Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1994-03-07SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 7, 1994, AT 7:30 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman Paul M. Cohen, Member Barbara Heller, Member Joan Thayer, Member David J. Zappetini, Member Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, Executive Director Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File R-140 #8 x (SRRA) 1.4.1.a No. 94-6(a) - #4 No reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE None. CONSENT CALENDAR Member Heller moved and Member Cohen seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. February 22, 1994 (AS) 3. Acceptance of Affirmation of Confidentiality of Accepted report. Closed Sessions for Eric T. Davis, Deputy City Attorney (AS) - File R-140 #8 x (SRCC) 9-1-2 II 4. Acceptance of Statement of Disclosure for: (AS) Accepted report. Eric T. Davis, Deputy City Attorney - File R-140 #8 x (SRCC) 9-1-2 II AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: MEMBERS: Cohen (from Minutes of February 22, 1994 only, due to absence from meeting.) The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 5. AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR RELOCATION OF PUBLIC WORKS CORPORATION YARD (PW) - File R-341 Member Zappetini asked if school districts are required by State law to change the power or the type of fuel they are using. Assistant Executive Director (Public Works) David Bernardi answered that was correct, but it will not affect us in terms SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 1 0 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 2 of the maintenance of the vehicles, and noted we have one pick-up truck now using natural gas and gasoline, and there is no problem maintaining the vehicle. Member Thayer asked if we really need preliminary design studies for the relocation of the Public Works Corporation Yard, or could it be done in house. Mr. Bernardi stated we are trying to find someone who is qualified or has the experience in laying out corporation yards. He explained that we have an idea what we need, but to lay it out efficiently would require professional assistance. Also, the manpower is not available. Ms. Thayer asked if there is anybody in house who has the necessary expertise, and Mr. Bernardi replied, "No." Member Cohen moved and Member Zappetini seconded, to adopt a Resolution authorizing preliminary design services for relocation of public works corporation yard. RESOLUTION NO. 94-7 - AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY DESIGN SERVICES FOR RELOCATION OF PUBLIC WORKS CORPORATION YARD - SERVICES NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 AYES: MEMBERS:Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS:None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO OPTION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH RELOCATION OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL DINING FACILITY AT 820 "B" STREET, IN SAN RAFAEL (RA) - File R-342 Member Zappetini stated he will abstain from voting due to Conflict of Interest. Member Cohen moved and Member Thayer seconded, to adopt a Resolution authorizing Agency to enter into an option agreement in connection with the relocation of St. Vincent de Paul Dining Facility at 820 "B" Street, in San Rafael. RESOLUTION NO. 94-8 - AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HER DESIGNEE TO OBTAIN ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY AN OPTION OR SIMILAR AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS:None ABSTAINED: MEMBERS: Zappetini (due to Conflict of Interest) PUBLIC HEARING - ON THE DRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MERITS OF ANDERSEN DRIVE EXTENSION PROJECT (RA) - File R-246 X (SRCC) 2-5-13 X 10-2 Agency Attorney Ragghianti stated that Member Zappetini consulted with him regarding this item, and he advised Mr. Zappetini that he has a conflict of interest which requires his disqualification because he owns real property located within 300 feet of the project as proposed. Member Zappetini concurred, disqualified himself and left the Council Chambers. Planning Director Robert Pendoley stated the purpose of the hearing is twofold: to receive input and comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and to hear impact on the merits of the Andersen Drive Extension Project. He stated that at the end of the hearing, it would be appropriate to ask staff to prepare written response to any comments received and also perhaps to direct the preparation of the appropriate Resolutions to certify the EIR and approve the project. Mr. Pendoley explained that Andersen Drive is a new street that would connect 'A' SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 3 Street with Bellam Boulevard and Southeast San Rafael. He described it as a low speed, limited access roadway. The portion that would lie between Lindaro and 'A' Street would be very similar to Fifth Avenue. He stated some of the purposes of the Andersen Drive project: - Mitigation measure as a part of the General Plan to accommodate the City's economic development. - To provide a parallel arterial to Highway 101. - To improve local bicycle and automobile circulation as well as emergency access between Southeast and Downtown San Rafael. - To decrease traffic on Woodland Avenue. Jean Hasser, Principal Planner, gave an overview of this project. She stated that in 1987, the Agency authorized the Public Works staff to complete the preliminary design and EIR for this project. The design was developed by a consultant with the assistance of a citizens' committee. The draft EIR was first reviewed at a hearing in December, 1990. Public comments at that time focused on wetlands and the creek, economic impacts on businesses, bikeways, flooding, hazardous materials and the 'A' Street terminus. In addition, the Commission was concerned about project goals, how it would affect area land uses, and alternatives. In early 1991, the Redevelopment Agency recommended completion of the EIR. Most of the comments were responded to quickly, but it took 2-1/2 years to address the wetland impacts and come up with a wetland mitigation plan. The wetland mitigation plan and permit have been submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. The Draft Final EIR was completed and made available to the public in November, 1993. On January 11, 1994, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft Final EIR and project merits. The issues raised at that meeting related to the project's design, its speed and its function. To explore these issues, the Commission held a workshop on January 25, 1994. Staff worked with traffic and landscape consultants to identify alternate solutions, and overall the Commission felt substantial progress had been made in addressing concerns. They unanimously