Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1998-04-06SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1998 AT 7:30 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Paul M. Cohen, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary O. Phillips, Member (arrived during Public Hearing, Agenda Item 2) Absent: Barbara Heller, Member Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR 7:50 PM Member Miller moved and Member Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar item: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, March 16, 1998 (AS) AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Miller & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Heller & Phillips PUBLIC HEARING: 2. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE MACY'S MIXED USE PROJECT AND COURT STREET PLAZA, 998 FOURTH STREET, SAN RAFAEL, CA; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 11-222-01, 04, AND COURT STREET BETWEEN FIFTH AND FOURTH STREETS (RA) - File R-380 Chairman Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for a staff report. Senior Planner Katie Korzun began by pointing out a correction to the staff report. Referring to Page 14 of the Negative Declaration, she noted the number of historic trips that would be generated should be 197, rather than 191. Ms. Korzun stated the Redevelopment Agency does not often act as the lead agency, but in this instance it is, noting the Agency will be taking the major and some of the first steps approving the project, and under the provisions of California State law would, therefore, be the lead agency. She explained this meant that after an environmental determination is made SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 2 by the Agency, the project will go on to the Planning Commission for their review, and they will not have to take additional action on any environmental matters, unless they find that the project has changed. Therefore, after this evening, the environmental issues will be settled. Ms. Korzun reported this project had proceeded through the initial developer selection, was further refined in the public design meetings, and had then gone to the Design Review Board; therefore, this was an evaluation on a maximum project. She noted the Court Street closure at the location of Fourth and Court Streets had also been included in this environmental analysis. She stated they were looking at removing the existing 53,000 square foot building, and replacing it with 113 residential units, approximately 24,000 square feet of retail space, and 38,000 square feet of office space. She reported there would be 247 on-site parking spaces in an underground parking garage, and approximately 100 spaces would be required to be provided in the district. She reported the building would have a height of 5 stories on Fourth Street and 6 stories on Fifth Avenue, and would be required to receive a height bonus from the Planning Commission. The residential units would be a mix of studios, one- and 2 -bedroom units, and would be accessed primarily from the podium level. 34%, or 38 units, would be low and moderate income housing units, and as those 38 units would be over the allowed density, a density bonus would also have to be granted. Ms. Korzun reported staff did an initial study and found impacts in the areas of Geology, Transportation and Circulation, and Noise. They did determine the impacts on those areas could be mitigated to a level of "Less Than Significant", and on that basis, staff was suggesting a mitigated Negative Declaration be approved. She reported the impact in terms of Geology was simply that we would be excavating down to 25 feet or more in this area, stating there would be conformance with City requirements for excavation and safety. She noted this would be reviewed by the Geotechnical Review Board, pointing out this was not an unusual situation, and was a fairly standard mitigation that would be found anywhere in the Downtown that was excavated below grade to this extent. The second area of impact was in "Transportation and Circulation", specifically regarding traffic. Staff evaluated traffic for both projects, singly and combined, looking at baseline and General Plan build -out, and was able to mitigate all of the impacts. She reported that in looking at the Macy's build -out and the baseline operation (defining baseline as the traffic mitigation that would be required for this project and all other projects which are currently identified; in this case Fair, Isaac, Walgreen's, Kaiser, and this project), they found there would be an impact at Second and Hetherton Streets. She stated this had been identified in the Fair, Isaac EIR, and all those projects would contribute toward the construction of improvements to Second Street, noting a "Fair Share" determination of approximately $90,000 had been put toward this project. Therefore, Second Street would be widened prior to its being needed, which would be when all four projects, including the first phase of Fair, Isaac, are on-line. In terms of General Plan build -out, staff found there would be impacts at the corners of Fourth and "A" Streets and Fifth Avenue and "A" Street, and the traffic mitigation would be contributions toward the City's General Plan Traffic Mitigation Fees. They also found there was a potential for additional mitigation at those two intersections, a northbound lane on "A" Street, and a westbound left -turn at Fifth Avenue, which would be impacts on Macy's. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 3 Ms. Korzun reported staff believes the closure of Court Street will cause some changes to the traffic pattern, noting when they put Court Street into the traffic model, the model tended to put all that traffic onto "A" Street. She stated that seemed to be a good assumption, noting staff would be monitoring this to see where the traffic actually does go. She stated at baseline, there would be an impact at Fifth Avenue and "A" Street, reporting the Level of Service would go to LOS "F". An immediate interim mitigation would be a left -turn lane, so as vehicles go down Fifth Avenue, they could turn left on "A" Street. This would be needed in the afternoon, and could be done by restricting parking on one side of the street from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. In the long term, she stated we could re -stripe the street, and remove parking on one side of the street. Regarding General Plan build -out, Ms. Korzun reported the build -out of Court Street would not cause any substantial changes in terms of the LOS of the intersection; however, it could possibly affect the queuing of the cars waiting to make turns, creating lines that are so long they start to interfer with traffic. Staff has identified potential mitigations that may have to be done, including a southbound lane on "A" Street from Fifth Avenue to Third Street, and a northbound left -turn on "A" Street at Fourth Street. She stated another potential mitigation they found would be making changes on Fifth Avenue, implementing the permanent solution of taking parking off of "A" Street and installing the left -turn, and also making changes to Court Street, with perhaps the installation of a turn lane on Court Street. She reiterated these were potential mitigations, noting we would not know whether these will be required until the streets are opened, particularly Andersen Drive, and some of the other construction is underway. She pointed out this would be a long-term monitoring situation. Ms. Korzun reported staff had identified the worse case impacts. She stated the City would be responsible for any lane changes, noting staff had written mitigation measures with that in mind. There would also be some transportation hazards with trucks backing out of loading dock areas onto Fifth Avenue, and with certain line -of -sight issues, which could be handled by the removal of parking along Fifth Avenue. Ms. Korzun stated the other identified impact was in the area of "Noise". She noted the City does have noise limitations for residential properties in the Downtown, and this project would have to conform to those. She pointed out this was a fairly standard mitigation measure, which meant the project, as constructed, would conform with the requirements. Ms. Korzun stated there were two areas of No Impact. The first was Parking, noting the Parking Analysis showed there would be a request for 100 retail spaces in the Parking District, and the Office and Residential portions of the site would be parked on-site; therefore, approximately 90 to 100 spaces would have to be located in the District, and staff believed the District lot immediately across Fourth Street, behind Marin Joe's, would have that capacity. Staff also looked at the parking impacts from several of the street changes, particularly along Fifth Avenue and "A" Street, and parking would be taken out when Court Street is closed. She stated it had already been determined that 19 spaces would have to be taken off the streets, noting those would be in very close proximity to the site on Court Street and Fifth Avenue. She pointed out parking on "A" Street would also be impacted, noting staff had identified the worse case impact on "A" Street as an additional 30 parking spaces removed, which would mean a total decrease of 49 spaces. However, there were 1,300 parking spaces SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 4 Downtown, 570 of them in parking structures, so the actual net reduction was quite small. Ms. Korzun stated that with all the construction that is currently in baseline, we will probably need to make changes to our existing parking situation, noting this was something staff was budgeting for, and would begin studying this year. Therefore, the City was already anticipating that with the success Downtown, there will be an impact, and this was something staff will monitor and take action on. Ms. Korzun stated the other area of No Impact was "Views". The Downtown General Plan Guidelines, which are discretionary guidelines, ask that a View Analysis be made concerning the impacts of buildings constructed in a particular area of Downtown on views of the spire of St. Raphael's Church. She noted the views were to be taken from Francisco Boulevard West and Highway 101. Staff had conducted an analysis, and found that on Highway 101 the spire can be seen if someone knows what they are looking at. She stated in the future there will be a reduction, and less of the spire will be seen, but on northbound Highway 101 