Approved Action Minutes

General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meeting #7

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

San Carlos City Hall Library 2^nd 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, Donald Cook, Jason Mansfield (arrived late), Joann Iwasa, Kaveh Badiei, Michelle Margiotta, Martin Miller, Mary Jo Hoffman (Vice-Chair), Pat Bell, Scot Marsters, Suzanne Henderson Emerson, Thomas Knudsen

GPAC members Absent:Anthony Vasallo, Chris Burton

STAFF: Al Savay, Community Development Director; Karen Hong, Consulting Planner; Robert Lanzone, City Attorney; Mark Weiss, City Manager

CONSULTANTS: Steve Noack, DC&E; Ben Noble, DC&E

PUBLIC: Approximately 6 members of the public.

III. Public Comment

Robert Stafford, 1356 Cherry Street, talked about sustainability and what it meant in terms of code ordinances. He suggested to have ordinances mirror LEED certification requirements. He was interested in the question, “When will the City’s building and planning ordinances fall into line with the requirements of LEED certification?” He stated that this meant less open space & parking requirements for high density developments.

David Crabbe, 298 Crestview Drive, distributed a booklet on “Indicators for a Sustainable San Mateo County 2008”.

IV. Reports & Correspondence

Al Savay, Community Development Director, encouraged GPAC members and community members to attend the May 30^th forum on livable communities for sustainable aging, on planning for the baby boom generation. This event would be from 9 am to 12 pm at the San Mateo County Event Center. Mr. Savay also recommended a document that would be available on the City’s website, called “Healthy General Plans and why it matters”. This document contained model health language for General Plans.

There was a brief discussion on having multiple presentations made to the GPAC on a future Saturday for example, such that the GPAC could learn about efforts made by these groups and how it could affect the General Plan Update. Several GPAC members made suggestions. These groups included:

• San Mateo County Health
• BCDC (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission)
• School Board
• Grand Boulevard Initiative
• Sustainable San Mateo County

V. Approval Of Minutes

Committee member Badiei was concerned about specific wording in past GPAC meeting minutes. GPAC members had stated at GPAC Meeting #6 that they preferred to see “Based on the discussion” rather than “unanimous agreement.” Staff confirmed that all meeting minutes from March onward took note of that preference.

Motion to approve the minutes from April 16, 2008 made by Committee member Cook; seconded by Committee member Margiotta; motioned passed 10-0-3 (Committee members Bell, Emerson, Hoffman abstained).

VI. Old Business

There were no reports on items under this section.

VII. New Business

a) Presentation on the City’s current fiscal situation

City Manager Mark Weiss made a presentation on Fiscal Sustainability. The purpose was to give an understanding of the City’s fiscal situation.

1. Fiscal status & forecast: Current 08/09 budget, future forecasts for next 3 years show deficit unless action is taken.

2. Managing the fiscal crisis: Steps made to date, reductions made in City services. Mr. Weiss talked about position reductions made in Fiscal Years 2007 to 2009.

3. Factors driving the fiscal crisis: Cost to provide existing services rising faster than revenue. Many new services and programs added since 2000. Demands for new programs, service and infrastructure. Neighboring Communities have special taxes that allow them to pay for existing service levels.

4. Future options: Showed maps of local agencies with utility users tax, special tax, or high sales/TOT tax.

5. Revenue measure: Highlighted 2009/2010 Budget challenges. Does this mean the passage of a tax measure? Mr. Weiss talked about considering revenue alternatives, and the ‘tools’ available to the City Council.

Question and Answer Session

(Questions asked by Committee members, answers given by Mr. Weiss. This has been summarized and is not verbatim).

Q: What amount can a Special Utility Tax generate for the city?

A: On a broad scope, 4.5% could generate about $2 million. Other cities have done these taxes, and they’re able to do more.

Q: Are all special taxes specific use taxes? Can we design Special taxes to meet future inflation and sustainability issues?

