Approved Action Minutes

General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meeting #6

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

San Carlos City Hall Room 207

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), Anthony Vasallo (arrived late), Cecily Harris, Chris Burton (arrived late), Jason Mansfield, Joann Iwasa, Kaveh Badiei, Michelle Margiotta (arrived late), Martin Miller, Mary Jo Hoffman (Vice-Chair), Pat Bell, Scot Marsters, Suzanne Henderson Emerson, Thomas Knudsen

GPAC members Absent: Donald Cook

Staff: Al Savay, Community Development Director; Karen Hong, Consulting Planner; Mark Sawicki, Housing and Economic Development Director; Robert Lanzone, City Attorney

Consultants: Steve Noack, DC&E; Ben Noble, DC&E; Bill Lee, ERA

Public: Approximately 4 members of the public.

III. Reports, Correspondence And General Information

a) Housing Element Stakeholder Meeting

Ben Noble, Consultant from DC&E, gave an overview of the housing stakeholder meeting, and briefly spoke about the public comments given at the meeting on four topics: Constraints, Sites, Needs, and Programs. Comments on Housing Needs included: identifying needs for senior housing, studying the potential for new housing near to transit and El Camino Real, and potentially introducing residential uses into the east side area. Comments on Housing Programs included identifying specific actions to facilitate affordable housing development and to preserve the existing housing stock of the City. There were also comments on the City’s Below-Market-Rate Program, and that there were currently no in-lieu fees. Other comments included establishing a “Green Inclusive Zoning District”, where the developer could be given a density bonus for green development. On Housing Constraints, there were comments that development along El Camino Real was restricted, due to the location of Cowgill Alley, as well as the size of shallow lots.

b) Industrial Land Symposium

Ben Noble, Consultant from DC&E, distributed a flyer and informed the GPAC that this Symposium hosted by The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and The Bay Area Industrial Roundtable, begun a couple months ago in Oakland, with a follow-up event on May 8, to talk about benefits of preserving industrial land.

c) Other Comments

Committee member Pat Bell summarized her experience gathered at other talks, that in order to execute the General Plan Update well, the GPAC needs to look far ahead and consider potential changes 20 to 30 years later.

Committee member Cecily Harris mentioned current efforts undertaken by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The Administrative Draft for the Master Plan for Parks, Open Space, Buildings, and other Recreational Facilities was recently released, and the full draft would be available on the first Wednesday of June (6/4/08). Ms. Harris recommended GPAC to take a look at it.

Committee member Scot Marsters stated that he had recently attended a Parks & Recreation meeting, and also a meeting on the Economic Development Plan. At these meetings, there were properties that were being considered by both groups, and also some properties that were being looked at for multiple uses.

Committee member Anthony Vasallo stated that the Youth Advisory Council had set up a Skate Park Committee, but had been mostly unsuccessful for the last few years. There were no places for youths to skate, and he asked if this could be incorporated into the General Plan Update. City Attorney Bob Lanzone stated that the City could have a skate park, legally and liability-wise. He also suggested that feedback should go both ways with regards to issues such as the skate park, Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

IV. Public Comment

• Robert Stafford, 1536 Cherry Street, stated that the city should be congratulated on having an inclusive process. He suggested to look at how policies were creating incentives or disincentives for high density development. He stated that currently, there was no incentive to assemble lots. He suggested to look at bonuses for a “Green Inclusive Zoning District”, and to examine the success of the Below Market Rate policies.

V. Approval Of Minutes

Motion to approve the minutes from February 20, 2008 made by Committee member Scot Marsters; seconded by Committee member Kaveh Badiei; motion passed 12-0-2 (Committee Members Harris, Bell abstained).

VI. Old Business

a) Answers to Brown Act questions

City Attorney Bob Lanzone handed out copies of the Brown Act.

Mr. Lanzone stated that emailing among GPAC members would not be public record. However, if conversations were emailed to City staff, those would become public record. If GPAC members emailed the majority of GPAC, that would also become public record because of participation by the majority.

Bob Black, a member of the public asked how the Brown Act affected non-members contacting GPAC members, and Mr. Lanzone stated that citizens had the right to discuss with their legislators.

VII. New Business

a) Review of modified schedule for Alternatives Task

Ben Noble, Consultant from DC&E, reviewed the modified Alternatives Task Schedule, and discussed the feasibility of the meeting dates. As the discussion to select a preferred land use alternative on the July 30, 2008 meeting date could take more than one meeting, there is the likelihood of having another meeting in August to complete the discussion.

b) Presentation of Revised Land Use Alternatives and Draft

Build-out Analysis

Ben Noble, Consultant from DC&E, stated that based on the discussions at the last two GPAC meetings of March 19 and March 26, DC&E had gone back to modified the Land Use alternatives, and were presenting the changes today.

