General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting - Minutes October 15, 2008
APPROVED ACTION MINUTES
General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meeting #11
Wednesday, October 15, 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), Pat Bell, Chris Burton, Donald Cook, Suzanne Henderson Emerson, Cecily Harris, Kevin Harris, Mary Jo Hoffman, JoAnn Iwasa, Chris Kolling (Alternate), Thomas Knudsen, Jason Mansfield, Michelle Margiotta (late), Scot Marsters, Martin Miller (late)
GPAC MEMBERS ABSENT: Kaveh Badiei
STAFF: Al Savay, Community Development Director; Lauren Mattern, Consulting Planner
CONSULTANTS: Steve Noack, DC&E
PUBLIC: Approximately 6 members of the public.
CITY OFFICIALS IN ATTENDENCE:
Rich Cinfio, Police Commander; Chris Valley, Building Official; Jim Palisi, Fire Marshal; Christy Adonis, Emergency Services Coordinator for San Carlos from the South County Fire Authority; Robert Weil, Public Works Director.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public contributed the following comments:
• Bob Black, 585 Dartmouth Avenue, suggested considering glare of lights at night, which can reduce safety. He also recommended lighting with reduced glare.
• Bonnie McClure, 128 Northam Avenue, requested public comment after each section of the element and Chair Klein granted this request.
• One East Side neighbor, referring to a specific development idea, expressed outrage at the possibility of removing a row of houses in favor of high density houses, voicing concern that eliminating housing would disrupt social fabric.
2
• Another East Side resident spoke about the same potential project, particularly the apparent swiftness with which the project arose and how it would impact surrounding property value.
IV. REPORTS & CORRESPONDENCE
Member Emerson reported on the recent Climate Action Plan Public Workshop, noting that nearly all of the action ideas were welcomed warmly by participants.
Member Bell reported on the Housing Subcommittee, which is waiting the gathering of data. Three core values were developed at the last meeting; one of them is protecting neighborhoods. On 10/23/08, Threshold 2008 is holding an interactive and educational session about housing issues. This regional effort surveys citizens and then educates the public about housing issues in order to gain well-grounded opinions.
Member Mansfield noted that the report from the Transit Oriented Development Marketplace Tour by the Urban Land Institute would be presented in early November.
(Margiotta arrives 7pm; 13 voting members are present)
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Iwasa presented a few minor corrections to GPAC Meeting 9 Draft Minutes.
Member Cook moved to accept the minutes from Meeting 9; Iwasa seconds; 12 in favor, 1 abstains; minutes approved.
Member Emerson presented a minor correction to GPAC Meeting 10 Draft Minutes.
Member Cook moved to accept the minutes from Meeting 10; Hoffman seconds; 10 in favor, 3 abstain; minutes approved.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
There were no reports on items under this section.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
(Miller arrives 7:06 pm; 14 voting members are present)
3
Presentation on Planning Commission Recommendations &
Next Steps
Consultant Steve Noack presented Planning Commission recommendations to the
General Plan Draft Land Use Map. Major recommendations included:
• Changes to Study Areas 1, 2 and 11
• Study area 1: New Features: Added Mixed Use, High Density (60-80 DUs/Ac)
• Study area 2 new features: Changed parcels along west side of El Camino Real between Hull Street and Oak Street from Mixed Use, Low Density to Mixed Use, Medium Density
• Study area 11 new features: Expanded study area to include parcels on the south side of Springfield Ave coterminous with the parcels north of Holly Street
• Increased density of Mixed Use, Medium Density to 21-59 DUs/Ac from 21-50 DUs/Ac
• Increased density of Multiple Family, Medium Density to 21-59 DUs/Ac from 21-50 DUs/Ac
Next steps include:
• City Council selection of preferred land use alternative (October 27, 2008).
• Preparation of goals and policies for the following General Plan elements:
community safety, noise, land use, housing, environmental management, and parks and recreation.
• Public review of Draft General Plan in Spring 2009
• Draft Environmental Impact Report in Spring/Summer 2009
• Final General Plan in fall 2009.
