Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1996-01-31SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1996, AT 7:00 PM Special Joint Workshop Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council/ Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember San Rafael Planning Commission Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Present: Planning Commission Cyr Miller, Chairman James Atchison, Commissioner Ann Batman, Commissioner Richard O'Brien, Commissioner Joyce Rifkind, Commissioner John Starkweather, Commissioner Absent: None (One seat vacant) Others Present: Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP NORTH SAN RAFAEL TRAFFIC MODEL AND ANALYSIS - File 4-3-289 x 10-2 x 11-13 x 11-1 Mayor Boro opened the workshop, and called upon Public Works Director David Bernardi for an introductory statement and outline for tonight's meeting. Mr. Bernardi stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to present to the City Council, Planning Commission, and interested parties, the traffic model for North San Rafael. The model has been prepared in accordance with nationally recognized standards and is, in staff's opinion, an accurate, objective and reasonable representation of the traffic conditions in North San Rafael. Staff feels confident that the projections made for the various scenarios depicted in the report represent an accurate forecasting of future traffic conditions as well. The model, when adopted by the Council, will be used in the updating of the General Plan. The policies should be considered during the Visioning process and the General Plan update. Mr. Bernardi stated that Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio will present the information to the Council and Commission and will be available to answer their questions, as well as those from the general public, at the conclusion of the presentation. He noted the consultant team is also present as a resource if there should be any further questions. Mr. Bernardi introduced Steve Weinberger, a registered civil engineer and traffic engineer, with a Masters degree in traffic engineering and over 14 years of experience in transportation engineering. Daylene Whitlock is a registered civil engineer and traffic engineer, and has 15 years of traffic operation experience before forming W -Trans with Mr. Weinberger. Mr. Bernardi noted that Mr. Naclerio is Assistant Director of Public Works, with a Masters degree in civil engineering, with an emphasis in traffic. Nader Mansourian is also a registered traffic engineer with 10 years experience and is a resident of North San Rafael. Mr. Bernardi reported his own qualifications include being a registered civil engineer with 26 years of experience with the City. He stated that considerable time, effort and experience went into the preparation of this model, and he feels confident that the staff's review and analysis of the model is extremely thorough. He then asked Mr. Naclerio to present and explain the model. Mr. Matt Naclerio noted that the background material including the flow charts he will be using in his presentation are available in the lobby, to make it easier to follow his analysis. He noted that at the request of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents staff has provided copies of the land use, which includes the peak hour trips generated by each individual land use, and also the average daily traffic which would be generated by those projects. Those are also on the table in the lobby. The baseline tables are already included in the staff report. SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 1 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 2 Mr. Naclerio first discussed the purpose of the traffic report, which is to demonstrate and document that the traffic model provides a valid prediction of existing traffic, baseline conditions and General Plan buildout conditions. The traffic counts were done in the field in 1995 and the analysis is based on those traffic counts, so we have actual traffic operational projections as they exist today, or did exist in 1995. Mr. Naclerio explained that "baseline" means those projects which were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council which were not yet occupied when staff took the traffic counts. The baseline condition also includes infrastructures which are currently being constructed. They are the Merrydale Overcrossing, the two signals at either end of the Overcrossing, and the future on-ramp from Redwood Highway onto Highway 101. Mr. Naclerio explained the term "General Plan Buildout", which is all of the land use and circulation improvements which are in our current General Plan being put into the traffic model and providing the traffic projections. Mr. Naclerio explained that the other purpose of the report is to look at Level of Service (LOS) methodologies. This is done for three different types of facilities - unsignalized intersections, signalized intersections, and for arterial segments. He added that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the traffic model and the conclusions; to answer questions about the results from the model and to agree that the traffic model is a valid prediction tool. Lastly, Mr. Naclerio pointed out that the purpose of tonight's meeting is not to look at future policy issues. He stressed that once the traffic model is accepted by the Council it can be used as an effective tool for future policy issues. He pointed out that this model meets and exceeds industry standards and it meets the Federal Guidelines for traffic models. Mr. Steve Weinberger of W -Trans stated they are very confident with the tools they have developed and used for the City. There have been countless hours spent on the project, including the scrutiny by City