recommended Agency certification of the EIR and also recommended project approval. Regarding the impacts on existing businesses, Ms. Hasser explained that economic impacts are not required to be in an EIR and shall not be considered to be a signif- icant affect on the environment; therefore, socio-economic impacts are not an EIR issue. However, at the request of the Commission, the Draft Final EIR did identify potential impacts of the roadway on existing businesses. Of approximately 225 area businesses, the EIR concluded that 38 businesses and properties would be directly affected by the project, many only minimally. Of these 38, 12 could be significantly affected, in most cases due to loss of City right-of-way for storage or parking. The EIR states that where right-of-way acquisition is involved, the law provides for compensation. The Redevelopment Agency would be involved in future negotiations with affected property owners. Where no right-of-way acquisition is involved, no compensation is required, and the business would need to address the change by reorganizing, leasing more space, relocation, etc. One of the twelve businesses identified in the EIR has already relocated. The Andersen Drive project also has positive economic affect in that it improves access and visibility to many area businesses and provides additional traffic capacity to facilitate development and redevelopment. The Marin Builders Exchange submitted a letter today supporting the project. Ms. Hasser reported Commissioners also requested discussion of the 'A' Street vs. Lindaro terminus. The analysis was expanded and summarized in Section 5 of the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 4 FEIR, and further reviewed and discussed in the past couple of months. The Planning Commission and Agency recommended an 'A' Street terminus in 1988, primarily because without significant widening of Lindaro, the Lindaro terminus would result in fail- ure of the Downtown intersections of Lindaro at 2nd and 3rd. Other reasons are that an 'A' Street terminus distributes traffic more evenly in the Downtown area, it splits the load between Lindaro and 'A' Street and it would maintain traffic service standards. The 'A' Street terminus also provides a standard width, direct connection into the heart of Downtown and to a major City parking garage. The 'A' Street termi- nus, because it is less congested than Lindaro, would also decrease pressure for through traffic to continue to use existing other shortcuts through neighborhoods. Additionally, the recent Vision for Downtown identified opportunities of an A Street terminus, including a dramatic new entry into Downtown with use of the Mission site, and a pedestrian and bicycle access to Albert Park from Downtown and the Lindaro area. Ms. Hasser stated Commissioners and the public voiced several concerns about project design. They wanted speeds to be slowed and wanted commute bicyclists separated from school bicyclists and pedestrians. New mitigation measures were included to improve the design, including low -speed signal progression and landscaped median islands to reduce speeds. Also, there was reduced fencing to reduce the effect of a fenced corridor along Andersen Drive. On -street commuter bicycle lanes were added, as well as the separated bicycle and pedestrian path. The Planning Commission also recommended establishment of a subcommittee of the Downtown Vision Committee with members from the Park and Recreation Commission and Davidson School to finalize design detail in the Lindaro to 'A' Street segment. Rob Bernstein, Traffic Consultant for this project, described the purposes of the project, which are to connect East San Rafael with the Downtown, to connect East San Rafael to the Southbound Highway 101 interchange, to provide better access to the industrial area and to get through traffic off local streets. To explain who would use Andersen Drive extension, he summarized traffic forecasts prepared for the pro- ject by prior City staff. He said East San Rafael to Downtown traffic will increase as East San Rafael grows, and noted there will be some Highway 101 to Downtown traffic and 101 to West Marin traffic, but that should be a minimal amount because there is not much of an advantage for that traffic to use Andersen Drive extension. Local industrial area traffic is a large portion of the forecasted Andersen Drive traffic. Depending on which direction and which peak hour, anywhere from 67-80% of the traffic on Andersen Drive extension to the West of Francisco, have either gotten on or off to the East of Second, which means they are local trips. The benefits of this project are provision of an improved Downtown/East San Rafael connection, improvement of access into the industrial area, and reduction of traffic on parallel local streets. Andrew Preston, Civil Engineer in the Public Works Department, and Project Engineer on this project since 1986, explained with the use of drawings that Andersen Drive extension is a 1-1/2 mile long, limited access arterial roadway which will run from Southeast San Rafael to the 'A' Street terminus. The project utilizes a spur line that came off the main line and terminated at 'B' Street in the early 1900's. The right-of-way itself was acquired by the Redevelopment Agency in 1978, and the majority of the project is 60 feet wide. In some areas, there is an additional 20 feet of right-of-way that can be used for landscaping and other purposes. The project will consist of two 12 -foot travel lanes. On each side, there will be an 8 foot shoulder. The 40 foot roadway cross-section is a minimum width arterial roadway in accordance with CALTRANS standards. In the area closest to Davidson School, there will be an 8-10 foot wide Class I bike path/pedestrian path which will be completely separated from the roadway by a 4 or 5 foot wide landscaped strip. This is part of the General Plan, and is separated for safety reasons since the main SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 5 users will probably be school children. The relocated power lines and the street lights will be within the landscape strip. One of the Planning Commissioners recom- mended using the 8 foot shoulder as a Class II bike path for high speed commute cyclists, and the project has been redesigned at the intersections to accommodate this. At each of the intersections, there will be a turn pocket. There will be medians with landscaping in the street itself to provide softening. On each side of the street there will be fencing in some locations to act as screening and for security to some of the property adjacent to the roadway. The section between Bellam and Francisco Boulevard will be a four lane divided highway with a fairly wide median with landscaping. There will be a new traffic signal at the intersection of Bellam, which