Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPPH Minutes 1998-02-09SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1998, AT 8:10 PM Special Public Hearing: San Rafael City Council Cyr Miller, Councilmember Also present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:30 PM Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item: CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 7:30 PM *Public Employee Appointment (Government Code Section 54957) - Consideration of appointment of Recreation Director OPEN SESSION - 8:00 PM Mayor Boro announced no reportable action was taken. PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY BY THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - File 205-C x 13-11 City Manager Rod Gould reported last Friday staff determined a State of Emergency existed in the City of San Rafael, as it did in most of Marin County, due to winter storms. Mr. Gould signed a Proclamation stating the emergency existed; however, under State law, if the City is to receive reimbursement from State and Federal sources, the City Council needs to confirm that determination. Mayor Boro explained that during the past few days the City had been operating an EOC (Emergency Operations Center) in the Council Chamber, with an emergency operations team dealing with issues that were affecting the City. Mayor Boro reported staff had been very professional in their work, how they came together and interacted with other agencies throughout Marin County and the Bay Area. He stated they were to be commended, and asked City Manager Gould to express the Council's thanks for their great work. Councilmember Cohen stated Saturday morning he had heard it was flooding, and when he went to look at the Downtown, he met Police Officer Franzini, who offered to take Mr. Cohen with him as he traveled around the City and checked -in with various crews. Mr. Cohen stated he was very impressed with the work of the Police Officers and Public Works Department employees, protecting life and property in the City of San Rafael, noting they worked hard under conditions, especially in the Peacock Gap area, that could only be described as frightening. He stated they were working in miserable conditions, looking out for the rest of us, pointing out we often take that for granted until times like this, and noting it merits our public notice and appreciation. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency by the City of San Rafael. City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini asked Mayor Boro to extend the Proclamation one more day, to February 8th. Mayor Boro announced the Proclamation was effective from February 2 through February 8, 1998, proclaiming the existence of a local emergency. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:None PUBLIC HEARING: 1.SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK DEVELOPMENT, SECOND STREET, LINDARO STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE; VILLAGE PROPERTIES, APPLICANT; FAIR, ISAAC & COMPANY, TENANT AND OPTIONEE; AP NOS. 13-012-120, 13-021-100, AND 13-021-190 (CITY PLANNING FILE NO. ZC97-2, UP97-10, ED97-24 and DA97-1) (CD) - File 10-7 x (SRRA) R-368 a.RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE FAIR, SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 2 ISAAC OFFICE PARK DEVELOPMENT Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and recused himself, noting he owns stock in the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Mayor Boro turned the gavel over to Vice -Mayor Phillips. Vice -Mayor Phillips explained the process that would be followed during the Public Hearing, and asked for the staff report. Paul Jensen, Contract Planner for the project, reported the hearing process for this project was recommended in two phases; the first phase was to cover this meeting, and the second was to cover the meeting to be held February 17th. He stated at this time Council was being asked to review and take action on the Final Environmental Impact Report, and at the meeting of February 17th, they would be considering the project merits, and all the applications that are part of the Merits Review. Mr. Jensen stated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) did not require a Public Hearing on a Final EIR. He noted they had completed a thorough public review process during the Draft EIR Review, and tonight, as part of the public review, they were asking for comments regarding the adequacy of the Response to Comments document, which is Volume Two. He suggested if anyone had comments regarding the project itself, such as the merits, the applications, or whether the City should approve or deny the project, they might wish to withhold their comments until next Tuesday night's meeting. Mr. Jensen noted that after tonight's Public Hearing was closed there would be a brief recess, after which staff would respond to comments. Mr. Jensen explained the staff report included a draft Resolution for certification of the EIR, and noted there was a typographical error in the second "WHEREAS", which would be corrected. In addition, under the "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED" section it states that the City Council would be recommending, to the City Council, certification of the EIR. He stated that, of course, was incorrect, reporting the Council would actually be certifying the document. Mr. Jensen reported in August, 1997, the Draft EIR, which is Volume One in the staff report, was completed, and a 45 -day public review period was observed. He stated the Volume One Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the project, including the objectives of both the applicant and the City. Mr. Jensen noted this property had been analyzed in detail as part of the Downtown Vision Process, and there were specific objectives in the Downtown Vision which carried over into the 1996 General Plan Update, and encouraged redevelopment of this site with an Office Park project. Mr. Jensen stated on September 23, 1997, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the Draft EIR, and directed staff to respond to all written and oral comments. Subsequent to that hearing, staff prepared Volume Two, which is now being presented to Council. He noted Volume Two had been distributed to all those who had made written comments on the Draft EIR, and reported the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR on January 7, 1998, recommending City Council certification of the document. He stated the Planning Commission staff report regarding the Final EIR was also attached to the staff report, noting it outlines all the environmental issues, and summarizes those issues in the EIR. He also pointed out it summarizes a number of the primary project issues reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting February 3rd. He stated there were a number of changes made to the attachments in the report, which have been updated as part of the Planning Commission's review last week, and those would be brought to Council at the next Council meeting; therefore, he pointed out there was additional, updated information regarding Project Merit issues that was not included in the staff report. Mr. Jensen referred to a letter from attorney Peter Kleinbrodt, which was distributed to the Councilmembers, questioning the Planning Commission's review process and requesting the Planning Commission conduct another hearing on the Final EIR. Mr. Jensen noted the letter had been responded to by the City Attorney. Mr. Jensen noted staff had also distributed a small diagram of the Second Street widening project, which describes and distinguishes between improvements required under the General Plan, versus improvements required as part of the project. Mr. Jensen pointed out there were several people present to answer questions, including EIR consultant Laura Worthington -Forbes, SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 3 Matthew Ridgeway and Fred Choa of Fehr & Peers, the EIR consulting firm's Traffic Engineers, and Nader Mansourian, the City's Traffic Engineer. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked City Attorney Gary Ragghianti if Mr. Kleinbrodt's letter, which the Councilmembers had just been given, had any impact on these proceedings? Mr. Ragghianti stated the letter of January 20th had been responded to by him, and was treated as a comment, received after the closure of the Planning Commission hearing. He indicated the letter would be made a part of the record. Mr. Ragghianti stated he would decline to recommend or suggest the Planning Commission reconsider its recommendation certifying the Environmental Impact Report. Cecilia Bridges, Attorney representing Fair, Isaac, stated her presentation would be limited to presenting a full project description, noting it would be a little awkward, as this hearing was on the EIR, and not on the Project Merits; however, they knew Council had not seen the entire project description, and they were making their presentation so Council could fully understand any comments about the EIR. Ms. Bridges asked that the record show they had made all of their comments on the Draft and Final EIRs before the Planning Commission, and had no additional comments. Ms. Bridges introduced Marty Zemcik from Village Properties, Stephen Gale and Michael Gordon from Fair, Isaac, and David Israel, Architect from Backen, Arrigoni & Ross. David Israel, Architect with Backen, Arrigoni & Ross, reviewed their basic goals of the project, and how they achieved those goals, through a very long and involved process, to arrive at a terrific project that is going to benefit all members of the San Rafael community, as well as Fair, Isaac. Referring to renderings of the project, Mr. Israel stated Fair, Isaac's goals for this site were to develop 405,000 square feet of Market Rate Office space in the Downtown San Rafael area. He reported they examined a number of sites, and chose the Downtown site based on such things as its proximity to services. He noted their other goal for this site was to attempt to complete Phase I construction and move in by January, 2000. He pointed out this was a 15.1 acre site; however, there have been a number of constraints, from P.G.& E., the street widening, and so forth, and they are now actually down to 12.5 acres on which the project will be located. Mr. Israel reported the project, in its full build -out, will consist of five buildings. Building "A" is a 72,000 square foot, three-story building; Building "B" is an 86,000 square foot, three-story building. Buildings "C", "D", and "E" are all proposed to be built in the second phase, and Building "C" is a four-story building of 88,000 square feet; Building "D" 74,000 square feet; and Building "E" is 86,000 square feet. Mr. Israel reported full build -out includes on -grade parking on the west parcel at Second Street, Lincoln Avenue, and Linardo Street, noting that because of the overhead P.G.& E. lines, no construction is allowed within that site. He stated there would also be a three-story parking structure just east of the P.G.