General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting - Minutes August 20, 2008
Approved Action Minutes
General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meeting #9
(Held in two parts on August 20th and August 27th, 2008)
Wednesday, August 20th, 2008
San Carlos City Hall Library 2nd Floor Rooms A & B
6:45 – 9:45 p.m.
I. Meeting Called to Order
Chair Klein called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
II. Roll Call
GPAC members present: Andrew Klein (Chair), Cecily Harris, Chris Burton, Donald Cook, Jason Mansfield, Joann Iwasa, Kaveh Badiei, Michelle Margiotta (late), Martin Miller, Mary Jo Hoffman (Vice-Chair) (late), Scot Marsters, Suzanne Henderson Emerson, Thomas Knudsen, Kristen Wilsher (late), Pat Bell
GPAC members Absent: None
STAFF: Al Savay, Community Development Director; Karen Hong, Consulting Planner; Mark Sawicki, Housing Manager
CONSULTANTS: Steve Noack, DC&E; Ben Noble, DC&E
PUBLIC: Approximately 10 members of the public.
III. Public Comment
Paul Vickeiman, 2148 Carmelita Drive, San Carlos, stated that there were several high-level goals that were absent from the General Plan, namely Sustainability, Local Jobs, and Green Industries. He requested that these issues be addressed and that concrete mechanisms be put in place to address them. He also stated that an Impact Analysis was absent, which should address issues such as traffic, water, power consumption, tax base. He stated that quantifying goals would be helpful in evaluating whether goals were worthwhile. He also stated that it seemed that the plan should be changing from a car-based society to a transit-based one, and such a plan would have many long-term components. He said it would be good to see all components and what phases or stages would be needed to get there.
IV. Reports & Correspondence
Committee Member Knudsen stated that a Forum was just held on August 19th, 2008, specifically for East Side Industrial business owners, to solicit feedback from them with respect to the 4 areas covering the East Side Industrial Area. Approximately 15-20 people were in attendance, including Al Savay, Scot Marsters from GPAC, and Cheryl Pomerenck from the San Carlos Chamber of Commerce.
Committee Member Knudsen stated the general observations and feedback from the Forum:
1. Business owners were generally adverse to the notion that their land use designations might change restrictively.
2. There was a great deal of support for a broadening of land use designations, assuming that existing uses were not eliminated or otherwise curtailed.
3. There was resistance to putting any additional housing in any existing industrial area, specifically area 2 and 7.
4. There was concern from several business owners and the airport administrator about changing any designations which would create more noise complaints for existing businesses (For example, allowing condominiums across from the airport)
5. There were suggestions made about designating more areas of area 9 as "General Commercial/Industrial".
Committee Member Emerson stated that the Climate Action Plan Subcommittee has had a few meetings, and have reviewed the recent baseline report submitted to City Council last week. The Subcommittee has a set of preliminary targets aiming for 15% reduction of Carbon Dioxide equivalents from the baseline of 2005’s level by year 2020. The Subcommittee is gearing up with a list of potential Climate Action Plan elements or policies, which will be narrowed down in anticipation of a public forum of the Climate Action Plan scheduled for Sep 25th. The Subcommittee now has a blog at http://www.climateactionplanblog.blogspot.com.
Committee Member Bell stated that the Housing Subcommittee has had one meeting and will be meeting soon to come up with advice about land use and housing, versus land use alternatives.
Al Savay, Community Development Director, reported on the ULI (Urban Land Institute) Tour that was held this morning in San Carlos. About 40 people were present for the Tour. The ULI panel that visited was made up of many experts of different fields. Also present were members of ULI who wished to locate development opportunities, stakeholders from the community and members of local Committees. The group toured around El Camino Real around Old County Road, the proposed Transit Village project, around Downtown, and ended at Wheeler Plaza.
Mr. Savay stated that the ULI event will culminate in a “TOD Marketplace” event in San Francisco. The ULI will be giving a report on the City of San Carlos with advice on what the City can do as a community to have more transit-oriented development. The full report will be received in late September.
V. Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve the minutes from June 18, 2008 made by Committee member Cook; seconded by Committee member Marsters; motion passed 12-0-3 (Committee members Knudsen, Bell, and Emerson abstained).
VI. Old Business
There were no reports on items under this section.
VII. New Business
Before giving the report, Ben Noble, Consultant from DC&E, stated that the desired outcome of the meeting was to identify Preferred Land Use Alternatives for the 11 Study Areas. The Consultants wished to receive direction from the GPAC on the Neighborhood Hubs and Parks Maps. The order of discussion would be to work backwards from Study Area 11 to Study Area 1. Mr. Noble also stated that the Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions would possibly be in early September and late September respectively.
a) Report on Alternatives Workshop
Mr. Noble stated that about 115 residents attended the July 30th Workshop. Participants were broken into 11 small groups, and each group produced a preferred land use alternative map. Some groups also gave input on the Neighborhood Hubs concept and Potential Parks and Open Space Sites Map.