will be six lanes to provide for turning. All the traffic signals will be interconnected. Just past Office Depot, as the roadway crosses over the mainline track which presently will be at an at -grade crossing, it tapers down to two lanes. The businesses on Duffy Place will be provided with a 10 foot wide fire access. There will be a new concrete bridge at Lindaro Street. We will be acquiring land near the PG&E property where the wetland mitigation project will be taking place. During the construction, 0.89 acres of wetland drainage ditches will be filled in. Entering the Downtown section, there is opportunity for additional landscaping or a monument. One of the impacts of the project is Marin Produce, which has three loading bays on the West side which will not be usable in the same manner as presently. Katie Korzun, Redevelopment Agency Senior Planner, explained that the primary concerns about the design during discussions held with the community, about any part of Andersen, centered around the section between Lindaro and the 'A' Street termi- nus. They felt it was not designed to be consistent with the Downtown Vision. They wanted it more pedestrian friendly, to connect Albert Park with the rest of Downtown and a visual connection from the San Rafael Mission site down to Albert Park, to remove some of the visual and physical barriers. They also felt the road was not an attractive entrance to Downtown. Staff met with a landscape architect to come up with concepts that would address those issues. Ms. Korzun stressed that they are just concepts; the project design has not yet been changed to incorporate them. If the project goes forward, the Commission recommended that this segment of the road be redesigned with a subcommittee of the Downtown Vision Committee, a representative from the Park and Recreation Commission, and a representative from Davidson School. Possible significant changes that staff came up with, are the bridge across the future wetlands area could be addressed with design features to make it an entry statement for Downtown. Crossing that bridge could be an entry treatment on each side of the road which could include landscaping, a change in development, a monument or a sign. Median islands could break the roadway up and would help both visually and to slow people down. The ballfield at Albert Park could be seen. A major office development on the PG&E side is planned, and it would be logical to assume that those workers at lunchtime would want to walk to Albert Park. A problem with the curve at 'A' Street is that it was both difficult to maneuver and gave an unattractive view of the back side of Marin Produce. In trying to adjust that, they considered the possibility of a reverse S-curve to swing traffic out and around. It would put the road over slightly into the parking lot area which would lose some parking. The Park and Recreation Commission is looking for a focal area there to connect visually with the Mission site, so a person could stand at the Mission and look down at Albert Park so there could be some sort of a plaza. There would be sidewalks along both sides from Albert Park to Second Street with landscaping behind Safeway so the loading docks would not be visible. This project would provide pedestrian amenities on 'A' Street. They are looking at this being one of the most attractive entrances to Downtown. Member Cohen asked if the public hearing on project merits could be closed without having a final environmental document. Mr. Pendoley answered they do recommend both SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 6 opening and closing the public hearing on the project merits, but they want to provide written response to any comments received tonight. He pointed out that the questions will tend to cover items that are already in the EIR or repeat other questions; nevertheless, they would like to give a written response on all of them. He noted the Agency cannot take action on the project until they have voted to certify the EIR, but they can close the hearing. Mr. Ragghianti stated that whether they close the public hearing on the project merits is a matter of the Agency's comfort level. Legally it can be done. The only thing that cannot be done is to take any action on the project merits. He said he believed the staff's intention was to return with written responses to any comments brought up tonight that have not previously been responded to. He stated the Agency will need to certify the environmental document. Only thereafter, could they take action on the merits. Mr. Pendoley explained they are recommending this approach because it is the approach the Planning Commission used because the EIR issues and the merit issues are so closely intertwined that it was easier for everyone to do them both at once. Chairman Boro suggested they go ahead with the plan as outlined by Mr. Pendoley, and when tonight's testimony is concluded, decide whether to close the hearing on both the EIR and the project merits. Chairman Boro explained to the audience that the Agency has received all of the correspondence that has transpired before the Planning Commission, all of the written responses and the staff report. He noted that today, three additional letters were received, one from the Builders Exchange, a clarification letter from the Park and Recreation Commission, and a letter from Eileen Treadwell regarding concerns and opposition. Chairman Boro opened the public hearing. Tom Lollini, 39 Octavia Street, spoke to the merits of the project. He stated that he was on the Redevelopment Citizens Advisory Committee from the early conception of this project, a Representative on the Design Review Board and on the Citizens Advisory Committee for this project, the Albert Park Renovation Committee, and was involved in the General Plan process of identifying a Downtown Plan and Albert Park Master Plan and Mahon Creek Master Plan. He indicated those three documents were intended to shape the design of Andersen Drive. He stated that unfortunately this project has been said to be off limits in each one of those processes. The lines of the Downtown Plan and the Albert Park Master Plan Renovation Program were drawn at Andersen Drive, and no discussion of the conceptual program for Andersen Drive was ever entertained in any of those processes. He agreed with Ms. Korzun's recommendation to look at this as a holistic plan and it should be done in such a way that the project is not approved in a manner that prejudices the outcome, meaning the terminus to 'A' Street until that whole process resolves itself. He pointed out that this is a public street, not a highway, and as such should be seen as something that adds to the community. The way the street is designed is similar to 2nd and 3rd Streets, except that it is two-way instead of