Discussion:
Committee Members inquired about specific materials to be presented to the City Council. Community Development Director Savay reports that the updated Draft Preferred Land Use Alternative (from the Planning Commission session) will be presented at the City Council meeting, but that it will be clear at the meeting the work GPAC did and how the maps have changed. Various members expressed concern about exactly what the City Council will see and whether or not it would include the entire GPAC body of work. Mr. Savay responds that package is in progress and Chair Klein says the Council will receive the GPAC minutes. Members express concern that if they do receive lots of material, it may still be too much to digest. Mr. Savay says there will be an explanation in their staff report and the materials will be in the packet. Member Knudsen expressed concern about special interests changing parts of the General Plan at the City Council meeting. Chair Klein and Mr. Noack said members can comment as public at the City Council meeting and that the whole package will go back in front of City Council as a single package for final approval.
4
Presentation Continues: Overview of Goals and Policies
Mr. Noack continued his presentation by reviewing the process of developing goals and policies: a guiding principle is a broad statement summarizing the value for each element, a goal is the desired outcome the City seeks through implementation of the element, a policy guides decision-making to achieve a goal, and an action is a program, implementation measure, procedure or technique used to achieve an objective
Discussion:
Public Works Director Weil asked if the actions are going to be fiscally constrained. Member Marsters and Member Bell inquired about the logic of the organizing relationship of goals and policies; one Member wondered if there should be at least one action for each policy. Mr. Noack suggested GPAC look at best-case scenarios; all items under consideration should be included in the document so that in case funds eventually do become available, the document becomes the blueprint for the future. Regarding the policy and action arrangements, he suggested broader policies are important to remind the City of where it is going, even if actions are not agreed upon in the future. These policies can continue to influence day-to-day actions.
Community Safety Element
Mr. Noack suggested the Committee go through revisions to all goals, policies and actions and vote on the document at the end rather than voting on each section. The written policy contains suggestions from consultants, recommendations from City officials, and some content from the previous General Plan.
Goal 1: Continue effective emergency response procedures to ensure public
safety in the event of natural or man-made disasters.
During public comment, Bonnie McClure inquired as to whether fiscal constraints influenced Action 1.7 listing mere suggestions rather than requiring actions.
Summary of policy discussion points:
• Policy 1.1 was altered after discussion about the meaning of the term “display leadership”; “take a proactive role” was added to clarify. Discussion included consideration of a natural disaster preparedness certification process. The ideawas well supported but it was determined that this type of voluntary program may not be appropriately tied into existing policy, since department policies do change. A related action is added.
• Policy 1.3: Members discussed whether or not the policy should specify a physical location of the back-up Emergency Operations Center (EOC). City staff informed that the location has not been identified because of considerations about what it would be in case of the type of disaster. Members decided to add that the backup EOC should be “fully functional”.
(Member K. Harris leaves; Member Kolling now assumes voting status; 14 voting members present.)
5
• Policy 1.7: a typo is corrected so correction version reads, “Support the efforts of neighborhood and civic organizations to prepare for disasters if City resources are not available”.
• Policy 1.8 was adjusted to specify the types of emergency preparation to be identified and developed for special needs populations, including communication systems, evacuation methods, and shelter locations”.
• Policy 1.9: A typing error was corrected.
• Policy 1.10’s intent was clarified as to apply to first responders.
• Policy 1.12 was added in order to add measurable goals: “Develop a procedure to quantify community emergency preparedness levels”.
Summary of action discussion points:
• Action 1.3 stirred several points of discussion, including whether or not the simulation should be “full scale”, the relevant definition of “regional” and alternate meaning of the term “biannual”. It was determined the term “full scale simulation” may not be relevant to the needs of San Carlos. The edited Action reads,
“Participate in regional disaster event simulations semi-annually by using the primary EOC and methods for implementing a back-up EOC”.
• Action 1.4 was altered to be more direct in establishing a shared EOC.
• Action 1.6 was altered to encourage a volunteer program for emergency training after it was determined a mandated training could expose the City to undue risk.
• Action 1.7 was discussed in terms of the feasibility of staffing the specified program. The specific program was removed to make the policy more general and flexible over time.
• Action 1.8 was altered to leave room for certain community awareness and education programs for residents to be identified before the programs to address them are developed.
• Action 1.9 was altered for minor clarifications.
• Action 1.12 was added to.
(Member Kolling leaves, now 13 voting members present)
The meeting breaks for five minutes at 8:39.
Procedure in navigating the goals, policies, and actions is modified; comments on each goal will be considered as a whole.
