Loading...
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