Mr. Noble stated that public concerns expressed at Alternatives Workshop included building heights. Some attendees felt that if future buildings were too tall, it would detract from the desired character of San Carlos. Mr. Noble stated that the GPAC was not being asked to identify the maximum building heights. He also stated that higher residential densities (i.e. 51 – 80 du/ac; du/ac refers to dwelling units per acre) can be accommodated within existing height limitations. The Land Use Element can and will include policies to minimize potential adverse aesthetic impacts of higher residential densities.
An example was the Pacific Hacienda development, which was 52 feet in height and had a density of 63 du/ac.
Issue of Height
There was a discussion on the issue of height. The points made by various Committee members included:
Pacific Hacienda is a nice representation of a higher density, but the Salvatore’s building is not. Some residents like Pacific Hacienda but not Salvatore’s.
The height of buildings at the sidewalk and the height of the building at a certain distance set back from the sidewalk should be considered.
It should be considered that the back of Pacific Hacienda is a 4-story wall.
The points made by consultants and staff included:
Pacific Hacienda and Salvatore’s are similar in size and scale, but the exterior design contributes to the difference. Pacific Hacienda has a courtyard and the building is set back from the sidewalk, there is variation and undulation in the elevation, plus landscaping, but Salvatore’s at 1000 El Camino Real does not have those features. The 2001 Design Guidelines didn’t apply to this project.
Form-based zoning can help define the heights of buildings at the sidewalk or set back from the sidewalk. Community Development Director Savay stated the committee could consider form-based cod/zoning as an option.
Housing Element
There was a discussion on the Housing Element issues to consider when selecting a Preferred Land Use Alternative. Mr. Noble stated that the Housing Element relates to the Land Use Alternatives. The City would have to demonstrate that it has identified adequate sites to meet the Housing need. The total RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) number for San Carlos is 599 units. Housing Element law allows cities to count units constructed, approved or proposed since January 1, 2007 to be included in this 599 number.
After consultants and staff looked at the current numbers constructed, approved, and proposed, the conclusion is that there are sufficient units for the Above Moderate income level, but there are more units that need to be constructed for the Very Low, Low, and Moderate income levels. The State HCD (Department of Housing and Community Development) would care about the latter, and a rule was that cities could not use their Below Market Rate regulations to demonstrate adequate sites.
Other points made by consultants:
To comply with state law, the preferred land use alternative must identify sites for 285 affordable units (which is the remaining need)
Sites for affordable units must allow densities of at least 30 du/acre
San Carlosis not required to identify sites to accommodate projected 2030 population
Mixed Use Medium Density and Multi-Family Medium Density will serve as sites. The bottom line is that all three proposed land use alternatives provide adequate sites to meet the units requirement.
b) GPAC discussion of land use alternatives leading to identification of Preferred Land Use Alternatives for the 11 study areas
The GPAC agreed to have Public Comment before the GPAC discussed each Study Area and voted.
Neighborhood Hubs Concept Map
The GPAC discussed the Neighborhood Hubs Concept Map.
There were no comments from members of the public.
The GPAC proceeded to discuss this Map. The points made by various Committee members included:
Concern about traffic and parking. This should decrease traffic overall, since people can walk to the store without having to drive. This would benefit the aging population. Parking may not be available at neighborhood hubs.
This type of use has not been allowed in San Carlos for many years. The future trend should allow people to live, work and shop in the same area.
Residents of certain neighborhoods were unhappy with the concept. Concerns included an increase in traffic as a result.
Put hubs together with the open space maps and make sure the two uses are compatible in each instance.
Discussion on modifying the concept and the map with circles.
A GPAC speaker (Dr. Ogilvie) mentioned that General Plan language could state that the store has to devote shelf space to fresh foods. If this is implemented, it could end up limited certain types of users and the outcome may not match the intention of the Concept.
The points made by Consultants and staff included:
More hubs would be better, rather than fewer, as chances for developing them would already be rather slim.
It is possible to endorse the concept by only creating an overlay, and write a policy in the General Plan that allows a Neighborhood Hub meeting certain criteria in order to get approved.
If the use has to undergo a use permit approval process, a public hearing would be needed and public input will be sought.
Scot Marsters motioned to:
1. Accept the idea of neighborhood hubs in the conceptual form, and
2. Show on the map the parts of the City at least a half mile away from downtown as being appropriate for neighborhood hubs.