& E. sub -station, and a two- and three-story parking structure on the eastern parcel, which is currently the City Corporation Yard. He reported the parking structures will house 400 cars in the west parcel, 450 in the east parcel, and another 300 cars on-site. Mr. Israel reported the primary site access will be off Lindaro Street, primarily to benefit from accessibility off of Andersen Drive, as well as Lindaro and Second Streets. He noted there are 47 spaces for short-term customer arrival parking, and another 32 spaces off of Lincoln Avenue, primarily for short-term employee parking. Mr. Israel pointed out Phase I would include three-story buildings A & B, and an interim parking lot of 100 parking spaces. He noted all the common facilities, which are part of the privately owned, publicly used spaces, were located in Building A, as well as the areas of the courtyard and open amphitheater space adjacent to Mahon Creek. Mr. Israel presented a computer simulation video which had been prepared as a working tool to help the Design Review Board and Planning Commission understand the incredible level of detail, thought, and articulation that has gone into this project to really make it fit into the Downtown area. He pointed out large, pubic plazas built to enhance circulation between the campus and Downtown, noting the changes incorporated into the architecture to provide a significant amount of variety, texture, and scale to the buildings. He stated the concept of the buildings having a base, a middle, and a top was an important component in the development of the architecture for the site. SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 4 Mr. Israel reported the project was currently parked at 3 cars per 1,000 square feet; however, the EIR has called for a methodology in monitoring the first phase of construction, and should additional parking prove to be necessary, they have planned for additional parking to be added to the Lincoln Avenue parking structure. He explained a two- and three-story parking structure was currently planned, and should the need arise, there would be a slight extension of the length of that structure, and the addition of the third floor in that location. Mr. Israel stated they have had a very long and involved process with the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, noting it has been a very successful process. He emphasized the model being presented was not a photo -realistic model, noting it was done to emphasize massing. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if the model was a reasonable scale, and if it represented how the project would actually feel? Mr. Israel stated the scale was quite accurate, and had been generated from the computer drawing files. He noted the one thing that was not accurate was the tower, as the top of the tower was being redesigned, and would go back before the Design Review Board for approval. Mr. Phillips asked if the color combinations, as shown, were what could be expected? Mr. Israel referred to the color palette, and noted the best way to select the color was to wait until the buildings were actually constructed, and then do a color mock-up on the site, so they can actually be seen in context. Councilmember Cohen noted there had been extensive discussion regarding public use of the community facilities, and access to the site. He asked how that fit with public access to Mahon Creek, along the back side of the project? Mr. Israel noted Mahon Creek improvements were part of a separate project, which the City was involved in. He reported there was public access along the entire length of the south side of Mahon Creek; however, public access was not anticipated on the north side of the creek. He noted there was also a requirement for a service road along the south side of the creek. Mr. Jensen introduced Laura Worthington -Forbes for a summary of the Final EIR, noting her comments would be followed by a presentation given by Matthew Ridgeway, of Fehr & Peers. Laura Worthington -Forbes, EIR consultant, reported the Draft EIR evaluated ten environmental issues, including land use compatibility and land use plans and policies, biological resources, hydrology and drainage, geology and soils, transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, and hazardous materials, as well as visual resources. She noted she would focus her comments on clarifications and modifications that have surfaced as a result of the public review process. Referring to biological resources, Ms. Forbes reported there was a 300 foot encroachment by the southeastern edge of Building B into a wetland buffer area that was going to be created as a result of the Andersen Drive extension project. She stated this would result in a conflict with the City's Natural Element Policy NE -15, and the EIR recommended mitigating this impact by requesting a waiver from the 50 foot setback requirement, or by preparing a mitigation plan for the establishment of suitable habitat or expansion into the buffer area. During the course of the Final EIR the mitigation was refined further, to acknowledge that the applicant had requested a waiver, and as part of this process, the plan would be modified to illustrate provision of a two -to -one replacement; in other words, there would be a provision for an additional 600 square foot wetland buffer area. Ms. Forbes stated there were also several mechanisms by which to increase the value of the habitat wetland that would be created, and those recommendations were reviewed by the biological sub -consultant, as well as the California Department of Fish and Game. To increase the long-term value and minimize intrusion into the wetland buffer area, City staff ultimately recommended that the portion of the pedestrian path between Building B and the wetland buffer area be relocated northward, to increase the actual distance between the wetland buffer area and the building. She noted this would also maximize the value of the total buffer area to be created. However, subsequent to the preparation of the final EIR, during final design and engineering for the Andersen Drive extension project, the City's Public Works Department found adjustments were necessary in the improved wetland mitigation area for Andersen Drive, as a portion of that wetland buffer area would conflict with an existing groundwater monitoring well on the P.G.& E. site, located at the far northeastern corner of the restoration area, between Building B and Lincoln Avenue. She reported that in order to resolve this conflict, the City requested a modification of the SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 5 Army Corps of Engineers permit; however, she noted the permit was still pending, and in order to avoid any confusion, and to assume a "worse case" analysis, the City has looked at the analysis of the waiver, as well as the determination of whether the waiver would be adequate, given the project. Ms. Forbes reported the potential for short-term air quality impacts resulting from grading and ground disturbing activities were also evaluated, and to mitigate short-term air quality impacts during construction, particularly dust emission, the applicant was being required, both through the CEQA process and independent of the CEQA process, to implement a Soils Management Work Plan. She explained the Work Plan would limit the amount of dust that could be generated from parcels A and B. Additionally, the short-term control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would be implemented to augment and compliment, where appropriate, those measures already a part of the Soils Management Work Plan. Referring to Traffic and Circulation, Ms. Forbes reported the intersections had been evaluated in the EIR, and based on the Level of Service calculations and assumptions addressed under baseline conditions, the proposed project would not cause any studied intersections or arterials to fall below an acceptable level of service; however, under General Plan Build -out, which is projected for the year 2010, the proposed project, when considered together with all the other projects in the Downtown area, would result in a further deficiency of Highway 101. She noted that was the only Unavoidable Adverse Impact in the EIR. Ms. Forbes reported the EIR does conclude that the mitigation of project related impacts on Highway 101 would be prohibitively expensive and, therefore, are considered Significant and Unavoidable. She stated that although the County's Congestion Management Plan identifies the Level of Service standard at "E" for Highway 101, study segments are grandfathered at a Level of Service "F", given current operational conditions. Ms. Forbes reported that subsequent to preparation of the final EIR, additional information was provided and submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the public record, to augment and supplement the justification of the Findings of Unavoidable Impact. Following completion of the final EIR, the City did receive applications for the former Macy's building and the Kaiser building, both of which are pending in the Downtown. Based on the addition of these projects, the City completed an update of when certain improvements, particularly to Second Street, would be required. She noted the City determined that certain improvements critical to the operation of Second Street would occur under baseline conditions, and must be completed by January 1, 2000, which is when Fair, Isaac anticipates occupancy of Phase I. These improvements include both project related improvements, as well as improvements required under the City's General Plan Build -out. Ms. Forbes stated, based on the City's parking standard for the Downtown, the project would result in a parking shortfall of 135 spaces. She reported this would be mitigated by establishing a Parking Landscape Reserve, or by reconfiguring the parking layout described earlier by Mr. Israel. She noted that during the public review of the Draft EIR, a number of comments were raised with regard to the adequacy of the City's Downtown parking standard, and through the course of the Final EIR process, they looked at whether or not the Downtown ratio of one space per 300 gross square feet of office space was adequate. She reported the City determined it was adequate, based on a survey of parking demand studies for other existing office parks in Marin County, as well as other surrounding counties, recommendations from the Urban Land Institute, a review of the parking demand for Fireman's Fund in the City of Novato, and the 1995-96 DTAG (Downtown Advisory Group) recommendations. Ms. Forbes reported the applicant has determined that if all the additional parking is needed, it can be accommodated in the eastern parking structure, and if monitoring shows it is necessary, an additional 138 spaces can be provided. Ms. Forbes stated the last issue to surface, with regard to Transportation and Circulation, was whether or not a Transportation System Management measure would be required of the project, also known as a TSM Program. She noted the City's General Plan Policy C-22 does require a TSM Program for large projects, and the City has required a TSM Program for this project as a condition of project