staff, who reviewed and discussed them with his team. He stated that in all of his experience this project by far has been given the most attention to detail, and that is why they are very confident in the product they have produced along with City staff. He explained that the tools which were used are very complex and are based on National standards and methodologies which have evolved over the last 30 years. With the aid of the overhead, Mr. Weinberger explained the traffic modeling process and the calibration process. He stated that they took into consideration the 9 Bay Area counties in their study, and have done a Citywide network for San Rafael, with the Downtown/East San Rafael study and now the North San Rafael study. He described how they reach future traffic volume projections. Ms. Daylene Whitlock stated they have used the latest technology and methodology which came out since the General Plan was adopted in 1988. She explained that the timing at the intersections was based on delay criteria which is used as the basis for determining LOS. In their calculations they used typical days rather than holidays or weekends, and used a two-hour period in the PM. For signalized intersections they included timing information on how much time each cycle had. They included pedestrian activities since they affect the timing of the signals because they affect right turns among other factors. Based on all of their calculations they came up with the LOS figures in the study. The basis of comparison was whether or not these conditions were better, or were the same as currently being experienced. Ms. Whitlock explained they had also completed an arterial analysis. This allows the policy -makers to look at a specific corridor and see that according to the calculations, it takes a certain number of minutes to travel the route, and for the General Plan buildout it takes more time. It gives an idea of the magnitude of scale of the changes from one scenario to another. Mr. Naclerio showed on the overhead the two intersections at the Freitas Interchange, to familiarize everyone with the terms they will be using. He explained the East and the North intersections, and the northbound onramp and offramp. He also pointed out the Civic Center Drive area, and traced the routes to be taken within the Redwood/Civic Center/Freitas Interchange, depending on your destination. In his explanation, Mr. Naclerio used the Prime Alternative and Alternatives A and B to illustrate. Mr. Naclerio also noted that the modeling needs to be updated when major transportation changes or land use changes occur. The Merrydale Overcrossing will change the traffic pattern, and the distributions may need to be reviewed after six to nine months, following the completion of the Merrydale Overcrossing. He noted that although we have looked at the three alternatives, in each case there is a myriad of alternatives to choose from. He stated that after the intermission he will discuss the comments made by the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents (NSRCR). SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 2 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 3 Mayor Boro asked if there are any questions from the Council or Commission. Councilmember Heller inquired, when they were doing the General Plan buildout, was McInnis Parkway included as a roadway which was in the plan, or has it been eliminated? Mr. Naclerio responded that it was included, as a functioning roadway under this scenario. The only reason it is dotted on the plan is that it is not an existing roadway. Mayor Boro asked, in the original existing conditions it shows Merrydale Road at LOS D. In the other exhibits that is changed to a B. He asked if something changed or was it a "typo"? Mr. Naclerio explained that the first one was the existing conditions, and the change to B was because right now it exists as unsignalized and in Baseline in all the future General Plan conditions it is signalized. A signal can be timed to meet the peak demands, so typically signals result in an improved LOS. There was a ten-minute intermission, after which Mayor Boro reconvened the meeting and asked for neighborhood input on concerns brought out at the January 18, 1996 workshop. He asked Mr. Naclerio to speak about those concerns and respond to them. Mr. Naclerio stated that first he would like to correct a misstatement on his part. The Merrydale Road intersection Mayor Boro referred to is currently signalized. The reason for the improvement from LOS D to B in the Baseline of the General Plan buildout was because: 1) Because of the Merrydale Overcrossing there is a significant amount of traffic that will be redistributed away from that intersection; and 2) As indicated in the analysis, we provided for optimized signal timings and re -timed the signal so it better allocates the peak traffic flows. Mr. Naclerio reported that on January 18th they had met with the NSRCR and one of the main issues brought up was whether Freitas is one or two intersections. He defined what an intersection is: "An intersection is simply where roads intersect at a point". Based on that definition, clearly the Freitas Interchange has two distinct but interrelated intersections. They are distinct because the majority of the moves between 101 and Freitas occur independent of movements along Civic Center Drive and Redwood Highway. However, they are interrelated because some percentages of the moves interact with Civic Center Drive and Redwood Highway. Mr. Naclerio again referred to the overhead, to explain the different turning movements specifically at each of the intersections. He explained the color coding which indicates: Free flow or uninterrupted flow; traffic which has to yield to through traffic; and traffic which needs to stop