mr. Dickenson suggested that
the best approach could be restricting development of sites that
would be difficult to develop.
Ms. Cecelia Bridges, representing McDonald's Corporation and Michael
McGruder, owner/operator who hold a past and future application for
a McDonald's Restaurant at Merrydale and Willow Avenue, raised four
issues to be addressed in the General Plan:
1 - She commented that the City must develop a policy which would
allow a transfer of allocated trips for lands owned by a single
property owner. She noted that Planning staff had taken the position
that there must be a General Plan amendment in order for a transfer of
trips among parcels owned by a single owner.
2 - She stated that the City must determine a method for the treatment
of the unused allocation of trips for developed parcels.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 7
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint 7/2/86 Page 8
3 - She referred to the timing of circulation improvements and the
building and occupancy of projects, stating that McDonald's knows
that the problems existing today are related to the monies available
for traffic improvements.
4 - She said that it is important that a procedure be developed for
projects delayed through the revision of the General Plan which would
allow for immediate processing of delayed applications. McDonald's has
been delayed by both the Northgate Activity Plan revision
and now the General Plan revision.
Ms. Kathy Campbell with Canal Community Alliance spoke on affordable
housing, low and moderate housing. She stated that the Canal
community does need a jobs/housing balance and that 43 percent of
the residents work in San Rafael (11.9 percent work in East San
Rafael and the rest thoughout San Rafael). Over 66 percent of these
residents earn under $20,000 per year with 44 percent earning
under $15,000 per year, and the client asking for services by the
Canal Community Alliance makes $12,000 or under. Ms. Campbell
stated that trying to find suitable housing on a household income of
$12,000 is impossible. The average apartment rental is between $500
and $700 per month and after paying for other necessary costs, the
end balance is zero. These people are part of San Rafael and are
taxpaying residents. It is a necessity for them to have housing.
Mrs. Sue Beittel, resident of Terra Linda, commented that there is
a wall being built to separate the highway from San Rafael. She
indicated that with the possible use of the railroad right-of-way
for transit a second wall would need to be built. Perhaps the
freeway wall should be inside the railroad right-of-way.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that this had been discussed by
Representative Robert Roumiguiere and CalTrans but was not feasible
because the right-of-way is still used by the railroad.
Mrs. Beittel recommended that there be a policy in the General Plan
that provides for school districts in the planning area to have the
best potential for good use of surplus sites.
Mr. Mark Papineau who represents owners of Spinnaker on the Bay stated
that there should be more units in the affordable range of housing,
and that housing should be able to stand on its own merit in terms of
the economic viability of the San Rafael community.
Mr. Tom Lollini, resident of Gerstle Park, commented on multi -family
housing particularly in the downtown area. He stated that diversity
and lifestyles of people who live and work in San Rafael are of great
value to the community. He indicated that most of the people 18-35
years old have moved to Sonoma County but work in San Rafael, adding
to the traffic problem. He reinforced having swimming facilities in
San Rafael's recreation areas.
Mr. Richard Berger of Canal Community Alliance focused on specifics
of the Recommended Approach (c); and the need for establishment of
densities and intensities for development. Mr. Berger pointed out
that with the recognition of needing more residential development, one
could lean toward establishing higher densities at the onset. On the
surface this could be very good, however, if it is used in terms of
bonuses to get affordable housing, this could present a problem if
pushed to a higher end of the scale. Also, in echoing on comments
made by the San Rafael Housing Corporation in relation to the Below
Market Rate (BMR) percentage which is currently voluntary and not
mandatory by City ordinance, he stated that a 10 percent bonus should
be explicit and mandatory by city ordinance and that bonuses should
be granted for units above the minimum density. In relation to a home
costing $150,000, while that is relatively low in Marin County, it
would take a family with an income of $50,000 to $55,000 with a minimum
of 10 percent down to qualify for a loan. Houses are needed in price
ranges lower than $150,000. Also, it does not make sense to include
the below market rate units as part of the development. In -lieu fees
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 8
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joi,it) 7/2/86 Page 9
should alternatively be collected which could be used for rental
acquisition programs which could stabilize rents in apartments. In
conclusion, Mr. Berger stated that commercial developers should be
required to provide affordable housing through some type of fee
structure which should be investigated by staff.
Mr. Alan Stansbury, Director of Governmental Relations for the Marin
County Board of Realtors spoke on the jobs/housing balance issue and
stated that their membership supports the jobs/housing balance idea.
Re affordability, he pointed out that the market forces should not be
forgotten, i.e., a situation of supply and demand and that there is not
much of a supply in the County. Equally important is the fact that
for the first time in many years there is a lowering of interest rates.
If building moratoriums continue, this opportunity will slip away.
