Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1984-04-02SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Mtg.) 4/2/84 Page 1 In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, April 2, 1984, at 7:45 P.M. Special Joint Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor/Agency Chairman Meeting: Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember/Agency Member Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember/Agency Member Richard Nave, Councilmember/Agency Member Jerry Russom, Councilmember/Agency Member Also Present: Robert F. Beyer, City Manager/Executive Director; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk/Agency Secretary; Peter J. Muzio, City/Agency Attorney RE: REFERRAL FROM GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (GGBHTD) RE TRANSPORTATION CENTER (ED) - File R-81 x (SRCC) 112-2 City idanager/Executive Director Beyer briefed Council/AffPncv Rtatir_p- that he wanted to bring to their attention the letter received from Mr. Jerome Kuykendall, GGBHTD, his interpretation of it, which raised some questions as to whether or not all the parties involved are in complete agreement at this point on the project. He felt it was important that the Council/Agency review the letter and that there be some clarification on the District's position as approved by the Board of Directors. Mayor/Agency Chairman Mulryan stated that a number of design obser- vations had been made and that among them the most critical was the parking. Mr. Jerome M. Kuykendall, Director of Planning and Policy Analysis, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, stated that as it was put in the letter, the Building and Operating Committee and the Board reviewed the correspondence from the City. They felt comfortable with the design issues and the 19 design conditions pre- viously mentioned. The consultant has been instructed to work toward that end, accommodating those 19 items to the best he could, and if there are items which can't be incorporated for some reasons, that they simply be identified, they will be made known to the City and staff, but the work will continue as is best for the project. So, there was no concern with the design items, and they are being in- corporated in the facility. The one area which concerned the Bridge Board, which is contrary to the City's position, relates to the de- velopment of any significant parking for commuters. The Bridge Board felt that that was an activity which exceeded the scope of the current project. They indicated their willingness to review it, and work to- ward a new and separate project which addresses the needs for commuter parking in the City. The District to date has never developed commuter parking throughout its service area with one exception where, in Santa Rosa the old airport was purchased in order to build the bus facility and parking; this was feasible because there is a considerable amount of excess land available. All of the other commuter parking facilities have been developed either by local jurisdictions or, as is more generally the case, by Caltrans itself. So, the position of the Board was that if the City wished to review the needs of commuter parking in the area, that it certainly would be willing to do that and put its effort behind whatever the City wanted to develop, but felt it was not in the best interest of this project to attempt to bring that into it at this stage. Mayor/Agency Chairman Mulryan asked whether this meant the financial interest. Mr. Kuykendall replied that it did, and also because of the timing constraints. The consultant was asked what kind of effect it would have on the project if we were to bring in an additional element of this nature, and it was indicated that there would be financial ef- fects as well as some significant effects on the staging and the time- line that has been set. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Mtg) 4/2/84 Page 1 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Mtg.) 4/2/84 Page 2 Mayor/Chairman Mulryan stated he thought they had already talked about parking all along at previous meetings, and looked at this as a multi -model; clearly, there would seem to be some merit to the idea that, in order to attract the main body of people who are going to be using the Transportation Center, that there be some way to attract them to it. Of course, having parking would provide a con- venience and assure the center success. He asked if the Board had judged that need? Mr. Kuykendall replied that he thought the Board's perspective was that the project, as it now is being developed, is a replacement for the existing facility at Fourth & Hetherton, and as such it has not been their desire to make this into a larger project which would in- duce additional people to come to this area for this transit purpose. What is desired now is to make it more pleasant, safer and an attrac- tive activity rather than trying to generate additional activity in the area. The staff review suggested that, if the City wanted to provide additional facilities for commuters, probably there would be better locations to do it than the particular area in which we are working right now. It seemed, at least with a cursory review, and he said he thought this was concurred by certain City staff, that to bring large numbers of commuters to this area who now do not go to this area, would simply aggravate the traffic problems. Therefore, if additional commuter parking is desired, it might be preferable to find other locations closer to where commuters reside and service them with bus service which is more direct. Mayor/Chairman Mulryan stated that the whole