HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD San Rafael Transit Center Relocation____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: 11/05/2018
Disposition: Resolution No. 14599
Agenda Item No: 6.a
Meeting Date: November 5, 2018
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Paul A. Jensen
Community Development Director
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: SAN RAFAEL TRANSIT CENTER RELOCATION PROJECT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF NOTICE OF PREPARATION ISSUED BY GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE,
HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT RELATING TO THE SCOPE OF TOPIC
AREAS TO BE STUDIED IN THE SAN RAFAEL TRANSIT CENTER RELOCATION
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (CASE NO. P18-001)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District (District) has initiated a planning process to
relocate the C. Paul Bettini San Rafael Transit Center (SRTC), which is currently located at 850
Tamalpais Avenue. The District is focusing on a study area for a new SRTC in and around the current
facility and the Downtown San Rafael SMART station. At present, five site location options within this
study area have been identified. Per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the development of a new SRTC is subject to environmental review. The District has
published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to start the environmental review process and to solicit
comments from agencies and the public on the topic areas to be studied in an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). As the City of San Rafael is a participant in and a “Responsible Agency” on this project, it
is required that the City review and respond to the NOP.
Staff has reviewed the NOP finding that it is well written and identifies a broad scope of topic areas to be
studied in the EIR. The broad topics that have been identified are appropriate for study. As presented
below, staff recommends additions to the scope of studies for the specific topic areas. It is recommended
that the City Council: a) review and confirm the comments and recommendations; and b) adopt the
attached resolution authorizing staff to proceed with preparing a written response to the District for the
Mayor’s signature.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter summarizing City comments on the Notice of
Preparation.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
BACKGROUND:
History
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District) owns, operates and maintains
Golden Gate Transit service. The District’s major transportation hub in Marin County is in Downtown San
Rafael. Opened in the 1992, the C. Paul Bettini San Rafael Transportation Center (SRTC) is located at
850 Tamalpais Avenue between 3rd and 2nd Streets. The SRTC currently serves local and regional transit
buses including Golden Gate Transit, Marin Transit, Sonoma County Transit, Marin Airporter, Sonoma
County Airport Express, Greyhound, and local taxis. The SRTC provides essential transit services to over
9,000 customers per day facilitating travel and transfers throughout Marin County to San Francisco,
Sonoma and Contra Costa Counties.
The 1.5-acre, SRTC site contains bus parking bay and transit platforms (Platforms A-D), as well as other
service and commercial structures. The former Northwestern Pacific railroad right-of-way (now owned
by the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, or SMART) bisects the SRTC site through transit Platform C and
contains the remnants of abandoned railroad appurtenances.
The initial operating segment of the SMART service commenced in 2017, providing service from Santa
Rosa to Downtown San Rafael. The Downtown San Rafael SMART station is in the street block
immediately north of the SRTC, with the active rail line terminating at 3rd Street. SMART has received
funding and is actively constructing the second phase of service to Larkspur Landing (SMART Phase 2).
SMART Phase 2 will reuse the existing rail line and right-of-way that bisects the San Rafael SRTC, which
will significantly impact the center property and its use.
In preparation for the potential second phase of SMART, in 2014, the City of San Rafael initiated a study
(San Rafael SRTC Relocation Study, 2014) to assess interim and permanent solutions for a full or partial
relocation of the SRTC. The assessment was a collaborated effort involving the City, the District, SMART,
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Interim
solutions were identified as well as nine (9) permanent relocation solutions.
Following the City study and cross-agency collaboration, the District issued a Request for Proposal (RFP)
to select an engineering/planning consultant to prepare a more in-depth relocation analysis, along with
developing a preliminary design and required documents for environmental clearance. In 2017, the
District selected and hired Kimley-Horn and Associates, transportation engineering consultants.
In coordination with a team of consultants, Kimley-Horn and Associates has been working to develop
preliminary designs and prepare supportive studies. The consultant team has assisted the District in two
community meetings (discussed below). In response to these community meetings, the District set aside
the original relocation solutions and developed five (5) new site options (discussed below).
San Rafael SRTC Relocation Project
The District, in coordination with the City of San Rafael, Marin Transit, Transportation Authority of Marin
(TAM), and SMART, plans to replace the SRTC. A new SRTC is needed primarily to preserve and
enhance the functionality and effectiveness of the center following the implementation of the SMART
Phase 2 line to Larkspur and the resulting loss of some of the transit center facilities. Specifically, the
District has prepared the following “Project Objectives,” summarizing the purpose of the project:
➢Provide improved transit connectivity and ease of use in and around downtown San Rafael.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
➢Enhance local and regional transit use by bringing together multiple modes of the transportation
network—including the SMART-bus connection—into a hub that affords transit users the safest,
most efficient means of using bus and rail services.
➢Efficiently accommodate transit users and services and optimize operating costs and improve
transit desirability.
➢Design a functional, attractive, cost-effective facility that can meet long-term projected service
levels and be implemented in an expeditious manner, to minimize the period of use of the interim
facility.
➢Provide a transit facility that is readily accessible to individuals with disabilities, transit users, and
transit-dependent populations, including those with low incomes.
➢Provide a secure, safe, and inviting space for transit patrons.
➢Create a more accessible transit facility for all users by reducing vehicular, rail, bicycle, and
pedestrian conflicts and improving safety.
➢Provide convenient, pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses.
At this time, the District has not identified or defined a “project” that is specific to one site for relocation.
Rather, the District has identified five (5) preliminary project alternatives (site options), which are
contained within a defined geographic “study area.” The general boundaries of the study area are
Tamalpais Avenue/Lincoln Avenue to the west, 2nd Street to the south, 5th Avenue to the north and Irwin
Street to the east. The five site options are graphically presented in Figures 2-6 in Attachment 2 of this
report, and are described in the NOP as follows:
➢Two-Story Concept is bounded by 4th Street to the north, Hetherton Street to the east, 2nd Street
to the south, and Tamalpais Avenue to the west (Figure 2). This concept includes the parcel to
the east of the SMART station as the ground-level of a proposed two-story transit center. This
alternative includes 6 bus bays on the ground level and 12 bus bays on the upper level. This
alternative has the smallest footprint, only requiring the acquisition of one parcel, but also would
cost more due to the two-story construction.
➢Across-the-Freeway Concept is bounded by 5th Avenue to the north, Irwin and Hetherton
Streets to the east, 3rd Street to the south, and Tamalpais Avenue to the west (Figure 3). This
alternative has two options: the first would include a three-bay transit island on Hetherton Street
between 3rd and 4th streets, and the second would shift Hetherton Street to the west to allow for
on-street bays on the east side of Hetherton Street between 3rd and 4th Streets. This concept
incorporates the area underneath US-101, which would eliminate some existing California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Park and Ride lot parking stalls and require covering
Erwin Creek (a tributary of San Rafael Creek), across a portion of the block.
➢4th Street Gateway Concept is bounded by 5th Avenue to the north, Hetherton Street to the
east, 3rd Street to the south, and the SMART tracks to the west (Figure 4). In order to
accommodate three curbside bus bays, southbound right-turn movements from Hetherton Street
to 4th Street would be precluded.
➢Whistlestop Block Concept is bounded by 4th Street to the north, Hetherton Street to the east,
3rd Street to the south, and Lincoln and Tamalpais Avenues to the west (Figure 5). This concept
co-locates the proposed transit center on the same block as the existing SMART station. The
Whistlestop building would either be relocated, reconfigured, or restored and used for customer
service functions with the proposed transit center.
➢North of 4th Street Concept would occupy the entire block bounded by 5th Avenue to the north,
Irwin Street to the east, 4th Street to the South, and Hetherton Street to the west. It is generally
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
located beneath US-101 (Figure 6) and would eliminate some existing parking stalls in the
Caltrans Park and Ride lot and require covering Irwin Creek (a tributary of San Rafael Creek),
across the full length of the block. While this concept would accommodate 17 bus bays within this
block, it would require customer service, restrooms, and pick-up/drop-off functions to be located
off site.
Features common to all five alternatives include the provision of at least 17 bus bays, pickup/drop-off
areas for passenger vehicles or taxis, bicycle parking, customer service and security space, bus operator
restrooms, and parking for operations staff. The District’s website includes a project webpage, which
provides more detailed information on the project and the public outreach conducted to date.
The District is the project proponent and the Lead Agency for permitting, financing, and environmental
review and clearance.