A: This is just nomenclature. If you designate tax specifically for a use, it’s easier to pass. But the city’s needs are so broad that, given community support, a general tax can be passed, if the city designs a program to show that the money will be wisely spent.

Q: In your opinion, what are the key items we should increase in the GP?

A: The City’s downtown is not the main economic engine. The East side, with big boxes will generate more revenue. Strategies will vary with communities.

Q: A hotel site has been designated, but it seems like the market doesn’t support it. Have hotels have looked at the site but decided that the demographics don’t match up?

A: The City has had hotels look at the site, and there still is interest from hotels.

Q: How much would a sales tax bring in – for example a half cent sales tax?

A: The City’s current share of the sales tax is 1%, or about $5.5 million. Generally, people understand sales tax better than utilities tax. The City will have to do polling to see what the community wants.

Q: From the presentation, it seems that our General Fund is bust in 3 to 4 years. In terms of long term economic development, it looks like most of the cuts are already in there. Will this produce $3 or $4 million?

A: No, it’s not reasonable to expect that it will generate that much revenue.

Q: 75% of our revenue comes from the East side, with about 45% business-to-business. Would you add business-to-business on the east side?

A: Yes, we need to recognize that and protect it.

Q: How about additional fees such as business licensing fees?

A: It could sound anti-business, but it could work.

Q: What are some tools available to the City?

A: Every city has different tools – some do not have additional tax, but have a hotel for example. In order to do a general tax, must do at a municipal election. Ours is next year.

Q: Can we have significant revenue from City-owned land, for example at the corner of Holly & Industrial?

A: We must look at the economics of it as it’s a tough deal to negotiate. We need to start with land use designation for those sites. Also, the City does not have eminent domain.

Q: Looking at the next 30 years, do you have any insights as to good revenue streams and projections that you have heard of? For example, is bringing in a Target store going to help us in 30 years?

A: These establishments can change in 10 to15 years, and the City will need to partner up to ensure replacement use or rehabilitation. With the current rules in place, the game is to get Retail & Transient Occupancy Tax, because these are revenue streams that the City can control. A retail store can always relocate. A hospital will likely be there for a longer term. The City did a market analysis before the economic development plan was completed.

b) Status Report on the Planning Commission Study Session to review Land Use Alternatives

Ben Noble, Consultant, stated that there were limited comments on the Land Use Alternatives made by the Planning Commission. They asked a few questions; the only substantive comment received was from Joann Iwasa, who stated a desire to look at potential sites in the West side of the City for neighborhood retail, especially closer to Highway 280. Three members of the public provided comments: one on affordable housing, two on the process. The City Council Study Session will be on Tuesday 5/27/08.

Committee member Marsters said that based on his observation of Planning Commission meetings, he thought that entertainment uses in the City were too spread out. He stated that the City had a large Entertainment Overlay District, for example kickboxing facilities near the Landmark site, and fencing facilities on El Camino Real.

c) General Plan Update Process and Q&A

Ben Noble, Consultant, gave an update of the General Plan Update process so far. The recent GPAC meetings had been discussions on the Land Use Alternatives. He stated that ultimately the preferred Land Use Alternative was expected to be a hybrid of the three draft Land Use Alternatives; it would not have to be one or the other. After the Alternatives task, the GPAC will work on Goals & Policies. This would be compiled in the Draft General Plan.

Mr. Noble stated that it would be useful to keep this overall process in mind, as the GPAC proceeds to discuss policy questions and options. This will be a bridge between the Land Use Alternatives and Goals and Policies. This is an opportunity to talk about the policy issues that GPAC thinks are the most important, while the Planning Commission and City Council look at the Land Use Alternatives.