Goal 2: Reduce the potential loss of life, injury, and property damage due to seismic and geologic hazards.
During public comment, Bob Black expressed concern about terminology difference between goal and policy being clear, wondering which one was meant to be action oriented. Summary of policy and action discussion points: nearly all of the alterations made under Goal 2 were minor semantic changes; many involved adding temporal prepositions to more accurately reflect what city departments were already doing.
6
Goal 3: Protect lives and property from risks associated with fire-related emergencies (altered).
During public comment, Bonnie McClure stated some San Carlos streets are narrow and have no parking on one side; she suggests possibly investigating to see which narrow streets are left, concerned about whether or not a fire truck can actually get through in case of emergency. During discussion of the language of Goal 3, it was altered to address “fire-related emergencies” rather than specifying the types of fire-related emergencies, so as not to exclude consideration of other types.
Summary of policy discussion points:
• Policy 3.1: Language was clarified.
• Policy 3.4: Was edited to be clearer about the type of response time.
• Policy 3.5: Language was clarified.
• Policy 3.6: Minor language adjustment.
• Policy 3.7: Language was clarified.
• Policy 3.11: Grammar edits.
Summary of action discussion points:
• Action 3.4: A grammar edit was made. There was discussion about whether or not to broaden the action to apply to other gates; however it was determined the Crestview Drive/Hallmark Drive gate is of particular interest.
• Action 3.5: This action was newly added and reads, “Assure that streets and egress gates provide adequate width to allow for emergency vehicle ingress and egress.”
Goal 4: Reduce hazards associated with flooding or inundation.
There was no public comment on Goal 4. Under general committee discussion, Member Bell noted she was pleased to see discussion of the riparian corridor habitat and permeable paving.
Summary of policy discussion points:
• Policy 4.2 was altered to be more specific and reads, “Maintain a healthy riparian corridor in City-maintained flood control channels to reduce the risk of flooding due to erosion, siltation, blockage and heavy undergrowth.”
• Policy 4.3 was edited to refer specifically to the Streambank Development and Maintenance Ordinance.
• Policy 4.8: Minor grammar edit.
• Policy 4.10: was edited to as not to be limited by certain regional arrangements or specific existing standards of measurement. It reads, ‘Reduce repetitive losses due to flooding by appropriate means”.
7
• Policy 4.11: was edited to refer specifically to rising sea levels, whereas previously it had not specified the types of hazards associated with global warming the policy meant to address.
Summary of action discussion points:
• Action 4.1 & the previous Action 4.6 were merged so as to avoid repetition; now forming Action 4.1, they outline preparation of a Watershed Management Plan.
• Action 4.2 was edited to refer to a specific existing policy, the Streambank Development and Maintenance Ordinance.
o Action 4.3: the content was edited and rearranged among other actions; final action reads, “Develop preferred stream bank stabilization methods, which would guide private property owners in making repairs”.
o Action 4.7: was edited to be more specific about drainage measures to be undertaken.
o Action 4.8 was added, “Initiate flood insurance rate map revisions for city projects, when appropriate.” This Action was brought up after discussion of accuracy of FEMA flood insurance maps. Member Mansfield noted that the questionable accuracy of these maps, due to grade separation projects, is a reoccurring issue for the City. Upon discussion, it seemed that although addressed in the policy section, and action item was also appropriate. Although it is within Federal jurisdiction, the city could initiate the map revision process (referred to as a Letter of Map Revision or LOMAR).
o Additional discussion:
�� Member Knudsen mentioned issue with coordination with Caltrans, for example in industrial area where flooding is linked to lack of maintenance of fronting properties. There is a desire to mentioned coordination with Caltrans somewhere, though the appropriate location was never found.
Member Cook makes motion to stay until Goals 5 & 6 are finished.
Marsters seconds. Motion passes by vocal majority; Bell abstains.
Goal 5: Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.
During public comment, Bob Black suggests changing policy 5.6 so it refers to environmentally sensitive contaminants “which affect” rather than are “within proximity” to sensitive receptors, in order to have a more measurable policy.
Summary of policy discussion points:
• Policy 5.1: This policy was discussed but eventually left as is.
• Policy 5.3: Minor grammar changes.
