Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1984-02-13SRCC/Planning Commission Minutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 1 In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, February 13, 1984, at 7:30 PM. Special Joint Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Meeting: Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Richard Nave, Councilmember Jerry Russom, Councilmember Present: Maynard H. Willms, Chairman Robert E. Hoffman, Commissioner Richard M. Norman, Commissioner Michael J. Smith, Commissioner John A. Starkweather, Commissioner Absent: Albert J. Boro, Vice -Chairman Bob Livingston, Commissioner Also Present: Robert F. Beyer, City Manager; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk; Anne Moore, Planning Director RE: WORKSHOP ON EAST SAN RAFAEL - File 10-2 x 218 x SRRA R.-189 Mayor Mulryan stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to review jointly with the Planning Commission the important land use planning issues in East San Rafael. Planning Director Moore informed Council that this workshop has been widely noticed. The area that attention will be focused on is slightly larger than the Northgate area. There are many projects listed in the report, projects under construction; approved projects not under construction; pending projects and future projects. Build- ing Permits have presently been issued for approximately 70,000 sq. ft. of retail and over 200,000 sq. ft. of office with over 50 residences. Approved projects total up to over 200,000 sq. ft. of office - light industrial, and over 40 residences. Applications are currently pending for 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial, 250,000 sq. ft. of office, almost 30,000 sq. ft. of office/industrial uses and over 1,000 residential units. Also, there are future projects that, if the kind of land use structure used in the past is used now, could result in the development of 176,000 sq. ft. of retail, over 2,000,000 sq. ft. of office and light industrial development and in addition, 200 residences. The reason for this discussion this evening is in recognition of these developments along with current and future traffic congestion. Ms. Moore stated that the current Level of Service at the critical Bellam Blvd. intersection is well within Service D, and it is anti- cipated that it will be very difficult in the coming year prior to construction of the three interim improvements, which have been described numerous times, to maintain that Level of Service D. It is anticipated that there will be some noticeable change in that area with the opening of the Marin Square Shopping Center. There are currently approved projects, on paper only, which show that there are enough projects approved to utilize all the additional capacity that will result from the interim improvements. Several of these projects, such as the Bayview Business Park project, are very large projects (about 4,000,000 sq. ft.). It is not possible, however, to be specific about the Long Term Improvement projects, mainly because so much of the data has to do with traffic count and changes in trip generation from various land uses in the area which are new, so there has not been enough time to evaluate them for an area as large as this one. In 1982, 8 signaliza.tion projects and 12 major roadway improvement projects were identified. The signalization projects and 12 major roadway improvement projects for which the City recognizes it has an obligation to be involved in the funding, total over $7,000,000 in cost in today's dollars. There are three major roadway improvements that the City has identified as State responsibility that are currently roughly estimated to cost $30,000,000, for a total improvement package of over $36,000,000. It is expected that a. new east/west connector is going to be needed, south of the Bella.m corridor due to intensification of land uses; and SRCC/Planning Commission Ieiinutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 1 SRCC/Planning Commission Minutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 2 eventually, it may be necessary to make some upgraded improvement at the San Quentin interchange. Regarding the Neighborhood Plan detailed in the staff report, the schedule that is anticipated is that, given the amount of time it will take for the consultant selection, it is expected that the consultant will be working on development of the draft neighborhood plan from March through December, 1984, with a draft plan completed this calendar year, and ready for Planning Commission and City Council review and considera- tion in 1985. Also, as a result of its review of the final EIR and associated appli- cations for the Canalways project, the Planning Commission made a re- ferral to the City Council for policy direction and guidance as to how to process development applications during preparation of the neighbor- hood plan. While the Commission did not make a specific recommendation on what it thought should be done, their action was interpreted as their recognition that this is a very major project, and the EIR shows that there are some potentially significant traffic effects for the project, and that was the rationale for the referral. Another referral has been associated with the Wendy's Restaurant, a much smaller project, but one which