Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1991-02-07SRRA 'CC MINUTES (Special Joint Work p Meeting) 2/7/91 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, FEBRUARY 7, 1991, AT 5:30 P.M. Special Joint Workshop Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Chairman/Mayor San Rafael Redevelopment Agency and Albert J. Boro, Member/Councilmember San Rafael City Council Dorothy L. Breiner, Member/Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Member/Councilmember Joan Thayer, Member/Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: David M. Bernardi, Asst. Executive Director/Public Works Director Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary/City Clerk 1. WORKSHOP ON FLOOD CONTROL STUDY PREPARED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (PW) - File 12-9 x 12-10 Assistant Executive Director/Public Works Director Bernardi stated that he wanted to bring the Council back to 1982 when the staff had spent many hours dealing with flood waters everywhere and in the aftermath of that, the Council met with the community and made commitments to resolve the flood problems that specifically dealt with the San Rafael Canal. Mr. Bernardi noted that through the offices of Congresswoman Boxer and the Corps of Engineers, a general investigation study was launched and through that process staff has made a number of decisions. He stated staff and the Corps of Engineers were here tonight to bring Council up to date on what has been done toward this goal. Mr. Bernardi stated that this was an informational meeting only, noting the public will have an opportunity to comment at the time this comes before the Agency and the Council formally. This was basically an overview of what has been accomplished thus far. He also stated -that staff has been working with a committee of citizens who live in the canal area to seek their input through the process so they could get opinions from the people who would be affected by the various alternatives that were analyzed. Mr. Bernardi then introduced Herb Cheonq, the Project Manager for the Corps of Engineers, noting he is the Project Manager of the Marin County Shoreline Project. Mr. Cheong then introduced the rest of the Corps attendees: Mr. Jack Farlass, the Chief of the Programs and Project Management Division; Mr. Bill An 2loni, Chief of Planning and Engineering Division; Ms. Bahiyyah Pasha-Adewunmi, Technical Manager, and Mr. Scott Minor, Environmental Planner. Mr. Cheong stated that the purpose of the workshop was to update and inform the Council of the feasibility study, including the schedule, possible alternatives of reducing the flood problem in San Rafael, and some budgetary issues. He then gave a brief history of the project. Ms. Pasha-Adewunmi then gave a brief presentation of the feasibility study. She stated the Corps got involved in this flooding problem mainly because of the public outcry, a great deal of concern from the business community and involvement from Congresswoman Boxer, all directed at obtaining solutions to this problem. She stated that they completed both a small project study and a reconnaissance study. The small project study was converted into the General Investigations Program, which gave the Council the opportunity to buy a project without spending the amount of money that would have been spent if it had stayed under the Small Projects Program. Upon completion of the Reconnaissance Program, they identified three possible ways of reducing the flood problem within the San Rafael Canal area. These were two tide barrier schemes and one flood wall scheme. They were carried forward into the Feasibility Study with the intent of restudying them in more detail. Pts. Pasha- Adewunmi stated they were attempting to find the best possible solution to this problem. She then went on to briefly explain the Feasibility Study, which was given to the Council prior to the start of the meeting, and took two years to complete. Ms. Pasha-Adewunmi explained the 500 year flood plan that was identified at the start of the Feasibility Study. It deals with tidal only flooding. They made the assumption that the City of San Rafael had the intention, in the future, of passing the flood flows from the West side of the freeway into the Canal area. She then indicated this on the map provided and showed how this would be accomplished. She discussed the difference between the two alternatives the Corps had chosen as the best alternatives for the City. One was a tidal barrier structure and the other was a flood wall structure. The two basic positions used for the tide barrier woulc be upstream at the Marin Yacht Club, or at the mouth of the Canal. She went on to explain the differences between these two positions. The Flood Wall Plan only exists along the South side of the Canal, because of the cost and benefits involved. She then showed how the flood wall and the tidal barrier would look. The benefits justified the use of a flood wall on the South side of the Canal. She stated that SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Workshop Meeting) 2/7/91 Page 1 SRRA 'CC MINUTES (Special Joint Work, p Meeting) 2/7/91 Page 2 it would be designed to fit in aesthetically and provide access over the flood wall for the residents of that area. As an example, she said that a flood wall at the Marina Vista area would have a benefit/cost ratio of less than 1, which told them that they cannot invest those dollars there. She also calculated how much it would cost to raise the structures at the Marina Vista area and that would cost on an average of $30,000 a structure or $900,000 total with a benefit/cost ratio of about .05. They again cannot take that action because the ratio is less than 1. The estimate for the north side calculations is $25 million for a 500 year project and the benefit/cost ratio was .06 to 1. The flood wall plan has the best benefit/cost ratio, according to their analysis. For a 100 year project, the estimate is $20,440,800, with a 2.1 to 1.0 ratio. The Federal share for both plans is $13,310,000. The City's share for the Tide Barrier Plan is $5,107,000 (cash) and $7,350,000 (land). The City's share for the Flood Wall Plan is $4,490,800 (cash) and $2,640,000 (land). the National Economic Development (NED) net benefits for the Tide Barrier Plan is $1,748,000 and the net benefits for the Flood Wall Plan is $2,421,344. The annual maintenance cost for the Tide Barrier Plan is $400,000 and the Federal Government would pay none of that. For the Flood Wall, the annual cost would be about $75,000 and the Federal Government would pay approximately $2,000. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan asked how they got the maintenance figures. Ms. Pasha-Adewunmi stated that includes maintaining both the mitigation and enhancement sites that are part of the plan, as well as other minor repairs and inspections, etc. He then asked how she got the Federal figure. She indicated that the Federal figure in this case only would apply to the environmental side of the equation it is 25% of the operation and maintenance cost of the environmental feature. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan then asked if their choices were limited to the two choices picked by the Corps. She stated that they decided what the two best choices were per the benefit/cost ratios, but that there are other choices in the report. Member/Councilmember Boro asked if the flood wall approach has been used elsewhere. Mr. Angeloni answered that they have used this at Pier 39 and Fisherman's Wharf. Public Works Director Bernardi answered there is a wall at the San Rafael Sanitation District, right at the Francisco Blvd. cul-de-sac. Member/Councilmember Boro expressed his concern that this project would last without too much dissension, as opposed to the tide barrier project which has come up with much dissension from the public. Member/Councilmember Boro asked about what groups were contacted to represent the public opinion. Assistant Public Works Director Strom stated they contacted Presidents of all the homeowners' associations in Marina Vista, the Newport Association, other associations on the North side, also Jean Starkweather and Barbara Saltzman to be involved for the environmental aspects and the Canal Community Alliance and basically anyone who was interested. He stated that most of the people were concerned about the tide barrier that would be built at the entrance of the Canal. At the final stages of the study, they brought these groups back together and the consensus of opinion was that everyone was relieved that they were going with the flood wall instead of the tide barrier. He stated that the homeowners most affected would be those in the Newport subdivision. Member/Councilmember Boro then asked about the ongoing maintenance cost, and if they would use a special district for the ongoing maintenance or would it fall to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Bernardi answered that Redevelopment could not pick up the ongoing maintenance costs and they did not have an answer to that at this time. Mr. Strom indicated that one other alternative concerning the flood wall alternative is that these maintenance figures are based on the life of the project and then annualized. With the flood wall, he does not expect that the initial maintenance is going to be as high with a new facility. Member/Councilmember Shippey asked about the cost/benefit ratio, mentioning the benefits for the South wall basically because there is more area that would be affected by flooding. Ms. Pasha-Adewunmi answered affirmatively and included the depth of the water and the ground surface. He then asked about internal drainage. She stated that it was not needed because it was already in place. Member/Councilmember Breiner asked about the maintenance figures of $70,000 to $75,000 per year, the City's share. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan responded he thought they were talking about a sinking approach to the annual cost. Mr. Strom then responded that they are talking about the flood wall alternative, in terms of maintenance required. The $75,000 is an annualized cost and the maintenance costs will probably increase in the next 20 years. Member/Councilmember Breiner stated that these figures should not be minimized and the community will need to know this going into this project. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Workshop Meeting) 2/7/91 Page 2 SRRA ;CC MINUTES (Special Joint Work p Meeting) 2/7/91 Page 3 Member/Councilmember Thayer asked in terms of the benefit vs. cost ratio, which project would be more effective in doing the job for which it is intended. Ms. Pasha-Adewunmi responded that they would get the highest level of protection by building a tide barrier structure at the mouth of the Canal, but there would be many environmental effects and will cost more money to do that; she stated over $400,000 a year. She then stated that they stayed away from the mouth of the Canal because of the environmental aspects. Member/Councilmember Boro followed up Member/Councilmember Breiner's statement that the maintenance issue should be addressed up front with the public as part of the ongoing costs if a special district has to be formed. Member/Councilmember Breiner added that as part of the need to upgrade the levies and the maintenance of those levies, there could be an overall package as part of this. Scott Minor, the Environmental Planner, stated that all the environmental impacts will be discussed in detail in the draft Environmental Impact Statement that will be circulated for public review and comment within the next several months. He discussed some of the concerns. He stated that the area of greatest concern for local residents are the aesthetic impacts, and the tide barrier would have a major aesthetic impact at the mouth of the Canal due to the size of the structure and obstruction of view. The flood wall alternative would have much less of an aesthetic impact. Another major area of concern are impacts on recreation facilities, primarily at Pickleweed Park because of low height and less obstruction of view. He said it would include a levy at the North end of the recreation field which will be planted with native grasses to blend in with the field. The Tidal Barrier would also have a number of operational impacts on air quality, noise, energy use and on aquatic organisms that are growing into the pumps. This would also have a great impact on aquatic habitat because of the location of the pump and the gate structure in the Canal. The Flood Wall alternative would not have any of those operational impacts. The areas that will probably