Mr. Paul Cohen of 514 "C" Street asked for more detailed figures on
the housing issues regarding information on the salaries of newly
created jobs. Salaries of the new jobs should be related to the
average cost of new units produced.
Mayor Mulryan stated that these figures will be looked at.
COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
Councilmember Russom stated that he would like to have a more specific
rationale than traffic for the jobs/housing balance recommendation.
He would also like to know what the jobs/housing balance approach
would do to the community both in terms of the long range costs and
revenues and the quality of life.
Councilmember Breiner referred to page P-8 stating that the City is
a regional job center, but that the types of jobs should better match
the local labor force and housing. There should be more multi -family
housing which would allow for many age and income groups to live
within the City. Mr. Paxton's suggestion of creating a policy giving
preference to projects for existing companies should be included.
Staff was directed to review this and bring information back to Council.
Councilmember Nave commented that because of the pitfalls in the past
General Plan, within three or four years it was proved to be wrong.
The new plan will have to be a living plan. More money, if needed,
should be spent on it and monitoring should be conducted.
Councilmember Frugoli referred to water consumption and stated that
the two areas being looked into for major commercial growth are the
Northgate Activity Center and East San Rafael and both have sewer
plants within their areas. There should be a policy for those two
commercial areas to use the reclaimed water from the sewer plants.
Commissioner Smith commented on the jobs/housing balance and stated
that the type of jobs to be created was not mentioned and that the
report refers to households in less expensive neighborhoods having a
higher percentage of locally employed persons and some affluent
neighborhoods having a higher percentage of residents working in San
Francisco. He indicated that certain jobs have certain commute
patterns and that it is important that this be analyzed in more
detail. He also asked if we are interested whether the jobs created
are retail or office, or how the allocation will be done?
Commissioner Scott commented on the possibility of mixed -housing and
the need for services within the neighborhoods. Smith Ranch or other
areas have possibilities for this type of development.
Mayor Mulryan indicated that it appeared that the Council and Planning
Commission were in basic agreement with the alternatives presented and
then called for a five minute recess.
The public hearing was reconvened at 10:00 PM.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Specail Joint) 7/2/86 Page 9
SRCC/PLANNING COMP' -SION MINUTES
4.SHOULD THE CITY CONTINUE TO USE
STANDARD FOR THE LOCATION, TYPE,
AND REDEVELOPMENT?
(Special Jo-' `) 7/2/86 Page 10
TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE AS A
AMOUNT AND TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT
City Transportation Planner Art Brook stated that transportation was
a significant concern to the community and described traffic
terminology. Measurements used throughout the nation consist of
Levels of Service A through F, with Level A being the best operating
position down through Level of Service D which is typically suburban.
These standards have been used in the Northgate Activity Center Plan
and the Draft East San Rafael Plan and are also the criteria for
reviewing the Downtown Area in the last four to five years.
He referred to a graphic and explained to the audience the various
changes, improvements, etc. being done. To the north, Petaluma and
Novato areas, there is a potential for an increase of 20 percent in
population and 75 percent in jobs. To the east in Richmond, there
is an increase in jobs and population as well as a major change in
the street system. He stated that soon we will be able to connect
to Interstate 580 causing less delay and increased access to or from
the East Bay. To the south, there is a relatively stable population
in Southern Marin and San Francisco with a decrease in population as
the population ages and households become smaller, but there is a
continued increase in jobs to the south.
North San Rafael is the major new development area within the
community. The Northgate Activity Center area, from Puerto Suello
to Smith Ranch, could have a 35 percent increase in traffic; the
Downtown Area if developed as a regional sales and service center
would not generate a substantial amount of additional traffic to the
system.
According to the draft plan the East San Rafael area should see
70 percent increase in traffic as the area builds out over the next
20 years.
Mr. Brook explained the different efforts underway to analyze traffic
demands, its causes and effects on the community. He stated that
the City is involved in the Highway 101 Corridor studies and the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way Task Force to determine
what alternatives or options are possible in the corridor in terms
of widening Highway 101 and the use of the railroad as a transit
alternative. People expressed the possibility of improving the
highway system itself by use of a high occupancy vehicle lane and
car pool lane extending from Puerto Suello Hill up to Miller Creek
and eventually to extend further north to Highway 37.
Another aspect of the highway improvement program is the potential
extension of the high occupancy vehicle lane to fill in the gaps
from Puerto Suello Hill south through Corte Madera. The cost of
filling in the remaining parts of the high occupancy vehicle lanes
south would be about $185 million. An alternate of the Northwestern
Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way with bus or rail systems is the most
promising. The bus system would have a relatively low initial cost.
The rail alternative has a higher initial construction cost and about
three quarters of the operating costs. If the costs over a 20 to 25
year period are examined, the operating costs become similar.