one-way. During the Downtown Visioning process, the quality of those streets was seriously questioned. A pedestrian connection when there is no signalization between Lindaro and 'A' Street is also a problem because there cannot be pedestrians crossing around the corner of a blind curve on a 40 mile per hour street. The 8 foot shoulder should be thought about as a parking lane on both sides of the street, and this project should be thought about as a street and as part of the community. The long view of this access to Downtown is the loading dock to Safeway, not the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 6 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 7 view of the 'A' Street access toward the Mission. Both Albert Park and the Community Center are going to have their existing parking compromised. He asked that, in looking at the merits of the project, the possibilities not be prejudiced by approving a terminus at 'A' Street. He suggested they consider authorizing a design to Lincoln Avenue for now and solve the rest later. Referring to a possible Home Depot lawsuit, he said that when talking about $7 - $8 million of community investment over $100,000 in additional sales tax to the City, that it has to be weighed in the prospective of what the overall vision for the community is. Hugo Landecker, Chairman of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association Committee on Andersen Drive, stated the EIR is not before the Agency with 100% approval from the Planning Commission. His Committee is very concerned about many of the issues already expressed to the Planning Commission. The Committee proposed a terminus at Lindaro to avoid the cost and the problems of the 'A' Street terminus. He referred to the disadvantages submitted to the Agency and included in the staff report and noted that the EIR suggests most of the traffic will use Lindaro Street anyway. He also referred to the advantages of the Lindaro terminus as submitted and noted that it includes more than ample turnout lanes at the 2nd and 3rd Street intersections. Such turnouts are not possible with the 'A' Street terminus. He felt they are an important part of this proposal, due to the large number of trucks and buses that will also be using Andersen Drive. In addition, people turning from Second Street to Lindaro will not cause traffic backups on that already congested street. Vehicles cannot travel at 25-30 miles per hour on Second Street and make an abrupt turn onto either Lindaro as proposed, or on the 'A' Street terminus as proposed without backing up traffic. Also, the project includes realignment of Lindaro to Lootens as proposed by the Downtown Vision. This realignment allows easy traffic flow from the Downtown area. The EIR says that a Lindaro terminus is not feasible, but the Committee feels that the concept should be revisited. Mr. Landecker stated the EIR does not adequately consider alternatives. A Lindaro terminus of the magnitude the Committee is proposing was never considered. The Agency needs to carefully consider the merits of this proposal. Even if a terminus at 'A' Street is chosen, the improvements in the Committee's proposal need to be accomplished. Mr. Landecker stated he gave a similar presentation to the Planning Commission, and the staff has answered his report, but he feels the comments are not adequate. Regarding the impact of road noise and the use of Albert Park, the comment was that it was good because more people would know that the park was there. Mr. Landecker did not think this was an acceptable answer. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated she spoke with the Planning Commission regarding this project because they were very concerned about the businesses that would be impacted by the extension of Andersen Drive. The Chamber of Commerce requested, through their newsletter, that all of the members call to give their comments on the project. Plus, they sent letters to 30 businesses in the area, some members, some not, asking them to express any concerns they had about the project. Ms. Giambastiani stated they only received two calls; one from a property owner who was concerned about their access into a building, which was responded to, and the other from Marin Produce. At a meeting of the Board of Directors on 3/4/94, they voted to support the project because they feel it will improve traffic from East San Rafael, will give better access to the industrial area, and will greatly improve the section of roadway between Bellam and Office Depot. The Board, however, did express extreme concern about the future of Marin Produce, and stated that Board Members would use all their efforts to retain this business in the community. The Chamber of Commerce has asked the Agency to use all its resources to assist Marin Produce in relocating if that becomes a necessity. Theresa Cox, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, thanked the staff for the care- ful consideration of their previous comments. She stated there remains a great deal SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 8 of concern among the members about additional traffic going through their neighbor- hood. The Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association Board and the Andersen Drive Committee support Hugo Landecker's position. She stated that Judy Milani, a member of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, a member of Group Lonatese and Chair of the Lonatese Gardens at Albert Park, asked Ms. Cox to express her concerns about the impact of the roadway on the future Gardens. Chairman Boro stated the Agency received two letters on the Gardens, and the staff has responded. L. Wayne Battmale, owner of Bay Area Rentals with 22 offices with over 165 employees, stated his business will probably be affected more than Marin Produce. He stated this project is very fragile in three areas: financially - there is no access in driving off the freeway to businesses, so potentially there will be no new revenue coming into those areas, but rather taking business away from the area; no sales tax increases - how will you increase taxes when you are taking 50 businesses away from San Rafael?; the additional expenses in maintaining three miles of highway when we cannot even keep Albert Park clean and neatly manicured. Mr. Battmale stated there are no new businesses coming to San Rafael, and he estimates we will lose at least 200 jobs because when a business is moved, there is no guarantee that it will stay in business. If he were to lose his present location, he estimates it would cost him over $1/2 million to move his business to a new location, plus all the time and effort to move a business. He stated the City of Concord voted against Walmart three weeks ago because of the opposition of small businesses and the business community