before it can go through the intersection. He explained each turning movement in detail, indicating which turns are free flow, which have to yield, and which need to stop before making the turn. In the analysis they looked at the two distinct intersections and then looked at their interrelationship, the interrelationship of the free-flowing traffic as it gets to Civic Center Drive and Redwood Highway, and showed how, with free-flow movement, it is causing delay to both the northbound and southbound approaches. Mr. Naclerio stated he had a conversation with Connie Eichorn of CH2MHill, one of the consultants who helped to prepare the report for the Advisory Group. She indicated she had spoken with a member of the Coalition regarding what the minimum distance between intersections would need to be before you would consider two intersections to be one intersection. Ms. Eichorn told the member of the Coalition that it varies from one traffic engineer to the next, but that for her it would be 200 feet. What she failed to tell the Coalition member was that she was thinking of a signalized intersection. The reality is there is no standard for unsignalized intersections to differentiate between one or two intersections. In fact, in talking with a member of the Highway Capacity Manual Committee, a person who writes the document, and in discussing this issue with him, he stated "there is no established criteria for combining two unsignalized intersections to be looked at as one intersection". He said that clearly, based on the unrelated through movements and turning movements, it acts as two distinct intersections. He stated he agreed exactly with the way we analyzed it. He stated it has caused him some concern because it is a question which has been raised numerous times, and he has tried to find out how we got this "one versus two intersections". In looking through traffic reports, he found one done by DKS, and also one done by the Coalition. He does not know if the Coalition had a traffic engineer officially do the report, but there was some input from one. He noted that in the DKS report, where we come up with the one intersection is that DKS looked at it as one signalized intersection. There was never any attempt by DKS, a reputable traffic engineering firm, to look at the Freitas Interchange as one unsignalized intersection. Their reason was that they were trying to look at future land use impact. It was also because at the time there really was no unsignalized methodology to look at LOS based on delay. We now have that procedure and that is the procedure which we have used. Based on that, we have come up with LOS for those individual intersections, and considered SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 3 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 4 the inter -related movements from one intersection to the next. Mr. Naclerio added that one of the other concerns of the Coalition at the workshop was, "how accurate is the traffic model?" He noted that the staff memo has a detailed discussion of the Federal Government requirements for accuracy of a traffic model, by type of facility. The threshold for Freeway, for instance, is much less than the threshold for a minor arterial. Mr. Naclerio stated that when compared to the established Guidelines, the model meets or exceeds those Guidelines in each one of those facilities. Still, one of the comments was that they did not believe the model is accurate because the delays they experience in the field do not correspond to the delays they experience driving through those intersections. He stated he believes that the reason for this is that most people, when they are traveling through an intersection, tend to travel at the peak of the peak period. He noted that intersections peak within a 15 -minute period, and most people when they are traveling through an intersection think of it that way. It is not the standard criteria of traffic engineers to look at "the peak within a peak". We look at the traffic which goes through an intersection over a 60 -minute period. When he and Mr. Mansourian traveled through the intersections, or even at the arterials, they did not experience the delays mentioned by the Coalition. They did come fairly close, within 50 of the delays determined by the traffic analysis. He stated that can be due in part to individual driving habits. The Highway Capacity Manual considers all of the factors of driving habits when they look at the equation for calculating delay. Mr. Naclerio reported that there were three questions raised in relation to future policy issues. He stressed that tonight's workshop is not to look at future policy issues; however, the traffic model, once it is accepted by the Council, is a powerful tool for looking at future policy issues. The existing LOS was a comment that the Coalition had. Now that we have an unsignalized methodology which looks at LOS and calculates a LOS for the entire intersection, it also calculates a LOS for individual approaches. We have used the current General Plan standard, which says to look at the LOS for the entire intersection and if that exceeds mid -LOS D, then it is considered deficient. A possible alternative would be to look at something different for unsignalized intersections. We now have that capability; however, it was not the intent of this traffic report to propose new policies. Mr. Naclerio reported that another comment was that another way to reduce traffic impacts was to reduce development was to reduce development as anticipated in the General Plan. That clearly is a viable alternative; less generated traffic produces less traffic impact. Again, this is a policy issue and not to be included in a technical document like the one before the Council and Commission tonight. Lastly, the issue