City Role in SRTC Relocation Project
The City of San Rafael is a major stakeholder in the SRTC project. Therefore, the City’s role in the
relocation process is critical for the following reasons:
a.The City streets surrounding the existing SRTC and the Downtown San Rafael SMART station
are among the busiest streets in San Rafael and Marin County. The smooth and efficient flow of
traffic in this area is a vital concern to the City, its residences, businesses and visitors. Signalized
intersections in the area are closely spaced and are phased to achieve efficient flow while
maintaining maximum pedestrian safety.
b.The location and operation of the SRTC and the neighboring SMART station are key to long-
range planning for Downtown San Rafael. Successful transit service is a critical factor for the
sustainability, success and growth of Downtown businesses, employment and housing. Past City
planning efforts for Downtown include the San Rafael Downtown Vision (1993) and the San
Rafael Downtown Station Area Plan (2013). Both “vision-level” planning documents identify the
SRTC and mass transit service as a catalyst to promoting and achieving smart planning and
transient-oriented development. The San Rafael Downtown Station Area Plan focuses on the
SMART station, service and rail line impacts on the current SRTC site. The long-term vision of
this Plan suggests an “Integrated SRTC” that supports SMART and the SRTC in a single City
block bound by 4th Street, 3rd Street, Hetherton Street and Tamalpais Avenue. This location would
require the purchase of the existing Citibank site at 666 3rd Street.
Earlier this year, the City Council accepted a presentation from a working group of local design
professionals. The presentation consolidates the numerous design guidelines into one source
entitled, “Good Design” Guidelines for Downtown. These guidelines clearly emphasize the
importance of reinforcing good building design in the Downtown gateway.
c.As part of the City’s collaboration with the District, the City staff prepared the San Rafael Transit
Center Relocation Guidance Report, February 2018 (see attachments). The purpose of this
report was to recognize that the impact and influence of the ultimate location of a new SRTC will
extend far beyond the specific site and significantly contribute to the gateway of Downtown San
Rafael. This report defined a Transit Hub Focus Area, which is a ¼-mile circle around the existing
Downtown SMART station. This report acknowledges the collaboration between the City and
District setting forth a focus for the site selection design process. In this report, the City identified
five key design goals to be considered in this site selection process:
1.Maximize 4th Street vitality;
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
2.Clearly define SRTC access routes;
3.Improve utilization of the Caltrans right-of-way (under the US101 overpass);
4.Demonstrate sustainable design; and
5.Preserve the Whistlestop building (930 Tamalpais Avenue).
d.The City has commenced with the preparation of the San Rafael General Plan 2040, which will
include a Downtown Precise Plan. The ultimate location of the SRTC is critical in the preparation
and ultimate outcome of these plans. It is estimated that these plans will be adopted in mid-2020.
While the City is continuing to process land development/planning applications during the General
Plan 2040 preparation process, applicants are required to sign a notice of acknowledgement
regarding this update (notice adopted by City Council Resolution No. 14276; available here).
Specifically, the notice states that the property owner/applicant acknowledges that the General
Plan update may result in amendments that could directly impact City action on the land
development project.
In 2017, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the District and the City. The
MOU is provided as an attachment to this report. The MOU acknowledges that: a) the District will serve
as the Lead Agency for permitting, financing and environmental clearance; and b) the City will serve as
a Responsible Agency for purposes of environmental review of the project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Other key terms of the MOU are:
➢The City and the District shall cooperate to develop and consider, to the extent feasible, an
additional alternative for the replacement of the SRTC, besides those identified in the March
2017 report.
➢In planning and developing specific project features, the District shall meet and confer with
the City’s Community Development Department staff concerning consistency of the proposed
project with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, San Rafael Downtown Station Area Plan and
City Zoning Ordinance.
➢The District and City agree that the selected alternative must be approved by the City Council.
➢The City will waive standard application and public hearing fees and City shall streamline any
application, as applicable, to the City for work affecting the public right of way or other public
property.
Required Environmental Review
Per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the SRTC relocation
project is subject to environmental review. Further, the District has indicated that the project may require
federal funding and has the potential to trigger federal agency permits and clearances. Therefore, the
project may be subject to review under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Should this
be the case, a combined Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Assessment (EIR) may be
prepared.
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, on October 16, 2018, the District published a Notice of Preparation
(NOP). The NOP is attached and can be also be accessed here. The CEQA Guidelines prescribe a 30-
day review period for agency and public comments. Written comments must be submitted to the District
by November 19, 2018. The purpose of the NOP is to solicit comments on what environmental topic
areas and issues should be studied in the EIR. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, on October 30,
2018, the District held a “scoping session” to gather input and comments on the scope of the EIR to be
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
prepared. The scoping session was held at the Whistlestop facility (930 Tamalpais Avenue) and attended
by approximately 75-100 persons.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth the role of a Responsible Agency (City in this case) during
the environmental review process. The CEQA Guidelines require that the Lead Agency consult with the
Responsible Agency. Further, the CEQA Guidelines require that the Responsible Agency review and
comment on the NOP. Comments must be provided in writing to the Lead Agency, and delivered certified
mail or other method that confirms notice of receipt. Ultimately, as a Responsible Agency that will take
a formal action on the project, the City must make sure the environmental document adequately assesses
it’s concerns and issues. Therefore, it is imperative for the City to ensure that the EIR is appropriately
scoped, is adequate and complete, and that it complies with CEQA.
ANALYSIS:
Comments on Notice of Preparation
As a Responsible Agency, the City of San Rafael is required to comment on the NOP to specify the scope
and content of the environmental information for the EIR, that is germane to the City’s responsibility in
connection with the project. As a Lead Agency, the District is required to include this information in the
EIR. Staff has reviewed the NOP in tandem with the MOU and other City planning documents. Overall,
the NOP is well written and identifies a broad scope of topic areas to be studied in the EIR. The broad
topics that have been identified are appropriate for study. Staff has identified recommended additions to
the required information within these topic areas.
At this time, a defined project location has not been determined as the primary project for study in the
EIR. Therefore, in formulating comments on the NOP, staff has defined the “project” as the SRTC project
study area and the five site options (alternatives) that have been presented in the NOP. Staff has referred
to the CEQA Guidelines and Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form (CEQA Appendix G) in
presenting the following comments and recommendations on the NOP:
A.Setting – History & Background
The District has clearly stated events leading to the required relocation of the SRTC.
Recommendation: The EIR section describing the setting, history/background and project location
(study area) should acknowledge that this area of San Rafael has been substantially impacted by
historic regional transportation activities including: rail; elevation of Highway 101 over city streets; and
modifications of San Rafael, Mahon and Irwin Creeks for commercial purposes. It is the priority of the
City to remedy these long-standing impacts by developing a transit center that compliments the
gateway to Downtown, enhances resources, and maximizes efficient and safe movement of vehicles,
bicyclists and pedestrians.
B.Project Objectives
The District has presented Project Objectives (listed above) and the purpose of the project have been
clearly stated.
Recommendation: The project objectives should expressly state the City’s key design goals
presented in the San Rafael Transit Center Guidance Report, which is discussed above and attached
(Attachment 4). As the SRTC project is a catalyst in planning for the future of Downtown San Rafael
(San Rafael General Plan 2040 and Downtown Precise Plan) and the City will be taking action on the
SRTC project, it is critical that the City’s design goals are incorporated. The District should also refer
to the City’s recently accepted report on “Good Design” Guidelines for Downtown.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
C. Aesthetics
The project has the potential to degrade the existing scenic character or quality of the study area and
the surrounding area. The NOP states that visual character will be assessed and the EIR will analyze
key visual resources and scenic views.
Recommendation: The project study area is the gateway to Downtown San Rafael. The visual
prominence of a transit center could dramatically impact the visual character of the studied site, the
surrounding study area and the gateway appearance to Downtown. While the NOP states that visual
character will be assessed, there are no specifics provided on the extent or scope of this assessment.
First, the analysis of aesthetics should utilize the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (which includes the
San Rafael Downtown Vision), the San Rafael Transit Center Relocation Guidance Report
(referenced above and attached) and the “Good Design” Guidelines for Downtown as a starting point
for determining key goals and policies that are pertinent to design. Second, the EIR should include
the preparation of computer-generated visual simulations for the site options identifying existing and
post-development conditions. The District should provide public opportunities to review architectural
renderings prior to issuance of a Draft EIR.
The project has the potential to result in new sources of light and glare.
Recommendation: The EIR should include: a) a qualitative analysis of glare associated with vehicles,
buses and window glazing at the studied site; and b) an analysis of additional light sources for evening
illumination associated with exterior lighting for the SRTC and vehicle/bus lights.
D. Air Quality
The project has the potential to: a) result in new or altered sources of air contaminants; b) expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and c) create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people. The NOP states that the EIR will describe the air quality conditions
and evaluate the impacts of the project in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s CEQA Guidelines.
Recommendation: Existing residences in the study area have the potential to be exposed to
additional pollutants and health hazards associated with project vehicle emissions and idling. The
EIR should include the preparation of a quantitative air quality analysis. Further, the EIR should
include the preparation of a health risk assessment as all the site options would be located closer to
existing residential uses (sensitive receptors) than the current SRTC site.