was so fragile, that they thought they could not let a larger corporation with the impact of Walmart come in and destroy small businesses. As far as traffic is concerned on Woodland Avenue and West Francisco Boulevard, there is no night traffic. He said it is not necessary to spend all that money to build a roadway for 4 or 5 hours of operation. The only time Woodland and Francisco Boulevard are busy is when Highway 101 is backed up because of problems on 101; that is when traffic will come into San Rafael. He stated it is tough to build a vision in business and create jobs, and it is the small guy who built San Rafael, not the big guys. Joe Walsh, operator of The Gazette in San Rafael, speaking as a private individual, stated he attended a Board Meeting of the Chamber of Commerce when this project was discussed, noting he is attending tonight's meeting as a friend of Marin Produce. The discussion at the Board Meeting centered around whether Marin Produce would be given any assur-ances that if this project is approved, they will be allowed to continue to be in business, and they feel this is an inverse condemnation. He asked why there has been no written assurance or commitment that they will be allowed to stay in business. Mr. Pendoley answered that if the final design of the project takes the property or some portion of the property, the property owner will be compensated. Member Cohen asked for more clarification. He said it is his understanding that the property owners and the business operators are not the same. Mr. Pendoley stated that if there is an impact on the business, that must also be compensated. Mr. Ragghianti stated that these questions are not susceptible to easy or quick answers because in many cases we do not know what the relationship is between the property owner and the lessee, and the lease that exists between them may dictate who is entitled to damages in the event that a public agency takes or effects the operation of the business or a portion of the property. He added that we have no choice but to compensate the owner that is impacted by taking all or a portion of SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 8 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 9 their property. The only issue is how much, and if an agreement cannot be reached, it is litigated. There is no question that they will be, it is only how much it will be. Chairman Boro reminded that it has not yet been decided what will happen to Marin Produce at this point. Mr. Ragghianti clarified that this is not inverse condemnation, rather, if it happens, it is eminent domain which is the opposite side of the inverse condemnation coin. Sandy Lollini stated she has been on the Board of Directors of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association since 1986, the Downtown Community Plan Vision for 3 years, member of the new Andersen Drive Committee, and spearhead of the Traffic Advisory Committee for Traffic Improvements within Gerstle Park. She stated the plan for the Andersen Drive extension that was made so many years ago is not functional in 1994. The access to businesses and the impact on them is tremendous. The quality of life and the safety of the people and pedestrians who will be using this road is not good. She said buses are an open question. The first plan for a terminus was at 'B' Street, but the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association was adamant that they wanted the terminus at Lindaro, with no lefthand turn lane, because if traffic is going to be moved from East San Rafael to Downtown, it should continue Downtown and not pass through their neighborhood. There are traffic problems on 'D' Street, and the City has painted wider crosswalks, but it has never slowed traffic down. Therefore, a terminus at 'A' Street with a crosswalk would be extremely dangerous. Ms. Lollini stated she would prefer to see this terminate and follow through to Lincoln as opposed to coming into Downtown at 'A' Street or Lindaro, because people could start at the gateway and go all the way down 4th Street. Part of the Downtown Vision was to slow traffic down, but she feels traffic congestion is good for a community, because people stop and they see what is going on and feel a part of the community. She asked that the Agency not approve this plan, and she supports the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association's recommendations. Cecilia Bridges, representative of the owners of the corner property at 700 A Street stated that this property and the tenants of this property are the most greatly impacted from the Andersen Drive Extension project. Two of San Rafael's most well established tenants are in this property, each of them having four years remaining on their existing leases, and each of them has an additional five year option. Marin Produce has been in business for 25 years and has 14 employees. Marin Cleaners has been here for 15 years and has 30 employees. The Agency should not approve an Andersen Drive Extension project design that will do any of the following: hurt businesses that have been a part of San Rafael's economic base for 40 years; create traffic safety problems for the required semi -truck access on this curve at 25 mph.; cost the City the $1/2 million in lease value that is existing on these two leases, the tenant relocation assistance that will be owed to Marin Produce and Marin Cleaners if they have to be relocated. All of that can be avoided by approving a project design that terminates at Lindaro. Mark Rice, attorney for Marin Produce, pointed out that the Lindaro terminus has not been fully explored, and cited page 22 of the February 15, 1994 draft Planning Com- mission Meeting Minutes where the Lindaro alternative was dismissed as inadequate, because to make it adequate would require widening Lindaro or perhaps creating a separate lane, allowing people coming from the left on 2nd Street to cross over what is presently vacant PG&E property to make a quicker access, and not congesting the corner of 2nd and Lindaro with a stop. In response to that, Planner Hasser replied, "If you decide on a Lindaro terminus, there would need to be a preliminary design for Lindaro terminus" and noted that if Lindaro becomes the terminus, it is not just SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 9 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 10 a matter of switching it, a preliminary design would need to be prepared for the Lindaro terminus and probably additional environmental studies. Mr. Rice stated he attended the last open public hearing before the Planning Commission, and one of the issues was fully exploring the Lindaro alternative. Given the Commissioners' comments that we really have not fully explored the alternative, it would make sense to widen Lindaro and condemn