be of greatest concern to other Government agencies are the impacts on wetlands and aquatic habitat. Both of the alternatives would eliminate about 1/10 of an acre of wetlands where the new levy in Pickleweed Park crosses the channel along the East side of the Park. The Tidal Barrier would impact a small additional area as well in the Pickleweed Park wetlands. The Flood Wall alternative mitigation plan is to create about 4/10 of an acre of new wetlands by excavating an area of silt in Seastrand Marsh which is already owned by the City. Tidal action will be included in Seastrand Marsh. He stated they have also proposed a fish and wildlife enhancement feature which consists of restoring tidal action to the Pickleweed Park wetlands by replacing the small culvert that allows very limited tidal action to the marsh. They are proposing that construction costs for this enhancement feature be entirely federal. The --maintenance costs for this enhancement feature is partially cost -shared by the federal government. Member/Councilmember Breiner asked if some of these areas are opened for tidal action, and will this affect the drainage in these areas with flooding in the homes close to this area? Mr. Minor responded that the only runoff that goes into Seastrand Marsh is what comes off the hillsides immediately to the North and East. Other areas drain through underground culverts directly out to the Bay. He said they will need to do hydraulic studies to determine how much tidal action can be allowed into Seastrand Marsh without creating a flood problem from tidal flooding for these houses. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that when Seastrand development was proposed, there was extensive hydraulic work done for this purpose. Member/Councilmember Breiner asked about the Pickleweed Park area. Mr. Bernardi said that this would not be a problem, noting the levy would protect this. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Bernardi what the height of the levy would be in terms of the tidal height. Mr. Bernardi stated that the elevation would be the same type as around Spinnaker Point. Member/Councilmember Shippey asked Mr. Minor to explain how the tide barrier works and how it uses energy. Mr. Minor explained that when the tide barrier is closed there is no way for fresh water to drain from the creek and Canal out to the Bay, so a part of the plan are the two large pump stations on each side of the gate to pump fresh water from the Canal out into the Bay when the gate is closed, and that is where the energy consumption comes in. Mr. Bernardi stated that the volume of pumping would be 3,000 cubic feet per second. There would be a massive bank of 60" pumps on either side using fuel, high maintenance costs and more noise. He stated that one of the alternatives to this was to use electric motors rather than diesel motors, but they would have to have a very large substation for this. Herb Cheong discussed the status of the project and the schedule from here on out. He stated the first milestone was the feasibility study document used at this meeting. The next milestone is a conference on March 12th on this feasibility document which needs to be signed by the sponsors before the conference. The next milestone is SARA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Workshop Meeting) 2/7/91 Page 3 SRRA '.CC MINUTES (Special Joint Work p Meeting) 2/7/91 Page 4 the Field Level Coordination Meeting which is scheduled for July 3, 1991 to initiate a public review of the report. After the 30 day public review period, a meetingis schedule for August 5, 1991, when the District will update the report. Preconstruction operation will start approximately January, 1992. Construction is estimated to start sometime in February, 1995 and complete the construction in August, 1996. Member/Councilmember Boro asked a question on the schedule, about whether this will become a competitive item for Federal funds and questioned the availability of the Federal funds. Jack Farlass responded that the City of San Rafael will need to get their Congressional representatives fully involved in this process. He stated it does take much local support Mr. Cheong then discussed the Project Management Plan (PMP). He stated he hoped the Council would approve this document and bring it to the next meeting of February 19th. He then discussed the Federal Cost Share Agreement (FCSA) as described in the document. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Bernardi where that places the City in terms of funding. Mr. Bernardi stated that it basically means that the City has to come up with another $200,000 over time. He said they can phase that amount of money into two stages. The first stage in order to complete the work that has been done, is about $65,000 (the City's share). The balance would be due once the Federal review reveals the corrections that will need to be done. Mr. Bernardi felt that the first payment is feasible. The second part, due around July, is going to be subject to the dealings with the County and the cash available at that time. Chairman/ Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Bernardi how they would make a decision on authorizing the $200,000. He answered that they are under an obligation at this time, to continue with the completion of the study, which will cost $65,000 or $63,000. Member/Councilmember Boro stated that some of the cost numbers seemed surprising and far off the original estimates. He stated Category 5 was estimated at originally $41,500 and is now at $149,000. He asked how this could have been missed at the outset. Mr. Cheong stated that there are new Federal law changes that affected this. Member/Councilmember Boro stated his concern that this seems to be very risky at this point. Mr. Farlass stated they have never had a project like this fail. Mr. Bernardi stated that once this gets going, it will stand a better chance of continuing on. Chairman/Mayor Mulryan stated this would be on the next meeting as a Public Hearing. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:54 P.M. 4 JEANNE M NI ,�itY N�erk/Agency Secretary APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1991 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CHAIRMAN, SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Workshop Meeting) 2/7/91 Page 4