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