is the first project which has come along since the Bayview Business Park for City authorization to construct. The Commission has raised the question, since we know it is going to take a year to con- struct the interim improvements, what will happen with Wendy's since they already have approval for all the capacity that is going to be gained with the interim improvements. Additionally, there has been significant discussion of the amount of traffic mitigation fees for all projects, which focus again first on Wendy's because it is the first project that has come to the Planning Commission after Bayview Business Park. The City has tried to be very flexible and accommodating to construction of new development, and at the same time as new information has become available, adjusted the traffic mitigation fees as necessary. This is quite a different approach to that which was used in the Northgate Activity Center plan area, where we had approximately a two year period of time when we had a processing moratorium for new development, and there were difficulties with that kind of approach. Councilmember Breiner had several questions relating to Caltrans, etc., also when the auxiliary lane would be built. Public Works Director Bernardi replied that the City is currently preparing plans for the project and expects to go to bid in the Spring of 1985, with construction to start in the Fall of that year. Councilmember Breiner asked if the project would be finished by the Fall of 1986, and Mr. Bernardi said it would. She also asked whether there has been any way available to distinguish between what the level of service might be when those improve- ments are finished, and how that would affect the level of service here. Mr. Bernardi said that it has been difficult to establish the level of service at the interchange now because of the need to try to account for the trips that are diverted from the freeway. Councilmember Breiner then asked what the cost would be for the east/west connector and how much need there would really be for that. Planning Director Moore replied that it would help the east/west traffic (not necessarily coming from the freeway), and with the extension of Andersen Drive to the south, east of Sir Francis Drake Drake Blvd. and ultimately to the north of "A" Street. There would then be a circulation pattern, with some parallels and alternates to the few routes that drivers are now using. There is no way to know how much that would help at this point, but there will be more information in the next few months as the alternate transportation package is prepared. Councilmember Frugoli asked if the connector would allow much of the traffic to go right on Highway 101 going north instead of going on Bellam Blvd., if there was a ramp. Planning Director Moore replied that what is anticipated for a crossing such as the one at Irene Street would simply be a connection between east and west, not on or off ramps, with Highway 17 or 101. Councilmember Frugoli asked if an on-ramp could be put on Highway 17 from there, and Ms. Moore replied that it is too close to the existing Bellam interchange; the major improvement that needs to be done there is to get rid of one of the three intersections that are too close together now and relocate the existing northbound on and off ramp to Highway 17 to the south of Bellam Blvd. Councilmember Frugoli also inquired about the Level of Service D. He stated that he SRCC/Planning Commission Minutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 2 SRCC/Planning Commission Minutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 3 has been going there at peak hours and other times to watch and has noticed that the congestion is around 4:30 PM for about 1-1/2 hours. Ms. Moore replied that according to the information available, there is peak traffic at Noon also, with about 90% of the peak traffic at the P.M. hours. Councilmember Russom asked Ms. Moore to define clearly the term "use by right". Ms. Moore replied that the "use by right" is the one which is allowed in the zoning district - it requires no Use Permit; for example, in a general or commercial district, a retail establishment is a "use by right". It is only a change of ownership. Councilmember Russom asked why were the 1982 traffic mitigation fees authorized by Council in East San Rafael so much lower than the Northgate fees, at roughly the same time? Was it because of the improvements that had to be made? Ms. Moore said that was true, and also because there has always been a City acknowledgment that there would be other funding sources looked to for the improvements in the East San Rafael area; State, Federal and Redevelopment, and City funding. The Northgate Activity Center Plan is based solely on traffic mitigation fees paid by new development. Councilmember Nave asked two questions. In looking at the Bayview Business Park and Northgate Activity Center mitigation fees that were set in 1982 at $890, and $1,890 for the Bayview Business Park; actually, in negotiations with the owner and legal counsel they volunteered to pay $350,000, because payment would be spaced over a seven-year period. Councilmember Nave asked if this would be used as a bench -mark, as he felt this would be unfair, especially if you had a Wendy's or some other store where the fees would not be spaced over a