the top 20% will always be visible. On Francisco Boulevard West, near Border's Books where the road parallels the freeway, the spire can be seen fairly clearly, noting approximately 46% of it is visible now, and that will change to approximately 44%. She stated staff did not believe the change to the view would be significant. Ms. Korzun stated staff was recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration, and acceptance of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, in which staff defines what the mitigation measures are, who has to do them, when they have to be done, and who checks them. Member Cohen referred to the southbound right -turn lane on Court Street, and asked if she was referring to the segment between Mission and Fifth Avenues? Ms. Korzun stated that was correct. Referring to the Traffic Mitigation Fees, and based on the correction Ms. Korzun noted in her report, Mr. Cohen stated there was a discrepancy between the Environmental Check List and the staff report. He pointed out on Page 14 of the Environmental Check List, Ms. Korzun made the correction from 191 to 197, but in the third paragraph it states, "The trip increase as calculated for traffic mitigation fee purposes is 90 PM trips (191 - 101)". Mr. Cohen stated those figures should actually be 96 PM trips (197 - 101). He noted that error was repeated under "Mitigation Measures", in the third paragraph on Page 15, which should be changed to read, "..and the payment of Traffic Mitigation Fees for an increase of 96 PM peak trips". Mr. Cohen noted the staff report correctly calculated the 96 trips, and the traffic mitigation figure based upon that. Member Miller recalled that when he was working on the Downtown Vision, there was one intersection on Mission Avenue that was always the ultimate blockage. In terms of the various intersections, Assistant Executive Director (Public Works) Bernardi reported that when they run numbers through the model, they look at all the intersections, and identify those intersections that will exceed capacity, either at build -out or at other levels, then those are brought to the Agency's attention, along with recommendations for mitigation measures. He stated, under present conditions, and with this project, they have found that the only intersection in the entire Downtown network to have its capacity affected is at Second and Hetherton Streets. Therefore, at this point in time, all the other intersections are above the lower standard set forth in the Vision Statement, which is Level of Service "E". Mr. Bernardi reported that as development occurs, different intersections will be affected, depending on where they are in the Downtown grid. As an example, during SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 5 the Fair, Isaac project staff looked at the intersection of Mission and Lincoln Avenues very carefully, because that is also one of the key intersections that provides a "choke -hold" if mitigation measures are not provided. He stated, at this time, that intersection, as well as others, is not affected by this project. Member Miller wondered if we were looking further down the line, noting that was a real "choke -point" in the whole system, and asking if we were viewing in the long-term, and at least thinking about doing something there? He noted again that if this could be taken care of, it would be a near perfect solution. Mr. Bernardi stated staff was looking ahead. Chairman Boro referred to the on-site Residential and Office parking, and the assumption that during the week parking for the retail could be absorbed by the parking structure. He stated his concern was on the weekends, especially if there are other things going on in the Downtown, and also the added impact, on a positive basis, this retail space is going to have with other activities Downtown. He noted we have a parking structure right across the street from the building, which is generally empty on weekends, and although staff has provided for other mitigations as problems come up, he asked if staff had discussed the possibility of a requirement that if parking for the retail became a problem in the future, then the Agency would look for relief by having the operator look at obtaining space on weekends in the parking structure next to the bank? Ms. Korzun stated staff had not addressed that in the Negative Declaration, noting it was a direction that could be given to the applicant, and to the Planning Commission to review. She pointed out many of the other parking structures Downtown, beyond the one at Courthouse Square, are empty on evenings and weekends, because approximately half the building area Downtown is Office space, and much of the Office space relies on public parking. Therefore, when the offices are closed, we will see a substantial emptying out of our other lots, so even if someone were unable to secure parking on private property, there would be considerable vacancy in more distant, public lots. Chairman Boro stated he was concerned, particularly on Saturdays, and as the City's "Alive After Five" theme continues, noting that while we do not know who the retailers are going to be, he was certain they would have Countywide attraction. One of the keys to successful parking in the Downtown is access