Committee Member Bell seconded the motion.
Mr. Savay stated that Planners would have to come up with specific standards in the zoning. Need some criteria to narrow it down.
The motion passed 12-0-3 (12 Approved, 0 Opposed, 3 Abstained).
Committee members Badiei and Emerson stated that they liked the conceptual maps with the circles, presented in the Alternatives Workbook. Committee member Wilsher asked if the number of circles could be limited.
Potential Parks and Open Space Sites Map
Mr. Noble stated that the majority of groups at the Workshop supported increasing parks and open spaces sites. Concerns included eminent domain and people felt that there was no need to add additional pocket parks.
Since the workshop, the City Council had provided some direction on parks, and removed some of the sites included in that plan, such that the map was consistent with the Parks and Recreation Map, which was now an adopted map. Mr. Savay stated that there were some areas which were currently Single Family shown on the Map as potential open space. The owners stated that it was a land use management risk issue, and their real estate brokers said they would devalue their property.
Some Committee members asked if it would be better to not use this map and to write policies instead. Consultants and staff clarified that the Map was to help the City prioritize future parks and open space sites.
Chair Klein asked for Public Comment.
Bonnie McClure, resident of San Carlos, stated a number of parks have an R-1 designation, and residents would like it to be zoned as parks. I think it should be designated.
Committee members had a discussion on how to further modify the map.
Comments included:
Rename the map to include new categories: privately owned or open space, existing City-owned open space, and existing vacant sites.
Encourage additional acquisition of park land as it becomes available over time.
The current pocket park in the Downtown is useful, and the Downtown may benefit from having a second one in the future.This is something to consider mentioning in the policy section.
The commitment to Park spaces should be shown through proper zoning and funding, in addition to the Map.
Create policies for a floating designation instead of finding specific locations.
Show only currently city-owned Park Land and write policies to encourage the City to acquire more in the future.
The Committee members requested the Consultants to give a different version of the map.
Committee member Cecily Harris motioned to:
1. Amend this map to call it “Parks and Open Space Sites and Vacant Land” to include the following new categories: City parks and open spaces, Publicly owned vacant land, Privately owned vacant land, Privately owned designated open space.
Committee member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion passed 14-0-1 (14 Approved, 0 Opposed, 1 Abstained).
Committee Member Willsher had to leave.
Study Area 11
Mr. Noble described the Study Area and the three Alternatives presented at the Workshop.
Mr. Savay stated that the City Council had moved forward on the issue of “stacking” on Holly Street. The reason why traffic is backed up on Holly Street is because there isn’t enough of a “stacking” area at the Holly Street and Industrial Road intersection.
Chair Klein asked for Public Comment.
David Crabbe, resident of San Carlos, stated that he didn’t foresee high density residential in the area as it was already congested. He stated that lots are only 100 feet deep, and there will be problems when cars need to enter and exit.
Bonnie McClure, resident of San Carlos, stated that a redevelopment of this area needed to occur, no houses on the south side of Holly and more Park land, to create a nice entrance to the City. She stated that the lots are too shallow and hard to build multi-family.
Suzi McKee, 307 Old County Road, stated that anything to reduce the traffic impact in that area would be wiser in the long run.
The GPAC had a discussion on this Study Area. Comments included:
This was an important Gateway. The housing product type, economic viability, allowed densities, building heights, attractiveness of new development, and change in character should be taken into account in the long-term solution. Other important aspects included landscaping, connections from PAMF to the Train Depot. Go back to the original vision for this area.
Suggestion to put an overlay over Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would lower the property values of the properties behind these new potential developments.
Some Committee members felt that putting in new housing would intensify the problems in this Study Area.
Consultants and staff stated that:
Higher density would be needed to justify the investment.
The Gateway could allow for commercial uses at the corners.
Committee member Bell motioned to:
1. Put a gateway overlay in Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative is Multiple Family, Low density with the Gateway Overlay).
2. Create a gateway that is more visually inviting.
Committee member Marsters seconded the motion.
The motion passed 8-6-0. (8 Approved, 6 Opposed, 0 Abstained).
c) Break
The GPAC took a break from 8.40pm to 8.50pm.
d) Continued GPAC discussion of revised land use alternatives
Study Area 10
Mr. Noble described the Study Area and the three Alternatives presented at the Workshop. Workshop attendees were roughly split between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. In general, there was support for maintaining balance of open space and single family residences.
Mr. Savay stated that the City attorney suggested not designating land as Park to avoid the takings issue.
Chair Klein asked for Public Comment.