raised was that the model looks at PM peak, and most of the delay is experienced in the AM peak. Mr. Naclerio stated that most jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area have PM peak -based models. Also, the County has one and we are consistent with the County. The General Plan we currently have used a PM peak -based model, and it is his understanding that the City of San Rafael has always used a PM peak -based model. He assured the Council that if there are problems in the AM peak, when we look at a particular project and do an environmental review, we will look at the AM peak period and have the consultants look at that and at any other peak periods which may occur. There is a weekend peak and, based on a proposed land use, there may be an increase to that peak. That can be done separate from the model, and do it as part of the environmental document review. Councilmember Cohen stated that one of the things which may be creating or continuing the problem is the summary report from the Freitas Advisory Committee, prepared by CH2MHill. It is not just that the traffic engineer for that consultant told the members of the Coalition that within a distance you ought to consider it one interchange. The consultants told that group, and wrote in this report on page 4-2, "The existing configuration will be evaluated as one intersection". He stated he would like to hear at some point from CH2MHill if, in fact, they did that and, if so, what methodology they used, and why they are now saying "No", that is not what they did, when they told the Committee and put it in writing that is how they were addressing this issue. Mr. Naclerio responded that his contact with CH2MHill, and Ms. Eichorn was one who helped present that, indicated that the one intersection which was looked at was one signalized intersection. Councilmember Cohen noted that the whole point of that Committee was to figure out how to signalize that intersection, so when they say "existing configuration" they have to know they are not talking about a signalized intersection, because the whole point of the study came about when it was discovered that it is not simple to just put a signal there. If that is what they did, he would like to know more about it. He wants clarification. Mr. Naclerio stated he will follow up. Councilmember Cohen added, he understands the logic of the argument Mr. Naclerio is making, in his definition of an intersection, and his evaluation SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 4 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 5 of why it should be treated as two intersections. Councilmember Cohen stated he thinks you can make an equally valid argument that portions of it need to be treated as one intersection. Simply put, no one goes to the middle of these two intersections and stops their movement. They stop temporarily to avoid conflict, but no one ends a trip between these two intersections. So, a certain number of the movements are movements which have no bearing, coming off 101 northbound and getting on Freitas has no bearing on what happens on Redwood Highway or Civic Center Drive. Someone going northbound on Civic Center and getting onto Redwood has little or no bearing on someone making that movement just described, from the northbound onramp on Freitas. Those two are separate; it is where they cross that it really functions as one intersection. He suggested that one of the things which could be looked at is cumulative delay. Councilmember Cohen explained that someone coming from the west side of 101, the Terra Linda Valley, on Freitas Parkway and wanting to go northbound on Redwood, first makes turning movement "F" and then makes turning movement "E". He noted there is a chart that lists delay time for each of these movements. In the actual report, under the Baseline configuration, the delay for turning movement "F" is 44.5 seconds, which is LOS E. Add to that, the delay the person immediately experiences following, trying to make the other left to get onto Redwood headed north, on turning movement "E" with a delay of 2.5 seconds . When you add those together, the cumulative delay is 47 seconds, which seems to take this from LOS E to LOS F. So, that movement is rationally analyzed, and the driver experiences it as one long intersection, as one long series of potential conflicts with other vehicles and the length of time it takes him to get through there as this model describes is LOS F. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not do the calculations for every one of these compound turning movements, but there is a limited and set number for each one between this configuration of roads. He stated that no one who has come to grips with it is able to figure it out. He understands it, but it makes no sense the way it is designed. Councilmember Cohen stated we ought to be able to calculate cumulative delay times, as he did, and that might at least address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood about the difference in methodology on this intersection. Mr. Naclerio stated that what Councilmember Cohen is asking is not standard practice. Planning Commissioner Starkweather stated he can understand why the engineer would like to separate this out and analyze it the way he has. However, clearly the person waiting at position "F", waiting to make that turn, if he is at all sensible he is going to wait until the whole area is cleared for his movement before he starts. Whether it is sensible to add the two delay times together in order to come to his total delay time, he is not sure; but he does not think he will delay in the middle. He will look at the whole area ahead of time. The driver will realize he is entering a complex intersection and, while it is fine to analyze it separately, what