In terms of the improvement or the ability to meet the transportation
demand as to where alternatives are to be pursued, the highway should
meet approximately one half of the demand at the end of a 20 year
period and the transitway should meet one half of the demand at the
end of a 20 year period as well.
There is the possibility of a lower cost bus transit system
particularly in the downtown area and near the Andersen Drive
extension. The railroad right-of-way crosses over the potential
Andersen Drive extension as well as at least seven intersections in
the downtown area which are keyed to the east/west circulation.
With a simple, low cost at grade alternative and crossings through
that area, the east/west circulation through the community would be
severely hampered. There is the potential that the quota would not
live up to its capacity because of the delay in getting the buses
through the local street system.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 10
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 11
There has been a lot of detail work done on the possibility of using
local streets parallel to Highway 101 as major arterials in order to
to provide additional capacity in the north/south corridor. If
local streets were used to supplement the HOV project and the transit
right-of-way, less improvements on both sides of the 101 right-of-way
would be needed.
In terms of local streets and interchanges, the provisions outlined
in the past have a good potential to meet the needs for the area.
Marinwood has a well designed interchange with intersections and
lots of space around the interchange providing a possibility for new
development. In the Northgate area there are a number of inter-
sections where Level of Service D and E operations are being
approached which have been identified as unacceptable and improve-
ments need to be made. Regarding transportation in the corridor,
there is a need for completion of McInnis Parkway from Civic Center
Drive up through McInnis Park and north into St. Vincents, Silveira
and Hamilton. Other additions in the Northgate area include
improvement of the (North) San Pedro Interchange above and beyond
what was previously identified in the Northgate Plan in order to
provide sufficient capacity for the additional development expected
at the Civic Center complex.
Over Puerto Suello connectors are needed in the downtown area,
assuming the City approves an alternative that enhances the regional
sales and service emphasis. In the East San Rafael area, the
improvement recommended in the draft plan is appropriate.
In addition to the capital improvments identified, staff continue to
support the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program as a
means of minimizing traffic demands in the corridor. There is a
high TSM use in the 101 corridor, with 10 percent utilization on the
main line but only light usage in the local job areas. The City is
currently working on a jitney service in the East San Rafael area
which would continue to enhance the frequency as well as the extent
of service. There are some residential projects that have used the
TSM programs which have had high success rates.
Mr. Brook stated that staff are working on a traffic model to look
at the traffic system throughout the community and how it relates to
the external areas. They are still in the process of developing and
defining the model for review of alternatives. As a result, the
information presented this evening is preliminary. It is being
presented as a basis for discussion only. The improvements described
are based on the concept of maintaining Level of Service D in the
primary commercial areas. Other specifics to be addressed are the
issues of diversion, concentrating traffic onto the arterial streets;
minimizing the impacts of spill over traffic into the residential
neighborhoods; the ability of enhancing pedestrian and bicycle
alternatives.
Ms. Moore stated that staff see no alternatives to retaining the
Level of Service concept for land development, and that there has
been criticism in the past of using this system. The City should
decide what is wanted in the community, and then decide what is to
be done traffic wise. Staff recommend that there be a maximization
of local funding for improvements, and that more emphasis be put on
the local circulation needs. Right now, the basic policy for
transportation in the General Plan endorses freeway improvements for
101. Highway 101 has been improved in a way that has created a chute
through the City of San Rafael for long distance travellers at the
expense of local circulation needs.
Councilmember Nave referred to page C-19 in background of circulation
on TSM, stating that it speaks continually about mandatory TSM but
that in the businesses with one to five employees, San Rafael has 38
percent of the jobs. In the six to ten employee category, San Rafael
has 48.4 percent, and 63.0 percent of the work force, the highest
rate, are employed in businesses with 11 to 25 people. He indicated
that TSM will be a different type of program and we will have to be
cautious with mandatory rules.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 11
SRCC/PLANNING CG_IISSION MINUTES (Special u_.int) 7/2/86 Page 12
Councilmember Frugoli disagreed with Ms. Moore stating that in Marin
County the traffic counts are higher than in Sonoma County because
of the housing problems here.
Councilmember Breiner agreed that the level of service concept needs
to be preserved, but that priorities need to be established since
there will be a limit as to where the number of trips will be
available at a given intersection.
Ms. Moore responded to a question by Councilmember Russom as to
traffic conditions levels being based on the two-hour period between
4 to 6 PM, stating that staff are also paying attention to the
somewhat less adverse morning peak.
Councilmember Nave referred to the Level of Service concept once
again and stated that in East San Rafael it is a goal. Similarly,
the Level of Service concept should be a goal and not an absolute
throughout the City. The Council must have options on this.