David Crabbe, resident of San Carlos, stated that there were some undevelopable parcels near Belmont, and asked what the City was doing to prevent those parcels from being developed. Could they be parks? He stated that the Open Spaces in Devonshire Canyon can be kept if it remains as it is.
The GPAC had a discussion on this Study Area. Mr. Noack, Consultant from DC&E, stated that these parcels were likely undevelopable due to their location in the hillside. A Committee member stated that some families had chosen not to develop the land, and asked if there was a plan to annex Devonshire Canyon. Another Committee member stated that the lots could not be developed due to county regulations or location near to a creek, and some landowners have been spending City money and time by requesting annexation. There was a suggestion to annex the land that will be become Park land and reduce the amount of time spent on this issue.
A Committee member asked what the fiscal impacts were of providing services to parcels in this area. Mr. Savay stated that in reality some services were already being provided, for example fire. He stated that if annexation occurred, the City will likely get property taxes rather than the County.
A Committee member stated that the City Council had said that this area was likely not going to get annexed into City, and asked if residents would rather not be annexed. Mr. Savay stated that if the GPAC recommended annexation, the City Council would consider it. LAFCo oversees annexation.
Committee member Margiotta motioned to:
Recommend Alternative 2 to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Noble described the Study Area and the three Alternatives presented at the Workshop. The Workshop attendees supported Alternative 3 and flexibility of the General/Commercial Industrial designation. There was concern with introducing regional retail into the area.
David Crabbe, resident of San Carlos, stated that he was against single-zoning an entire area, for example with just retail use in one area. He stated that the vision was to have a walkable City. He stated that a more visionary solution could be to have houses and parks on top of parking lots.
John Baer, of Mattison Realty, stated that a single-zone area is targeted for one user. From the conclusions of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) done for PAMF (Palo Alto Medical Foundation), there could be a loss of over 1 million square feet of industrial land in this area, over the next 20 years. He asked the questions of what that land could be replaced with, and if it was realistic to target just one use. A broader zoning and flexible land uses may be more economically sound.
The GPAC discussed the Study Area. Comments included:
More flexibility and less restriction in the land use designations preferred.
This area is heavily used by industrial uses. The area south of Howard is probably best left to the market to decide. At the East Side Industrial Forum, participants were in favor of Alternative 3 with the addition of perhaps a few more parcels with liberal zoning south of Howard and nearer to Old County Road.
In favor of Alternative 3 with increasing general commercial down Old County Road.
Concerns about broad brush designations that include commercial and industrial.
The vision is that the City can support people who live here and work here.
Suggested Entertainment district overlay on the east side allows for support uses, e.g. a small deli to support these industrial uses. Zoning allows for ancillary services.
This Study Area needs more ideas and suggestions.
Suggested Alternative to change designations to mixed use, and broaden the designations.
Some flexibility and ability to have some retail in there. Suggested a recreational overlay. New land use designations on the edges of this Study Area may produce more conflicts between current industrial uses and new businesses.
Keep the retail nearer to the freeway, and keep this area more industrial.
Committee member Cook motioned to:
Recommend Alternative 3 to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Committee member Knudsen seconded.
The motion passed 8-6-0. (8 Approved, 6 Opposed, 0 Abstained).
John Baer, of Mattison Realty, stated that 1 million square feet of industrial space would be lost on the East side, according to the PAMF EIR traffic study. He stated restrictive zoning would make it economically unviable for the owner to exit, and that economics would suggest broadening the land use designations.
Bonnie McClure, resident of San Carlos, stated that the industrial uses could likely fit there since they were mostly in that area already.
Mr. Savay stated that the Building and Construction industry produced the majority of the City’s revenue. If the GPAC wished to protect these uses, one option could be to incentivize the Building & Construction industry within the current land use designation. The second and clearer option could be to build it into the land use designation.
Comments from the GPAC included:
Expand into an overlay.
Kelly Moore and L3 take up a large portion of this area. Limiting this area will limit future development.
It may be dangerous for the City to put its bets on the Building & Construction industry for next 30 years.
As there was a creek between Study area 7 and 8, perhaps mixed use could extend from Area 7 into 8 and beautify the creek.
Committee member Badiei motioned to:
Recommend Alternative 1 with a policy that would incentivize Building & Construction uses to locate in this area.
Committee member Bell seconded the motion.
Committee member Mansfield asked if other GPAC members were interested in including more flexible uses. Mr. Savay clarified that the Planned Industrial designation was already very flexible.
The motion failed 6-6-2. (6 Approved, 6 Opposed, 2 Abstained.)
Committee member Knudsen motioned to:
Recommend Alternative 1 to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Committee member Emerson seconded.
