Approved Action Minutes

General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meeting #4

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

San Carlos Library Meeting Rooms A & B, Second Floor

6:45 – 9:45 p.m.

I. Meeting Called to Order

Chair Klein called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m.

II. Roll Call

GPAC Members Present: Pat Bell, Chris Burton, Donald Cook, Mary Jo Hoffman (Vice chair), Joann Iwasa, Andrew Klein (Chair), Jason Mansfield, Michelle Margiotta (arrived late), Scot Marsters, Martin Miller, Carol Taylor (alternate for Cecily Harris – Harris absent).

GPAC Members Absent: Brett McCollum, Suzanne Henderson Emerson

Staff: Al Savay, Community Development Director; Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III

Consultants: Steve Noack, Carey Stone DC&E; Naphtali Knox

Public: Approximately 11 members of the public.

III. Approval of Minutes

Motion to approve the minutes from November 20, 2007; motion passed 7-1-3 (Committee Member Bell voted no; Committee Member Taylor abstained, Committee Members Margiotta, McCollum and Henderson Emerson absent).

IV. Old Business

a) Adding GPAC Meetings for Housing Element Update

Steve Noack, DC&E informed the GPAC that following the direction received from the City Council to include the Housing Element as part of the General Plan Update, two additional meetings would be added.The first would be an April 3, 2008 community housing stakeholder meeting – this would not be an official GPAC meeting, but GPAC members would be invited and welcomed to attend.The second would be an official GPAC meeting to be held in summer 2008.

Al Savay, Community Development Director and Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III informed the Committee that the City Council would be holding interviews the night of February 26, 2008 for the GPAC “Housing” Representative, as well as for the “East Side Business Area” representative.

V. New Business

a) Draft Vision Statement - Report on Planning Commission and City Council
Study Sessions

Naphtali Knox, consultant, presented a summary of the Planning Commission and City Council actions on the draft Vision Statement.He stated that the draft Vision Statement as modified and endorsed by the City Council could be revisited during the course of the General Plan Update process.As the GPAC processed through Land Use alternatives and onto goals and policies, the proposal and decision will be checked against the Vision Statement.There may be junctures where its appropriate to suggest changes or additions to the Vision.

b) Overview of Alternatives Task and upcoming GPAC meetings

Naphtali Knox, consultant, stated that the focus of this meeting is Land Use.GPAC is now beginning the next phase of the planning process – developing Land Use Alternatives.The desired outcomes from this meeting are agreement on study areas to which the Land Use alternatives will be applied and a list of preliminary ideas for Land Use Alternatives.The objective is to guide change to align with the community’s needs and desires. Developing land use alternatives is a way to examine possibilities and variations – a way to come to consensus on a foundation of building blocks on which to draft the General Plan Update. He presented an overview of upcoming GPAC meetings #5 – 7 in which the GPAC will guide this process, as well the Alternatives Workshop scheduled for May 2008 to receive public input and culminating in a Planning Commission and City Council study session in June to select a preferred alternative as a basis to proceed.

c) Presentation of Draft Study Areas

Naphtali Knox, consultant, said the City is largely built up, its mostly residential and most of it won’t change.The 10 proposed study areas were selected because they have the potential to experience land use or significant urban form changes over the next 20 years and are areas the community believes may or should change by 2030. Criteria used to select the study areas included GPAC member suggestions, public workshop suggestions, City documents that propose change, condition of buildings, proximity to Caltrain or express bus, recent development activity or interest, not an established single-family neighborhood, regional plans that envision change, redevelopment potential and site reconnaissance.

The study areas help focus discussion on areas that could change and break the discussion into manageable pieces.

d) Facilitated discussion of Draft Study Areas – Identification of Study Areas

Naphtali Knox, consultant, suggested the GPAC review each of the study areas in turn, taking public comment after doing three areas.The task for the GPAC is to agree on a set of study areas for preparing the alternatives and to agree on any boundary modifications.

He introduced the “Issues Bin”, a blank flip-chart page on which staff and the consultants would note issues brought up by the GPAC that wouldn’t be considered as part of the identification of study areas task, but would be addressed at future, appropriate GPAC meetings.

The GPAC took straw votes to prioritize the order of the draft study area discussions, taking first the area where committee members indicated a need for more extensive discussion.

Study Areas 2, 7 and 8

Naphtali Knox, consultant, facilitated the GPAC discussion of study areas 2, 7 and 8.

FT STUDY AREAS

Al Savay, Community Development Director, Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III and Steve Noack, DC&E answered questions regarding the selection criteria, boundary delineations and existing conditions of the draft Study Areas.

The Committee clarified that different alternative land uses may be considered within individual study areas.