part of the corner of the PG&E property and that points to a fundamental, logical inadequacy in the EIR. Mr. Rice said he has not seen the most recent letter from the Park and Recreation Chairman, but the prior letter indi- cated there were significant impacts to Albert Park. The closer the traffic is brought to the park, the less it is available for relatively risk-free family recreation. Regarding the merits of the proposal, there would be an easy tendency to say that this is Marin Produce, the family run, traditional business, the "backbone" of Downtown vs. the brand new fancy, low paying, unstable employment of Home Depot. He stated that the Mayor of the town of Colma was having problems with the operation of Home Depot there. Jean Starkweather, Marin County Bike -Way Committee, a committee of the County Parks Commission, and a representative of the Advisory Committee for Andersen Drive, stated the Bike -Way Committee has taken no position on the terminus. However, they believe this will be a very fine connection to help tie East San Rafael to Downtown. As far as local bicyclists go, the fewer driveways and roads which intersect with Andersen Drive, the better, because more accidents to bicyclists and pedestrians happen at intersections. They are very pleased that there will be a bicycle and pedestrian path, and they urged the Planning Commission to include a Class II bicycle path also along the edge of the road for commuter bicyclists. The fact that this will be used by bicyclists means there will be very fine connections between this road, whether they are coming from East San Rafael or from Downtown to a North/South route through Marin. The County of Marin has an ISTEA grant for a North/South bicycle route from the northern border of Marin to the Golden Gate Bridge. Ray Cox, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, stated one of his key concerns about Andersen Drive is that it could become a bypass and used considerably by people from West Marin to bypass to East San Rafael. He stated Figure A-1 of the EIR does not address the morning traffic or the turns generated at 2nd Street and A Street, and the morning is probably the time the bypass would occur and it does not address that traffic condition. Figure A-2, where Andersen Drive crosses Lindaro, shows a zero turn generation from left onto Lindaro, and during school hours there may be a considerable amount of turns generated at that point. There is a left hand turn lane there, even though it says zero. Bill Baker, resident of 'D' Street in Gerstle Park, stated he understands the need for this road, but he does not understand why no one can see the problems of an 'A' Street terminus - the local businesses, the ballpark, Albert Park. Before a vision can be planned, we must take care of what we already have. We are bringing a thoroughfare directly into the park. The business complaints cannot be ignored. If we went back to a Lindaro terminus, there is an empty building site there, so the road could easily be widened. City parking is in that area, and if we were to cut back over to Lootens, there is a parking garage there also. Very little has been discussed about the Golden Gate Transit System - they have their main garage on the far end of Andersen Drive. Are we going to tell them now that they cannot go onto the Andersen Drive thoroughfare? If so, the 'A' Street terminus will be an even bigger problem. A Lindaro terminus will give a lot more area for double turnout lanes, the busses will have no problems, and they will be one block closer to their new terminal. He is also disturbed by the response regarding traffic back-ups on 2nd Street in the morning hours. The report responded that this was not a significant problem, but the reality is that between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. on 2nd SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 10 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 11 Street heading Eastbound, it backs up to Lincoln Avenue, sometimes to Lindaro, all the way from Highway 101. It backs up for 3 or 4 blocks. If there is an 'A' Street terminus, it will back up right into Gerstle Park. If there is a Lindaro terminus, turnout lanes can be provided to expedite traffic onto the new extension. What most people are saying is to go ahead with the extension, but look at the 'A' Street terminus very seriously. Glen Diamond, Nautilus of Marin property owner and business owner, stated his fate is very closely tied in with Marin Produce because they have reciprocal parking with them. Marin Produce closes at 3:30 p.m., and Nautilus of Marin gets very busy about 5:00 p.m. They have about 2,000 members and generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Diamond stated they are going to lose parking on 'A' Street, and Safeway does not like their parking lot used by Nautilus of Marin. Even though people are coming to exercise, they do not want to have to walk 2-1/2 blocks from the parking garage. He stated he liked the plan for a Lindaro terminus. Chairman Boro closed the public hearing. Member Heller commended the Planning Commission for the job they did on this pro- ject. She stated she understands the Council voted some time ago that the terminus would be at 'A' Street. Principal Planner Hasser stated the Council voted 4-1 to terminate at 'A' Street with a unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission at that time, but no environmental review was done. Ms. Heller asked if Lindaro was going to have right turns onto 2nd Street to assist with the traffic build-up from Davidson School. Ms. Hasser said part of the problem is that there is no right turn lane there right now, but there will be one in the future, although the Traffic Engineer has not yet been able to get to this project. Member Thayer asked when a driver proceeds onto the Anderson Drive extension, why he would not just turn right onto Lindaro before coming out at the 'A' Street terminus? Rob Bernstein stated the forecast prepared for this project indicated that about half of the traffic would turn onto Lindaro turning Westbound on Andersen Drive, which is one of the advantages of an 'A' Street terminus. Ms. Thayer asked what were the economic impacts of having a Lindaro terminus. Ms. Hasser answered that there are widening costs, bridge widening costs, Lootens realignment costs. Project Engineer Andrew Preston stated that costs are unknown, but it could cost the same or more to build Lindaro than 'A' Street. Member Thayer asked about the Albert Park parking, and how many spaces would be lost. Ms. Hasser stated the preliminary design that is in the EIR does not use any Albert Park parking; however, conceptual design proposed on February 25th did; an estimated 17 parking spaces could be lost. She noted this is just a concept, and the Downtown Vision Committee will be working on final recommendations. If parking were lost, there is the possibility of regaining it by redesigning parking in the front of the building. Ms. Thayer asked about the 2 -year maintenance plan for the islands and landscaping, and asked what would happen beyond that point? Ms. Hasser stated it is typical to have a two-year landscape contract, and it is possible to extend it to three years. The Council authorized the Adopt -a -Park program about a year ago where the neighborhoods would pay the cost or do some of the maintenance of parks or medians in their neighborhood. In this area, it could be businesses. Ms. Thayer pointed out that we have allowed a lot of our medians to run down, and stated that when the Downtown Plan was being done, it was extremely important that the roadways be "spruced up". She would like a long-term plan for keeping them up. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 11 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 12 Mr. Pendoley stated that was discussed at length at the Planning Commission, and one of the points was that most of the public landscaping we are trying to maintain today was designed many years ago when the City finances were very different. It is possible to design very attractive landscaping that is truly low maintenance. Auto- matic sprinkler systems reduce the cost tremendously. One of the advantages being emphasized with this project is the opportunity to use CALTRANS funds to make an attractive entryway to Downtown. It would be difficult to acquire these funds through any other means. Ms. Thayer noted the Planning Commission expressed a great deal of concern about this becoming a speedway, with a portion of it being at 30 mph and another at 25 mph. Since this is only a 1/2 mile span, she asked if having two different speeds would not create a bottleneck. Mr. Bernstein answered that the 25 mph segment is from Lindaro to 2nd Street which is around the corner, so regardless of the speed limit at the rest of the street, it will be reduced around that corner anyway. Therefore, there will be no bottleneck. Ms. Thayer questioned the safety of the pedestrian lanes on 'A' Street. Ms. Hasser answered that there would be street trees and wide sidewalks, similar to the sidewalks on Fifth Avenue. There would be parking on one side of the street which would provide an additional buffer. Ms. Thayer asked if there would be any traffic signals. Ms. Hasser answered there would be at Second Street, at least, and the Downtown Vision Committee is considering pedestrian crossing further up, either using lights, a median, etc., but it is not decided. There has been talk about a pedestrian activated signal. The adjacent PG&E site is proposed to be a parking lot. In the future it might be possible to use this for overflow parking for Albert Park during peak periods. Mr. Pendoley stated we do have the opportunity to provide for a pedestrian activated signal at each of the intersections. Most of the pedestrians would be at Lindaro and at Second Street. Ms. Hasser stated that pedestrian activated signals are already proposed for Second Street and Lindaro. Ms. Thayer noted in the (Wetland) Mitigation Monitoring Plan that there was a 1:1 ratio for mitigation and asked why we are not doing it 2:1. Ms. Hasser answered that the General Plan permits 1:1 mitigation for isolated small wetlands, of less than one acre. The Planning Commission agreed that this was an acceptable solution for this small amount of drainage ditch wetlands. Member Cohen requested a response to the comment by Mr. Rice as to the adequacy of the EIR since we are not required in an environmental document to fully explore and design all of the possible alternatives. Mr. Pendoley agreed. Mr. Cohen said the issue that has most people concerned is the terminus and how it is done. Mr. Cohen stated he has been a part of this project since 1986 and voted to recommend the 'A' Street terminus. With the change of 'A' Street to two-way, he still believes it is the best alternative although it presents problems for a couple of local businesses. He emphasized he believes 'A' Street is the best alternative, not because he is weighing Marin Produce against Home Depot, but there are a lot of businesses that will benefit from increased connection between Downtown and East San Rafael and from Downtown to the other end of Andersen Drive. Mr. Cohen stated we do need to work with and protect Marin Produce. Mr. Cohen asked what would be the capacity impact of reducing speeds further east. Mr. Bernstein stated the proposal, despite earlier comments, is to be approximately 30 mph, not 40 mph. There probably would not be any impact one way or another between 30 mph and 25 mph. They are proposing to control speed through the corridor SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 12 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 13 by setting traffic signals. Mr. Cohen stated he prefers to have the speed set at 25 mph. He also asked if there is going to be a pedestrian activated signal at Second? Mr. Preston answered there will be a pedestrian activated signal at all the traffic signal intersections including Second and 'A'. Mr. Cohen asked what that does to the signal progression and does it change during commute hours. Mr. Bernstein stated the only reason to have a pedestrian signal at a regular signalized intersection is if the typical green time is not sufficient for a person to cross the street safely. The normal signal time may be sufficient and pedestrian actuation may not be necessary. It does not interrupt the signalized intersection traffic. Member Cohen stated pedestrian access to Albert Park from Downtown is very impor- tant, and because of that he would support a hard look at a future pedestrian activated signal, and he would like it incorporated early on in the planning. He noted that currently pedestrian access can be accomplished from Downtown along the left-hand side of 'A' Street, but the problem is a wide opening and driveway at First Street. One of the things in this design process is to come up with a way to get the driveway that connects Safeway parking lot with 'A' Street narrowed dramatically so it is clear there is a specific driveway cars are supposed to go through. Mr. Cohen stated he is often on Lindaro Street early in the morning, and there is a great potential for an impact on Davidson with a Lindaro terminus. He cannot support the Lindaro terminus on that issue alone. There is already so much traffic there. He said the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association's recommendation for turnouts at Lindaro is good and they will be included as necessary when a project is approved for the adjacent PG&E property. Chairman Boro stated a couple of years ago, one of the goals was to not move