approval; however, she pointed out a TSM Program was not required as mitigation for the project. Ms. Forbes reported the Final EIR provides an overview of the existing TSM Program in effect at the current Fair, Isaac office buildings in North San Rafael, as well as an overview of the program they plan to implement at the Lindaro Street campus. SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 6 Addressing the issues of Hazardous Materials and health and safety impacts, Ms. Forbes reported construction would result in potentially significant earth moving activities and soil disturbance, as well as installation of utilities, infrastructure, and site improvements. She stated these all have the potential for releasing or exposing people to unsafe concentrations of PAHs (Polycyclic Aeromatic Hydrocarbons), and noted these impacts were mitigated by adherence to the Health and Safety Plan, and the Soils Management Plan, each of which are being prepared under the guidance of the Department of Toxics and Substance Control (TDSC), as well as the joint responsibility of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, the EIR has identified three other such measures, above and beyond the requirements of the Soils Management Workplan and the Health and Safety Plan, to further reduce the potential for exposure of these contaminants to the public. She stated that during the Draft and the Final EIR preparations, issues specific to the adequacy of the soil cap were raised by members of the public, and by the Planning Commission. She noted the purpose of the cap at this site was to prevent surface exposure of these contaminants, either by volatilization, or by skin contact. Therefore, penetration of the cap by piles or roots was not a concern, nor was exposure to humans and animals via ingestion, or by eating plants on the site a concern, for the following reasons: the type of contaminants (the PAHs) are large and relatively insoluble, and they are not readily taken up by plant roots. Also, they are not easily transferred to vegetative tissue. In addition, only a portion of the root mass would actually be exposed or in contact with the soil below the soil cap, and human or animal contact or exposure, or the likelihood of humans or animals to eat a large quantity of these plants, was not a concern. Ms. Forbes reported the students at Davidson School would experience short-term noise impacts during construction, and it was noted in the Draft EIR that these impacts could be avoided by restricting pile driving activities to periods when Davidson School students were not using the classrooms. She noted the Final EIR included additional detailed mitigation to ensure the actual timing of the pile driving would not conflict with the summer session, and subsequent to the preparation of the Final EIR, the City and Fair, Isaac received a letter from the Principal of Davidson School ensuring, at least for this year, that summer school session during Phase I construction activities would be relocated to San Rafael High School, thereby avoiding the impact all together. Ms. Forbes reported CEQA does require the EIR to look at a range of alternatives which could feasibly avoid or minimize any significant, or potentially significant impacts. She stated the on-site constraints, as identified in the project description, were used as a baseline for what a reasonable range of alternatives would be, noting those constraints substantially limit allowable land uses, the site design configuration, setbacks, and the location of buildings and infrastructure. Ms. Forbes reported that with the exception of impacts to Highway 101 under General Plan Build -out Conditions, and the potentially significant impacts that would result with the relocation of the Corporation Yard on the eastern parcel, all other impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Nonetheless, they did look at five alternatives, as required by CEQA, which included a no project, no development alternative; no project and development under the existing zoning designations; an alternative design, which featured four, five -story buildings at 410,000 square feet; and two reduced project scale alternatives, a comparative summary of which is included at Page 7-5 of the Draft EIR. Lastly, as required by CEQA, a environmentally superior alternative was identified, and in this case, the reduced project scale alternative, which is 250,000 square feet of office space, was the most environmentally superior alternative, being capable of minimizing or avoiding some of the environmental impacts, although not the impacts to Highway 101. Ms. Forbes noted there was a correction to the Final EIR, Volume 2, stating part of a sentence on Page 4-6 had been omitted from the text. Referring to the last line under sub -heading 5.2.11, "King Henry the VIII", she reported the last sentence should read, "Located on Third and "A" Streets, the King Henry the VIII site is proposed for development of a Mixed Use project, including 25,000 square feet of Medical Office space, and 9,400 square feet of associate Retail space. The total FAR is 1.511. Councilmember Cohen referred to the issue of dealing with the contaminated soil, particularly during the construction phase, and of exposure to workers on the project, and to the public at large. He stated he had been on the SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 7 Planning Commission in 1989 when a retail project had been considered for this site, noting there had been extensive discussion at that time about this issue. Mr. Cohen asked who was responsible for seeing that air monitoring is conducted? Ms. Forbes stated it was the applicant's responsibility to maintain the monitoring process; however, she noted the monitoring was actually conducted through joint responsibility of the Department of Toxics and Substance Control, as well as the Regional Water Quality Control Board. She reported the applicant had prepared two very detailed plans; one a Health and Safety Plan, and the other a Soils Management Work Plan, noting that during construction the applicant absolutely had to follow the applications and restrictions inherent to that plan, in order to construct the project. Mr. Cohen asked if they were all done with the appropriate State regulatory agencies overseeing them, and not by the City? Ms. Forbes stated that was correct. Councilmember Miller asked for clarification regarding mitigation for the extension of the 35 foot encroachment into the protected area. Ms. Forbes explained the wetlands being discussed were actually wetlands that would be created as mitigation for the Andersen Drive project, and because the well could not feasibly be relocated, in order to adjust the alignment the City needs to go back and request an adjustment or modification to the existing Corps Permit. If that modification is granted, it nullifies the impact that would otherwise be caused by the encroachment. Mr. Jensen noted, given the timing of this, they must use as a baseline the existing approved wetland as described in the EIR, and that is why they need to consider the waiver at this time. Matthew Ridgeway, of Fehr and Peers, stated his company had worked as a sub - consultant on the traffic component, to identify the impacts associated with the project. Regarding Impacts and Methodology, Mr. Ridgeway felt it was important to note that with every assumption they used, they tried to err on the side of conservatism, on such issues as trip generation and distribution, traffic and parking analysis, and all the studies conducted as part of this. He stated the traffic analysis was very detailed, both in respect to the analysis process they used to derive future traffic volumes, as well as the precise analysis technique used to analyze service levels. With respect to trip generations, he noted they had been charged with analyzing a generic project, and rather than analyzing Fair, Isaac, they analyzed a multi -tenant office complex of 406,000 square feet. As part of that they used basic industry -standard trip rates, which assume a very low percentage of transit usage; so despite the fact that they are right next door to the Transit Center, and probably have the best transit access of anyone in Marin County, they used very little transit, and assumed almost nothing with respect to TSM. Mr. Ridgeway reported they also reviewed a study that had been conducted of the Fair, Isaac site in North San Rafael, to determine whether or not their trip generation may be higher than other industry standards; however, they found they were, in fact, slightly lower. Therefore, the trip rates they used in their analysis were very conservative. Regarding impacts, Mr. Ridgeway stated they analyzed forty intersections, then narrowed those to fifteen critical intersections, which were those either in the project vicinity, or those already operating at a Level of Service "D" or higher, where the impacts could potentially be more significant. He reported the intersections that tended to be more critical were those on Second, Third, Irwin, and Hetherton Streets, and of those studied, thirty- six are functioning at LOS "C" or better, which relates to an average vehicle delay of approximately 25 seconds or less at each intersection; two intersections, at Second and Hetherton Streets and Mission and Lincoln Avenues, functioning at LOS "D", which means they have an average delay of between 25 and 40 seconds; and the intersection of Mission Avenue and Irwin Street functioning at LOS "E", which is an average delay of between 40 and 60 seconds. He noted the purpose of the baseline analysis was to assess what the short-term project impacts would be, and help them to phase the improvements that would be required to mitigate project conditions under short-term conditions. He reported they did assume a couple of improvements as part of the baseline assumptions, which included signal re - timing and coordination, specifically on Second and Third Streets at Hetherton Street, and that the Andersen Drive extension would be complete. He stated that under baseline there were still thirty-six intersections functioning at LOS "C" or better, three intersections functioning at LOS "D", at Second and Hetherton Streets, Mission and Lincoln Avenues, and Second Street and Grand Avenue, and one intersection that falls to LOS "F" at Mission Avenue and Irwin Street. He pointed out the LOS "F" occurs with or without the project, as does one of the LOS "D" intersections. Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 8 Ridgeway stated that under General Plan Conditions they assumed additional improvements, which included the Second Street improvements, and intersection improvements at Second Street and Grand Avenue, Third and "A" Streets, and Third Street and Grand Avenue. Explaining the difference between General Plan improvements and the improvements Fair, Isaac is responsible for on Second Street, Mr. Ridgeway stated the General Plan includes an additional fourth lane to 400 feet west of Lincoln Avenue, noting Fair, Isaac is going to add a right -turn at Lincoln, and also extend the fourth lane to 130 feet west of Lindaro Street. In terms of cost apportionment, Fair, Isaac is going to pay for what is termed Fair, Isaac impacts, in addition to their fair share of the General Plan improvements. Under General Plan Conditions there are thirty-five intersections, very close to the same as under existing baseline, which function at LOS "C" or better; four intersections that function at LOS "D", those at Second and Irwin Streets, Third and Lindaro Streets, Third and Shaver Streets, and Fourth (Miracle Mile) and Ross Valley; and one which functions at LOS "E", at Mission Avenue and Irwin Street. He reported incremental increases in delay at those intersections is, in most cases, less than five seconds, so there is less than 5 seconds of added delay with the project. Reporting on regional impacts, Mr. Ridgeway reported there were significant Unavoidable Impacts to Highway 101, as with any large project in Marin County. He stated their analysis of Highway 101 was consistent in every case with what is assumed in the Congestion Management Plan, noting they had assumed the southbound GAP Closure and the Irene Street Overcrossing, but did not assume the northbound GAP Closure for reversible HOV lanes, as has been proposed. Referring to parking, Mr. Ridgeway stated they were making the very worst case scenario, noting they had done a very thorough review of industry standard research, and used the highest parking demand rate they could find, which they obtained from the Urban Land Institute. He stated they checked that against the office park usage of similar high-tech companies, and also did an occupancy count at Fireman's Fund in Novato, and all of those seemed to support the case for the parking ratios that have been identified. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted each company decides on its space/employee ratio, independently of standards and what others might do; therefore, he wondered if they had looked at Fair, Isaac as it plans to operate, to determine whether the conclusions might be any different if they applied the standard, whatever that might be? Mr. Ridgeway stated none of the current Fair, Isaac sites were conducive to a detailed parking analysis, primarily because they share their space with other uses, or have to park on the street. However, the trip generation surveys done on Fair, Isaac indicate they are, in fact, lower than the industry standard, so they would expect that parking demand would also be lower than industry standards. In addition, he reported they researched trip generation and parking demand studies done for similar high-tech companies. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted the people at Fair, Isaac were very organized, and plan quite well, and he believed they knew what the ratio was going to be. He wondered if we had asked them what the ratio was going to be? Based on their project description, Mr. Ridgeway felt Fair, Isaac was probably comfortable with the ratio of 3 spaces per thousand, which is what their proposal provides, while the City is asking for 3.3 spaces per thousand. Councilmember Cohen referred to the letter distributed earlier to Council, pointing out one of the issues raised was a procedural one, having to do with the limitation on comments. He noted Mr. Kleinbrodt implies there was a procedural flaw in the Planning Commission hearing on the recommendation certifying the Final EIR, because the public comment was limited. Mr. Cohen asked City Attorney Ragghianti if there was any basis in that, and if there was any reason we should modify our procedures to ensure everyone gets the opportunity to comment prior to considering whether to certify the EIR? City Attorney Ragghianti stated the short answer was "No", and deferred to staff for a more expansive response. However, he noted he had attended the Planning Commission hearings that culminated in the recommendation by the Commission that Council certify this document, and in his judgment, everyone who wished to speak or submit something in writing was given ample opportunity to do so. He pointed out one must remember the public comment period under CEQA was over, it was closed, and CEQA did not require the hearing now being conducted. He noted the County of Marin recently abolished hearings on Final Environmental Impact Reports, and while he was not suggesting that was a good idea, he was pointing out to SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 9 Council that it was purely discretionary on the part of the City to conduct such a hearing, and that was somewhat confusing. He stated anyone who wished to comment on the content of the document could do so now, but noted staff had already encouraged those who previously submitted their comments not to repeat them, because staff has responded to them already. He stated he could not imagine, in this process, anyone having been denied the opportunity to comment, noting that rarely happens in any CEQA forum, and it certainly did not happen, in his judgment, with respect to this Environmental Impact Report. Interim Planning Director Sheila Delimont noted the City Attorney had attended the Planning Commission hearing, and everyone who attended that hearing was given the opportunity to speak, or to submit written comments. Vice -Mayor Phillips invited public comment. Georgiana McCarty, speaking on behalf of the Environmental Forum, referred to the Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 1998, noting some of her comments had been omitted in the minutes of that meeting, leaving the impression the Environmental Forum only complains. She stated the Forum was very supportive of Fair, Isaac and its decision to locate in Downtown San Rafael, noting the Forum always encourages in -fill development, and are appreciative of Fair, Isaac's approach, especially their inclusion of community groups during the introductory planning period, and Mr. Jensen's willingness to meet with members of both their Land Use and Water committees. Ms. McCarty stated the Forum continues to hope wetland restoration and enhancement will be the direction mitigation will take, and while they learned from the meeting of January 8th that mitigation for excess building height is governed by a specific, established policy, and that wetland restoration is not a mitigation included in the policy, they urged that the policy be modified or changed to accommodate this inclusion. She stated that while they feel the policy for public use has been improved since its introduction, they believed it was more appropriate and site specific for the wetlands to be improved, than public use of the buildings or public access to the grounds. Since they also support wetland protection, they continue to urge that Building B be reconfigured or relocated, so as not to intrude into the buffer area. Ms. McCarty stated the Forum also urged that the private pathway not invade the buffer area. For these reasons, Ms. McCarty stated the Environmental Forum encouraged Council's consideration of Alternative B, which would make moot these mitigations, and eliminate their concerns. She noted she personally favors Alternative B for aesthetic reasons, in addition to the reasons expressed by the Forum. She felt the buildings, as designed, were too massive and too forbidding to be situated in such a sensitive location at the entrance of San Rafael, noting at build -out they would overwhelm the area, and everything around it. She urged that their appearance be softened. Ms. McCarty stated she was still somewhat confused about the P.G.& E. wells, and asked what happens if the response from the Department of Fish and Game is positive? Vice -Mayor Phillips stated Council would take comments and questions, such as Ms. McCarty's, and respond to them after all the public comment has been taken. Sid Waxman, representing the Montecito Area Residents Association, stated that while he believed this project was very attractive, he felt the City was burying its head in the sand, looking at 1960's solutions to mitigation traffic issues, which are much greater than presented by the professional analysts. Mr. Waxman stated if we currently have a Level of Service F at Mission Avenue and Irwin Street, adding potentially several hundred vehicles per hour will spread the migration toward Grand Avenue and alternate routes north, and spread serious traffic problems into the neighborhoods. He noted he was not asking the City to deny the report, rather to certify the report, but make a first commitment to thinking about major revisions in how the City deals with traffic, including the City becoming very actively involved in alternative travel arrangements, as opposed to just standing on the sidelines, applauding the work of Golden Gate Transit, and whatever work Fair, Isaac may do. With respect to this project, he felt the City had to consider that where it increases the demands on one street, it has to reduce demands elsewhere, and possibly increase street sizes. He asked Council to think "outside the box", and not look at the solutions that had been presented this evening, noting that adding a lane was not a solution, especially for a block and a half on Second Street. Albert Barr, President of the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, stated he had SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 10 been told by Planning staff there was no "nexus" between this project and his concerns regarding truck traffic on Third Street. However, he noted the EIR states approximately 30% of the Fair, Isaac employees will be coming from the East Bay, and he assumed at least half of those, or 15%, would be taking I-580 and Highway 101 and making a left -turn on Hetherton. Mr. Barr pointed out the EIR states this intersection, which is one of the 15 critical intersections, currently has a Level of Service C, and while he acknowledged that may be true considering the way the Traffic Engineers measure the Level of Service, he noted hundreds of people who experience that intersection in the morning do not experience Level of Service C. He suggested perhaps the Traffic Engineers might want to travel that route on a daily basis. Mr. Barr stated part of the problem was that the Level of Service varies throughout the year. He reported Mr. Ridgeway dismissed the Association's concern that one of the major impacts on traffic in that area was truck traffic, by stating truck traffic only impacts that section during two months of the year. Mr. Barr felt that either reflected Mr. Ridgeway's lack of objectivity, or his lack of familiarity with the problem, noting it was more than two months out of the year. He noted there was an additional compounding problem, pointing out Third Street has a left -turn lane, which makes Irwin Street four lanes, with two lanes making left turns. Mr. Barr reported approximately a year ago Caltrans took up part of the left -turn lane for retrofitting of the freeway, thereby shortening the left -turn pockets. He reported that when trucks make left turns, they do not move into the left -turn pocket, they stay in the outer left -turn lane, and when there is a truck next to you making a left -turn, especially if there is a series of trucks as