Councilmember Cohen discussed makes sense. Councilmember Cohen stated he wants to be clear on the methodology. He referred to the bottom of Page 3, in the section headed, "Level of Service Methodologies". Below the LOS chart, the bottom paragraph states, "The signalized intersection methodology is based on average vehicular delay experienced at the intersection...". It goes on to say "The unsignalized methodologies measure delay for each intersection approach or movement, and provide an overall weighted average vehicular delay for the entire intersection". He noted this was discussed at the meeting with the Coalition. One of the reasons it is of particular concern is, during the PM peaks the highest volume of vehicles is coming off the 101 off ramp and going onto Freitas Parkway. If we take a weighted average, they have a pretty good experience, particularly the ones taking that "straight shot", because everyone else who might have a claim on the turning movement hesitates, because the ones coming off 101 are moving a lot faster than the other cars and have a free movement. The average experience at this intersection of the number of cars making that movement is a weighted average higher or better than it is in reality for people making some of the other turning movements. The turn which is worst is the left turn from Civic Center Drive to Freitas Parkway. He stated it was pointed out to him, relative to the irrationality of this method, if you add cars to the offramp the weighting of this intersection improves, because the more cars you get experiencing "A", the better the average looks, even though the other turning movements are going rapidly from "E" to "F". He stated one of the benefits of this methodology is that the tool lets us analyze different legs for unsignalized intersections. It creates some policy considerations. His concern now is that if we are saying that signalized intersections will only take the average, what will happen, for example, under Freitas Alternative A which is the Advisory Committee's recommendation? There is a chart which shows that as LOS C, for Redwood at Freitas. Councilmember Cohen analyzed in detail the movements shown in Alternative A, and noted there will be a volume of cars waiting to make a left turn at the light. He asked whether staff can analyze, using this methodology, what the delay is going to be for the cars waiting at this light? Ms. Whitlock responded that the signalized methodology does give you the amount of delay by SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 5 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 6 approach, by a movement. You can look at it for each and every movement. Those were not shown in the report because typically you look at the overall LOS. However, there is a file of calculations which shows each movement with its delay. Councilmember Cohen explained that there is a lot of concern about this particular movement and if that intersection is to be signalized we need to analyze it. It would not make sense to signalize it and then find out that we are stacking a volume of cars. It would result in LOS F for that left turn onto Redwood Highway. He wanted to be sure about how they analyzed the signalized intersection, and the average is not one which was discussed before. He wanted to be sure there were the tools to run that analysis if we want to do that. Ms. Whitlock responded that when they evaluated the future conditions they took signal timing which was developed by a computer analysis, but also ensured they were not pushing any specific movements over to LOS F. They were trying to balance it between movements. There were a couple of cases where they found that the computer, for whatever reason, when it evaluated the timing it over -emphasized one movement and under -emphasized another, and when we caught those we would go in and tell it to give this specific movement a little more time. If you specifically take it away and give it to a left turn that is going to reduce your arterial time, and we wanted to make sure that if we were going to need to do that, that we did not get too good a LOS on the arterials because we were giving all the green time to the through movements and not enough to the left turn. With regard to Councilmember Cohen's concern that increasing the amount of traffic on the offramp would improve the LOS, that is not the case. The reason is that if you increase the amount of traffic on the offramp you decrease the size of the gaps between vehicles, which means it will take that much longer for the left -turn vehicles to make their left turns. They have found that even slight increases in the through traffic will drop the LOS, not improve it. Councilmember Cohen explained that his comment was that it is a weighted average because the cars you add are all cars experiencing LOS A. He understands it would destroy the intersection usability for cars trying to make a left turn. Ms. Whitlock stated it does drop the LOS for the entire intersection because it increases delay so substantially for the left -turning movement. Councilmember Cohen addressed his next question to Mr. Naclerio. He referred to the LOS calculations table on Page 20 of the report, on the right side of the chart under "General Plan w/Freitas A" for Intersection #3 (Redwood/Civic Center/Freitas), where it says there is an overall average of 9.5 seconds of delay, LOS B, and then n/a underneath for the individual movements. He asked could those figures be provided if the Council decided they needed to look at it, and Mr. Naclerio responded that the LOS calculation sheet indicates the number of queued vehicles. Councilmember Cohen recapped that staff's analysis of the General Plan with Freitas Alternative B is with Freitas as an unsignalized intersection, but