E. Biological Resources
Two of the site options (Across-the-Freeway Concept & North of 4th Street Concept) have the potential
to adversely impact: a) federally-protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act; and b) the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife.
Recommendation: As stated, two of the site options in the study area have the potential to impact
(cover) existing tidal wetlands. The tidal wetlands may be subject to the jurisdiction of the US Army
Corps of Engineers per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It is recommended that a Corps
jurisdictional determination be prepared to determine the boundaries of the wetland. A qualified
biologist should be retained to assess the biological resources in and around the tidal wetlands, and
the potential impacts. As a Responsible Agency, the City requests that the District initiate an early
consultation meeting with the appropriate regulatory agencies to discuss the tidal wetlands and
potential impacts of the site options. Such meetings are regularly-hosted by the County of Marin
Public Works Department.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
The site options have the potential to adversely impact General Plan 2020 goals and policies that
reinforce the protecting of biological resources (heritage street tree removal; wetlands).
Recommendation: As noted above, two of the site options in the study area (Across-the-Freeway
Concept & North of 4th Street Concept) have the potential to impact (cover) existing tidal wetlands. A
qualified biologist should be retained to assess biological resources and potential impacts associated
with the development. Several of the site options have the potential to damage or destroy mature
trees (e.g., mature street trees). All significant trees within the study area that have the potential of
being removed or impacted by one or more of the site options should be identified and assessed by
a qualified arborist. Further, the trees should be assessed by a qualified biologist to determine
potential wildlife habitat value and appropriate mitigation.
F.Cultural Resources
The project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic
resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The NOP states that the EIR will include
an assessment of potential impacts on historic resources.
Recommendation: Downtown San Rafael is developed with many older buildings. Some of these
buildings qualify as a historic resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. At present,
the City relies on the San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey – Final Inventory List or Structures
and Areas, which was prepared for the City in 1977 (updated in 1986). This survey can be viewed
here. The following buildings/properties are listed in this survey and are considered potential historic
resources:
➢930 Tamalpais Avenue (Whistlestop)
➢927 Tamalpais Avenue (Trevor’s)
➢709 4th Street (4th Street Tavern)
➢633 5th Avenue
➢637 5th Avenue
These properties should be assessed by a qualified architectural historian to: a) confirm if they meet
the CEQA Guidelines historic resource criteria; and b) determine potential impacts for developing the
site options. In addition, it is recommended that the architectural historian complete a reconnaissance
of the study area to determine if there are other existing buildings that may meet the historic resource
criteria and could be impacted by development of the site options. The study should also evaluate
possible relocation of identified historic structures and identify mitigations if included.
The project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The NOP states that the
EIR will include an assessment of potential impacts to archaeological resources.
Recommendation: Downtown San Rafael has an abundance of known and registered pre-historic
and archaeological sites. According to Pastfinder, the City’s Archaeological Sensitivity Map
database, the study area is rated in the categories of “High Sensitivity” and “Medium Sensitivity.” City
Council Resolution No. 10980 (December 3, 2001) sets forth procedures and regulations for
archaeological resource protection. For the high and medium sensitivity areas, the procedures
require that a qualified archaeologist prepare a report to identify potential resources and identify
measures for resource protection. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be
retained to complete such a report for the EIR. Further, tribal consultation with the appropriate Native
American tribe is required per SB52.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9
G.Geology, Soils, Seismicity
The project has the potential to be located on a site that contains landfill soil conditions with possible
seismic risk. The NOP states that geologic and soil conditions will be assessed to address potential
seismic risk and liquefaction.
Recommendation: Staff supports the NOP recommendations to assess geologic and soil conditions.
As the study area: a) contains landfill; b) portions are historic marshland; and c) is within Geo-Seismic
Zones 3 and 4 (high-risk), it is recommended that the EIR include the preparation of a Geotechnical
Investigation, which would include subsurface borings and soil testing.
H.Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project has the potential to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The NOP states that
potential construction and operation GHG emissions will be quantified and assessed.
Recommendation: Staff supports the NOP recommendations to assess GHG emissions. An update
to the City’s Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was recently completed and presented to the City
Council. Although the plan has not yet been adopted by the City Council, it is expected that the City
Council will take action on it in early 2019. It will be accompanied by an update to the adopted GHG
Emissions Reduction Strategy. Staff recommends that the updated CCAP and reduction strategy be
used in assessing GHG emissions for this project.
I.Hazards & Hazardous Materials
The project has the potential to be located on a site which contains contaminated soil and/or
groundwater. The NOP states that existing soil and groundwater conditions will be assessed for
potential hazardous materials or contaminants.
Recommendation: Staff supports the NOP recommendations to assess hazards and hazardous
materials. A Phase I Site Assessment is recommended, which would confirm listed sites or properties
within the study area that have known contaminants. One source that is available is the Phase I
Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) for the Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan, October
10, 2008. This assessment is on file with the Community Development Department.
J.Hydrology & Water Quality
The project has the potential to: a) violate water quality standards; and b) substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Further, the study area is located within the FEMA 100-
year flood zone and is vulnerable to sea level rise. The NOP states that project flooding will be
assessed in addition to storm water runoff, drainage infrastructure and water quality. However, the
NOP does not mention or discuss assessing the potential for sea level rise.
Recommendation: Staff supports the NOP recommendations to assess hydrology and water quality.
It is recommended that EIR assess the potential risk associated with projected sea level rise.
K.Land Use & Planning
The project has the potential to conflict with a land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The NOP states that the EIR will evaluate:
a) the compatibility of the project with the neighboring areas; b) change to or displacement of existing
uses; c) compliance with the zoning regulations; and d) consistency with the relevant land use policies
that are adopted in the San Rafael General Plan 2020, and the recommendations of the San Rafael
Downtown Station Area Plan.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10
Recommendation: Staff supports the NOP recommendations. However, staff recommends that this
assessment be expanded to include the San Rafael Transit Center Relocation Guidance Report
(referenced above and attached) and the “Good Design” Guidelines for Downtown. While the San
Rafael General Plan 2040 and Downtown Precise Plan are in the early stages of planning, the EIR
should include a discussion of the SRTC project’s relationship to these plans, and the status of these
plans at the time of Draft EIR publication.
L.Noise
The project has the potential to result in significant construction-related noise and new long-term
operation-related noise to sensitive receptors (residences). The NOP states that both construction-
related and operational noise and vibration impacts will be assessed in the EIR.
Recommendation: Staff supports the recommendation to assess these potential impacts. The NOP
does not disclose if project construction will/could require pile-driving. The EIR should disclose if pile-
driving is necessary (or proposed) for construction and the noise and vibration impacts should be
assessed. The noise assessment should include field measurements of existing baseline conditions.
M.Population & Housing
The project has the potential to induce population growth. Further, several of the site options have
the potential to displace housing and/or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. The NOP states that potential growth-inducing impacts and housing displacement will be
assessed in the EIR.
Recommendation: Staff supports the recommendation to assess these potential impacts. It is
recommended that the District staff closely work with City staff to assess both topic areas t o ensure
that the project is consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and related plans, including the
Plan Bay Area 2040 growth projections for the Downtown Priority Development Area (PDA).
N.Utilities, Public Services & Recreation
The project has the potential to impact existing utilities (existing and planned services), public services
(e.g., essential services response times and service ratios), and recreation within the study area. The
NOP states that physical impacts on public facilities will be assessed, including existing water supply.
However, the NOP does not address assessing potential impacts to public services and recreation.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the scope of study be expanded to address public services
and recreation. Essential service response times and ratios should be analyzed. Regarding
recreation impacts, a review of potential, public realm impacts and opportunities within a ¼ mile radius
of the project site should be included. Public facilities serving regional populations generate the need
for associated public realm improvements, such as wider sidewalks, gathering areas, wayfinding
signage, and landscaping.
O.Transportation & Transit
The five site options have the potential to: a) impact the performance of the circulation system for all
modes of transportation including intersections, arterials/streets, US 101, pedestrian and bicycle path,
and mass transit; b) result in an increase in hazards due to the specific design features; c) result in
inadequate emergency access; and d) conflict with City-adopted policies, plans and programs for
bicycles and pedestrian facilities that could decrease the performance and safety of these facilities.
The NOP states that a transportation impact analysis will be prepared for the EIR.
Recommendation: Staff supports the recommendation to prepare a transportation impact analysis.
Staff has been coordinating with the District traffic engineering consultants to define the scope of this
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 11
analysis for assessing level of service (LOS) including the intersections and arterials for study. Staff
recommends that the following additional studies/analyses be completed and incorporated into the
EIR:
1.An assessment of ‘vehicle miles traveled.’