often happens during several months in the Spring and Summer, there are no left -turn possibilities for the cars. He stated the cars cannot make the turn because the trucks will not move over, monopolizing the left -turn lanes. Mr. Barr noted the Environmental Impact Report states we have a Level of Service C, although people who experience this actually take ten to fifteen minutes to travel the two blocks from Grand Avenue to get onto the freeway. Mr. Barr admitted there did not seem to be much that could be done about this, noting he was asking the City to continue to monitor the impact of truck traffic, and when the forebodings regarding the impact of the Fair, Isaac employees are true, and there is worse gridlock than we have now, the only feasible way to mitigate that will be to mitigate the trucks using Third Street during the morning commute, although he had been told that would be impossible, because it is a truck route. Mr. Barr reported one of the City's Engineers was reviewing whether it would be possible to limit truck traffic on a truck route during morning hours, pointing out other cities do this, and it might be a possibility when the Fair, Isaac project is completed. He suggested something we might do now is to prohibit parking during the morning commute on Third Street, between Grand Avenue and Irwin Street. He noted this would primarily impact the employees of some of the businesses on Third Street, and suggested they might be able to help the City out by parking in their own parking lots in the morning, and then moving their cars after the commute traffic is over. He asked the City to think about these suggestions, as possible solutions to a horrendous problem that hundreds of people experience in the morning, despite the objective analysis of LOS C by the City's Engineers. Gary Ford, resident of San Rafael, stated he had not been a great fan of this project four or five months ago, and has become less so the more he studies the EIR, noting he had a major problem with many of the traffic assumptions. He stated the Council had to realize that in order for the public to buy -off on the EIR, we had to accept the fact that 1,300 employees of Fair, Isaac are going to occupy Phase I and Phase II at final build -out, and further accept the premise that if each one of those people have a car, that will be 1,300 cars coming into San Rafael, whether they are coming from the north, south on Highway 101 from San Francisco, or coming from I-580. He noted we are being asked to believe that with 1,300 cars coming into San Rafael, and with the signal increasing and retrofitting at key intersections, there will not be a Level of Service E or below, and he found that dubious. Mr. Ford referred to Page 4.51 of the Draft EIR, where the Engineers employed by the City made certain assumptions about traffic trips. He noted they had used worst case scenarios; however, he believed the worst case scenario they should have used was to take 1,300 cars of the Fair, Isaac employees coming in, zero usage of TSM, and zero usage of the bus, stating that would have been the worst case scenario. He also noted Page 4.5-21 of the EIR states there were seven key intersections that were to be retrofitted; however, subsequent documents to the EIR, in reports to the Planning SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 11 Commission, stated certain of these improvements would be delayed, some of the improvements would be part of the Andersen Drive reconstruction, and some would be part of the General Plan 2000; however, it is a subsequent premise of all further traffic analysis that these intersections would be retro -fitted, and would go to a Level of Service C. In addition, he reported there were only two projects included in the build -out stage, Shamrock Center and Fair, Isaac, noting no other project in the City of San Rafael was considered in the traffic analysis, including Macy's, Kaiser, Walgreen's, or Lone Palm. However, the Planning Commission report on Page 18, dated 12/30/97, states, "However, with the addition of traffic from the Macy's and Kaiser projects, the City Traffic Engineer has concluded that the widening of Second Street would need to occur under baseline conditions". Mr. Ford stated this had occurred because the City of San Rafael received processing development applications; however, it was a major premise in the EIR that they would only consider projects that had been approved, but not yet developed or constructed. Mr. Ford stated if the City Engineer was now going to change the rules and state certain retrofitting had to be done because we are bringing in Macy's and Kaiser, he applauded that, but pointed out the City would also have to include other projects, noting there could not be one set of criteria for the Draft EIR, and then have the City Engineer go on to another criteria. Mr. Ford stated he found it very disconcerting that the EIR states we are going to come to a Level of Service C, but then subsequent amendments destroy the credibility of the EIR. Mr. Ford asked that the entire Section 4.5, as it relates to traffic, be redone with the new assumptions of 1,300 employees coming into San Rafael, taking into account the full effect of Kaiser, Macy's, Walgreen's, and Lone Palm, zero credibility to a TSM, and zero to any bus or Transit Center. Mr. Ford stated he was pleased the Planning Department had come up with the idea of a TSM, noting this was very necessary; however, he believed there was a major difference between the requirement of having a TSM, and the utilization of a TSM. He pointed out Fair, Isaac could have a TSM, but if no one used it, it was worthless; therefore, he was suggesting that it have some "teeth", and that Council force the use of buses or carpooling. He stated if Council did not want to do that, then the EIR should be redone to reflect that there is no mitigation for having a bus depot, and no mitigation for TSM. He stated we just had to expect that 1,300 cars would be coming into San Rafael every single day. Lori Schifrin, resident of San Rafael, stated that for the 1,300 cars Mr. Ford referred to, she counted only 1,179 spaces spoken about tonight. Referring to the Traffic Study, Ms. Schifrin stated it appeared to have been conducted for only one hour on July 15, 1997, by a company from Florida, at a time when everyone was away on vacation. She asked if that was correct? She stated it would be absurd if that were true, but noted July 15, 1997 is shown on each page of the report, and the length of time analyzed is shown as 60 minutes. Ms. Schifrin also referred to the wiring being placed underground on Second and Third Streets, pointing out the project was not yet completed on Second Street, and had not even begun on Third Street, and noting this would certainly have an impact on Second and Third Streets. Ms. Schifrin stated she had not understood the answer to the earlier question about who is responsible for monitoring the air. She noted she lives within three blocks of the project, and asked who was going to guarantee the public safety? Peter Kleinbrodt, Attorney with the Law Firm of Freitas, McCarthy, McMann & Keating, stated he had not meant for his letter to cause such a stir. He reported he had been retained by certain community interests who are concerned about deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Report, as they relate to two specific issues, traffic circulation and parking. Mr. Kleinbrodt stated one of his remaining concerns is that the EIR makes certain assumptions, and the one he wished to address at this time was concerning the seven roadway improvements that need to be done under the no -project, General Plan Build -out in the year 2010. He stated the traffic studies which gave the results were based on those seven roadway improvements, and during the development of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, it was determined between Fair, Isaac and the City who would pay for the Second Street widening. He pointed out the basic assumption was that there is a fifth lane on Second Street from Hetherton Street to West Francisco Boulevard, and that fifth lane can only be optimized if Second Street improvements for the four lanes go a certain distance. Mr. Kleinbrodt stated what gets lost in the shuffle is that the fifth lane is one of the seven roadway improvements, and apparently part of the General SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 11 Mr. Mr. Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 12 Plan Build -out, but he noted the EIR does not address the funding aspect of that. Kleinbrodt complimented the City and its staff, pointing out this was a tremendous document, the result of a great amount of man hours. He stated his criticisms were not directed toward staff, nor were they directed toward Fair, Isaac, noting he was raising those concerns which the public feels this document does not address. He acknowledged Fair, Isaac had just explained where the additional 135 parking spaces would come from, noting that up until now they had merely stated the spaces would come from Landscaping Reserve, or they would reconfigure the parking space. He noted they even stated in the Design Review Board hearing that they would make the traffic lane smaller to accommodate the additional spaces, which was not what the public wanted to hear. Mr. Kleinbrodt stated he was pleased to have heard Mr. Israel explain where the extra parking spaces would actually come from. Kleinbrodt stated it had been noted there would be monitoring if the Institute's projections were correct, and Fair, Isaac's analysis was not correct as to how many spaces were going to be needed. He noted he was still concerned that Mr. Craiker, an Architect and Planner, had commented we would need even greater space. He noted software companies in Marin County do a lot of planning regarding their employees and space, and he was amazed this document did not reveal specifically what Fair, Isaac had in mind. He pointed out they would be bringing employees to this site from the East Bay, North Bay, and everywhere in Marin County, and he felt certain Fair, Isaac had something to disclose regarding this, noting they had requested to see such a plan, but had not seen it. Kleinbrodt reiterated his clients were concerned that their comments were being perceived negatively, and negatively attributed to Fair, Isaac and/or staff. He stated his clients were not negative to Fair, Isaac, and would like to commend the great work they have done; in fact, they believed that once Fair, Isaac was there, they were going to be in the same position all the other employees and citizens of that area are. He stated this was an opportunity to address those traffic issues, and have Fair, Isaac's resources address them before we get those buildings up. There being no further public comment, Vice -Mayor Phillips closed the Public Hearing. Vice -Mayor Phillips announced a brief recess in order to allow staff to prepare responses to the questions raised during the public comment. Vice -Mayor Phillips reconvened the meeting, and asked staff to respond to the questions and observations of the public. Mr. Jensen explained they would respond to the questions and comments in the order in which they were received. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted they had responded to quite a number of inquiries, many of which were similar to those heard by the Planning Commission. He requested that if there was an inquiry that had not previously been responded to, or which staff had not previously heard, that Mr. Jensen point those out. Mr. Jensen stated they would refer to the Planning Commission minutes if the question or comment had been previously addressed by that body. Mr. Jensen noted the first comment was from Georgiana McCarty, and addressed the City's policy for a Wetland Waiver, and the issue of wetland setback reductions for buildings. He noted Ms. McCarty had requested the City consider a policy change that would require actual wetland enhancement, rather than buffer enhancement. Mr. Jensen stated this was a policy issue, pointing out the way the Code is currently structured, if there is a building within a required wetland buffer setback, the mitigation is in- kind, and it is replaced with buffer, not replaced with enhancement. how it was being handled for Fair, Ms. McCarty's suggestion to modify project and the EIR process. He stated what was being proposed and Isaac was consistent with the Code, and the Ordinance was separate from this Mr. Jensen noted Ms. McCarty had also had a question concerning the monitoring well, and what happens if it is approved by the California Department of Fish and Game, pointing out this referred to the modification of the wetland boundary for the Andersen Drive Extension. Mr. Jensen clarified what had actually been filed with the Corps of Engineers was a modification SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 13 to an approved wetland delineation for the Andersen Drive Extension, and that was to avoid the area where there is a monitoring well now. He reported the process the Corps generally undertakes is to notice the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the review process, and typically the Department of Fish and Game, as well. He stated the Department of Fish and Game would be involved during the process to review, noting staff had contacted the Department during the review of the wetland buffer application process. Mr. Jensen explained that if the Corps of Engineers were to approve the delineation, then the actual construction work would be completed, and there would not be any further approvals needed by the City of San Rafael. Mr. Jensen stated the application that was filed with the Corps of Engineers was provided in Attachment D-2 of the staff report, and showed the wetland adjustment being requested by the Corps was considerably higher than what was actually approved. Matthew Ridgeway noted the substance of Mr. Waxman's comments referred to the intersection at Second and Irwin Streets, the projected congestion that would occur at this location, and in Mr. Waxman's opinion, the resulting diversion of traffic this would cause on Grand Avenue. For the record, Mr. Ridgeway stated the EIR does reflect some diversion of traffic onto Grand Avenue, noting the diversion is based on projections contained in the City's traffic model. In addition, this was also addressed on Page 22 of the Planning Commission minutes. Referring to Mr. Barr's comments regarding trucks at the intersection of Third and Hetherton Streets, Mr. Ridgeway stated he in no way meant to understate the impact of trucks at that intersection. He noted it was true that when trucks, particularly multiple trucks, arrive at the intersection at the same time, it does result in significant queues, noting in some cases the trucks block the left -turn lane. He explained the point of their previous response to this comment was that the occasions when this occurs are relatively rare, and tend to be in the summer months, when school is out and the background traffic is somewhat lower. Mr. Ridgeway stated this was not a typical condition, explaining what they assessed in their analysis were typical conditions; therefore, under typical conditions, with a mix of approximately 2% trucks, that condition does not occur. Mr. Ridgeway noted Mr. Barr had also asked the City to monitor truck traffic, and restrict AM Peak Hour truck use on Third Street. Mr. Ridgeway stated the City could not restrict truck traffic on a truck route, noting trucks have a right to the road just as automobiles do. He believed the City could restrict the traffic if they could provide an alternative route, but he could not think of a better route, and the City would just end up having to put the trucks on a different street, as opposed to Third Street. Mr. Ridgeway noted the comment had also been made that the City should prohibit parking on Third Street between Grand Avenue and Irwin Street, and while this was something the City was willing to explore, he stated there was some initial skepticism as to what the benefit of that would be. Referring to Mr. Ford's comments, Mr. Ridgeway noted he had tried to draw a relationship between 1,300 employees and the parking and trip generation figures in the EIR. Mr. Ridgeway noted he was incorrect in his earlier statement, in which he stated the trip generation was based on the thousands of square feet. He reported a comparison had been done between the thousands of square feet and the number of employees, and they found the number of employees generated more trips; therefore, the trip generation is based on the number of employees. Mr. Ridgeway stated Mr. Ford had stated we should assume 1,300 cars coming in during one hour, and 1,300 cars going out in one hour; however, that was counter -intuitive, and would not make a lot of sense, noting it would be an unreasonably conservative analysis. Mr. Ridgeway reported that although we were looking at 1,300 employees, we were also looking at 4,000 daily trips, so in the course of a day, dismissing visitors and deliveries, it would be like each employee arriving and parking more than once; therefore, their analysis was very conservative. Also in that respect, Mr. Ford had stated if there were 1,300 employees we should have 1,300 parking spaces; however, Mr. Ridgeway stated that, too, was counter intuitive, noting some people arrive and depart during different periods of time and, therefore, are not on site at the same time. Also, with the mitigation of the Landscape Reserve, they have provided for 1,353 spaces, so they have provided more than one space per employee. Addressing the other point about the Landscape Reserve, that it had not previously materialized and there was no physical representation, Mr. Ridgeway noted that had been handled by the applicants. SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 14 Mr. Jensen referred to comments raised by Gary Ford and Peter Kleinbrodt, having to do with the seven intersections in the Downtown area, and with the Downtown area being improved as part of the General Plan. He referred to Page 4.5-21 of the Draft EIR, a discussion of the General Plan Level of Service Conditions in the Downtown area, pointing out there were seven improvements listed in the Draft EIR. He reported that when they went from the Draft EIR to the Final EIR, they corrected that list, because some of the improvements were listed improperly as General Plan improvements, rather than improvements to be done as part of the Andersen Drive Extension project. He reported one of the improvements was, indeed, a General Plan improvement, but for East San Rafael Traffic, not Downtown traffic. Therefore, Mr. Jensen explained it was not that these improvements were not going to happen, it was just that they had clarified, between the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, that not all of them were actual General Plan improvements. Mr. Jensen reported another issue had to do with the funding of improvements, noting there had been a question about Traffic Mitigation Fees versus other contributions, and that the Second Street Improvement was not part of Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fees. Mr. Jensen noted that in the EIR, the mitigation measure for General Plan build -out was the payment of Traffic Mitigation Fees, or the Fair Share Contribution of costs for needed improvements. He stated the improvement needed in this case was the widening of Second Street, which he noted was not part of the Downtown Traffic Mitigation Fee list of improvements. He noted that was why it is a separately funded item, identified as a Fair Share Contribution rather than a Traffic Fee, and addressed as a mitigation measure. Mr. Jensen stated another of Mr. Ford's comments referred to the Baseline Analysis, noting it was Mr. Ford's conclusion it was inadequate because they had missed a couple of projects, specifically Macy's and Kaiser. Mr. Jensen noted there were two key points to be made; first, the baseline analysis is only one of the scenarios they analyze, and the most critical analysis scenario they analyze is the Cumulative, or what they call the General Plan. Under that scenario, all potential Land Use in the City of San Rafael was included in the analysis, including all the projects mentioned by Mr. Ford, and they assessed the impacts of the project under that scenario. He stated the intent of the Baseline Analysis was to determine that portion of the total General Plan improvements required to accommodate Fair, Isaac. Mr. Jensen noted the projects they thought were going to be online when they began this analysis were Shamrock and Lone Palm; however, they now understand Macy's and Kaiser are going to be occurring more quickly than thought. To the extent that they missed those, he noted the timing of the improvements identified in the EIR was in error, but the basic assumptions were not. He also pointed out that the City, subsequent to the EIR, has done additional analysis of when those improvements should be implemented, and that timing analysis does include the assumptions that Macy's and Kaiser will be online. As a result of that scenario, and under those assumptions, they were recommending all of the Second Street improvements be implemented prior to occupancy of Fair, Isaac. He pointed out that in the Draft EIR they had reached the conclusion that not all of the improvements needed to be implemented prior to Fair, Isaac, and noted this was a timing issue the City would continue to address. Mr. Jensen referred to Ms. Schifrin's question regarding the timing of the Second Street Undergrounding, noting there were actually two separate Undergrounding Districts along Second Street. One is the undergrounding of utilities west of Lootens Place, which is actually a formed District, and trenching is scheduled to commence in March. The second portion of the undergrounding is along the front of the subject property, which is a separate District that has been formed. He reported the timing of that was roughly the same as the widening of Second Street, which is set for approximately January 1, 2000, noting it would require work and coordination with P.G.