point of having a transportation center is to encourage people to use public transport- ation. He said he understood the ridership on the buses is down. The way to make this survive is to make it convenient and to attract more people to the buses and to the ferries. He asked if that was not the District's objective as well. Mr. Kuykendall.replied that is the objective - to make this facility more attractive than what currently exists at Fourth and Hetherton. Councilmember/Member Breiner asked whether there had been a change in the design from the previous one. Mr. Kuykendall said that the one presented at this meeting is the most recent effort of the consultant, and has not yet been reviewed by the City staff. It was just received about two days prior to the meeting. Councilmember/Member Breiner stated that the reason she asked was because, not having scrutinized it close up, it looks like there are fewer parking spaces than there were in the last draft. Mr. Kuykendall replied that the criteria, as laid out by the City, is for 10 automobile parking spaces. There are 9 spaces. Councilmember/Member Russom stated that his impression was the purpose of this transportation center went far beyond being a replacement for the Fourth and Hetherton center. He said he thought that part of the Bridge District's criteria insisting on this particular location was that it should be truly multi -model or inter -model, that the idea was to combine the various types of transportation (railroad, bus, airporter) which certainly would have to include the automobile. You said earlier that the Bridge District is seeing that as simply a replacement for Fourth and Hetherton. Is that the current view of the District Board? Mr. Kuykendall replied that it is the current view; but he asked that his words not be misinterpreted, and that when he said replacement for the current Fourth and Hetherton activity he was speaking with respect to the commuter activity. All the other modes of transportation SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Mtg.) 4/2/84 Page 2 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Mtg.) 4/2/84 Page 3 are also the goal of the District, as he understand it. He said he hoped he conveyed that the District is indicating its willingness to participate with a development of commuter parking facility. They feel the project should move forward as rapidly as possible and keep up with the time line set previously, and they are not rejecting the commuter parking facility as a concept. Mayor/Chairman Mulryan indicated he thought there should be a dele- gation and that it should meet with some members of the Board to ex- plore how best this can be accomplished and that, while the City is willing to go forward with this project, it can only be if there is some sort of assurance that there will be parking whether this starts right now or slightly later than the center itself. But parking must be provided, and it should be in close proximity to the center. Councilmember/Member Frugoli stated that he agreed fully that to induce people to use these buses, there should be parking provided at the bus terminal. The idea is not to bring more cars to the downtown area, and have people leave cars in parking lots for 8 to 10 hours. The idea is to attract people downtown and have parking lot spaces available for shoppers also. Councilmember/Member Nave stated that he felt there should be a first class transportation center, and that it should provide parking for commuters, and that if space is not found to accommodate all the parking requirements, perhaps the center should stay under the bridge. But the City should not lose control over the project. Mayor/Chairman Mulryan asked Mr. Kuykendall if he could convey these comments to the Bridge and the consultant. He thought a meeting should be set between the City and Board members and the consultant to see how far along the 19 conditions are progressing, or if there are some conditions which cannot be incorporated into the design, and particularly how the City views the parking. Mr. Kuykendall replied that he thought a meeting would be very helpful. Councilmember/Member Russom stated that there was some contradiction in the wording of the resolution, Paragraph 2 where it said: "Authorize District staff to work with the City of San Rafael to review the need and opportunities for improved commuter parking facilities in San Rafael...", then a few lines down, it said: "the Transportation Center project predicated upon the condition that no off-site parking be re- quired..." Mr. Kuykendall replied that he thought the feeling of the Board was that if it was the City's intent that this project not move unless the parking was a part of the project, then they did not want to authorize this additional expenditure. However, if the City were agreeable that this parking activity could take place as a separate item, the project could move forward irrespective of the outcome re- garding the parking, then they would have no problem with moving for- ward with the expenditure of additional funds for this project. Councilmember/Member Russom stated that he would like to be a part of the delegation. Mayor/Chairman Mulryan and Councilmember/Member Russom will meet with Board members and the consultant as soon as convenient. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M. to the City Council meeting immediately following. JEANNE M (EbNCINI, City `Clerk/Agency Secretary APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1984 LAWRENCE E. MULRYAN, Mayor/AGency Chairman SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Special Joint Mtg.) 4/2/84 Page 3