2.Review of emergency access and response times for service to the SRTC
3.Review and assessment of the bicycle and pedestrian network serving the study area for potential
hazards and safety impacts associated with design features such as site access, visual
obstructions and location of crosswalks.
4.Review for project consistency and/or conflicts with the circulation goals and policies set forth in
the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and City of San Rafael Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
(2018).
5.Review of advanced signalization and other technological management system opportunities
should be included for each design concept.
6.Given rapidly expanding and evolving mobility options and technologies, include a review of
transit adaptation opportunities in the vicinity of the selected transit center site, including
recommendations for corresponding land use.
P.Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives
to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The
NOP states that the five site options listed above in addition to a “No Project” alternative will be
analyzed in the EIR.
Recommendation: Except as noted below, the five site options present a reasonable range of
alternatives appropriate for study in the EIR. As a Responsible Agency, it is recommended that the
City meet with the District to confirm the evaluation criteria that will be used to assess finalize the
alternatives for further study. In addition, the following is recommended:
1.The City has previously expressed objection to the Two-Story Concept (Attachment 2, Figure 2)
because of its impact on the Interim Center, its cost, and the visual impacts of crossing 3rd Street.
The City has also expressed objection to the 4th St. Gateway Concept (Attachment 2, Figure 4)
because of its impacts on: existing traffic circulation; 4th St. vitality; and Downtown gateway
character. The District should undertake an initial screening of the five site location options to
eliminate from further consideration those concepts that do not meet the Project Objectives.
2.The City has previously expressed objection to use of 3rd St. for bus bays in the Whistlestop Block
Concept (Attachment 2, Figure 5). Alternatives within the identified study boundary for this block
should illustrate internal vehicle circulation to access all properties within the block as well as
potential land uses on remainder of parcels incorporated into the project. Future Whistlestop site
ownership and management options should be analyzed.
3.The North of 4th Street Concept (Attachment 2, Figure 6) was developed and included at the
request of the City. Prior to Figure 6 being developed by the District, the City provided a concept
sketch, which included all use and improvement elements that have been programmed for transit
center planning. Staff was disappointed to see that the District’s Figure 6 varies from the City
proposal by eliminating key ancillary facilities from the site and providing a public sidewalk on its
western boundary. There is no explanation as to why these elements were not included, but the
scope merely states that they would be accommodated off-site. Staff recommends that the
District should carefully analyze the site to find a way to accommodate these ancillary facilities as
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 12
they are critical to providing a full-service transit center. Further evaluation should be undertaken
before accepting the District’s assumptions for this site. (Note: District information provided at the
June 12, 2018 public meeting incorrectly stated that this concept had been eliminated from further
consideration.)
4.The District statement regarding features common to all five site location options do not include
public restrooms or space for possible concessions. Each of these is provided in the existing
facility and should be considered “required”.
5.Where the site location option results in or requires partial condemnation/purchase of private
property, the Alternatives analysis should identify potential land uses on the remainder portions.
Also, future re-use options of the current SRTC site should be included in the Alternatives
analysis.
Q.Non-CEQA Topics Recommended for Study
In addition to above, staff recommends that the following non-CEQA-related topic areas be studied
and be made available for public review with the Draft EIR:
1.Fiscal Impacts of the Project and Alternatives. Each alternative involves purchase of private
property (possible condemnation); site improvements and construction costs that vary; and
clearances/permits from other regulatory agencies. A Fiscal Impact Analysis will assist in
assessing and weighing the ultimate project and alternatives.
2.Short-term and Long-term Parking Assessment. No mention is made regarding potential loss of
short and long-term parking for the various site options/alternatives. Potential parking impacts
should be evaluated for each alternative. Measures to accommodate/retain parking should be
included in this assessment.
Conclusion:
The above comments and recommendations the NOP and scope for the SRTC EIR should be formalized
in a letter form to the District. If the City Council finds that the above recommendations are adequate, it
is requested that the Council adopt the attached resolution: a) directing staff to prepare a letter for the
Mayor’s signature; and b) authorizing the Mayor to sign the letter on behalf of the City Council.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
To date, the District has conducted two community workshops on the SRTC project focused on identifying
alternative SRTC locations for study and selection. As discussed above, the District also conducted a
“scoping session” on the NOP.
Notice of this City Council meeting was posted on the City website. In addition, an email notice of this
meeting was sent to the members of the SRTC Ad Hoc group. This Ad Hoc group is comprised of
representatives for the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, Point San Pedro Road Coalition,
neighborhood associations near the SRTC study area, special interest groups and interested parties.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Providing Notice of Preparation comments to the
District has no fiscal impacts on the City. Although the City is a responsible agency with authority to act
on the ultimate location of a new SRTC, the cost of the environmental review process and document is
fully borne by the District.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 13
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1.Adopt resolution as recommended by staff, which provides comments on the NOP.
2.Adopt resolution with modifications.
3.Direct staff to return with more information.
4.Take no action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter summarizing City comments on the Notice of
Preparation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution
2.Notice of Preparation
3.MOU between the City and the District
4.San Rafael Transit Center Relocation Guidance Report, February 2018
5.Correspondence received to date
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 14599
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER TO THE
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
SUMMARIZING CITY COMMENTS ON THE SAN RAFAEL TRANSIT CENTER
RELOCATION PROJECT (SRTC) NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP); P18-001
WHEREAS, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District (District) owns,
operates and maintains the San Rafael Transit Center (SRTC), which is located at 850 Tamalpais
Avenue in the City of San Rafael; and
WHEREAS, SMART has received funding and is actively constructing the second phase of
commuter rail service to Larkspur. This second phase extension will actively use the currently
inactive rail line and right-of-way which bisects the SRTC site, which will significantly impact the
SRTC use; and
WHEREAS, commencing in 2014, the District, in collaboration with the City, began studying
interim and permanent solutions for the SRTC. In 2017, the District hired a transportation
engineering consultant to develop preliminary designs and supportive studies for relocation of the
SRTC; and
WHEREAS, as the ultimate relocation of the SRTC is critical to the planning for Downtown
San Rafael, in 2017 the District and City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), to
establish the respective roles of the two agencies and the process for the relocation project. The
MOU confirms that the City will serve as a “Responsible Agency” for the purposes of environmental
review of the relocation project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the District has published a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to solicit comments on the scope of topic areas to be studied in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will be prepared for this project. As a Responsible Agency,
the City is required to comment on the NOP. City staff has reviewed the NOP and has
recommended a scope of topic areas for study the EIR, which are summarized in a report to the
City Council dated November 5, 2018; and
WHEREAS, at a regular City Council meeting held on November 5, 2018, the report to the
City Council was presented. At this meeting, public comment was accepted, and the City Council
discussed the report findings and recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor
to sign, on behalf of the City Council, a letter to the District summarizing City comments on the
SRTC project Notice of Preparation (NOP).
I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council
held on the 5th day of November 2018 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
Councilmembers: None
Councilmembers: None
____________________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
SAN RAFAEL TRANSPORTATION CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
GOLDEN .GATE BRIDGE, IDGHW AY AND TRANSIT DISTRICT
1011 Andersen Drive, Sa:n Rafael, CA 94901-5318
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
ATTACHMENT
Project T,tle
San Rafael Transit Center Replacement Pro}e_ct
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
_Project Information available at:
1011 Andersen Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901-5318
Project Location and Background
or via website:
http:/ /goldengate.org/SRTC/
The San Rafael Transit Cep.ter, also known as the C. Paul Bettini Transit Center, is owned by the
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District), which operates Golden
Gate Transit regional and inter-county bus transit services. The transit center is located in
downtown San Rafael at the intersection of 3rd_ Street and Hetherton Street (see Figure 1). With
more than 500 bus trips daily and 17 operating bus bays, the transit center is the largest region_al
transit hub in Marin County, providing access to the reg~onal transportation network for area
residents and a key transfer point for employees, visitors, and students in San Rafael and the _
greater North Bay region. The transit center primarily serves bus routes operated by Golden Gate
Transit and Marin Transit, but it is also served by Sonoma County Transit, Sonoma County
Airport Express, Marin Airporter, Greyhound, and paratransit services. on·weekdays, nearly
9,000 people board or alight buses at the transit center to make their necessary transportation
conn~ctions. Downtown San Rafael is an important destination, with nearly half of the
passengers travelling to or from downtown, and the remaining riders making transfers to other
destinations. The 17 bus bays are well-utilized during most peak-period pulse times, leaving little
room for growth in bus service.
In August 2017, the Sononi,a-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District commenced passenger
rail service on its initial corridor, consisting of 43 miles of rail and 10 stations (Phase 1) in
Sonoma andMarinCountie's. S:tvlART's Phase 1 corridor parallels U.S. Highway 101 (US-101)
beginning at the Sonoma County Airport and terminating in downtown San Rafael just north of
the transit center. SMART riders transferring from the downtown San Rafaei SMART station-
located north of 3rd Street-_ to acce~s the current transit center south of 3rd Street, as well as
riders originating from downtown San Rafael, must navigate congested vehicle traffic passing
through ·local intersections and accessing the US-101 on-ramps adjacent to the transit center.