& E. and several other agencies. He reported the Public Works Department had developed a work program, and in the event the timing of the undergrounding is delayed because of review by other agencies, the widening of Second Street would occur in phases, with the widening actually occurring first, and the utility lines relocated and undergrounded within a year following that. However, the goal at this time is that it all be done as part of the Second Street widening. Laura Forbes noted Ms. Schifrin had stated she did not understand the response to Councilmember Miller's question regarding the monitoring process, and clarified the Planning Department was the lead agency for the SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 15 implementation for the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Ms. Forbes reported the Monitoring Program was setup to provide procedural guidelines for implementation of each of the mitigation measures brought forth and required as part of the EIR process, and to resolve the impacts that have been identified. In terms of the Soil Management Program and who would monitor that, Ms. Forbes reiterated the City was the lead agency; however, because of the toxic issues regarding the soil, the Soil Management Workplan and the Health and Safety Plan, requirements as part of the implementation of the construction of this project, are monitored very closely and in great detail, by both the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Ms. Forbes reported these were the two joint agencies that together will require, implement, and monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures put forth for the management of soils and disruption of soils during construction on the site. Referring to Ms. Schifrin's comments regarding Page 151 of the staff report, Mr, Jensen stated that page contained detailed calculations of service levels on a couple of the project's driveways, pointing out it had been provided as back-up information for the analysis. He noted the date of the analysis was shown, which was July 15, 1997, and explained that was not the date the count was taken, but rather the date the analysis was performed. He reported the name and location of a company in Florida was also shown, which, in fact, was the distributor of the software, not the person who did the analysis. Mr. Jensen stated the City had done the analysis. In addition, noting the analysis also referenced one hour, he explained the counts taken would have been counted for the peak period, they would have then pulled the peak hour from that peak period, and the count would have been more than an hour. Mr. Jensen referred to Mr. Kleinbrodt's questions concerning the number of parking spaces, with regard to Architect Chris Craiker's belief that more parking would be needed than what the City's Code requires. Mr. Jensen stated a very detailed parking analysis had been done, which was presented earlier, and noted they disagreed with Mr. Craiker's assessment. With regard to analyzing the specific Fair, Isaac's project, Mr. Jensen stated they had analyzed a generic, Multi -tenant Office Park use, noting that was largely because, at that point, they were not certain Fair, Isaac was going to be the applicant. In addition, they wanted to provide a worst case analysis, and the assessment of a Multi -tenant Office Park did, in fact, provide worse trip generation and worse parking generation than actual observations of Fair, Isaac, and in both respects, continues to be a worst case analysis. Councilmember Cohen referred to a question he had asked earlier, in response to the discussion that ensued from the Joint City Council/School Board meeting several weeks ago, having to do with the timing of construction and the end of the school year. Mr. Cohen stated it had previously been his understanding construction would not begin until the end of the school year. However, he stated the School District had recently been given to understand that because of timing issues, construction might actually start and the contractor take control of the site, including across Lindaro Street, as of June 1st, which precedes the end of the school year. Mr. Cohen pointed out Andersen Drive would, in fact, be open, and the Davidson School site would be accessible; however, there would also be considerable pedestrian traffic by children attending the school, and coming up Lindaro Street in the morning and back down Lindaro Street in the afternoon. He stated that if, in fact, that information was correct, there needed to be some provision for an alternative way for those children to access the school site, since many of them may be coming from the Canal and East San Rafael. He noted it would be better to accommodate this without the children having to detour further up Second and Third Streets, up Andersen Drive, and back over. He asked if there had been any discussion about that? Mr. Jensen stated this issue had come up at the Planning Commission meeting last week, when they reviewed the Merits of the project. He noted there had been a question as to how pedestrians would get from Point A to Point B, particularly with Lindaro Street being closed during construction periods. He reported there was a recommended position by the Planning Commission, which was a Merits issue and separate from the EIR, requiring a detailed construction logistics plan, and incorporated in that plan was a requirement for pedestrian circulation. Mr. Jensen stated this was a requirement Council should be seeing when they look at the Project Merits, agreeing it was something that would need to be addressed. He noted Fair, SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 16 Isaac might also have a response to this issue. Stephen Gale, Project Manager for Fair, Isaac, corrected a misunderstanding regarding the timing of the closure of Lindaro Street, noting Lindaro Street would not be closed for construction prior to the completion of school. He stated Fair, Isaac had been in discussions since December with representatives of the School District, reporting the planned closure of Lindaro Street would begin on the 15th of June, following completion of the school year on the 11th of June, and noting it was their belief Lindaro Street would remain closed through the 28th of August. Mr. Gale reported they had also discussed with the School District and the Principal of Davidson School the issue of community meetings and PTA meetings, prior to construction and before the close of the school year, and also a mechanism for communication if there were any reasons why traffic should be routed differently, or issues of that nature needed to be addressed during the school year. He stated that was something Fair, Isaac intended to continue to pursue with the School District. Councilmember Cohen asked why this would be a Merits issue as opposed to Impacts of the project, noting they had dealt in great detail with the potential impacts of construction, and it seemed the issues of mitigating the impacts of construction were properly addressed under the EIR Review. Ms. Forbes stated the impacts, in terms of construction, and pedestrian movement and activity, were addressed in Mitigation Measure 4.5, as part of the Construction Logistics and Staging Plan. Mr. Cohen stated he appreciated Fair, Isaac's cooperation with the School District. Councilmember Cohen asked for additional clarification regarding the Corps of Engineers approving the change in the configuration of the wetlands mitigation for Andersen Drive. He stated it was his understanding that if this was approved, then the encroachment did not happen, because the wetland moves, the building does not, and there would be no encroachment issue to respond to. He noted we were basically in the position of saying that has got to happen, because of the monitoring well. Mr. Cohen referred to a comment that had also been brought up at the Planning Commission meeting, about requiring Fair, Isaac to disclose where every one of their current and potential employees live, and where they would be commuting from. He believed the City should do Planning based on the Land Use, noting even if Fair, Isaac was going to be the owner, that could eventually change, and the building would still be there. Therefore, he felt the City should plan for it based on potential alternative uses, as well as a large, single -tenant. He stated it was his great hope Fair, Isaac would stay there forever, and continue to be a successful, homegrown company in San Rafael; however, the City had an obligation to ensure that if that does not happen, the building still works. He stated it was his understanding all of the analyses had been approved, and if this is the approach the City is taking, then it really was moot as to where Fair, Isaac thinks their employees live now, or may live in the future. He noted if we assume standardized trip generation patterns and parking, we would be covered unless we had some reason to believe Fair, Isaac's impacts were going to be worse than a Multi -tenant building. Councilmember Cohen referred to the other projects, noting the issue of when those projects come online was merely a timing issue, and the City was taking the position that these improvements needed to take place at approximately the same time Fair, Isaac would be looking at occupancy of Phase I. Mr. Jensen stated that was correct, pointing out that originally, before the Macy's and Kaiser projects surfaced, it was anticipated those improvements would not be needed until approximately the year 2003. Mr. Jensen stated this did not compromise the adequacy of the EIR because it was a timing issue, and the EIR assumed the improvements were going to happen anyway. Councilmember Cohen noted the handout Council received delineates improvements required by the General Plan, and improvements required by the project, and also shows how responsibility is assigned. He pointed out the seventh change is the potential extension of the additional fourth lane by 160 feet along the frontage of the P.G.& E. sub -station; however, he noted there was no reference as to whose responsibility that would be, what would trigger that, and how it would be funded. Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian reported staff had analyzed the impact of the project, and while a portion of Section 1 should be adequate, they felt it would probably be conservative to move it back further for the other projects we are doing. He noted the City should pay for Section 7, as part of the mitigations. SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 17 Councilmember Cohen stated he understood the initial response regarding the air monitoring issue, and the response to the follow-up; however, as an example, Mr. Cohen asked if he were a resident who lived near the project, and during construction he felt there was a lot of dust and wondered whether or not his health was at risk by walking past the project, who would he go to, who would be looking out for his interest as a member of the general public, and could assure him the Conditions were being complied with? Ms. Forbes explained the first call should be to the City's Planning Department. Councilmember Miller referred to the Level of Service along Second Street, and asked if each of the streets would actually be improved, so the LOS goes up one grade; for example, Hetherton Street would go from "D" to "C", Francisco Boulevard from "C" to "B", Lincoln Avenue from "C" to "B", and Lindaro Street from "C" to "B"? Mr. Mansourian stated that was correct, noting with the fourth lane they would all be improved. Mr. Miller asked if it was fair to say the fourth lane would improve rather than hinder the traffic? Mr. Mansourian stated that was correct, noting it would be able to handle the Fair, Isaac traffic, plus existing traffic, and more. Councilmember Miller noted they had to agree there would be a lot of "pain for the gain", and while all this was going on, there would be considerable disruption. Mr. Mansourian stated that was correct, reporting they would be working on portions of three lanes at various times, and there might be times when two lanes are shut down. Mr. Miller referred to Mr. Waxman's concern regarding alternative approaches adopted because of the back-up resulting at Mission Avenue and Irwin Street, and the impact to the Montecito neighborhood as people seek alternative routes through the neighborhood. He asked if there was a way to discourage people from trying to find alternatives through the neighborhoods? Mr. Mansourian stated they were already discouraged by all the stop signs on Grand Avenue, noting no other neighborhood has that; however, he acknowledged the traffic model had assigned a percentage of traffic that would be diverted through the neighborhood, as there is now. Councilmember Heller asked if the City's traffic improvement studies were sent to the Countywide Congestion Management Committee, if they signed -off on what the City states the traffic will be like, and who does an outside review for the City? Mr. Mansourian reported the City analyzes Second and Third Streets, which are the Countywide Congestion Management arterials, noting we have met their Level of Service standard "D". He reported the EIR had also been sent to them. Ms. Heller asked if they had any specific comments, and Mr. Mansourian stated there were none he was aware of. Ms. Heller asked if the Second Street improvements would be in place by the time of occupancy of the first phase of Fair, Isaac? Mr. Mansourian stated the design and construction were scheduled to be completed by January, 2000. Ms. Heller asked if other mitigations suggested under the Transportation Management Plan were listed as part of the Merits, or if they would be part of the EIR? Mr. Jensen stated they would be part of the Merits Review, noting TSM was no longer used as mitigation in San Rafael, but it was a requirement for large projects. Mr. Jensen stated that had definitely been addressed by the Planning Commission as part of the Merits Review, and Council could expect to see that. Vice -Mayor Phillips referred to Ms. Schifrin's comments regarding the Traffic Study, noting Mr. Jensen had explained July 15, 1997 was the analysis date, but asked what the actual survey date had been? Mr. Ridgeway stated that count was actually a projection of future traffic at the project driveway, and did not reflect specific existing conditions, rather it reflected Peak Hour traffic projections taken from the City's traffic model. Referring to parking, Vice -Mayor Phillips noted Golden Gate Transit had raised the point Mr. Cohen mentioned earlier, that while Fair, Isaac was presumed to be the occupant of the building, that was not an absolute certainty. As this related to parking, Mr. Phillips noted they used the worst case scenario in their study, and asked if this was worst case regardless of other uses, and if Office was the only use this building could be used for? In addition, he noted Fair, Isaac might not have many clients visiting their offices, but many other services, such as attorneys and CPAs, might have a lot of clients visiting their offices. He asked, if we were not looking at Fair, Isaac as the occupant, how a different type of use would factor into the equation? Mr. Ridgeway acknowledged there was a huge range of parking demand for different types of office uses, and stated that in traffic, as in many fields, they tend to take a conservative estimate. He reported that with the traffic analysis they used, the Urban Land Institute SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 18 takes what is called the 90th Percentile Parking Demand, meaning that of all the sites surveyed, 90% of those would have a parking demand equal to or less than the ratio being provided for this study, and 10% would have a parking demand higher than that. Mr. Ridgeway noted they typically do not try to design for the highest hour of traffic, as the increase in parking demand as you move from the 90th percentile to the 100th becomes very extreme, and the chances are there would not be that much demand. He acknowledged there was a chance one of the top ten percentiles would occupy the building, but noted the monitoring would be occurring between Phase I and Phase II, and if, in fact, it were found that Fair, Isaac was having a much higher parking demand than expected, there would be a mechanism in place to try to control that. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked for further clarification on the monitoring process. Mr. Jensen explained the project involved rezoning to a PD District, and because of the size of the project, it also required a Conditional Use Permit. He pointed out that as part of a Conditional Use Permit, because it is a Planned Development, we can look at any number of items where we are identifying a special case, such as reduced parking, building height, or community use. He pointed out this was a good opportunity as a monitoring device, because we can review a Use Permit on an annual basis, noting that was done on a number of projects in San Rafael. Mr. Jensen referred to the project Merits that will be reviewed, and noted the way the Conditions are structured, commencing with Phase I there will be a requirement that an annual Use Permit Review be conducted, which will include a review of on-site parking, and a report prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer, which is to be submitted and reviewed by staff in order to determine how adequate the parking is during the various phases of the project. Mr. Jensen noted the way the Condition was drafted, as recommended by the Planning Commission, the monitoring would continue through five years following full occupancy of the project, and even after that period, the additional parking is not warranted. However, if at some point in the future there is a parking problem, the City always has a Use Permit Condition, and can go back to the property owner and add parking. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if the Community Use aspect had been reviewed, by which he meant requiring additional parking beyond employee use? He also asked how much of an impact there was, based on projected Community Use? Mr. Jensen stated Community Use, referring to the use of Building A, represented different peak periods, because the way the Community Use proposal was structured, Fair, Isaac would make the facilities available after hours, either during evening hours on weekdays, or on weekends, when demand for parking at the Office Park is at its lowest. He noted that in their proposal, Fair, Isaac has identified the western surface parking lot specifically for users of the community facility during those non -office hours. Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the hard work of staff and the consultants on this project, and the cooperation from Fair, Isaac. He felt most of the issues that were addressed had clearly been thought through well in advance, and adequately responded to through the process at the Planning Commission hearing and at tonight's hearing. However, he did feel there were a couple of issues that required response from Council. First, referring to Mr. Barr's earlier comments regarding truck traffic, Mr. Cohen stated he was interested in hearing more about truck traffic, but not during this hearing, as he agreed with staff, and did not see a nexus between truck traffic on Third Street and this project, except as a nexus between that and every other traffic jam in Downtown San Rafael. Mr. Cohen believed the real issue was whether or not the City, perhaps working with the County, could find a way to address the issue, and seek some sort of regulatory authority over truck traffic, at least limiting the hours of operation. He pointed out we had done this with other commercial enterprises, noting it was not immediately clear to him why that would be impossible to do with respect to the quarry, and was something he felt merited pursuing in some other manner, or at some other time. Referring to Mr. Waxman's comment regarding the City, Councilmember Cohen suggested staff contact Mr. Waxman and invite him to the ongoing meetings the City and Fair, Isaac were involved in with regard to putting plans together to put a transportation sales tax measure on the November ballot, which addressed exactly the "outside the box" thinking Mr. Waxman was asking Council to do. Mr. Cohen believed a number of issues regarding traffic impacts would be addressed, should the public vote in sufficient numbers to adopt that sales tax measure, and we begin to implement those transportation improvements, particularly including the long-term use of SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub. Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 19 the railroad right-of-way for some kind of mass transit system. Mr. Cohen noted it had been his understanding that one of the issues that attracted Fair, Isaac to this site in the first place was its proximity to the Downtown Transit Center, and the potential for future development of a railway system that would terminate or go through Downtown San Rafael, which their employees to the north of San Rafael could make use of. Councilmember Cohen noted staff had mentioned there were corrections to the Resolution: First, the second sentence under the second "WHEREAS" should read, "The initial study concluded that because the project had the potential to adversely affect the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required". Second, under "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED", the third line should read, "...prepared in accordance with the required CEQA and State Guidelines, and hereby certifies the document", (delete the words "and recommends to the City Council certification of the document'). Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution certifying the final Environmental Impact Report. RESOLUTION NO. 10019 - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK DEVELOPMENT (as amended). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT/DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest). There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 PM. 1998 JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF , VICE -MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special Pub.Hrg.) 2/9/98 Page 19