The motion passed 8-6-0 (8 Approved, 6 Opposed, 0 Abstained).
The GPAC had an administrative vote.
Committee member Badiei motioned to:
Conclude the meeting tonight and move the discussion to the next meeting.
Committee member Bell seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-3-4.
Committee member Marsters motioned to:
Complete Study Area 6 now and complete Study Area 7 next week.
Committee member Cook seconded.
Motion passed 8-5-1.
Study Area 6
Mr. Noble stated that the Workshop attendees mostly supported Alternative 3. Supporters of Alternative 3 viewed it as an opportunity to make existing land uses consistent with General Plan. One group was split between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.
Chair Klein asked for Public Comment. There was no public comment.
Comments from the GPAC included:
Since the airport was going to be there long term, the land use designation should be as flexible as possible.
Committee member Bell had to leave.
Committee member Margiotta motioned to:
Recommend Alternative 3 to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Committee member Cook seconded the motion.
The motioned passed 12-1-0.
VIII. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
IX. Adjournment
The Meeting was adjourned at 10.00pm.
Approved Action Minutes
General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meeting #9
(Held in two parts on August 20th and August 27th, 2008)
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008
San Carlos City Hall Library 2nd Floor Rooms A & B
6:45 – 9:45 p.m.
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chair Klein called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
GPAC members present: Andrew Klein (Chair), Cecily Harris, Chris Burton, Donald Cook, Jason Mansfield, Joann Iwasa, Kaveh Badiei, Kevin Harris (alternate for Kristen Willsher), Michelle Margiotta, Chris Wuthmann (replacing Martin Miller), Mary Jo Hoffman (Vice-Chair) (late), Pat Bell, Scot Marsters, Suzanne Henderson Emerson (late), Thomas Knudsen
GPAC members Absent:None
STAFF: Al Savay, Community Development Director; Karen Hong, Consulting Planner; Deborah Nelson, Planning Manager
CONSULTANTS: Steve Noack, DC&E; Ben Noble, DC&E
PUBLIC: Approximately 10 members of the public.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
No Public Comment
IV. REPORTS & CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Savay, Community Development Director, stated that the City Council Study Session will be on October 27, 2008. The Meeting content would be shifted for Meetings #11 to #13. The Parks and Recreation map would be brought to the Parks and Recreation Department before getting recommended to the GPAC.
Committee member Marsters suggested a meeting in September 2008 to look at the entire Land Use map instead of just study areas. The GPAC agreed to add a meeting on September 17th.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Committee members made a minor correction to the Tally of Votes from the previous meeting. The motion for Neighborhood hubs was corrected as following:
1. Accept the idea of neighborhood hubs in the conceptual form
2. Show on the map the parts of the City at least a half mile south of downtown as being appropriate for neighborhood hubs
VI. OLD BUSINESS
There were no items under this section.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
The GPAC had completed discussion and voting on the following items the previous week:
Neighborhood Hubs
Parks and Open Space Sites and Vacant Land
Study Areas 11, 10, 9, 8, and 6.
Study Area 7
Mr. Noble, Consultant from DC&E, stated that the majority of workshop attendees supported Alternative 3. There was also support for regional retail near Highway 101. There were concerns that regional retail could increase traffic, weaken the city’s identity and displace quality industrial jobs. There were concerns that mixed use along Brittan would be incompatible with nearby industrial uses and that it was too far from transit.
John Baer, of Mattison Realty, spoke on his behalf and also on behalf of Paula Rossi, of 291 Arundel Rd, San Carlos. He presented boards from a mixed-use project he was proposing in the City, and talked about Initial support from Planning Commission for the mixed use project. He stated that it was difficult to build housing in the peninsula, and that it was not enough to talk about it in the Housing Element, but to actually produce housing. He stated there was a recent lack of affordable housing, and that there was no consensus on putting regional retail into this area. He stated that his project would give 150 units at 767 Industrial Rd. He asked for broadening the zoning in the three block area where he was proposing his project. He also distributed a booklet to GPAC members with background information on the proposed project.
Ben Fuller, 1035 Sylvan drive, Board member of the Greater East San Carlos Neighborhood Association, stated that he supported John Baer’s project because the developer had been doing outreach with the neighborhood. He stated that the developer for the Transit Village had not been doing the same type of outreach.
Dave Carboni, staff of the C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee, stated that the proposed general plan would need to go through the airport commission and check for consistency with the airport plans. He commented on the industrial opposite the airport land and on his concern about incompatible uses, such as residential uses. He also stated that the Commission would likely support Alternative 3.