1
In addition, Phase 2 of the SMART project, which was approved in 2015 and began construction
in early 2018, will extend passenger rail service from its current downtown San Rafael terminus
to Larkspur. The southward extension of SMART will require the construction of two sets of
tracks through the middle of the existing _ transit center s
1
ite south of 3rd Street. The SMART
Phase 2 line will bisect the existing transit center, reconfigure Platforms C and B, negatively
impact bus circulation and bus bay flexibility within and around the transit center, and disrupt
pedestrian access and transfer activity among the remaining platforms at the site. This change
will affect how buses and people access and travel through the transit center as well as the
reduction in the ainount of space available for buses and riders, which will be detrimental to bus,
vehicle,_ and pedestrian access and safety. As a result, the transit center must be relocated to
another location in downtown San Rafael. ·
Project Objectives
The District, in coordination with the City of San Rafael, Marin Transit, Transportation
Authority of Marin (TAM), and SMART, plans to replace the transtt center in downtown San
Rafael. The proposed San Rafael Transit Center Replacement Project (project) is needed
primarily to preserve and enhance the functionality and effectiveness of the transit center
following the implementation of the SMART Phase 2 line to Larkspur and the resulting loss of
some of the transit center facilities : ~pecifically, the purpose ofthe project is to:
• Provide improved transit connectivity and ease of use in and around downtown San Rafael.
• Enhance local and regional transit use by bringing together multiple modes of the
transportation network-· including the SMART-bus connection-into a hub that affords
transit users the safest, most efficient means of using bus and rail services.
• Efficiently accommodate transit users and services and optimize operating costs and improve
transit desirability. .
• Design a functional, attractive, cost-effective facility that can meet long-term projected
service levels and be implemented in an expeditious manner, so as to minimize the period of
use of the interim facility.
• Provide a transit facility that is readily accessible to individuals with disabilities, transit
users, and transit-dependent populations, including those with low incomes.
• Provide a secure, safe, and inviting space for transit patrons.
• Create a more accessible transit facility for all users by reducing vehicular, rail, bicycle, and
pedestrian conflicts and improving safety.
• Provide convenient, pedestrian connections to surrounding land uses.
A new transit center solution in downtown San Rafael would address near-term and long-term
transit needs while improving the desirability and usability of transit for both local residents and
regional commuters. It would also, to the extent feasible, minimize traffic congestion and
facilitate smooth transit operations while also promoting pedestrian safety.
3
'')
Preliminary Project Alternatives to Be Analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report
The District has identified five preliminary alternatives. The alternatives are described below and
the conceptual design for each alternative is shown in Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The
District also will study a No Project Alternative pursuant to CEQA requirements. The.se
preliminary alternatives will be further refined and screened based on agency and -public input.
o 1'wo=Story Cmracepff is bounded -by 4th Street to the north, Hetherton Street to the east, 2nd
Street to the south, and Tamalpais Avenue to the west (Figure 2). This concept includes the
parcel to the east of the SMART station as the ground-level of a proposed two-story transit
center. This alternative includes 6 bus bays on the ground level and 12 bus bays on the upper
level. This alternative has the smallest footprint , only requiring the acquisition of one parcel,·
but also would cost more due to the two-stmy construction.
• Across-the-Freeway Concept is bounded by 5th Avenue to the north, Irwin and Hetherton
Streets to the east, 3rd Street to the south, and Tamalpais Avenue to the west (figure 3). This
alternative has two options: the first would include a three-bay transit island on Hetherton
Street between 3rd and 4 th Streets, and the second would shift Hetherton Street to the west to
allow for on-street bays on the east side ofHetherton Street between 3rd and 4th Streets. This
concept incorporates the area underneath US-101, which would eliminate some existing
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Park and Ride lot parking stalls and
require covering Erwin Creek ( a tributary of San Rafcl:el Creek), across a portion of the block.
• 4th Street Gateway Concept is bounded by 5th A venue to the north, Hetherton Street to the
east, 3rd Street to the south, and the SMART tracks to the west (Figure 4). In order to
accomniodate three curbside bus bays, southbound right-tum movements from Hetherton
Street to 4 th Street would be precluded. ,
• Whistlestop Block Concept is bounded by 4th Street to the north, Hetherton Street to the east,
3rd Street to the south, and Lincoln.and Tamalpais Avenues to the west (Figure 5). This
concept co-locates the proposed transit center on the same block as the existing SMART
station. The Whistlestop quilding would either be relocated, reconfigured, or restored and
-used for customer service functions with the proposed transit center.
• North of 4th Street Concept would occupy the entire block bounded by 5th Avenue to the
north, Irwin Street to the east, 4th Street to the South, and Hetherton Street to the west. It is
generally located beneath US-101 (Figure 6) and would eliminate some existing parking
stalls in the Cal trans Park and Ride lot, and require covering Erwin Creek ( a tributary of San
Rafael Creek), across the full length of the block. While this concept would accommodate 17
bus bays within this block, it would require customer service, restrooms, and pick-up/drop-
off functions to be located off site.
Features common to all five alternatives include the provision of at least 17 bus bays, pick-
up/drop-off areas for passenger vehicles or taxis, bicycle parking, customer service and security
space, bus operator restrooms, and parking for operations staff. Some of these facilities could be·
provided at_locations outside of the extents of the concepts shown in Figures 2 through 6 below.
The project website provides more detailed information on the project and the public outreach
conducted to date: http://goldengate.org/SRTC/.
4
Project Schedule
The District expects to complete the environmental review process by early 2020, and preliminary
project design (30%) by the Fall of 2020; the final design, permitting, and construction would
commence thereafter.
EKR §icope and Potential Envi:ronmental Eff eds
The purpose of the BIR will be to disclose the environmental impacts of the project. Potential
environmental effects to be examined in the BIR are those related to aesthetics, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and
seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning;
noise and vibration; population and housing; transportation and_ transit; and utilities and public
services (including recreation). Cumulative impacts, alternatives to the project, and growth-
inducing impacts will also be analyzed. Impacts resulting from both short-term construction and
long-term operation of the project will be identified. A brief discussion of the anticipated
environmental impacts and what will be examined in the BIR is presented below. Mitigation
measures will be identified for significant impacts, as appropriate.
Aesthetics .
The project is located in downtown San Rafael. The BIR will describe the existmg visual
character of the project site and surrounding areas, and identify key visual resources and scenic
views. The BIR will analyze impacts on these key visual resources and scenic views as a result of
the proposed project. Lighting and glare impacts on any sensitive viewers/viewsheds will also be
addressed.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The BIR will describe the existing air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area basin and .
. evaluate tp.e impacts of the project, in accordance with current Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) CBQA Guidelines. The construction and operational
greenhouse gas (GHG) eIT).issions in the project vicinity related to implementation of the project
will be quantified. Potential impacts related to climate change will be addressed consistent with
the BAAQMD's current guidance. The project's consistency with the City of San Rafael's
Climate Action Plan will also be discussed.
Biological Resources
The BIR will describe the existing biological resources on the site, discuss the impacts of the
project on biological resources (plants, wildlife, and waters), and identify any conflicts with local
policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, such as impacts on protected or heritage
trees.
10
Cultural Resources
The BIR will evaluate potential impacts on historical, archaeological, and paleontological
resources. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and any tribes it identifies will
be contacted and consulted about the presence of traditional lands or cultural places in the project
vicinity. ·
Geology, Soils and Seismicity
The BIR will describe the geologic and soil constraints that may affect the project design,
including seismicity, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, ·or potential for
expansive soils.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The BIR will desc:ribe the existing conditions on and adjacent to the project site-including the
potential for existing soil and/or groundwater contamination near the site to affect future uses ori
the site-and will identify hazardous impacts from both construction and operations.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The BIR will discuss the potential for project-related flooding on the project site', and will
describe construction and operational impacts related to stormwater runoff and drainage
infrastructureJ and water quality.
Land Use and Planning
The BIR will evaluate the compatibility of the project with neighboring areas, change to or
· displacement of existing uses, compliance with zoning regulations, and consistency of the project
with relevant local land \!Se policies that have been adopted in the City of San._Rafael General
Plan 2020 and the 2012 Downtown Station Area Plan.
Noise and Vibration
The BIR will identify sensitive noise receptors and sources of noise and vibration in the project ·
. area and analyze short-term construction and long-term operational noise and vibration impacts
associated with moving the transit center to a new location. Noise from changes in traffic
patterns associated with operations at th~ new location would also be evaluated.
