Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1985-07-15r MINUT] SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT N. 'ING 7/15/85 Page 1 In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, July 15, 1985 at 7:30 PM. Special Joint Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Chairman/Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Member/Council- member Gary R. Frugoli, Member/Council- member Richard Nave, Member/Councilmember Jerry Russom, Member/Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Ted A. Gaebler, Executive Director/City Manager; Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary/City Clerk; Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney/City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING RE: DRAFT POLICY STATEMENTS FOR FRANCISCO BOULEVARD WEST AREA - File 175x(SRRA) R-130 II Chairman/Mayor Mulryan opened the joint public hearing and called upon Planning Director/Assistant Executive Director (Planning) Moore to present the staff's report. Ms. Moore stated that the Agency and City staff prepared a revised Draft of the Policy Statements for the Francisco Boulevard West Area after the review and consideration of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and Citizens Advisory Committee recommendations. In addition, staff developed new data on existing uses in the area and met with several property owners in the area in the course of formulating the revised draft. The Planning Commission eliminated industrial and outdoor storage uses from Sub -area 5(b), and recommended that the circulation improvements in the last section of the plan be prioritized. The circulation improvements were not included in the report and were not meant to be ranked in any particular order; this is being done through the Greater East San Rafael Traffic Analysis. Commissioners Smith and Livingston dissented from the Planning Commission recommendation with Commissioner Smith's dissent deriving from his endorsement of industrial and outdoor storage uses in Area 5(b) and Commissioner Livingston's concern that the Policy Statements did not include provisions for residential use in the Francisco Boulevard West Area. The Design Review Board's recommendation dealt with design details, rooftop equipment, landscaping standards and considered higher building heights in Sub -areas 2, 5(a), 7 and 9. They also recommended that a special design concept for landscaping, sidewalks, street lighting, bicycles and pedestrian circulation be developed for Andersen Drive. The Redevelopment Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the introduction of the document be expanded so background and history information will be provided for the lay person. They also wanted to see more description of existing conditions in the report. MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 7/15/85 Page 1 MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT ME_2ING 7/15/85 Page 2 The new data on uses in the study area pertain to - auto service uses, retail sales and contractor uses that predominate in the area. There is little office use. Sub -area 1 - PG&E site. Sub -area 2 is characterized by large parcels, few business, and most of these businesses are not consistent with the recommendations being made for commerical, hotel and auto sales uses. Area 3 is the most diverse area, much like sub -area 6. Area 4, auto service, contractor and building supply uses are in this area. Area 5, No office uses in the area. Area 6, is the core of the Francisco Boulevard West Area, where density of individual businesses are auto service, retail sales and contractor uses. Area 7 has a mixture of uses with not much retail. Area 8 has a mixture of uses, predominately auto service. Area 9 has mostly retail uses. Ms. Moore then gave the following recommendations on the various Areas: It is recommended that on page one the Introduction be expanded. Sub -area 1 - No changes. Sub -area 2 - Eliminating professional offices as an acceptable use. Sub -areas 3/4 - It should be made clear in the document, the importance of the sub -areas to the Bret Harte residential neighborhood that is immediately adjacent and the major streets in these sub -areas which are the major access to the Bret Harte neighborhood. Special design attention should be paid to Lincoln Avenue, Irwin Street, Lindaro Street, Jordan Street and Lovell Avenue. Sub -area 5 - There is a wide range of interim land uses that are appropriate in this area; existing commercial, automotive service uses in 5(a), Industrial/Manufacturing/Warehousing and Storage Uses throughout the area are indentified as appropriate uses. Other than area 5(a), areas 5(b) and (c) are appropriate as interim locations for relocated open storage or industrial uses, particularly in the case south of what the extension would be of Rice Drive in the future. The rationale for this recommendation is that it was important at the time the Redevelopment Agency approved the Disposition and Development Agreement for the redevelopment of the McPhail property on Francisco Boulevard West, that they be allowed to relocate to their property in Area 5(c). The City authorized a use permit with no time limits for the continued use of that intensive industrial use on that site. Staff concluded that to allow an office, research and development immediately adjacent to McPhail's would not be consistent with the Redevelopment Agency's past actions where emphasis is on the frontage of Francisco Boulevard West. The area behind the frontage is being treated as a different core area. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan asked Ms. Moore if this would be on an interim basis, and Ms. Moore responded that the language in the text states interim basis which staff interprets to be a five year period of time. Ms. Moore continued to state that this has to do with what derives from the last sentence on page 10, "prior to approving land uses which would eliminate open storage within Area 5(b), the Agency and City should first determine that alternative sites exist elsewhere in the City to accommodate MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 7/15/85 Page 2 MINUTE- SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT ML _,ING 7/15/85 Page 3 construction related businesses which are important to the City's economic base". Ms. Moore continued that they have consulted with the County and representatives from the City of Novato, looking at everything from Central San Rafael to the North Novato area as to what are potential locations for these kinds of uses which are few and far between. The Cities of Novato, and San Rafael staff conclude that there are no other locations that are readily available for relocation for some of these heavy industrial and open storage uses. Most sites between Central San Rafael and Northern Novato discussed and identified have some need for environmental review, general plan analysis or rezoning that would take a substantial amount of time to complete. Ms. Moore indicated that within the last week, there had been a major modification to the rezoning proposal being submitted by the Hornaday/Schaffer group, who no longer describe the project as a research and development project with a substantial proportion of office use. It is now described as a light industrial project, specifying that this would entail 80 percent light industrial uses and 20 percent office uses. Sub -Area 6 is similar to staff's recommendations 3 and 4 on the existing land areas which are acceptable, but attention should be given to the perimeters and major streets so the entire area is upgraded aesthetically attractive, but significant land use changes are not proposed. Sub -Area 7 is more for clarity than what was in the original document. As the first general policy, staff proposes that future land uses should capitalize upon the area's exposure to Highway 101 while minimizing traffic impacts. Preferred land uses to be retail, commercial, auto sales and acceptable, hotel. Special attention should be paid to the northwestern portion of this area because of the visibility to the southbound motorists on Highway 101. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan asked if Area 7 should have more detailed planning such as lot configurations and precise descriptions of what should be placed in certain areas. Ms. Moore stated that some general policies on page 14 relate to this, and indicated that the Redevelopment Agency take an active role in follow-up. Sub -area 8 had minor changes on clarification of office use which is considered an acceptable land use. Automotive use is predominate in this area. Area 9 - Has few changes other than that a preferred land use would be hotel, because this area is prominent visually to the Northbound motorists on Highway 101. Office uses would be acceptable but it is anticicpated that it be in conjunction with other uses. It should be made clear that remodeling of existing buildings is discouraged, particulary of buildings built as warehouses and converted to retail/commercial uses throughout the years. Section 10 - No changes in traffic area, other than the floor area ratios that derived from the 30 PM peak trips an acre in the Greater East San Rafael Area of which Francisco Boulevard is a major portion. MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 7/15/85 Page 3 MINUTE_ SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT M, WING 7/15/85 Page 4 An important recommendation on page 21 is that modification be made to the M District, the heavy commercial and manufacturing district, which allows retail and commercial use. An industrial zone should protect industrial uses and by allowing a lot of retail/commercial uses by right, this would not happen. Ms. Moore indicated that there were few changes to internal site design and architecture. Higher building heights have been identified that can be considered. Landscape setbacks have been made more flexible, and the City/Agency should prepare uniform street tree plans for the major streets in the area which is in recognition of the importance most of the major streets play to the Bret Harte residential neighborhood. Member/Councilmember Breiner questioned if monument type signs were discussed and Ms. Moore indicated they were not, but that it would be worthwhile to the document to have this included. Member/Councilmember Breiner asked that this type of sign usage be considered. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan opened the meeting to the public. Albert Bianchi, Attorney representing the owners of the Francisco Business Center project contemplated for Area 5 (aY & (b) , stated that they were seeking a designation of a preferred light/industrial use for this area. Mr. Bianchi then submitted a letter from the railroad dated June 24, 1985 calling attention to parts of it. Mr. Bianchi stated that reference is made to an attached fact sheet prepared by the City's Redevelopment Agency, that "City staff endorses exploring viability of retail and office/commercial uses". He said that in the fact sheet distributed over one year ago, under Recommended Development Standards, Sub -area (b) of Francisco Boulevard, it indicates that permitted uses ought to be master planned, light industrial warehousing and conditional uses, outside storage motor vehicle uses and retail sales. Mr. Bianchi asked for a consistent interpretation of what the Agency represented publicly one year ago in regard to the light and industrial use. Mr. Bianchi spoke of the Planning Commission considering this matter and that the action which was reflected in the Minutes was not reflected in the staff's recommendation, specifically that they recommend approval to the City Council of the plan with modifications. One was the preferred land use of Area 5(b) to eliminate industrial uses and uses requiring open storage and adding light industrial and warehouse uses. Mr. Bianchi wanted it made clear that the use of the open storage would be for a period of two years, but not exclusively for the use of open storage. It was meant that the property would be set aside for two years during which time anyone interested, could negotiate for either a purchase allowing a permanent use or whatever use the City would permit, or a long term lease or whatever could be negotiated. To date, no one has approached his clients with an offer to purchase any part of the property or to lease it for open storage. Mrs. Lynn Sedway, Urban and Real Estate Economist, was present on behalf of the Francisco Business Center, and spoke of her concerns regarding the redevelopment of the Francisco Boulevard West Area, stating that the policies result in a continuation of the hodge-podge of development. She indicated the plan at this point does not address economic ways to attract new MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 7/15/85 Page 4 MINUT SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT ?TING 7/15/85 Page 5 development.Concerning the Francisco Business Center site on 5(a), (b) & (c), she pointed out that the freeway retail use is a positive use, but voiced concern about the open storage in the area behind 5(a). Mrs. Sedway indicated that if it is an interim use for over five years, it would be difficult to attract quality retail and maintain open storage for an undefined period of time in that area. Indicating that there is a strong demand for light/industrial uses, Mrs. Sedway pointed out as an example the Lucas Films spinoff, a graphic company, is looking for 30,000 square feet of space. Also, a cabinet shop desires 30,000 square feet. Mr. Peter Arrigoni, General Manager for Marin Builders' Exchange stated that their Board has discussed the original consultant's proposal for this area and is in support of it, but had not reviewed the revised draft being discussed tonight. They disagree with the Planning Commission's action, which was to modifiy Section 5.22, which would eliminate industrial uses and uses requiring open storage area in 5(b). Mr. Arrigoni mentioned the businesses presently located there, stating that they are functional and have provided a reliable sales tax to the community and that there is no place else to go at this time. He indicated there should be a commitment to upgrade the aesthetics from a planning and visual perspective by the people owning those properties. Mr. Arrigoni urged the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council to recognize the importance of having open storage, and to accept the report as submitted by the Consultant. Mr. Jack McDonough, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee, stated that when the Committee reviewed the report they found that it lacked introduction material as follows: 1) It did not set up the policy outline in a way that a person not familiar with that area could understand the history and background. 2) It would have been helpful to have some rationale on why there is a breakdown on specific areas, and what the characteristics in the areas are. Mrs. Sue Scott, resident of the Bret Harte Community Association, spoke on the improvements of the Community, and suggested that there is a possibility of keeping some life blood within the area even if there are some changes made. Mrs. Scott stated that the corridor from Bret Harte into town is through the industrial and commercial area, and that if the area becomes a mixed residential use, it would seem condusive to have a flow from Bret Harte into town, and urged that this be looked into. Mr. Steve Patterson of Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, was concerned about the ultimate extension of Andersen Drive to the "A" and "B" Street areas adjacent to their neighborhood border. They understand routes are needed to transport traffic to downtown and San Rafael, but many people use the Andersen Drive extension passing various retail/commercial stores. When these become destinations for residents within the neighborhood supporting the businesses and services on the border because of quick and easy access, introducing a four -lane freeway would have a disastrous impact to the residents. Mr. Patterson urged that the final entrance be the exit point to Andersen Drive/Lindaro Street, and create a buffer zone for the neighborhood. Mr. Larry Bartholow of 53 Jordon Street spoke on the extension of the Andersen Drive in the Sub -paragraph 4, setback beautification and MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 7/15/85 Page 5 MINUTh- SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT M.,M NG 7/15/85 Page 6 drainage/assessment provisions. Mr. Bartholow recommended that, not including parcel 5, that the total redevelopment be looked at. Mr. Jim Schaffer, owner of what he termed "the only open construction storage lot in Marin County", spoke on the land use and the support of the modification of the West Francisco Plan as far as the actual tenant uses are concerned. Mr. Schaffer pointed out that if there is a demand for open construction storage in San Rafael, this land has not been used for that because there have been no applications to him or the railroad prior to him. Ms. Shirley McClung voiced her concerns on the aesthetics of the route to the Bret Harte area, and that her primary interest is in the San Rafael schools. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Member/Councilmember Russom voiced his disappointment in the plan, stating that staff and the Consultant were not given a broader scope to direct them to prepare a satisfactory plan. He indicated the West Francisco Boulevard Area is top priority for substantial redevelopment improvement, but what he sees is a document upgrading freeway frontage with everything else kept essentially as it is. He stated that there is not enough in the plan that gives guidance on how a decision can be made on the long term use of the land, stating that there is no rationale in the economic area as to what the impact would be if Agency/Council phased out construction oriented businesses; no study of potential areas in the City for relocation; no definition as to why residential use of some sort is not possible, and overall, this does not present enough information to have a decision made. Mr. Russom asked staff and the Consultant to carry the plan further and that monies be allocated to have this done before any decisions are made. Member/Councilmember Breiner agreed with Mr. Russom that the economic issue should be explored more, and added that on the item of "Preferred Land Uses" on page 18, item 9.22, a hotel is shown on two sites and suggested that there should be a substantiation and advantages as to why this is preferred and the length of time and costs involved. Member/Councilmember Nave stated that what was presented was necessary before going further ahead, and when they discussed a phase out, it was on the relocatin of the service and construction industry, and agreed that time is the important element. Member/Councilmember Frugoli stated that to be fair to Mr. Schaffer concerning his development, that if someone did make an offer to him, the City should look at the offer. Member/Councilmember Russom stated that it is crucial that the next stage of the plan not only be broken down in areas as is, but the areas should be looked at as a whole; he indicated he would like to have some rationale as to how compatible the idea of upgrading Area 7 along the freeway, for example Area 5, would be with a continued use of construction industry behind it, or, is the entire area being upgraded? Chairman/Mayor Mulryan indicated that in discussions held, the construction oriented businesses have been broken down into two categories, 1) the type MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 7/15/85 Page 6 MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 7/15/85 Page 7 that delivers such as cement and lumber, and 2) non-delivery, but people come in for those items, and this is one area this plan does not address. The critical analysis is, to what degree can those be separated, the use for one and retaining the other in a confined area. Ms. Moore replied to the comments made by the Agency Members/Councilmembers, that were discussed on the following: Rationale will be given on a broad base for the various recommendations and the economic rationale, and that within the six to eight weeks, staff could get this done with a more detailed report accompanying the document, including information along the lines of what the CAC was asking for, which is a description of that which exists, a statement of intent or goals to be achieved in the whole area in the beginning portion of the report by Sub -area, and the rationale for the recommendations made within each Sub -area. Member/Councilmember Breiner stated that there may be a built-in problem in wanting this to flow together, but it depends on what the earlier uses will be along the freeway as to how compatible other uses will be on the later developed lands. There may be a need to have some inclusion, that if A takes place, then B would be the logical adjoining use or the limit that no other type of use could be employed. Member/Councilmember Russom agreed that is one of the items missed, having some rationale as to how one area could bridge another. Member/Councilmember Breiner moved and Member/Councilmember Russom seconded, to accept staff report as an Interim Phase I Plan, and directed staff to prepare a detailed report and to come back to Agency/Council within two months on the following: 1) Broader rationale in the economic area; 2) What the impact will be if construction oriented businesses are phased out; 3) Study potential areas where businesses are to relocate; 4) Rationale on why residential usage of some sort is not possible; 5) Setting up policy outline so a layperson could understand history and background; 6) Types of uses; 7) Rationale for the breakdown and characteristics of the 9 areas; 8) Acreage of each area; 9) Staff to get costs involved as soon as possible, including whether or not a consultant's time would be needed. AYES: AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Chairman/Mayor Mulryan NOES: AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. JEANNE LEONCIN INI, Aency Secretary/City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1985 CHAIRMAN/MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL MINUTES SRRA/SRCC SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 7/15/85 Page 7