Tito Bianchi, 52 James Ave, Atherton, the owner of 767 Industrial Road for the last 7 years, stated his full support for John’s project, and stated that it would be beneficial for the city.
Anna Karpie, 9 Devonshire Boulevard, stated that she supported John Baer’s project, as it would provide for opportunities to shop and walk around in the area.
GPAC comments included:
Committee member Hoffman stated that her group at the Workshop wished to have a hybrid of Alternatives 2 and 3.
Entertainment overlay in this area
Support or lack of support for John Baer’s project. Some committee members stated that housing in this study area would be a good idea; others were against it and felt it to be incompatible with industrial uses.
Developable and undevelopable lands in this area and the suitability of uses in this area. Potential uses include regional retail, residential mixed use. East Side business owners wanted more options for their land, as long as it was not residential.
Discussion about whether the creek could be beautified.
Some parcels abut the Hotel landmark site and need to be compatible.
Housing is potentially attractive for younger residents.
Traffic issues created by housing.
Committee member Knudsen disclosed that he owned a parcel in the northernmost part of this Study area; if a zoning overlay was approved, his property value would potentially increase.
Industrial area is under pressure from all sides, no underutilization is occurring.
Parcels have sold in this area in the last 5 years to owner-users; most of these people are not in favor of having their land rezoned to mixed use.
People who bought land recently here are unlikely to resell. Assemblage would be difficult. Retail component may be hard to realize.
Potentially transit-oriented development in this area with shuttles.
Chris Wuthmann, representing Martin Miller, who represented the Chamber of Commerce’s viewpoint, stated that:
1. SC does need a catalyst area, have been hanging hopes on the hotel area, it may not happen. Member Miller supports change that would encourage a catalyst development.
2. Area next to 101 is one of the last few areas in SC that can be developed with some height, utilizing the highway asset. It could accommodate housing development in the least objectionable way. He thinks the area that John Baer spoke about, next to the east side, seems most reasonable for residential development.
3. Suggested including a residential overlay that would be compatible with to the General Commercial zoning.
4. By giving this area more flexibility it will incentivize parcel assemblage, which is currently not happening and may not happen.
Concern about moving towards spot zoning.
Transition area suggested for this study area
Suggestion to have different uses north of Brittan and south of Brittan
Alternative 3 has the most flexibility.
Consultants and staff’s comments included:
General Commercial/Industrial designation would accommodate retail too.
Overlay zones are less definitive, and will require very clear criteria. It would be preferable to have land use policies to describe allowable land uses, which can acknowledge the potential new uses over the long term.
Suggestion to leave the area as Planned Industrial and add an overlay stating the potential in the future.
Committee member Marsters motioned to:
1. Recommend Alternative 3 to the Planning Commission and City Council, with the following change:
2. The parcels north of Bransten would remain as Planned Industrial. For this area, the intent is to recognize it as a transition zone, and the idea of potential housing and regional retail in that area will be addressed through policies.
Committee member Cook seconded the motion.
Motion failed 7-8. (7 approved, 8 opposed).
Committee member Margiotta motioned to:
1. Recommend Alternative 1 to the Planning Commission and City Council, with the following change:
2. Replace all regional retail with General Commercial/Industrial.
Mr. Noble stated that the Workshop groups were divided between Alternative 2, Alternative 3 and a hybrid of Alternatives 2 and 3. There was support for flexibility in Alternative 3. There was some concern with incompatibility of industrial and commercial uses.
Mr. Savay stated that the PG&E site was a large site and may have potential future uses. PG&E may have other plans for the site too.
Chair Klein asked for Public Comment.
Ben Fuller, board member of the Greater East San Carlos Neighborhood Association, stated he would like any new development to take the adjacent neighborhood into consideration.
GPAC Comments included:
Green Research & Development uses were good for the area.
There was currently no retail for people in the area to shop at.
Committee member Margiotta stated that the HIA’s (Harbor Industrial Association) standpoint was to ensure that housing was not allowed. The HIA wants to preserve Industrial areas. The HIA would want the most flexible alternatives that don’t include housing. A research & development designation could include a number of uses.
There should be a different designation for the PAMF site.
Mayor Lewis had mentioned before that Alternative 3 cuts the Industrial land uses in San Carlos by 50%. Three other Council members liked regional retail along highway corridor.
Use policy to determine varied land uses in certain areas, rather than in large chunks. Concerned about medium-sized startups, may be disincentived with such land use designations.
Incorporate surrounding uses.
Concern about spot zoning.
Consultants and staff’s comments included:
PAMF hospital would remain a permitted use.
Committee member Cook motioned to:
Recommend Alternative 3 to the Planning Commission and City Council
Committee member Cook seconded the motion.