Population and Housing
The BIR witl address the project's potential for inducing population growth and -displacing
people and housing.
Transportation and Transit
A transportation impact analysis will be prepared for the BIR to describe the existing local and
regional transportation network and to evaluate the proposed project's construction-and
operations-related traffic impacts for vehicular, transit, bi_ke, and pedestrian circulation.
11
Utilities and Public Services (including Recreation)
The BIR will describe the existing utilities at the project site and will address the ability of
existing and planned public facilities and service systems to meet demands generated by the
project. Physical impacts on public utilities-including sanitary sewers, st01m drains, and solid
waste-will be identified, as will any need to construct new facilities. The EIR will describe the
existing water supply serving the project site and evaluate the impacts of the project on water
supply.
Cumulative Impacts .
Consistent with CEQA, this section will address the impacts of implementing the project in
combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project
vicinity. · ·
Alternatives to the Project
Alternatives to the project will be evaluated, including the No Project Alternative. Other
alternatives analyzed in the BIR will be identified based on their ability to reduce or avoid
environmental impacts.
Growth-Inducing Impacts .
The BIR will discuss the ways in which the project could foster growth in the surrounding
environment, including potential for growth from enhanced transit facilities and land use
development surrounding the project site; growth-related secondary impacts also will be
discussed.
Other CEQA-Required Analy'!is
The BIR will include other issues required by CEQA, including Significant Unavoidable
Impacts, Significant Irreversible Environmental Change, Persons Consulted and List of
Preparers, References, and technical appendices.
12
ATTACHMENT 3
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District and City of San Rafael
Center is a crucial concern of District and the other transportation service providers
operating there, and of their customers.
F. The streets surrounding the Downtown San Rafael SMART Station and
the Transit Center are among the busiest streets in the City of San Rafael. Second
Street and Third Street are the City's main east-west traffic corridors south of Puerto
Suello Hill, providing a primary access between Highway 101 and West Marin, Fairfax,
and San Anselmo as well as to Downtown San Rafael. The offramp from Highway 101
South into Downtown San Rafael feeds directly into Hetherton Street, which, four blocks
farther .south, feeds directly into the onramp to Highway 101 South from Downtown San
Rafael. The smooth and efficient flow of traffic in this area is a vital concern to the City
of San Rafael and its residents, businesses, and visitors, as well as to the transit
operators whose buses use the City's streets, and transit passengers.
G. SMART is also proceeding with the design and construction of the
improvements needed to extend its passenger rail service system the 2.2 miles from
the Downtown San Rafael SMART Station to a location near the District's Larkspur
Ferry Terminal in Larkspur (the "SMART Larkspur Extension Project").
H. Because the SMART rail corridor in San Rafael runs through the Transit
Center, the SMART Larkspur Extension Project will require replacement of the Transit
Center and its transit operations to an existing and/or new site in downtown San Rafael.
The City and the District have cooperated to develop several options for the
replacement Transit Center, more specifically identified in the March 2017 San Rafael
Transit Center Relocation Study Final Report, all of which are within close proximity of
the current Transit Center and the Downtown San Rafael SMART Station; and the
District, as lead agency, will soon be undertaking the environmental analysis and design
for the permanent replacement facility.
I. The District has worked with the City, SMART, and other transit agencies to
design an "Interim Transit Center" for transit operations. The Interim Transit Center will
be designed and constructed by SMART in association with its construction of the
SMART Larkspur Extension Project. -It will serve as the main passenger transit terminal
in Marin County until such time as the permanent replacement of the Transit Center is
constructed and occupied.
J. The City and District desire to memorialize herein their intention and
agreements for cooperating on the environmental review, planning and approval of the
Transit Center Replacement Project (hereafter, the 11 Project").
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the District agree as follows:
ATTACHMENT 4
SAN RAFAEL TRANSIT CENTER RELOCATION GUIDANCE REPORT
City of San Rafael
February 13, 2018
ATTACHMENT 5
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED TO DATE
6. The best location for the Transportation Gateway from an operation, user safety and
convenience and planning standpoint is on the west side of Hetherton Street between
3rd Street and 5th Avenue.
7. Concerns about visual and operational impacts on 4th Street and the Heatherton block
faces can be effectively addressed by good design.
8. The historic residences located on 5th Avenue can be used as the 4th Street Gateway
feature, our downtown's front door. This also affords the existing owners of the
properties the option of retaining their properties or selling them.
9. Land banking the proposed Transportation Gateway site will pay future dividends with
transit oriented air rights development and the ability to accommodate evolving
transportation needs.
Creating a Transportation Gateway for Downtown San Rafael
The Bridge Highway and Transportation District Transit Center project is a once in a generation
opportunity to improve mobility and access to Downtown. It is also has the potential to be a
strategic public investment that can be leveraged to enhance Downtown and attract private
investment.
Vision: A Transportation Gateway ... not a bus terminal
As community, San Rafael runs the risk of singular focus on perceived negative impacts of a bus
terminal and not on the potential advantages of a Transportation Gateway: A well designed
facility located at the intersection of rail, busses, bikes, pedestrians, automobiles, for hire
vehicles including bikes and scooters, and future mobility devises yet to be determined~ With
many unknowns about the future of public transit, decisions made now need to allow sufficient
flexibility for the Transportation Gateway to be reinterpreted in the future.
Extensive public comment has focused on limited aspects of relocating Bettini, primarily around
mitigation of perceived negative impacts. In the opinion of this writer, the bigger picture is
being ignored. The discussion has emphasized avoiding things that might happen as a result of
relocating the transit center. For example:
• We don't want an ugly bus terminal at the gateway to our Downtown (gateway being
defined as approaching Downtown from the east by automobile)
• We don't want to replace tax revenue generating private property with a public use
• Heatherton is too congested
• We don't want busses on each side of 4th Street
• We don't want to lose the Victorians on 5th Avenue
• We don't want to lose the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Depot
• A bus terminal along Hetherton Street will take away our "small-town feel"
• Busses traveling and stopping in front of the depot will conflict with bikes and
pedestrians and adversely impact the depot
pg. 2
There are aspirational objectives as well:
• We need to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety
• We want to improve environmental quality by opening up the creek
• We want to turn the area into a park
Each of these are representative of ideas and concerns that should be addressed in the location,
planning and design of the facility . However, judgement is required in how they will be
addressed. Most can be resolved through optimal site selection, good site planning and urban
design. Good design can make the appropriate site selection a true plus for the city and region.
Existing Limits on Roadway Capacity:
Downtown's growth is constrained by limited roadway capacity at peak periods.
• No currently planned projects have been identified to provide additional roadway
capacity
• Funds for roadway projects are scarce
• Right of way is expensive and difficult to acquire
• Social and environmental impacts are difficult to mitigate
• For hire vehicles will increase congestion Downtown
East-West roadway capacity will be further impacted when SMART is extended to Larkspur:
• Active railroad grade crossings will be added at 2nd and 3rd Streets. This will likely reduce
through capacity due to train movements and required clear zones at the crossings.
This will result in less vehicle queuing space between the Hetherton Street and
Tamalpias Avenue signalized intersections adversely impacting vehicle progression and
increasing delay. The impact will be most noticeable at peak periods.
• The current operational limitations, observed at the Mission Avenue, 5th Avenue and 4th
Street SMART rail crossings at peak and other times, will extend to 2nd and 3rd Streets
These roadway capacity constraints underscore the desirably of experiencing real growth in
transit use and active transportation such as bicycle, e-bikes and walking. The north-south
greenway and SMART provide parallel capacity for the 101 freeway.
Will land set aside for a Transportation Gateway have a significant fiscal impact on the City?
This paper focuses on a single aspect of fiscal impact: Potential increase in property tax revenue
afforded by private land ownership and infill development. In the opinion of the writer, setting
aside potentially developable land for a Transportation Gateway will not have a significant mid
or long term adverse impact on property tax receipts. This conclusion is reached through a
familiarity with land ownership patterns, availability of potential development sites and
infrastructure constraints on development capacity.
pg. 3
Based on the above observations, there is sufficient land availability to meet market demand
within the context of other development constraints. There are a number of underutilized sites,
with obsolete improvements, available for infill development throughout Downtown. Some
examples near the SMART station include the Glass and Sash Site, and properties on the west
side of Tamalpias Avenue.
Using Redwood City's recent experience as a model, completion of a San Rafael Downtown
Precise Plan in 2020, will likely result in private land owners being motivated to assemble
numerous sites for development. This is due to the Precise Plan reducing the time and
uncertainty associated with obtaining development approvals and reduced carrying costs and
market risk.
Unlike downtown Redwood City, with its large concentration of county government offices, a
prison and courts, a relatively small percentage of San Rafael's downtown land area is occupied
by property tax exempt land uses.