seven year period. The other question had to do with the density of uses in the area, and the fact that it would take away a lot of rights of the individuals who had retail store businesses, if they were obliged to apply for Use Permits, in addition to creating a large amount of projects for the Planning Commission to review. Mayor Mulryan stated that he felt this was a legitimate worry and that it will be one of the things discussed at this workshop. There should be simpler controls, simpler review to prevent the traffic from becoming so intolerable that the businesses won't work. To clarify Councilmember Nave's concerns, Mayor Mulryan asked for clarification of what is meant by intensifying the Use Permit process. Planning Director Moore replied that at the very least what is proposed is that this be considered during the preparation of the Neighborhood Plan, and the Neighborhood Plan in its recommendation for specific implementation measures would have to contain a recommendation as to whether that level of control would be necessary. Ms. Moore said that there were other ways that Use Permits could be handled, but she had not prepared a proposed zoning ordinance for consideration at this time. Councilmember Breiner asked Ms. Moore if it is correct to assume that many of the buildings were originally built as warehouse -type buildings that did not require many employees, or much parking, and as the office demand increased, it created the intensification that was mentioned earlier. So, through the overlay process of the Neighborhood Plan that type of usage could be controlled better. Ms. Moore said that this was correct and that right now there is only business license enforcement which is used whether the parking is adequate or not. With the Use Permit process, the Planning Department would have the right to determine whether an increase in intensity was in the City's best interest or not. Planning Commission Chairman Willms asked Ms. Moore to clarify that the areas that were being discussed were basically zoned "C2" and "M". Ms. Moore said that this was correct. She pointed out in the report that she was concerned about the large amount of "U" (Unclassified) zoning in the area. "C2" and I'M" are the two districts that need to be looked at. Councilmember Frugoli expressed some concern about the previous dis- cussion regarding government controls - who is going to be allowed to move into the area and who is not because of the traffic they would generate. He added that he felt the people should not be dictated to by government in this manner. Mayor Mulryan indicated that alternatives should be explored if we assume that we cannot allow all development without some regard as to when the long-range improvementsare going to be made. SRCC/Planning Commission Minutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 3 SRCC/Planning Commission Minutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 4 There was more discussion regarding the control of traffic in the area, and the revenue generated by old and new businesses, with Councilmember Nave reiterating his doubts about the appropriateness of Traffic Service D or E being the answer to the traffic problems. He stated that he would not like to see a moratorium or anything that would hold up the progress. He said that he would like to see the Planning Commission and Council work together on the criteria that Ms. Moore was referring to and to make it a base line or a guideline to learn more about the problems and the way to handle them. Mayor Mulryan said he could not disagree with that, in addition there are people who own property and want to know if they can develop it in accordance with guildelines today. Planning Commission Chairman Willms stated that this was the intent of the Planning Commission when it requested that this workshop be held, to ask some guidance from the Council. However, it is felt that some com- promise is necessary with the neighborhood as well as with the businesses. Commissioner Michael Smith stated that he agreed with Mr. Nave's earlier comment that the mitigation fees should not be based on a negotiated settlement that was made on the Bayview Business Park. He stated that he also agreed with Mr. Willms' feeling that there will be some dis- appointments by developers and homeowners for the next couple of years, but he feels that there is flexibility in looking at projects and what good they will bring for the community - traffic flow vs. gain in sales ta2i Commissioner Richard Norman stated that the problem, as he sees it, boils down to a conflict in policies and development criteria. He stated he finds it very difficult to judge the merit of projects when they have no criteria, no level of service, etc., and to try to develop on the one hand the neighborhood plan criteria, and on the other hand to have to act on a specific project which may be in conflict with what will come up two years from now, we need better policy guidance. Commissioner John Starkwea.ther.stated that he feels it is just as import- ant for people who operate businesses in the area not to have a complete deadlock in the congestion, as it is for those who wish to get to the businesses. The whole purpose of the planning process is to find some way to balance these conflicting pressures, and it is not enough to say that