The consultants then invited GPAC members to state their concerns and thoughts about the process so far. The following is a summary of concerns and statements:

• Not enough time to adequately discuss topics at each meeting; unable to produce quality work.
• Suggestion: separate meetings to figure out the discussion topics themselves.
• Focus on “What we want San Carlos to look like” when discussing Land Use Alternatives.
• Jumping from Land Use Alternatives to a different topic makes the process feel skewed.
• Today’s discussion would be about bigger picture items, not detailed items.
• Since a clear vision has been established; bullet points shouldn’t be hard to come up with.
• Clarification that this would be a 2030 document (20 years).
• At some meetings, consultants are needed; at other meetings (ie. presentations made to GPAC), consultants do not need to be there.

The consultants and GPAC members discussed the possibility of having additional meetings to help balance the process.

A summary of points made by GPAC members:

• What is our end goal? What are short and long term measures?
• What are the priorities?
• What are 5 things we’re trying to accomplish?
• Go back to the vision, spend more time on it.
• Spend more quality time with a concise approach on what we want San Carlos to look like.
• Not for more meetings, but to have effective meetings.
• No need to reinvent the wheel, but have solid discussions at each meeting.
• Focus on something specific for each meeting; then tie it together.
• Not hearing enough background information or good ideas. Looking at a list of policy questions is not informative.
• Have a public workshop based on a good topic of discussion.
• Prefer to have staff present at meetings; Consultants’ and staff’s expertise needed.
• Want to hear how Consultants will bring this to a close.
• When staff and Consultants explain the process and purpose of meetings, it helps by giving a context.

Steve Noack, Consultant, stated that the group was trying to stay on an ambitious schedule at the request of the City Council. He said that the Consultants have laid out background information, and more was available if insufficient. The Consultants had also laid out 3 broad alternatives & their ramifications -- even though this was preliminary, it would give an idea of the differences being discussed.

Mr. Noack stated that large amounts of greenfield development would not be possible in San Carlos. Some ideas were developed from existing uses, or redevelopment opportunities. This was in order to establish a baseline, and then go into details and policies. This process was not at all random, and each Element of the General Plan would have very specific goals and policies, and the process would be very focused. He requested that GPAC members give it more time to see how it would come together, and he stated that the group has made good progress so far, and that the details would be examined later. Eventually, the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) would look at outcomes, and there would be feedback.

Mr. Noack stated that tonight’s meeting would be a discussion on Policies. The idea was to take a broad-brush approach and look at how to address issues that arise, in a general way. He stated that GPAC members had done a great job on giving additional policies, and that there were 60 questions that would be prioritized at the meeting tonight. These policies would be grouped by the Elements they were relevant to, and if there were conflicts of uses, that could be addressed through policies.

Mr. Noack stated that cities have had different preferences when it comes to the amount of specifics versus the big picture. He also stated that although this was a daunting process, GPAC members would have the opportunity to tailor the General Plan, and he hoped that more trust would be put into communication. In Walnut Creek, where DC&E had worked on a General Plan Update, the GPAC met in 1 year or less, about 3 hours a month, to turn out the Administrative Draft.

Al Savay, Community Development Director, stated that staff could provide the GPAC with other award-winning General Plans. He stated that staff was asking a lot out of the GPAC members as volunteers. He stated that he was pleased with the work done so far, as the GPAC had made very sound decisions. His concern was prejudging the outcome. He stated that there would be the opportunity to discuss, think about and influence the document, and asked the GPAC to trust staff and Consultants.

Mr. Savay also stated that the GPAC’s role has been expanded from only being involved in Land Use Alternatives to more, including making a recommendation of the document to the Planning Commission. He stated that producing a perfect document was not important, but a higher priority was to get the community, the Planning Commission, and the City Council to review it.

Committee member Emerson stated that the documents presented to the GPAC to comment on or modify did not seem to be fully informed by various councils and reports available. She felt that the City should use past policy documents to come up with a draft instead of asking GPAC to come up with policy questions.

Mr. Noack stated that as the General Plan was a large document, it would include more than the policies from the specific Commissions.