What about the properties between 2nd Street and 5th Avenue on the west side of Hetherton
Street?
If the Bridge District purchases the blocks between 3 rd Street and 5th Avenue on the west side of
Hetherton Street, these parcels would, at least for the interim, be taken off the tax roll.
The Citibank site between 3rd and 4th Streets is bank owned and not likely to be in play for
transit oriented development for the foreseeable future. This is based on resear.ch conducted
on the Wells Fargo and Chase sites in Downtown Redwood City. The property tax basis of the
Citibank site is relatively low due to its age and Proposition 13 constraints. Banks aren 't in the
real estate development business and tend to continue operating branches with a low cost
basis, superior locations and good market penetration.
The parcels north of 4th Street are constrained by the existence of historic resources, two
Queen Anne houses, converted to office use. However, the southerly half of the block including
two properties fronting 4th Street currently have one story retail buildings and parking lots.
These could have significant development potential but for the challenge of meeting parking
requirements. These parcels are not in the parking district.
Freeing up the Bettini site for development will make a significant parcel available for transit
oriented development at current property tax basis. This would likely more than compensate
for removal of the other parcels from the tax roll.
What's in Shortest Supply: Available Development Sites or Infrastructure Capacity?
There is a very high probability that analysis planned for the 2040 General Plan update and
Downtown Precise Plan will show there are more available developable sites Downtown
(currently assembled or potentially assembled) than can be served by existing available peak
roadway capacity.
pg. 4
One of the challenges the City Council will likely face is determining how to allocate this limited
capacity. Looking at the Redwood City example, a decision was made to focus development on
underutilized sites while protecting specific historic resources. Additionally, building heights
were limited for defined setbacks along key streets to protect pedestrian character and respect
the scale of historic buildings. (Broadway and Main Street). Potential candidate streets in San
Rafael could include 4th and B Streets.
In Redwood City's case, the available capacity identified in the programmatic EIR was quickly
used up and many sites remain available for development. Having a location at ground zero in
the Silicon Valley tech boom fueled this unanticipated velocity of absorption. Regardless of the
planning constraints, the market had no difficulty finding sites for infill. San Rafael's absorption
is likely to be slower due to market differences. However, land ownership patterns and infill
opportunities are similar.
The Downtown Precise Plan and much of the 2040 General plan update will reflect a state
mandated shift away from the current Level of Service Model (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) in the Environmental Impact Report and certification. The LOS model focuses on
intersection function. For example, LOS F would indicate that it takes more than one signal
cycle to pass through an intersection. Several intersections along the 101/SMART corridor
Downtown are currently functioning at LOS F or worse particularly during peak periods. This
condition has become common at off peak times.
VMT focus is on the number of vehicle miles traveled a project will generate rather than
impacts on intersection function. The VMT approach encourages project developers to shift
trips to different travel modes for people coming and going from their site and discourage
automobile use. Typical transportation demand management tools are used such as:
carpooling, discouraging onsite parking or requiring paid parking, encouraging active
transportation such as bicycles and walking by providing showers and safe bike storage, and
encouraging transit use by providing subsidies for employees. Another approach is to
encourage off-peak trips with staggered work shifts when there is available roadway capacity.
Increasing development Downtown is dependent on efficiently using available excess capacity
and increasing capacity through the use of alternative transportation modes. This underscores
the importance of building an excellent Transportation Gateway and recognizing it as a critical
infrastructure investment to implement the vision for Downtown.
The transit center currently serves 9,000 trips a day. Nearly 50% of these trips are destined for
Downtown, based on the -Bridge District's consultant's analysis (Kimley Horn). Growing this
percentage and increasing real numbers of transit users is a strategic action to compensate for
limited roadway capacity.
Getting people to use transit and active transportation (trains, busses, e-bikes conventional
bicycles, walking, scooters) provides a potentially cost-effective way to increase capacity for
Downtown growth. Since development opportunities are constrained by available roadway
capacity, there is an incentive to increase trips by other modes to support Downtown's
evolution. Thes options must be far more desirable than they are at present to motivate people
to use them.
pg. 5
Optimizing use of alternative transit modes depends on improving user experience, convenience
and safety.
Goals for Improving User Experience Convenience and Safety:
A symbiotic relationship occurs with the concentration of activity and ease of transfer between
transportation modes. This creates a very desirable place to do business, build active public
spaces, and is safer for people due to the concentration of "eyes on the street" and extended
hours of activity. Good design is required. There are many successful examples of this globally.
• Create a great environment for users including exemplary design, and excellent edges
with retail, food and beverage and other services in and around the Transportation
Gateway.
• Focus on improving the 4th Street, Tamalpias Avenue and Hetherton Street
environments around the Transportation Gateway.
• Place the Transportation Gateway in a location where pedestrians and alternative mode
users going to and from Downtown can avoid crossing busy high capacity roadways.
While people heading to the Bio Marin campus from SMART trains and busses will still
need to cross 2nd and 3rd Streets, no one should have to cross Hetherton Street
unnecessarily.
• Make bus access and maneuverability to the Transportation Gateway as easy and delay
free as possible, equal to or better than it is at present.
• Relocate the segment of the north-south greenway between 2nd Street and Mission
Avenue to Tamalpias Avenue reducing right turn conflicts. The Station Area Plan
envisions activating Tamalpias Avenue as a pedestrian/bike/scooter slow vehicle street.
This can include for hire vehicles and "kiss and ride" pick up and drop off.
• Make transfer between different transportation modes as seamless as possible.
• Don't "muck up" our current near capacity roadway function with complicated access
and turning movements or additional bus stops outside of the Transportation Gateway.
• Plan for future change by providing a large enough Transportation Gateway footprint to
provide a measure of flexibility. The modes of travel will change, however, a well-
chosen site with adequate size area and configuration will be adaptable and stand the
test of time.
• Bank the Transportation Gateway public land holdings to accommodate future mixed-
use development.
Siting Recommendations Based on the Above Goals:
The strip of land between Hetherton Street and the railroad is the place where it all comes
together. This is where SMART, the north-south greenway, east-west bike and pedestrian
routes, Bridge District, Marin Transit and other busses and for hire vehicles intersect. This is the
natural place for a Transportation Gateway based on the existing roadway, rail and bike
pg. 6
way networks. Any site between 2rd Street and 5th Avenue between Hetherton Avenue and the
SMART tracks must address design, safety and historic resource concerns.
GGBHTD"S 4th Street Gateway Site Alternative
Two key blocks are assembled in this site alternative to create a Transportation Gateway for
Downtown. This site is located between Hetherton Avenue and the SMART right of way
extending from 3 rd Street and 5th Avenue. In the opinion of the writer, this is the natural
location for the Transportation Gateway based on its locational attributes and relationship to
the existing road, greenway and rail networks. It's large enough to accommodate current
programmatic requirements. Public ownership of this land will allow for implementation of a
truly functional "transportation commons" that can be designed for present requirements and
adapted to meet changing needs over time.
• The site is of adequate size to accommodate existing bus routes and boarding
requirements.
• The user experience is design dependent. It can range from poor to excellent depending
on the facility design, relationship to adjacent roadways, the north-south greenway and
adjacent land uses and what amenities are provided.
• Bus access and egress are similar to the existing Bettini facility with a particularly good
relationship to 101 southbound routes. Bus access to and from the facility would impact
Hetherton, 3rd and 4th Streets and 5th Avenue. This is a matter of concern that must be
addressed.
• Patron access to and from Downtown and the greenway is excellent with crossing
conflicts limited to lower volume streets including 4th Street and Tamalpias Avenue.
Origins and destinations from the west do not need to cross Hetherton Street.
• The site provides optimal transfer to other transit modes as they all converge on this
location.
• There are excellent opportunities for symbiotic land use relationships particularly on 4th
Street and the west side of Tamalpias Avenue.
• Impact on developable land: As noted previously the Citbank site is unlikely to be in
play for the foreseeable future. Parcels on the block between 4th Street and 5th Avenue
are privately held with historic residences situated on the 5th Avenue frontage. Two
small parcels with development potential front on 4th Street. Development of the
current Bettini Site is a compensating factor for loss of the Citibank and 4th Street
parcels from the tax roll. As noted previously, it is unlikely there is adequate peak
roadway capacity to serve all existing and projected developable sites available
Downtown.
• Historic resources: The existing Northwestern Pacific Depot is not specifically impacted
by this site. The Station Area Plan proposes adaptive us of the building in a manner
similar to the Ferry Building in San Francisco. The building size and configuration will
result in a more modest outcome; however, private development of the site can
accommodate similar uses and its location will be optimal as use of the Transportation
Gateway increases. It may be necessary to facilitate transfer of development rights
pg. 7
from this site to another downtown location to make stabilization, restoration and
adaptive use of the building financially viable. The two Queen Anne houses on 5th
Avenue are legitimately seen by the preservation community as important and valuable.