Mr. Noble first highlighted three changes made that were not from direction given by the GPAC:

1. New Study Area 12

DC&E thought it would be best to separate the study areas in the hills from the rest of the areas into Study Area 12. (These three areas are: Dartmouth Ave and San Carlos Avenue, Devonshire Boulevard and San Carlos Avenue, Brittan Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas.)

2. Minor Modifications

In Alternative 1, which is what the General Plan allows with minor modifications, DC&E noted some existing multi-family uses in the block that included City Hall, and corrected the land use map.

3. Conceptual Park Plan

DC&E had made a substantial change by drawing up a conceptual Park Plan, in order to show the locations of potential new parks and sites that may be appropriate for future parks, without labeling these parcels with a park land use designation, which would diminish the economic value of property. If a developer were to submit a proposal in the future for a parcel in the Park Maps, the City could consider whether it wants to acquire this parcel as a park and buy the land at market value prior to accepting the application. This way, the plan would not restrict development through designation, but rather allow more potential options for parks.

Committee members Marsters and Harris noted some areas on the map that could be marked as a potential park, or needed confirmation. These areas included:

• Area south of Arroyo Ave along El Camino Real (potential)
• Corner of El Camino Real and Holly Street, empty lot next to the Shell station (potential)
• A couple parcels along Laurel Street (confirmation)
• Property next to Tiera Linda School (confirmation)
• Increase in size of Chilton park (potential)
• Green areas outside of city limits, near Cranfield/Shratton area (potential)
• PG&E site (confirmation)
• Site across Industrial Road from PAMF site (confirmation)
• Railroad Spur at Bransten/Commercial (confirmation)
• Site along 101, near Tanklage Rd (confirmation)

Committee member Mansfield noted that schools may have impervious surfaces, but are considered open space.

Mr. Noble then presented the Draft Buildout Analysis. Staff and consultants had identified methodology, assumptions, and identified sites that had development potential, up to 2030. Mr. Noble asked if the GPAC saw any further revisions to these analysis results.

c) Overview of 2006 Real Estate market Study

Presentation by Bill Lee

William (Bill) Lee, of ERA (Economic Research Associates), then made a presentation of the Real Estate Market Study done in 2006. Bill has been doing market research since 1988 in San Carlos.

Retail Market

Mr. Lee’s major conclusions from the Market Study were that San Carlos had the demand for about a half million of retail square feet over the next 20 years. Mr. Lee showed diagrams reflecting the composition of different types of retail for the Downtown and the East side. Typically, smaller shops and restaurants were expected in Downtown, whereas retail stores with bigger floor-plates were expected on the East side.

Office Market

The demand for the Office market for the next 20 years was estimated at between approximately 300,000 to 500,000 square feet. For R&D (Research and Development), the demand was approximately at 400,000 to 450,000 square feet over the next 20 years. Biotech, as a subset of R&D, adds up to about half of R&D demand. The Hotel market outlook is more site-specific; ERA estimates that about 3 mid-size hotel properties can be absorbed by San Carlos.

Fiscal Implications

Mr. Lee also discussed some fiscal implications. He stated that there are two major types of industrial firms that existed in San Carlos – one being construction-supported industries, a very viable sector that generates about 30% of the City’s sales tax, and the other is traditional manufacturing, which is going away over time. Mr. Lee stated that there is a tendency for building and construction companies to cluster, and this gives it a regional competitive advantage. It is also a blue-collar job generator.

Mr. Lee stated that a major concern about the City’s fiscal future was to increase the tax base. Two ways were to bring in more retail and hotel uses. Mr. Lee stated that there is enough retail demand to have the corridor between Highway 101 and Industrial Road absorb retail uses over time. The advantages would include visibility and access from the freeway, without bringing traffic through town, without competing with retail downtown, and the ability to fund local services through sales tax. Mr. Lee stated that it would be wise to reserve sites for hotel sites from the City’s fiscal perspective, as Transient Occupancy Tax from hotels could go into the General Fund.

Strategies

Mr. Lee then stated four strategies for the GPAC to consider:

Strategy 1: Reinforce construction-related businesses on the East side.

Strategy 2: Reserve the Industrial road and Highway 101 Corridor for revenue-generating land uses.

Strategy 3: Consider the long term conversion of Shoreway Road area to biotech uses.

Strategy 4: Redevelop Wheeler Plaza to serve long term community interests.

Mr. Lee mentioned a trade-off to consider. Biotech would bring high-paying jobs, but may pre-empt hotel and retail uses, which generate sales tax.