with a left turn from Freitas eliminated. Mr. Naclerio stated that is correct. Councilmember Cohen continued, the northbound left turn from Civic Center Drive, not only goes to LOS F when the overall intersection goes to LOS F, but it approaches 5 minutes of delay, and asked if that is correct? Mr. Naclerio responded that was checked and is actually what would be occurring, without mitigation. Councilmember Cohen noted that the mitigation would be to widen the offramp, leave the left turn out, and still signalize the intersection. He asked does this model analyze what happens to Merrydale at Civic Center, since with a 5 minute delay, presumably those cars are stacking on Civic Center Drive. Mr. Naclerio stated one of the things we should stress is that although we talk about unsignalized intersections looking at weighted average, the signalized intersection does the same type of analysis. The reason it is a little different is because what we do, as we time the signal we make sure that the green time really looks at the demand coming into that intersection. That is what optimization is. It is actually allowing for as much green time as possible, for the amount of vehicles which want to go through that intersection. By setting the time, you weigh out the average. Councilmember Cohen explained his reason for asking about this issue is that there was a recent article in the Independent Journal which suggested this Alternative (Alternative B) as a viable one. He feels there is a policy consideration there which the Planning Commission and the Council need to look at, as to whether that left turn movement from Freitas should be eliminated. He stated it is not one that he supports. He stated that based on this information, it does not appear to him that it is a viable alternative, at least not under General Plan conditions. He would like to know what happens at Merrydale if this intersection has a 5 minute delay, or, if the intersection is signalized, what is the impact on surrounding intersections? Mr. Naclerio responded that he believes the model has looked at this scenario, and if not, it certainly can. The intent of having a traffic model is to be able to look at impacts like that throughout the network. He noted that farther down on the chart on Page 22 it indicates that if signalized, the intersection would go to LOS B. SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 6 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 7 Councilmember Zappetini stated his only question is regarding the computer study, the actual study and their own analysis. He noted they had spoken about accuracy, and asked what is the percentage of accuracy of these numbers? Mr. Naclerio replied it is about 15% at the worst case, and that is at minor arterials. At its best case, it is 5%. Councilmember Zappetini asked is it 15% plus or minus, which is 300? Mr. Naclerio responded it is 150. Mayor Boro asked if there were any further questions by the Council or Commission. Hearing none, he asked for questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Bob Holmes of the Marin Association of Realtors stated he appreciates the time and effort put into this study by Councilmember Cohen, who was a member of the Advisory Committee. Mr. Holmes noted that he was also a member of the Committee. He noted that the agenda refers to neighborhood concerns and apparently there was a January 18th meeting. He stated it should have been noticed as a residential neighborhood, since there is a business neighborhood there also, which he is sure has concerns about some of the conclusions reached in the analysis. He stated he would suggest and hope that the Council would re-form, at least for one meeting, the Advisory Committee which came up with Alternative A. There were a number of allusions during the series of meetings last year that this model was being planned, but the results were not known from any of those meetings. He feels the business neighborhood needs to have some input into this, in a little more depth, not only with the consultants present tonight, but also with CH2MHill and getting them both together again to address some of the concerns expressed by Councilmember Cohen. Mr. Holmes stated that when he read the article in the Independent Journal, which was noted by Councilmember Cohen, it was his first knowledge that the model had been finished. He noted that the article stated that "The new study, a computerized analysis of traffic patterns in Northern San Rafael broaches another solution with only a $300,000 price tag." He stated when he got a copy of the report he read it through and did not see any monetary figures, and wondered where the $300,000 figure came from? Mr. Holmes strongly suggested that the Council run this entire process past the Advisory Committee, who had indicated they would be willing to continue, and get their input. Mayor Boro responded that he understands from Councilmember Cohen that the Advisory Committee will be brought back together. They were waiting to hold a meeting of the Committee until they had this study. He added that when they had a Council Retreat they set as a goal to have the issue with the Advisory Committee wrapped up by the end of June. Mr. Holmes noted that staff made a comment about recognizing in the future General Plan that development is an option to mitigate traffic impact, and the inference was that maybe we could hold off on any development and that this would be a viable alternative. He stated it is certainly an alternative, but he does not know if it is a viable one, particularly from the viewpoint of the affected property owners. Mrs. Shirley Fischer from the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, stated that from the standpoint of the Coalition, this traffic model is a vast