Approved Action Minutes

General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Special Meeting

(Continuation of Meeting #4)

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

San Carlos Library Meeting Room A, Second Floor

6:45 – 10:20 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: Kaveh Badiei, Pat Bell, Chris Burton, Donald Cook, Cecily Harris, Suzanne Henderson Emerson, Mary Jo Hoffman (Vice chair), Joann Iwasa, Andrew Klein (Chair), Thomas Knudsen, Jason Mansfield, Michelle Margiotta, Scot Marsters, Martin Miller

GPAC members Absent: Brett McCollum

Staff: Al Savay, Community Development Director; Karen Hong, Consulting Planner

Consultants: Ben Noble, DC&E; Carey Stone, DC&E

Public: Approximately 6 members of the public.

III. Approval of Minutes

No minutes to approve; the 3/19/08 GPAC minutes will be combined with the 3/26/08 GPAC minutes.

Chair Klein stated that future meeting agendas will include a section for reports, correspondence, and general information.

IV. Public Comment

• Howard Jones, representing the Harbor Industrial Association (HIA), stated he believed that residential uses did not belong in industrial areas. He stated that businesses produce positive revenue for the city, while residences do not, and that the city needed businesses just as much as housing. He stated that the area under the HIA would not grow any bigger, and would not be sustainable if it was smaller. He was in favor of keeping it the same.
• Karen Hong, Consulting Planner, on behalf of Steve Mattas and Todd Adair, both San Carlos residents, presented Mr. Mattas’ and Mr. Adair’s comments regarding their concerns about the inclusion of the area at Devonshire Boulevard and San Carlos Avenue in Study Area 1. GPAC members were provided with hard copies of both Mr. Mattas’ and Mr. Adair’s letters.

VI. Unfinished Business

a) Brief Overview of previous GPAC Meeting #5

Ben Noble, Consultant, gave a brief overview of the three Citywide land use alternatives that were discussed at the meeting on 3/19/08. He explained that these land use alternatives could change or stay the same over the course of the General Plan Update, depending on studies done.

Mr. Noble also explained that Alternative 1 represented the existing General Plan with minor modifications. Alternative 2 introduces some residential uses on the East Side and mixed uses on the West Side. Alternative 3 focuses housing growth on the west side and downtown area, and the east side is regarded as area for job generation. This alternative also serves to implement the economic development plan adopted by the City Council in 2007.

Mr. Noble also stated that only Study Areas 1 and 2 were discussed at the last meeting. The goal of this meeting was to identify the range of alternatives to study for each Study Area. However, the Issues Bin was to keep a list of issues in view, such that even if these do not get addressed through the Land Use alternative issues, it will still be addressed later on.

b) Facilitated discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives (Study Area 3)

Mr. Noble facilitated a discussion with regards to a range of intensities and densities that the GPAC would be interested in for Alternatives 2 and 3. Some issues that would factor in included the urban feel, densities, the type of mix (eg. Residential over retail versus office over retail), urban design, height. Other issues discussed included the City’s need for revenue, and how policy and market forces could shape development. Al Savay, Community Development Director, mentioned that policies could give incentives to make certain types development more viable. The GPAC discussed how policies could also determine the flexibility of land uses allowed. An example could include a percentage cap of allowed mixed use development.

A topic of concern was change in the city – where and how change was going to happen was important. GPAC members reiterated that many residents wanted to maintain the small town feel of San Carlos.

Based on the discussion, DC&E will study Land Use alternatives that include housing, with a different outcome for El Camino Real versus Laurel Street, and also  study a portion of El Camino Real with non-residential uses.

c) Facilitated discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives (Study Area 4)

Mr. Noble facilitated a discussion on the alternatives, GPAC members agreed that studying economic impacts and revenue to the city would be important. Based on the discussion, DC&E will look at mixed uses (including offices) for Alternative 2, and look at replacing Alternative 3, which currently suggests to look at Commercial Industrial, with a new alternative that looks at life sciences research and development.

d) Break

e) Facilitated discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives (Study Area 5)

Mr. Noble facilitated a discussion on the issues related to these alternatives. The issues raised included the position of some parcels next to the 101 freeway, and connectivity with the rest of the city and other areas. Based on the discussion, DC&E will study this focus area in relation to Study Area 4, and for different uses.

f) Public Comment on the previous 3 study areas.

Chair Klein opened up the time for public comment on the last 3 study areas that were discussed.

• Chris Wuthman, a resident of San Carlos and a residential developer, commented on Study Area 3 in relation to housing. He stated that he does high-density housing, mostly transit-oriented development type attached housing. He stated that he anticipated density to be an issue here, and wished to dispel myths about high density. He stated four myths and their counter-arguments. He also stated that San Carlos would benefit from high density housing developments, and urged the GPAC not to define housing by density but by FAR (floor area ratio) references, to address its size rather than internal division.
• Bonnie McClure, resident of San Carlos, stated that she concurred with Chris Wuthman. She said she was also in favor of having a park on El Camino Real, and stated that it may also be the only place where affordable housing could occur.
• Esther Adut, resident of San Carlos, stated that a vision for the City was needed, and suggested to engage the services of a professional urban architect.

g) Facilitated discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives (Study Area 6)

Mr. Noble facilitated a discussion on the alternatives.

City Council member, Omar Ahmad, stated at this point that the FAA had invested several million dollars in the runway and that since 2 years ago, this area was designated as an airport for the next 50 years.

Based on the discussion, DC&E will study recreational possibilities, specifically access to the bay, and a bay trail, and to look into the parcels on the south tip of this study area.

h) Facilitated discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives (Study Area 7)

Mr. Noble facilitated a discussion on the issues affecting the alternatives. The discussion was focused on potentially introducing a mixed use designation (ie. Neighborhood-serving retail) to this area, connections to the downtown, the concern of ‘taking away’ from the downtown, and the development potential of the sites. Al Savay, Community Development Director, stated that the City is in a fiscal crisis and asked the GPAC to consider the land uses that would go into this area. He also pointed out the collection of building and construction businesses on the east side, and asked the GPAC to consider their potential future growth. The GPAC also noted the inherent conflicts between industrial and residential uses, and the potential neighborhood concerns, such as increased traffic through the neighborhood.

Based on the discussion, DC&E will study the introduction of mixed uses in Alternative 2 along Brittan Avenue until Industrial Road.

i) Facilitated discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives (Study Area 8)

Mr. Noble facilitated a discussion on the alternatives. The GPAC members unanimously agreed to study this area by identifying the existing industries, and looking into the possibility of introducing a specific land use designation to protect these industries.

GPAC members unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 10.00pm. There were no public comments made at this time.

j) Facilitated discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives (Study Area 9)

There were no changes made to Study Area 9.

k) Facilitated discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives (Study Area 10)

Mr. Noble facilitated a discussion on the alternatives. Committee member Suzanne Emerson brought up a list of concerns, including verifying whether some parcels were already built upon. The GPAC members agreed that more information was needed in order to discuss this study area. Based on the discussion, DC&E will look at removing the multi-family designation in Alternative 3.