and convenience, pointing out there is a parking lot right across the street. He acknowledged this was a private lot, but noted it was very convenient, and it was empty. He asked staff to pursue this during the Planning process, to have some kind of back-up in the event the need is there. Chairman Boro noted that in some places, such as San Francisco, where there is Retail, Office, and Residential in the same space, there is parking on site, and often times the on-site residential parking is not being used during the day, because people are taking their cars and going other places, and that can be used during the week. He suggested this might be something else staff could look at as a possibility. Ms. Korzun stated it was something that could happen voluntarily, but on a policy level, staff has been telling people they are to provide on-site parking. Chairman Boro referred to the impact on the view, noting the staff report states that from West Francisco Boulevard the impact is minimal, and while the impact is greater and somewhat significant from the freeway, the report finds it to be a minimal impact because of the speed being traveled on the freeway. He asked what the parking structure, which will be blocking St. Raphael's Church, will look like from the freeway? Ms. Korzun stated from that angle it was not the parking structure that would be blocking the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 6 view, but rather the residential side of the building. She pointed out there would be no windows on the side facing the freeway, noting it would be a wall with architectural relief on it, so it would not be a blank wall. Chairman Boro invited public comment. Phillip "Casey" Fields, resident of San Rafael, stated he had read the staff report, but did not see an Environmental Impact Report. Chairman Boro noted staff had considered a check list of issues, which led to a Negative Declaration. Ms. Korzun stated a full EIR was not done because the project did not have enough impacts to require one, noting the Environmental Review was included in the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration. She asked Mr. Fields if he had a specific area of concern? Referring to the reductions of parking, Mr. Fields noted he was concerned the sidewalks might be reduced, stating he knows many disabled residents who need to use the sidewalks. He noted the parking spaces are also of particular need to the disabled, pointing out there are Federal guidelines concerning the size of parking spaces for the disabled. He stated that throughout the City there were various places which seem to lack disabled accessibility in parking lots, as well as sidewalks. Ms. Korzun reported that in this particular project, the on-site parking will include 7 handicapped parking spaces on the upper floor, located next to the elevators, and next to a corridor to the street, which leads to the retail units. Therefore, if disabled persons live or work in the building, there is handicapped space provided, and if they drive to the retail, there will still be on -street parking, and handicapped spaces on the ground level of the parking garage across the street. Ms. Korzun stated the sidewalks would all be accessible to the disabled, and on the public Plaza being built there will be sloped areas on both sides of the Plaza that meet the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements, as well as a ramp that goes from the Plaza up to the building. Mr. Fields asked if they had remembered to measure the parking spaces according to Federal guidelines, for those disabled people who use vans? Ms. Korzun stated she did not remember the figures, but the spaces on the site were designed so they were all van accessible, noting that included the height, which is why they are located on the floor they are on, so the taller handicapped vans will fit. Mr. Fields thanked the Agency for addressing those issues. There being no further public comment, Chairman Boro closed the Public Hearing. Member Cohen stated he wished the record to indicate the reason the Redevelopment Agency was approving the Negative Declaration was because it is the lead agency in the DDA (Disposition and Development Agreement), and the agency that will be signing. He explained the "project" was the DDA, noting "project" did not mean just the building, and to that extent, the Redevelopment Agency was approving the project. Ms. Korzun stated that was the first step in the approval, noting the project was everything from the DDA forward, so the agency that takes the first major step, which is the DDA, is the lead agency. Member Cohen moved and Member Miller second, to adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, with amendments to the initial study, as discussed. RESOLUTION NO. 98-12 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MACY'S MIXED USE PROJECT AND COURT STREET PLAZA (With Amendment to the Environmental Check List and Mitigation Measures Re: 96 PM Trips). SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 6 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 7 AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Heller 3. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None. There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 7