improvement over the one which has been used for the last 15 years, both in terms of its ability to measure something which is tangibly understandable, and also because it is able to look at the aspects of the various intersections instead of just assigning one LOS average for the entire intersection. She stated she has no trouble with not using standardized techniques for measuring the Freitas Interchange, because as far as she knows, it does not meet any standards for construction or configuration either. It is a unique set of roads coming together, and it is something that needs a unique solution. She stated that Councilmember Cohen's suggestion about looking at the conflicting movements is a good one. Mrs. Fischer noted there is one issue which has not been brought up, which is the goals for tonight's meeting. There are three or four goals listed and one of them is about accepting the report, and then applying it for future policy decisions. She noted that one of the most imminent policy decisions is the Priority Projects Procedure (PPP), which should be coming up very soon. She stated there are some policy decisions brought up by this traffic model, which need to be quickly determined before proceeding with using it as a basis. Some of them have already been spoken to this evening, such as how to measure Freitas as one or two intersections. She suggested that the waiting times experienced by cars within the intersection, which was addressed by Councilmember Cohen, should be studied with signalized and unsignalized situations. She asked, how long is it reasonable for people to wait, while the other parts of the intersection have the free moving traffic? Regarding development, she noted there are some obvious policies in General Plan 2000 which need to be revisited, perhaps not with regard to the PPP, but some time in the near future, one of which is the outstanding issue of the trips allocated to Marin Ranch Airport. There are other issues which SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 7 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 8 need to be resolved. There is also the question of whether Alternative B is a viable one. From the viewpoint of someone living in Terra Linda who needs to get to Redwood Highway on a personal errand, instead of coming across Freitas and using the left turn to go to Redwood Highway, they would have to make a left on Nova Albion and come down behind Safeway. There is a stop light there, another at Northgate Drive, another at Del Presidio, and another at Merrydale Overcrossing. There would be another stop light at the other side of the Merrydale Overcrossing, and another at Freitas if it is signalized, before the person would get to Redwood Highway. The only other alternative would be to go up to Lucas Valley Road. Mrs. Fischer stated she feels this traffic model underestimates the impact on Las Gallinas Avenue, among other things. She noted the holiday traffic and parking in the Las Gallinas Avenue area, which will be impacted by the Merrydale Overcrossing. Mr. Frank Solomon, a resident of Marinwood, stated he is on the Steering Committee of the Coalition. However, he will be making personal observations rather than speaking for the Coalition. He first defined the word "statistics", as "A mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion". He stated he feels there are at least two unwarranted assumptions; the model is an improvement, but before it is accepted by the Council there are some things which need to be added to it. The first unwarranted assumption is that this intersection, which is a single intersection, but if you are going certain ways, such as has been described, it is two intersections. The second assumption is that in buildout the McInnis Parkway will be built, but that is by no means assured, and is also controversial. Another assumption, which is unspoken, is that we have typical and average drivers. The young people probably drive a little faster and have a faster reaction time, and the traffic engineers are more skilled at getting through the intersections faster than the residents who have lived in the area for 30 or 40 years. He stated we should look not only at what the young professionals experience in going through, but what more experienced drivers who may not react as quickly as they did 30 years ago and are perhaps more concerned but still good drivers, will experience in going through these intersections. Mr. Solomon said he goes through the Freitas Intersection very often, and finds it frightening. To speak of it being LOS A or LOS B ignores the fear and the danger, and the near collisions which happen so frequently. He suggested that in making this traffic model the experts consider what it is like trying to get through this intersection (or two intersections), when you are not quite sure what is going to happen when cars are coming off the freeway at freeway speed, and some individuals do not know where they are supposed to go. He stated that going through this is a somewhat frightening experience, even for people who have done it for many years. That should be considered as part of the traffic model. This is a unique configuration, and is not like most other freeway onramps and offramps, and that should be borne in mind when evaluating the situation. He noted that we are dealing not only with numbers, but also with people, and with traffic as well as the lights. Mrs. Cecilia Bridges, attorney representing the Pell family in regard to their approved uses of Regency II office building and child care center, stated the Pell's have been very concerned with waiting for the traffic model, because of questions as to whether this traffic model will be turned into a delay of the PPP and seriously affect their project. Mrs. Bridges stated she