Motion failed 4-11. (4 approved, 11 opposed).
Committee member Emerson motioned to:
1. Recommend Alternative 1 to the Planning Commission and City Council, with the following change:
2. The PAMF site should be properly identified with a different designation which states that a hospital use is allowed.
Mr. Noble stated that Workshop groups were divided between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Some supporters of Alternative 2 favored concentrating retail south of Holly Street, whereas some supporters of Alternative 3 liked the flexibility of the General Commercial/Industrial designation. There was concern with the incompatibility of industrial and commercial uses.
Sam Herzberg, Board member of the Greater East San Carlos Neighborhood association (GESC), stated that residential uses were adjacent to this area, and asked the GPAC to consider this area and include some transitional land in the Study Area.
Ben Fuller, Board member of GESC, stated that Old County Rd had a lot of garbage dumped there, and had a seemingly poor use of land. There were also no parks in this area, and asked the GPAC to consider green space.
GPAC comments included:
There was a discussion on the triangular area marked out in the Study area. Suggestion to remove the different designations for the parcel north of the triangle in the map for Alternatives 2 and 3. Some retail may be needed in this area.
There was a discussion on whether Alternative 1 should be pursued, or whether retail should be allowed.
City had an interest in one of these parcels, as a gateway project with retail.
There was a discussion on how to keep the residential neighborhood in mind. There could be treatment of the buffer space, which could cause appropriate change. A hybrid could be proposed to respond to both interests. Properties abutting residential properties could be stepped down.
There was a discussion on potential stream beautification.
Consultants and staff’s comments included:
For this area, it’s about FAR (Floor Area Ratio) rather than the height. Policies could state that there needs to be sensitivity to adjacent residential uses. For the Planned Industrial designation, a certain percentage of the lot area could be allotted to retail.
Committee member Margiotta motioned to:
1. Recommend Alternative 1 to the Planning Commission and City Council, with the following change:
2. Include policies that consider the fact that the Study Area abuts a residential area. In the event of new development, there should be sensitivity to this residential area.
Mr. Noble stated that there was divided support among the Workshop attendees among the three land use alternatives. There was concern with building heights, particularly on Laurel Street. There was also concern that additional housing could negatively impact schools.
Ben Fuller, Board member of GESC, stated that this area also included the proposed park for the San Carlos Transit Village.
GPAC Comments included:
High walls would block out views of the Western hills.
Keep some of the neighborhood retail.
Lack of green spaces here.
Buildings should be set back from the street front were more acceptable, especially on El Camino Real.
The quaintness of San Carlos is a desirable quality.
Consultants and staff’s comments included:
The RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) number for San Carlos is 599 units. All three alternatives provide adequate sites to meeting the RHNA housing need.
The State HCD (Housing & Community Development) Department would only consider densities of 21-50 du/ac to meet the housing need, not densities lower than that.
The higher the density, the more likely that parcels will assemble, because it’s harder for developers to do that on their own. The lot depth here is sufficient for Multi-family development.
Committee member Marsters motioned to:
1. Recommend Alternative 2 to the Planning Commission and City Council.
A discussion prior to the voting of the first motion included the following points:
Address the alley, public art in policy later on.
Suggestions of through access on some blocks to prevent having a wall face certain streets.
Suggestion to address neighborhood retail by having a housing overlay. (I.e. put housing on top of neighborhood retail and turn it into mixed use).
Committee member Burton motioned to:
1. Recommend Alternative 2 to the Planning Commission and City Council with the following changes:
2. Incorporate a “mixed use / retail emphasis” land use on parcels from Howard to Central, between Laurel St and El Camino Real. These parcels should be all neighborhood retail, and the remaining parcels would be Mixed use High Density.
This motion was cancelled.
Mr. Savay clarified that the Mixed Use designation could have housing and retail, but the GPAC could specify that there would be a retail emphasis, which meant that developers could build only retail if they so desired. Housing could be added in as well as an option. However, housing as a single use would not be allowed.
Committee member Burton motioned to:
1. Recommend Alternative 3 to the Planning Commission and City Council with the following changes:
2. Mixed use High Density would be changed to “Mixed Use Medium Density with a neighborhood retail emphasis”.
Committee member Cook seconded the motion.
Committee member Bell had to leave.
Committee member Iwasa stated that the Walgreens and Trader Joe’s that appeared at a Planning Commission hearing stated that it was impractical to have two fronts, as they would decrease available storage area and require increased security.
The motion passed 13-0-1. (13 Approved, 0 Opposed, 1 Abstained).
The GPAC voted on an administrative procedure.