Item (f), Break, was moved up to follow Item (c). As a result, Items (e) and (g) would be merged together.

f) Break

The Committee took a break from 8.40pm to 8.50pm.

d) Introduction to Policy Alternatives

Mr. Noble, Consultant, stated that in response to the discussion before the break, an observation heard from the GPAC was to come with a better understanding of what they can come prepared with for each meeting. Consultants and staff will look at better ways this can be accomplished.

Mr. Noble stated that the GPAC will see a preliminary draft of the Alternatives and Policy questions before public review. The Alternatives Public Workshop will be held in July, where the public will look at the Land Use Alternatives. In other communities, DC&E had presented some policies at such Workshops to receive input. Public opinion will be sought with a “Policy Question Form”. Example Policy questions will be a preliminary testing of ideas, and the Consultants wanted to receive GPAC input for these Policy Question Forms.

Mr. Noble stated that the goal of tonight’s Policy discussion was to find out which questions were most important to present to the public in this Policy Question Form?

Each GPAC member was given an updated list of policy questions and 5 sticker dots. After reading through the list, they were asked to identify what they thought would be best asked of the public at a workshop. Then they were asked to put 5 sticker dots next to the top 5 questions that were printed on large display in the room.

Mr. Noack, Consultant, stated that input received at previous workshops will be incorporated as well.

GPAC members took about 10 minutes to complete the exercise.

Committee member Klein had to leave.

e) & g) GPAC Discussion of Policy Alternatives

The following discussion was based on the most highly rated policy questions that GPAC members thought would be important to present to the public. The Consultants went through each question and asked GPAC members to give ideas for the policy options that would be included in the Policy Question Form.

(Attached to the minutes is a copy of the updated Draft Policy Questions, which was given to GPAC members at the meeting. This updated document is a combination of the Draft Policy Questions in the meeting packet as well as additional questions requested from the GPAC members as part of preparation for this meeting.)

The following list is a summary of the discussion, with bullet points showing input from GPAC members. Each chosen policy question is listed with its question number and the category that it is found under.

Category: Community Character and Land Use:

#1. What are the best ways to maintain and enhance a vibrant downtown?

• Clean up alleys
• Turn it into pedestrian zone
• Have accessible pathways downtown, some are currently not accessible
• Accessible by bike and Segway
• Downtown parks
• Install higher profile pedestrian crosswalks to increase pedestrian safety
• Extend the downtown
• What should the height restrictions be?
• Introduce new types of businesses and facilities to add to the current mix of businesses and restaurants? (eg. Art museum, Dog park)

#8. How should the City best manage future development?

(This can mean: amount, style, and type of development)

• Sub-headings for this question.
• Should the city implement strict design review?
• Public arts, parks
• Funding of education
• Should the City manage how transportation will be impacted by future development? Eg. Should all of the development be transit-oriented development?
• Set up an Architectural Review Board (for both commercial and residential development)
• Future developers to give open space pro-rata, according to amount of new proposed development

Category: Jobs & Housing

#14. How should SC encourage ‘green’ businesses to locate and remain in San Carlos?

(Define green businesses)

• Tax breaks,
• Fast Trak (incentive)
• Marketing
• Require development to be green
• Education: offer community classes, job training
• Locate green construction businesses near existing construction businesses. Look for available sites.
• Follow the example of Redwood City, which aggregates small green businesses in one building (like a design center).
• Make ‘green’ businesses ‘Preferred businesses’ in the City.

#15. How can San Carlos maintain and grow its relationships with current and potential industrial businesses?

• Maintain Industrial zoning.
• Expedite use permits, eg. under 10 days.
• Offer incentives to keep properties maintained.
• Offer incentives for businesses to stay in the city (not just financial incentives).

#18. What kind of businesses do we want to attract to San Carlos that currently are not located in the City?