Public Comment:

• Thomas Knudsen, San Carlos property owner, stated he believed that housing in the industrial area could change the surrounding industrial character and have negative effects on businesses there.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed Study Area 2 and directed staff and the consultants to revise the western boundary to include all of the existing Retail Core, to the western boundary of the retail commercial zone.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed Study Area 7 as proposed.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed and amended Study Area 8 by revising the northern boundary line to remove properties containing single family homes on the south side of Hall Street and to have the new northern boundary line terminate at the rear property lines of the parcels containing industrial uses on the north side of Terminal Way.

Study Areas 1, 4 and 6

Naphtali Knox, consultant, facilitated the GPAC discussion of study areas 1, 4 and 6.

STUDY AREAS

Al Savay, Community Development Director, Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III and Steve Noack, DC&E answered questions regarding the selection criteria, boundary delineations and existing conditions of the draft Study Areas.

Public Comment:

• Andrew Karpie, San Carlos resident, suggested possibly expanding the outer (western, northern and southern) boundaries of draft Study Area 1.
• Bonnie McClure, San Carlos resident, suggested that land use along the north and south sides of Holly Street between Industrial Road and Old County Road should be examined.
• David Crabbe, San Carlos resident, suggested extending the eastern boundary of draft Study Area 1 to include parcels along El Camino Real and asked if study area boundary lines could split a single piece of property.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed Study Area 1 and amended the eastern boundary to be consistent with revisions endorsed for Study Area 2 as noted.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed and amended Study Area 4 and directed Staff and consultants to examine both sides of Holly Street between Industrial and Old County Roads in this or in an additional study area.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed and amended Study Area 6 by including the entire airport property within the study area, as well as the delineated “crash zone” to the extent it may be within the boundaries of the Planning Area.

e) Break 8:20 to 8:30 p.m.

f) Continued - Facilitated discussion of Draft Study Areas – Identification of Study Areas

Study Areas 3, 5, 9 and 10

Naphtali Knox, consultant, facilitated the GPAC discussion of study areas 3, 5, 9 and 10.

STUDY AREAS

Al Savay, Community Development Director, Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III and Steve Noack, DC&E answered questions regarding the selection criteria, boundary delineations and existing conditions of the draft Study Areas.

Public Comment:

• David Crabbe, questioned why no single family residential properties were included.
• Bonnie McClure, San Carlos resident, stated she believed a Housing Study area could be beneficial and that it was a good idea to keep in the Devonshire Canyon (Study area 10).
• Paul Vickerman, San Carlos resident, stated that a library containing definitions of planning terms and document resources would be helpful in the process.He stated that professional input on land use trends could be useful in the process.
• Thomas Knudsen, San Carlos property owner, questioned why Brittan Avenue couldn’t become a major interchange and suggested it be explored for it’s potential as a gateway.
• Stephanie Bertollo Davis, Planner III, on behalf of Andrew Karpie, San Carlos resident, presented Mr. Karpie’s comments that the corner of Devonshire Boulevard and San Carlos Avenue which contain a neighborhood commercial store and multifamily buildings be considered as a study area.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed Study Area 3 as proposed.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed Study Area 5 as proposed and asked staff to present the GPAC with more information on the “Landmark” sites.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed Study Area 9 as proposed and directed staff and the consultants to examine land use plans for the adjacent properties in the City of Redwood City.

The GPAC unanimously endorsed Study Area 10 as proposed.

The GPAC unanimously decided to further amend Study Area 1 by directing staff and the consultants to include the corner of Devonshire Boulevard and San Carlos Avenue, the Church site identified by DC&E at Brittan Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas and any other possible locations for neighborhood commercial/recreation uses.

The “Issues Bin” was closed and contained the following issues to be addressed in the future: sustainability, connectivity and interfaces.

g) Introduction to Land Use Alternatives

Naphtali Knox, consultant, stated the desired outcome was for the GPAC to create a list of preliminary ideas for land use alternatives which staff and the consultants will use to prepare draft land use alternatives for GPAC review at the next meeting.He stated that ideas can be general or specific and presented some example land use alternative statements.

h) Facilitated discussion of Draft Study Areas – Land Use Alternatives

Naphtali Knox, consultant, facilitated a GPAC discussion of land use alternatives from 9:05 to 9:40 p.m.

The GPAC unanimously voted to hold a special additional GPAC meeting the night of February 27, 2008 to complete their discussions of the land use alternatives. Maps of the draft study areas as endorsed by the GPAC will be available and projected on the screen so that the alternatives may be targeted to specific areas and/or parts of the study areas.

Staff and consultants will prepare an agenda and memorandum for this meeting.

VI. Public Comment

Chris Wuthmann, San Carlos resident, presented some documents and materials for staff online publishing consideration.

Thomas Knudsen, San Carlos property owner, stated the San Carlos Marketplace is expected to generate $300 million in City revenue.

David Crabbe, San Carlos resident, asked what types of City land use maps are available.

VII. Adjournment

Chair Klein adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.