Committee member Cook motioned to:
Extend the meeting to include the last two study areas.
Committee member Marsters seconded the motion.
Motion passed 8-3-3.
Study Area 2
Mr. Noble stated that the Workshop groups that discussed Study Area 2 supported Alternative 2. There was a concern with building heights. Participants liked the extension of commercial uses on east side, although there was concern it could detract from the downtown.
Bill Wilde, owner of Wilde Investments at 555 Old County Road, stated that the existing zoning worked for residents. He supported Alternative 2 because it would improve the neighborhood with additional uses. He was concerned about his company becoming a non-conforming use, and not suited for retail.
Committee member Cecily Harris had to leave.
Ben Fuller, Board member of GESC, stated that the Transit Village project was related to this Study Area. He stated that his board wished to work with the developer. He stated that they did not want a 4-storey building, 50-foot wall that backed into their individual properties. He stated the idea of stepping-back was useful for this case. He stated that height was the biggest issue and that the neighborhood wished to see 3 stories or less.
Bonnie McClure, resident of San Carlos, stated that Sustainable land use for Sierra Club, which is Working on this project too with Legacy, support transit-oriented development, have gone thru visioning in the last decades, 3 stories throughout the city may not be attractive.
Lorrayne Murphy, 930 McCue Avenue, Board member of GESC, stated her concern about the height for the Transit Village. She stated that numerous residents will be added as a result, and the building would create a sound wall that would cause train noise bouncing back into the neighborhood.
Sam Herzberg, Board member of GESC, stated that the height of the proposed developments would cause an impact to the existing residential areas.
Bill Wilde stated his support for Sam Herzberg’s statement. He stated that the impacts from the proposed Transit Village would be comparable to the businesses on Old County Road.
GPAC Comments included:
The strip of parcels currently zoned industrial, along San Carlos Avenue, was surrounded by single family homes. Instead of Mixed Use Low Density, perhaps an option would be Multiple Family Low Density.
East side industrial folks were concerned that their zoning designation was going to get changed or removed. The majority did not support mixed use on San Carlos Avenue. They would support mixed use if their businesses wouldn’t get affected.
Some stakeholders supported mixed use on San Carlos Avenue. These properties are older, industrial buildings, and financially it was harder for someone to purchase, hence Multiple Family Low Density probably was not realistic. If the uses from Terminal Way south get changed, there was no need to take away from industrial land uses.
Consultants and staff’s comments included:
With the current municipal code, after zoning was modified, a certain use could be continued within 6 months. The zoning would be changed to conform to the General Plan. There was an amortization clause for industrial buildings in the General Plan.
Most of these buildings on San Carlos Avenue were Quonset hut metal buildings from the war period, and hence a potential for toxic contamination if housing was to become a use.
There was an opportunity to have residents live near to transit, south of Terminal Way, and closer to transit.
Committee member (Alternate) Kevin Harris motioned to:
Recommend Alternative 2 to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Committee member Mansfield amended the motion to include the following change:
The area to south of Terminal Way was to remain Planned Industrial.
Committee member Badiei seconded the motion
The motion was approved 10-3-0.
Committee member (Alternate) Kevin Harris had to leave.
Study Area 1
Mr. Noble stated that the majority of Workshop attendees supported Alternative 2. There was a concern with building heights, and concern with the extension of mixed-use along San Carlos Avenue, that may detract from downtown. There was also concern that additional retail could not be supported by market.
Chair Klein asked for Public Comment.
Sam Herzberg, Board member of GESC, asked if the Samtrans parcels were identified as Mixed Use Medium Density. Staff clarified that this was so in Study Area 2.
GPAC Comments included:
The City was looking at purchasing property, to consolidate and create a civic center.
The public seemed to not be interested in high density in San Carlos.
There was not much support for Alternative 3.
Committee member Emerson motioned to:
1. Recommend Alternative 2 to the Planning Commission and City Council, with the following change:
2. In the block bounded by San Carlos Ave and Elm Street, Walnut Street, Holly street, the Mixed Use parcels not facing San Carlos Ave were to be changed to Multi-Family Medium Density. (I.e. Mixed Uses only face San Carlos Ave.)
Committee member Cook seconded the motion.
Committee member Marsters stated that the problem with Salvatore’s and Pacific Hacienda is that setback is on one side and not the other. He stated that all sides of buildings should be considered too.
Committee member Badiei thought it was important to have at least 1 area to have High Density, and this place seemed like this is the place for it. Committee member Iwasa stated that at least three Council members did not like the high density part of Alternative 3.
The motion passed 9-3-0.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Klein adjourned the meeting at approximately 10.00pm.