They are on the City's historic resource inventory.
• Visual and urban design considerations: The issues identified in community engagement
are primarily focused on impact on the Hetherton and 4th Street frontages specifically
the view of a bus terminal from our "front door" and impacts of bus turns and wide
driveways on 4th Street. Additionally, there is a legitimate concern about interruption
of the pedestrian experience on 4th, specifically a break in the street wall and retail
frontage.
Solving the Design Challenges of the 4 th Street Gateway Site:
Locational characteristics favor this site. However, success is dependent on thoughtful and
sensitive design addressing both functional needs and user experience. Excellent design can
address both physical challenges and the perceptions of patrons and those passing by. This
writer is confident optimal results can be achieved through efficient use of limited resources
and appropriate design. A well located and designed Transportation Gateway is a key strategic
action to provide meaningful additional mobility capacity for implementation of the Downtown
Precise Plan. This approach has been successfully implemented in many cities globally. The
core philosophy is to select the most advantageous site to accommodate the intended use. It is
what it is. Let's make this an advantage for Downtown.
4 th Street:
• Making the intersection at 4 th Street and Hetherton Avenue a compelling east front
door for Downtown. The Bridge District's consultant has shown plaza treatments on
each corner. These are not likely to be successful as the proposed plazas will not have
supporting uses on their edges and the sites are impacted by noise and traffic. An
alternative is to reserve these corners for small commercial buildings to "bookend" 4th
Street. This provides the benefit of screening the loading platforms and busses from 4th
Street. These corners could remain in private ownership (transferring fee from the
existing locations) or could be placed under long term ground leases. The District's site
plan suggests the corners are not critical for transit operations.
• Relocation of the Queen Anne houses facing 5 th Avenue. These buildings have been
converted to commercial use and can be easily relocated to the corners of 4th and
Hetherton Streets. There are no overhead utilities to contend with, they are light ductile
structures and the sites could be prepared to receive the buildings prior to moving
them, minimizing disruption of use. Only one building would be moved across 4th
Street. Relocation of these structures would not jeopardize their potential for listing on
the National Register as they maintain their context, specifically being close to their
original location and the railroad (they were formerly railroad related housing). This
represents an opportunity for the existing property owners to retain their assets, moved
pg. 8
to new locations on San Rafael's main street, or sell the properties either through a
negotiated transaction or eminent domain.
• Converting the Whistlestop 4th Street Plaza to a more suitable use. This site is under
private ownership. Its current use is for parking Zip Cars. Change of use to outdoor
dining is more consistent with the character of 4th Street.
• Enhancing the pedestrian character of 4 th street and linking to the east. Having
driveways to the Transportation Gateway interrupt 4th Street sidewalks is not desirable
but likely necessary with this scenario. The key mitigations are reducing the driveway
width to the minimum needed, providing well-designed pedestrian refuges and locating
ample landscaping outside of site triangles. Presence of buildings on the corners of 4th
and Heatherton Streets provides a pedestrian refuge and reduces the perception of a
long trek across an open unpleasant place. Continuing the street tree program and
sidewalk treatments is also helpful.
Hetherton Street:
• Creating a distinguished streetscene on the Heatherton frontage of the Transportation
Gateway. Bettini currently has bus stops along the Hetherton Street frontage. There
are obvious operational advantages to avoiding entering the terminal for certain bus
routes. An extended Hetherton Street frontage afforded by the two-block site allows
greater flexibility to introduce a robust street trees canopy and avoid contiguous runs of
shelter structures. This is a solvable urban design challenge. Relocating the north-south
greenway to Tamalpias Avenue also provides greater flexibility for streetscape and bus
stop design solutions in addition to reducing right turning vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian
conflicts. Bus access to the Transportation Gateway from 5th Avenue can also be studied
to eliminate driveways on Hetherton Street.
Tamalpias Avenue:
• Making Tamalpias Avenue the front door for the Transportation Gateway. Tamalpias
Avenue is not specifically part of the site. However, its design and use figures into a
vision for the Transportation Gateway. The station area plan envisions this as a local
street and the route of the north-south greenway. A common solution for this kind of
street is to treat the public right of way with a single durable attractive pavement with
no differentiation for sidewalks. In essence, the street becomes a continuous plaza open
to vehicles, active transportation and pedestrians. Low traffic volumes allow this to
occur. Experience in the EU and UK has shown this to be safer than providing defined
places for each type of user due to increased driver awareness and caution. This is
similar to the Banhof Strassa in Zurich. As mentioned previously, this street can
accommodate for hire vehicles, drop off and pick up. The western side of the street
from 2nd Street to Mission Avenue can be earmarked for transit oriented development
with streel level retail and food and beverage uses.
Predicted result: Increase in transit and active transportation use and a catalyst for creation of
public spaces and Downtown's evolution.
pg. 9
Analysis of Other Site Options
Below is an analysis of additional site alternatives based on the Improving User Experience,
Safety and Convenience Goals.
Around Whistlestop:
This site has some of the attributes of the 4th Street Gateway. The primary differences are:
• The site is too small to accommodate all programmed uses onsite resulting in a
congested impacted facility and adjacent streets. It doesn 't rise to the leve l of
"Transportation Gateway". Its size leaves no room for flexibility.
• Disperses bus stops and transfers them to city streets off site with attendant
inconvenience for transit users and broader conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians.
• Bus loading and movement results in a significant negative impact on the Tamalpias
Avenue corridor as a safe and pleasant pedestrian/bicycle environment. This has the
potential to degrade access from the transit center site to Downtown for transit users
and crowds the Northwestern Pacific Depot Building and its uses. It adversely impacts
user experience and is not consistent with the vision of the Station Area Plan.
• Efforts to correct the site deficiencies have led to consideration of acquiring additional
land on the west side of Tamalpias Avenue and possibly relocating the Depot building.
This is symptomatic of attempting to force a solution onto an inadequate site.
Relocating the Depot building would be challenging as it is a number of different
buildings that have grown together and its existing relationship to the street and
railroad would be difficult to reconcile potentially impacting landmark designation.
• Significant pedestrian/transit vehicle conflict on the south 4th Street block face for an
extended curb cut.
Predicted results: Difficult to ascertain. The primary unknown is the impacts on bus routing
and delay. Eliminates some 3 rd Street patron crossings (a positive). Some adverse impact on
active transportation users due to north-south greenway conflicts around the Depot building.
The site doesn't allow for significant growth in transit use.
Two Level Concept:
This location and solution is impaired by the following:
• Transit facility is inflexible limiting expansion potential or change in vehicle types
• Virtually impossible to mitigate visual impact and unpleasant street level perimeter
conditions on 2nd
, 3rd,4th
, and Hetherton Streets
• Creates a tunnel at 3rd Street
• Difficult to get vehicles and transit users up to the second level requiring ramps and
vertical conveyances (elevators, stairs, ramps or escalators)
• Poor gateway for Downtown
• Continues to require pedestrian crossings across 3rd Street on the east side of Hetherton
Street to access the transit terminal from the pick-up and drop off area
pg. 10
• Constrains future reinterpretation of the area for mixed-use transit oriented projects.
• Constrains right turn movements from southbound Hetherton Street to westbound 3rd
Street
• High construction cost
• Costly to operate
• Highly disruptive construction impact
Predicted result: Reduced transit use
Under the Freeway:
These locations are impaired by the following considerations:
• Poor user experience due to an inherently unpleasant environment under a busy
freeway
• Ope(ational constraints posed by bridge bents
• Isolation from downtown and origins and destinations west of Hetherton Street and
related crossing safety concerns. All Downtown trips require crossing Hetherton Street
• Transfer to other transportation modes is impaired by isolation
• No opportunity for a symbiotic relationship exists for adjacent land uses
• Depending on site circulation, function of Hetherton Street will be adversely impacted
by bus access and egress
• Covering the creek would require clearance by the resource agencies: a likely challenge
Predicted result: Reduced transit use
Glass and Sash Site:
This location is impaired by the following considerations:
• An isolated site inconvenient for transit user access particularly to and from Downtown
(long walk to the core of Downtown)
• Impaired transit operations including poor bus access and major routing changes
resulting in delays
• Transfer to other transportation modes is impaired by isolation
• Poor access from east of the freeway (the Canal immigrant community has significant
transit dependency)
• Requires crossing of the busy 2nd and 3rd Street arterial couplet with related safety
concerns
• Little opportunity for a symbiotic relationship exists for adjacent land uses unless the
retail center to the east is redeveloped.
• This is a prime site for transit oriented development
Predicted result: Reduced transit use
c: Jim Schutz, Paul Jensen, Bill Guerin
pg.11
•· '