Summary of action discussion points:
• Action 5.3: This action item was added to address household hazardous wastes, as suggested by Member Emerson. The new action reads, “Disseminate information on proper disposal of household hazardous waste.”
(Member Bell leaves at 9:47 pm, now 12 present)
8
• Action 5.4 was added: “Coordinate with waste disposal services and other government agencies to increase the convenience of proper disposal of household hazardous waste.”
Other discussion items:
• Members discussed adding a new action item to address health risk extending beyond the project. Issues of broadness of the action as well as overlapping regulations were debated. Members decided to strike this item for now and discuss in the land use section.
• The idea of protecting existing business by disallowing new hazardous materials to be manufactured/utilities was brought up. The goal would be to protect the community from newly introduced hazardous materials. The idea was added to the issue bin.
(Member Miller leaves at 10 pm, 11 Members present)
• Members discussed the possibility of providing information about known existing contaminated sites so individuals are fully informed about properties. The discussion centered on the trade-offs between information and privacy. Liability issues for citing or linking to information from other agencies were determined to be very serious. It was determined that sort of information policy was not appropriate for the General Plan document.
• Policy 5.5 was further discussed; Members talked about the applicable regulatory levels for contaminated land. Concern was expressed about whether one could theoretically avoid extensive review because they were paying cash. There was also concern about liability to the City on decreased property value due to environmental consideration triggered later. It was determined not to be a liability issue, but is part of due diligence. There was consensus to leave as is.
• There was also discussion about whether or not there is currently a ‘no idling’ ordinance; it was determined there was.
Noise Element
There was no public comment on the Noise Element. In regards to Policies 6.5 and 6.8, Member C. Harris expressed interest in making sure there was no noise ordinance exemption on school project. In the pursuant discussion, it was determined this type of noise is not actually exempt. A related issue of schools generated high levels of noise early in the morning was brought up. It was suggested this was a quality of life issue and would not qualify as a significant source of noise.
(Member C. Harris left at 10:28pm; 10 Members remain)
Policy and Action discussion:
• Policy 6.8 about excessive construction noise originally specified several noise restrictions. It is suggested that it perhaps should be corrected to consider the existing ordinance. It is a very liberal noise ordinance, allowing work on weekends. Member Iwasa notes that the Planning Commission sometimes adjusts it but makes the tradeoffs clear and enforceable. It is discussed whether to adjust to provide a break from noise on certain days and whether of not to distinguish between professional construction projects or individual homeowner projects. Mr. Valley, Building Official, reported that a major complaint is that people do not get a break from noise. Member Marsters asked if there is a way to address excessive noise early and late in the day despite the type of activity. Many factors were discussed and it was determined that the General Plan item should merely refer to the Noise Ordinance, since the latter is easier to change and it is not desirable to repeatedly change the General Plan. Policy 6.8 was adjusted to refer to the Noise Ordinance rather than recreating construction noise rules.
(Member C. Harris left at 10:42pm; 9 Members remain)
• It is determined there are many concerns regarding noise ordinance hours and applicability, which are primarily Ordinance issues and should not be included in the General Plan. The Committee can suggest in the General Plan the Noise Ordinance consider those issues, as an action item.
• In regards to Policies 6.5 and 6.10, Member Knudsen registers concern about mixed-use projects in Industrial areas; several potential sites are in close proximity to industrial, freeway, and other noises- which can then trigger noise complaints. It is speculated whether or not there can be conditions to, as much as possible, reduce potential noise complaints by design. Mr. Savay states it can be noted in the deed- making buyers aware of existing noise level of context. There is a desire to protect existing businesses, however it is determined code should not address every specific qualification.
• Policy 6.10 is discussed, specifically a desire to remove contradictory noise level standard for airport, which was identified as a major community asset earlier in the General plan process. This Policy is left alone.
• Policy 6.13 was altered to reflect what was deemed to be the appropriate way to address airport noise complaints.
• Policy 6.2 had a minor correction.
• Members discussed a set back from the railroad, which was eventually deemed unnecessary.
• Unintended impacts of Policy 6.3 were raised; the policy is intended to protect the commercial aspect in mixed-use developments.
• Member Marsters inquired about the noise threshold specified in Policy 6.4;
Consultant Mr. Noack informed it was an industry standard.
Chair Klein makes a motion to approve the Safety and Noise element.