Commissioner O'Brien referred to the traffic count on the Golden
Gate Bridge stating that he recently read that an all time record
was made of vehicles crossing the Golden Gate Bridge. He stated
that 10 years ago traffic was backed up from the bridge to San
Rafael and beyond clogging all of the on -ramps and off -ramps
creating a serious problem in San Rafael. Due to a large influx of
workers from Sonoma County, we have formed an effective metering
device at Puerto Suello which in turn limits the amount of vehicles
passing through San Rafael. Therefore, the commute from San Rafael
south to the Golden Gate Bridge at this time is easier. However,
once the new corridor is in place, the traffic will eventually back
up again. What is not addressed is the need for better ferry
service. Perhaps better vessels could be built and utilized that
would provide better ridership.
Commissioner Smith pointed out alternative routes other than the 101
highway. He stated that he would like to have staff investigate
different approaches of looking at projects. He suggested that
instead of looking at one project at a time for each area that many
projects be looked at simultaniously. In addition, a time limit for
project development should be made.
Ms. Moore followed up on Commissioner Smith's comment about
investigating a different approach to evaluating projects. She
stated that this is definitely something that staff is working on.
Traffic allocations are granted separate from planning approvals for
only a limited period of time and if building approvals are not
secured and projects are not under construction those trip al-
locations are lost. Mr. Brook suggested to Ms. Moore that they no
longer call this "trip allocations" but rather think of it as a
"City goal achievement award" with the project receiving an award
because it is consistent with goals set out in the General Plan.
The project would, therefore, be more meritorious than other
projects.
Councilmember Breiner referred to page 10 on greater East San Rafael
with an estimated 70 percent increase of traffic from development of
major undeveloped sites, redevelopment and temporary use sites.
Is it saying that the potential through existing applications is 70
percent or is it that the area could accommodate an additional
70 percent?
Ms. Moore responded that 70 percent is the growth that can be
accommodated with the kind of improvement package that has been
described and proposed in the Draft East San Rafael Neighborhood
Plan.
Mr. Don Foster from East San Rafael stated that the main question on
retaining the level of service concept should be - Are we going to
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 12
SRCC/PLANNING CONuKISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 13
manage the traffic or is the traffic going to manage us? He pointed
out that the words - Traffic Systems Management - should be broadened
in scope if we are to have a Traffic Systems Management plan which
will manage traffic. Mr. Foster stated that they should be striving
for Level of Service C as a goal and that there are some Level of
Service F situations in the Irwin Street area along with Highway 17
at times.
Mr. Jerry Craner of 16 Oakridge Road in Los Ranchitos stated that
the City should develop a light rail system and that the ferry system
should be turned over to a local operator who could provide a faster
service. In addition, there should be another ferry terminal by
Hamilton Air Force Base in order to get more people off the highway.
He also stated that there should be a major shift in land use policies
from South of Puerto Suello back to the Terra Linda side, because
Terra Linda is not totally self-sufficient.
Mr. Craner stated that the Los Ranchitos neighborhood is opposed to
the opening up of Lincoln Avenue to Los Ranchitos. He added that
the City is supposed to protect residential neighborhoods. By
extending Lincoln Avenue, the City would not be protecting the
neighborhood. Also, he does not want Level of Service D and the City
should plan for Level of Service C.
Mr. Mark Papineau spoke on Level of Service policies stating that
the chart on the wall is a descriptive scale and does not address
how the determination is made as to A, B, C, D, E and F or how this
is measured.
Mr. Jim Mahoney, owner of Mahoney Steel Company in San Rafael for 23
years, stated that another aspect for consideration is the cost of
remaining in this community; acquiring the land could be five times
the cost of surrounding areas. There is also a cost as a result of
traffic. He asked that the City provide incentives for existing
businesses to stay here.
Councilmember Nave stated that at one time there was a discussion
on the origin of business trips or how people got to work (where
they come from). This information could verify what CalTrans and
ABAG have said regarding the amount of job increase in San Rafael.
Ms. Moore responded that they do have some of that information.
Councilmember Frugoli suggested that when a business license
application is given out it should include a questionnaire asking
where employees will be coming from and their mode of travel. Mr.
Brook responded that this is a very good idea.
Councilmember Breiner referred to the Level of Service at times that
are not peak hours, stating that this is also important and more data
should be collected. Mr. Brook replied that they would do that.
Commissioner Willms stated that the internal traffic circulation
needs to be looked at and opening up other streets.
Mr. Iacofano wrapped the meeting up by stating that they will be
providing a detailed transcript of all of the comments that have
gone into the record and felt that the wall graphics provide
immediate feedback that can be used by the staff.
Ms. Moore stated that the plan is due for release at the beginning
of September and that, within the next three weeks, people with
opinions as to what should and should not be in the plan as well
as what they plan for their individual business or property should
communicate with staff.
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 13
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISISON MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 14
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public
hearing and adjourned the meeting.
JEANNE&1 . �LEONCINI, NCity Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1986
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (Special Joint) 7/2/86 Page 14