businesses, including the industrial use along Andersen Drive. The direction from the Planning Commission and the Council was that we design that stretch in a way that the businesses would continue. He asked how many of the businesses are on the right-of-way and who they are. He also said that he agrees that through design, we should do everything we can to maintain Marin Produce and Marin Cleaners at the site. Chairman Boro said that with all the problems that we have had the last few years maintaining public street islands, we must now consider only projects requiring extremely low maintenance and watering needs. We must assume funding will get no better. He also mentioned that we need to look at signalization carefully because if pedestrians are not there at the start, they will be eventually, so he would like some analysis on how to slow the traffic down. Chairman Boro stated he fully supports the concept of the connector and reminded the Agency that we have built one other connector on Lincoln through Los Ranchitos, which has been very good. The current connector will also be very good and will expose some of the businesses which until now have not had much exposure. Chairman Boro stated he is convinced that the impact on Gerstle Park will be better, not worse because he does not see people taking 'A' Street, then going into Gerstle Park unless they live there. Member Cohen spoke on the issue of future land use in this area and asked, in terms of design, would it be possible in the future to treat this as something other than a limited access roadway? For example, if we have wider right-of-way, would it be possible to change the design of Andersen Drive to something that more closely approximates what we have at the other end of Andersen Drive where there is a very wide right-of-way, turn pockets all the way along in the middle, parking along both SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 13 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 14 sides. We need to preserve the opportunity to take right-of-way. Chairman Boro asked when these issues could be brought back to the Agency, and Mr. Pendoley replied that all of the questions and issues raised tonight have been raised in various forms in previous hearings. It should not be necessary to revise the Environmental Impact Report to have it ready for Agency certification. The proper thing to do would be for the staff to prepare written comments which would become a part of the record which is attached to the EIR, then bring back for Agency consideration either on the Consent Calendar or the regular calendar, a resolution certifying the EIR. Similarly, it sounds as if you are in concurrence with the recommended design of the project, therefore, the appropriate thing would be to adopt a motion directing a resolution be brought back approving the design of the project and incorporating the mitigation measures as well as all of the recommended follow-up activities. Member Heller moved and Member Cohen seconded, to direct staff to document responses from what was heard tonight and prepare a Resolution to adopt the certification of the EIR. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS:None DISQUALIFIED: MEMBERS: Zappetini Member Cohen asked how long the design study would take of the terminus relating to the pedestrian issues and Albert Park? Ms. Hasser stated it will probably take an intensive three months to finalize the recommendations for that area so that it can be incorporated in the final design which will go on over the next year. Mr. Cohen said it is important and we will want to get a good look at it so the public has an opportunity to share their concerns about the conclusions of that study. Ms. Hasser stated that the public would bring their recommendations to the Planning Commission. Also, the things brought up tonight will be added to the charge of the Downtown Vision Subcommittee, but the Planning Commission will have the ultimate decision of what to bring back to the Agency. Mr. Cohen asked that it also come back as an agenda item for the Agency. Mr. Pendoley asked if the Agency would like a preliminary work program brought to the next meeting, and Member Cohen stated it would be helpful if they are going to move forward to the merits of the project. Member Thayer asked about grease traps for the project and the potential for run- off. Ms. Hasser answered that grease traps work very well for restaurants, auto repairs, or places with high concentrations of grease or oil. Ms. Thayer stated they were mandated for the Home Depot project to filter oil and residue. Ms. Hasser stated the difficulty with the grease and oil traps on a roadway is that pollutants are disbursed, and concentrations are washed into the traps during a rainstorm. If the oil and grease traps could be cleaned during the first half hour of a rainstorm, then the concentration of oil and grease could be caught and the traps emptied. The difficulty is doing that because if it is longer, they overflow and the oil and grease go into the storm drain. The best management practice is street sweeping because it gets the oil and grease up off the street better. Mr. Pendoley stated the difference between this situation and Home Depot is that at Home Depot it is more concentrated and there would be a very limited number of outlets, and it would be easier to perform the required maintenance rather than over an extended area of a 1-1/2 mile of roadway. Member Heller stated it is her understanding that we have funding in place starting SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 14 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 15 in 1995 and asked if the whole planning process will be finalized by then. Mr. Preston stated the final design will probably take a year to complete, so we should be able to go after bids approximately July, 1995. He pointed out that this is not the ideal time to go out for bids of this type, and it may be more prudent to wait until the fall and begin construction in the Spring, 1996. Chairman Boro stated there has been a lot of comments regarding the Vision, and it is very positive that it shows that document has been used as a guide. Ms. Hasser stated she anticipates this item will be brought back to the Agency at the March 21, 1994 meeting. Member Cohen moved and Member Thayer seconded, to direct staff to prepare appropri- ate documents for Agency consideration including a Resolution approving the project on its merits, and to include a timeline for the work that remains to be done. AYES: MEMBERS: NOES: MEMBERS: ABSENT: MEMBERS:None DISQUALIFIED: MEMBERS: AGENCY CONSIDERATION 8. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None. Cohen, Heller, Thayer & Chairman Boro None Zappetini There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 3/7/94 Page 15