• Target.
• EDAC has a ‘list’ of businesses they’d like to bring to the City. There already are lists.
• Permanent Farmers market.
• Grocery stores.
• Restaurants outside of Laurel street.
• Businesses that create more high-paying jobs, eg. Technology jobs.
• Businesses that serve neighborhoods.

#19. What is the population growth we would like to see in San Carlos over the next 20 years?

• Zero growth population.
• Major growth.
• Adding more residents will put stress on existing services and infrastructure.
• Less residents.

Environmental Management

#28. What types of environmental programs are most important for the long term future of San Carlos?

• Encourage energy efficiency, eg. Wind power.
• Climate Action Plan.
• Green Building program.
• Environmental education in schools.
• Rising sea level concerns (hazard and infrastructure issues).
• Recycling program – can improvements be made?
• Protect natural resources.
• This Question could be tied to Question #24.

Parks and Recreation

#38. How can San Carlos provide a balance of passive and active recreational opportunities for youth, adults and seniors?

• Improved open space trail system.
• Neighborhood parks.
• More playing fields.
• Urban walkways.
• A community recreation center for all ages.
• Programs and classes, not just places.
• Vibrant parks.
• For certain developments, trigger some utility upgrades (nexus needed).
• Provide transportation, especially for seniors, to and from these facilities.
• Should have wildlife at these spots.
• Learning center about open space.

Public Services and Facilities

#46. What additional public facilities and services are most needed by the community now and in the future?

• Neighborhood gathering spaces.
• Parks and recs master plan (draft will be available after June 4, 2008).
• SCOOT / public transportation.
• Police & Fire.
• High school.
• Library (have it now, need to keep it in the future).

#50. How can the City increase revenues to maintain and improve existing levels of service?

• Target.
• Implement taxes.
• Ideas from City Manager Mark Weiss’ presentation.
• This needs to be an educational process.
• Ensure some services aren’t removed (City has its own program on this).
• Replacing some industrial uses with retail.
• Hotels & Movie theaters.
• Gauge the likelihood of these suggested ideas actually becoming reality.
• Focus on Business-to-Business.

The GPAC decided to insert an additional Item in the agenda for Public Comment.

h) Public Comment

David Crabbe, 298 Crestview Drive, asked the Consultants how they were going to cover the next 10 questions on the priority list, as they were aiming for 20 but had covered 10 questions at the meeting tonight.

Mr. Noack stated that the sticker chart used in the exercise will indicate the next 10 questions, and staff & consultants will recommend other potentially important questions. At the next GPAC meeting, consultants would be presenting proposed questions & the draft Policy Question Form to GPAC members.

Robert Stafford, 1356 Cherry Street, said he thought the fact that the GPAC was agitated was a good sign, because it showed that members were grappling with the tough issues. He stated that Walnut Creek, the example brought up earlier, was a different community, and suggested to think about how to diminish conflict in proposed Land Use Alternatives. He suggested to take up Alternative #3 because it gave the most latitude, and encouraged GPAC members to break their ‘wishlist’ down into categories depending on how much cost items would require. It would be ideal to achieve more with less cost. Some items would be costly, but in reality the City may not have land or money.

Bonnie McClure, member of the public, asked a question: “If industrial areas were diminished, what would happen to high-paying jobs?”

VIII.Adjournment

Before adjourning the meeting, Consultants gave a quick overview of what would happen at the next meeting on June 18^th.

Goals and Expectations for the next GPAC Meeting

Mr. Noble stated that discussion on June 18^th (GPAC Meeting 8) would be based on the Land Use Alternatives, according to any input given by the City Council at the upcoming Study Session. GPAC members would also get a chance to review and comment on the completed draft Policy Question Form, based on the input received tonight and additional work by the consultants.

GPAC Meeting 9 would be on July 16^th. The GPAC would be able to review and comment on the Alternatives Workbook at that meeting.

The Meeting was adjourned at 9.50pm.