The Buildout analysis showed that Alternative 3 would contribute the most to the City’s revenue, however, services have a correlation to population, and hence Alternative 3 would also be high in costs to the City. Alternative 1 would tend to be lower in both revenue and costs.

d) Questions for Bill Lee and GPAC discussions of fiscal issues associated with Land Use Alternatives

Q: How do mostly residential cities such as Atherton maintain their revenue without much commercial development?

A: Example: City of Piedmont, where a majority of voters pass parcel tax – one for the municipality, and one for local schools.

Q: Would planning for an increasing amount of retail mean a negative impact on the city, should the retail market take a downturn?

A: Given San Carlos’ location and demographics, this analysis was realistic.

Q: How much retail would be needed to keep up with the demand in services, and to keep the fiscal conditions of the City balanced?

A: (given by Al Savay, Community Development Director) The City was currently in a state of deficit. As an estimate, the City would need about 5 or 6 new sales tax generators each roughly equivalent to the amount generated by the new San Carlos Marketplace (not including Best Buy).

Q: Are the suggested scenarios realistic, given the understanding that a high success factor is required in order to begin addressing the city’s fiscal situation?

A: The demand numbers are achievable in a 20-year timeframe. Given the typical ups and downs of a cycle, there is a good chance that the levels of retail development described in these scenarios are achievable. City budgets also vary yearly. Having run analyses on municipal revenues and costs, Mr. Lee’s conclusion is that revenues would ultimately determine the costs.

Q: Which land use would produce the greatest revenue stream, from the projections for retail, office, R&D, etc.?

A: Retail and hotels would produce the bigger revenue streams. Offices & R&D would generate less revenue, but would bring in more jobs, hence increasing the demand for retail and restaurants. Hence, if a city were planning to generate revenue, it would look more to retail than office or R&D, and in San Carlos’ case, the business-to-business construction industry would generate revenue similar to retail.

Q: Are there benefits from mixed use, since the Committee had been discussing mixed uses, and the day-time and night-time uses of land?

A: It would not be wise to “over-zone” land for mixed use, to ensure the success of the retail on the ground floor, for example.

Q: Is the key was to incentivize land owners to sell and assemble parcels?

A: (given by City staff Mark Sawicki, Al Savay, and Bob Lanzone) Both the Redevelopment Agency and the City had eminent domain powers to take private property, but only for public use.

Q: Are businesses in east bay moving out to valley?

A: This was more a trend in the 1980s and 1990s, but was not so much the trend today.

Other Comments by Bill Lee

Mr. Lee confirmed that approximately 75% - 80% of the City’s sales tax came from the East Side. Construction and Building supply industry accounted for about 30% of the City’s total sales tax (considering only business-to-business cases, not including tenants such as Home Depot).

Mr. Lee commented on the suggestion brought up at a previous GPAC meeting, on bringing residential land uses into the industrial east side. He stated that the feeling of intrusion could cascade over time, as residents would have concerns about noise, trucks, pollution, etc. To answer the question if live-work industrial was possible, Mr. Lee stated that this was a more likely scenario in an industrial area, rather than a residential area. Steve Noack, Consultant from DC&E, said that this scenario would probably occur in a confined loft space with a limited floorplate.

d) Break

The Committee took a break from 8.35pm to 8.50pm.

e) Continued discussion of Draft Land Use Alternatives and build-out analysis

With regards to the Buildout analysis and assumptions, Mr. Noble explained that the analysis is based on the County Assessor’s data. There were many assumptions built in, and these assumptions could be further defined, hence changing the precise buildout numbers.

Mr. Noble also explained that the three Land Use alternatives would eventually be presented to the City Council, and a hybrid would be chosen.

Study Area 11

There was a brief discussion on the Study Area 11 for Holly Street. Committee member Marsters asked the consultant to explain the ‘Gateway Overlay District’ shown in Draft Alternative 3, and suggested the consultant could come up with another new alternative for this area. Mr. Noble explained that it was not so appropriate to discuss road re-alignments under the Land Use category, and that the overlay would be used to ensure that issues were adequately addressed. The overlay would allow policies to implement actions over a certain period of time. Other Committee members discussed the possibilities of creating multi-family housing and consolidating lots.

Densities

Mr. Noble stated that the labels for densities have changed since the last GPAC meeting. “Urban core” has been renamed to “high density”, and “high density” has been renamed to “medium density”, which is a new category. The densities themselves are the same, only their labels are different.

School

The Committee members brought up the issue of a potential high school. Other committee members supported the idea and discussed the importance of having a local high school and its priority over parks. Other related issues discussed included lot assemblage, the potential lack of sites, public land, and the school district’s role.