we should allow a lot of development for tax dollars, disregarding the problems connected with the development. Councilmember Russom stated that the remarks made by the Planning Com- mission were valid. Mayor Mulryan stated that much work has been done to help the area already, but the problem has been the lack of funds for the roadway im- provements, and added that he hoped funds could be obtained from Caltrans. Councilmember Frugoli agreed with going to Caltrans for assistance, stating it is important to establish a sequence for development. Discussion followed on the subject of funding, traffic, development, etc., and the best way to handle the problems, and most speakers agreed that a moratorium should not be declared in East San Rafael and that Level of Service D regarding traffic would be acceptable. Mayor Mulryan then invited comments from the public. Albert Bianchi, Attorney representing sponsors of the Canalways Project, stated that there is presently and potentially a traffic problem in this area and that it should be solved. Also, the City should continue to process applications as they are received; concurrently proceed to evolve the Neighborhood Plan which should accommodate pending projects; incor- porate the needed traffic mitigation fees required and identify other need; Marta Sullivan, representing Friends of Spinnaker Point, questioned Part B of the staff report regarding the overlay zoning ordinance. She indicated that there is more than a traffic problem with the Canalways Project - the height of the building, the location in San Rafael, the density of the project, and the fact that it involves a lot of development in a small area. SRCC/Planning CommissionI.jir�utes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 4 SRCC/Planning Commission Minutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 5 Ms. Golda Fredrick, speaking as a. resident of Spinnaker Point, referred to the traffic situation in the area of Francisco Blvd. and stated that it has become so difficult that she is moving out of the area, and added that many other residents of Spinnaker are also moving out. Also, she stated the Council and Planning Commission should be concerned about the Neighborhood 30 Plan, that the open space should be preserved for the people and the endangered species and wild life. William T. Bullard, Attorney representing Mr. Gilmore (franchisee for Wendy's), stated that even though he had written a letter to Council, he wished to reiterate a few points at this time. The first concerned the timing of the issuance of the building permit as it relates to completion of the interim traffic improvements, and the second to the amount of traffic mitigation fees. He stated that the timing would place Mr. Gilmore in a bind and cause a real hardship. Mr. Bullard also referred to the amount of traffic mitigation fees, and said that there is precedent at Northgate and the East San Rafael area. The peak hour trips and "captured" trips should be taken into consideration, as well as which intersections are affected, and what kind of fees have been levied in the past. Angela Wood, resident of Spinnaker Point, stated that having lived at that location for 3-1/2 years, the traffic situation is intolerable. She felt that the Canalways Project should be delayed until the Neighborhood 30 Plan has been completed. Kathy Campbell, representing the Canal Community Alliance, read excerpts from the General Plan and reminded Council that the document emphasizes growth while protecting neighborhood character. She stated that there has been much concern about the traffic, noise element, air quality, volume over capacity, and fair share traffic. Ms. Campbell stated that, speaking for the Canal Community Alliance, she was reiterating that they do not call for or support a moratorium, they do not believe there should be any amendment to the General Plan, and that developments should work hand in hand. Gil Deane, resident of Vista del Mar in San Rafael, stated that he has serious concerns about some of the arguments he heard earlier in the evening. He felt that the approval of projects is contingent upon the sales tax revenues that projects will produce, and added that he hoped Council and Planning Commission would not minimize the horrendous traffic problem that exists not only at 4:00 or 4:30 PM on Fridays, but many times throughout the day. Don Dickenson, 327 Jewel Street, speaking both as a resident and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Marin Conservation League, stated he was concerned about the issue of whether or not the City should be considering amendment to the existing public policy during the pre- paration of the Neighborhood 30 Plan. He said the Conservation League is very concerned about two of the projects, Canalways and Spinnaker, and the protection of the wetlands, a known site of endangered species. Mayor Mulryan stated that as this was a workshop, no formal action would be taken at this time. City Manager Beyer indicated that the problems mentioned at the workshop will be placed on the Council agenda for the meeting of February 21, 1984. Mayor Mulryan then adjourned the meeting. JEA E ­Vi. LEONCI l�, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1984 MAYOR OF THE -CITY OF SAN RA_FAEL SRCC/Planning Commission Minutes (Sp. Joint) 2/13/84 Page 5