Mr. Noack, Consultant from DC&E, stated that the General Plan could encourage the setting up of a school.

Study Area 10

Mr. Noble clarified the Alternatives for Study Area 10: Alternative 1 showed that there would be no change from the existing General Plan. Alternative 2 encouraged mixed use, and showed less housing focused on the west side. The density would be low, at about 3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Alternative 3 showed housing growth concentrated on the west side, and would allow a slightly higher density of 6 du/ac.

In this Study Area, the previous open space designation was taken out and put into the Conceptual Park Plan to avoid affecting land value.

Study Area 8

There was a brief discussion on the Land Use designation to protect Building and Construction industries. However, these designations for the General Plan Update are currently more general compared to the Economic Development Advisory Committee’s efforts.

Other

Chair Klein stated that he thought a hybrid of Alternatives 1 and 3 should ultimately go to the City and residents, as the majority of San Carlos residents he had spoken to didn’t want to see an influx of population that drives service prices up, but rather an influx of industrial commercial areas which increase sales tax.

Committee Member Iwasa stated a previous request for more neighborhood retail closer to Highway 280, and if DC&E would consider adding more suitable parcels to Study Area 12, or perhaps make this part of a wish-list.

Chair Klein suggested to move item (f) “Facilitated Discussion of Issues” to after Public Comment. Other Committee Members agreed to do so.

VIII. Public Comment (inserted before V. f)

David Crabbe, 289 Crestview Drive, said that the projection of jobs versus housing sounded imbalanced, and that it would seem to increase traffic from other places to San Carlos. He also stated that a consequence of attempting to increase sales tax may be low income jobs and low income housing, and that the discussion on housing seemed to be inadequate in his opinion. On the issue of parks, Mr.Crabbe asked if there was a way to show a map to show the City’s interest, but would not affect the current owner or potential buyer. issue,

Robert Stafford, resident of San Carlos, stated that there seemed to be a societal move away from retail therapy due to the proliferation of online consumerism, and stated that retail would not be so favorable. He suggested to everyone Richard Florida’s books on ‘The Creative Class’ concept. He also stated that a ‘sustainable community’ meant people who worked here and lived here.

Chris Wuthman, resident of San Carlos, said he thought that Bill Lee came tonight to speak because of the City’s fiscal crisis. As an update would be given to the Planning Commission soon, he suggested an addition to the Buildout analysis, to assimilate what Mr. Lee has presented, to calculate ‘Net fiscal impacts’, based on assumptions.

Committee Member Emerson commented on Study Area 12 that if the goal in having these pockets was to have small retail pockets within walking distance of residents, she was concerned that “Mixed Use Low Density” would allow the construction of apartment complexes that would not necessarily include the intended retail. Committee Member Scot said that Mixed Use would imply ground-floor retail. Mr. Noack, Consultant from DC&E, said that the General Plan needed to be broader than zoning details.

Committee Member Bell had to leave.

V. f) Facilitated discussion of issues for alternatives analysis

Mr. Noble stated that staff & consultants would prepare a qualitative analysis of each of the key issues and concerns, and that the GPAC would see this before it was presented to the public in the form of a workbook. The public would get to consider these alternatives and participate meaningfully at the workshop. These issues would need to be identified clearly. So far, meetings have touched on some of these issues.

Based on previous meetings, the consultants had gathered two ideas that they felt were important to analyze:

1. Aesthetics – what is our community going to look like in terms of the built environment (including height).

2. Fiscal impacts – what are the costs to the city, and the tax revenue generated.

Mr. Noble said that the goal was to identify about 4 or 5 key issues. The following in bold denotes the list of issues identified by Committee Members.

• Schools
• Parks
• Population
• Balance of issues
• Sustainability: Consider future trends, public transportation, alternative energy
• Businesses and places of leisure that appeal to the youth.
• Circulation: Flow of people, Parking

Al Savay, Community Development Director, stated that the General Plan’s Circulation Element, was recently updated, and would not be updated this round, as it was assumed to take on a significant amount of development.

• Safety in relation to circulation

A few Committee Members stated that they wished to gain a greater comfort level with the basic Vision and the basic question of “What kind of community do we want to build?”, as a foundation to more discussions, and in order to address the big picture in a coordinated way.

• Vision
• What kind of community do we want to build?
• Big Picture

Committee Members Knudsen and Harris had to leave.

• Aesthetics and neighborhood character (ie. Urban Design)
• Quality of life (including schools, parks, public spaces)

IX. Adjournment

At approximately 10.20 pm, Chair Klein adjourned the meeting.