thinks this is really about the Costco proposal. The Pell's are concerned that the questions raised about the traffic model will be turned into something which will stop the PPP. She stated she thought back to 1988 when the General Plan was written, and they set the traffic data which showed two different sets of policies which were put in the General Plan. One was the Level of Service (LOS) standard from our traffic data. At the time we set LOS Mid -D as the standard. The other policy which came out of the traffic data was a prioritization policy, the PPP. Both of those policies came out of the same data. The purpose of the PPP was because we recognized in the traffic data that we had capacity limitations. We wanted to have a system to evaluate one project against another, as to how they fulfilled the goals and policies of our General Plan. We said that, accepting that we have this limitation, we will devise a system so we can evaluate projects, because we are going to have more projects to warrant space, than we have space to give. SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 8 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 9 Mrs. Bridges suggested that that policy which drove the PPP and continues to drive it today, the evaluation of one project against another as they fulfill the goals of the General Plan, is still very valid and is not affected by this model change. The model change may mean that for the other policy, the LOS policy, you may need to make some policy changes. She explained that LOS Mid -D does not make sense any more, with this new model which does make a lot more sense and talks about delay and average speed, rather than the volume capacity ratio, which no one ever understood. She suggested you may need to consider standards for arterials and for unsignalized intersections, or even for legs of intersections. She does not think that, in order to do those things because you have the new model, you have to invalidate or delay the PPP process. She stated that on behalf of her clients, the Pell family, she would like to be very clear. She stated that if the City does not, at this point in time, have information that allows them to evaluate the Costco proposal's effect on this important intersection, or intersections, then please say so and take the time to get it, but do not say we will take this other very valid policy which took a long time to figure out the system for, and forget about it now while we work on this controversial project, because it will really hurt the City and will not be in anyone's interest in the long run. Ms. Frances Nunes, a resident of Santa Venetia, asked about the General Plan scenario regarding McInnis Parkway intersection. She noted that the North San Pedro Road/Civic Center Drive intersection is shown as LOS B. She expressed concern about commuters would change their route in the morning, because of the Freitas Interchange and Merrydale Road projects, and how that would affect her area. Mr. Weinberger stated that would be very time consuming to look at, but the traffic model does redesignate and redistribute traffic onto the new road. They do not have the information at this meeting, but can provide it to the Council. Ms. Bonnie Brown, Co -Chair of RUFF, Responsible Use of the Fairchild Site, stated she appreciates the model and the information in it. She agreed with Councilmember Cohen that many policy decisions would be needed in order to accomplish this project. She stated it is important that the business community be involved in it. She agreed with Mrs. Bridges that the PPP should proceed as quickly as possible. These people have been waiting and should not be held up any longer. She stated she is hoping that a short-term policy group could help the Council to look at the questions involved. She can see concerns for the business community and the residential community, and from Councilmembers as to how do we proceed with this new model. We do not want to hold up the PPP, but can we at least take part in forming some new policies in order to implement this traffic model in the future? She noted it is difficult to have detailed questions answered in this type of forum. She would like to see it happen in a month or six weeks/ time so that the final action could be taken to implement the traffic model for all future times and uses. Mrs. Fischer stated she feels the consideration of the AM peak in the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) would require some kind of procedure or policy change. She noted that W -Trans had done a study for the Farmers' Market at the Civic Center, and those intersections had heavier traffic in the morning than in the evening. Mr. Holmes noted he had read in the Novato Advance today that Costco is planning an expansion, so he does not know the significance in relation to their arrival in San Rafael. Mayor Boro noted that there is no Costco application before the City at this point. Mayor Boro stated that he does not think it is practical at this point to adopt this model based on some of the questions raised. He stated that at some point the interchange will have to be looked at and if it is truly not safe, and we truly do not have a solution, then we have to look at what the alternatives are, rather than just say it is not safe and we do not have a solution. He noted that one turn, the northbound one, will be eliminated with the opening of the Merrydale Overcrossing, and that will help, but we need to come up with a solution. He added that $6 million in itself is not a practical solution because it is not going to solve the problem, because the money is not available and we need something more realistic to happen. He asked Mr. Bernardi to talk about the next step. Mr. Bernardi stated that at the recent Council Retreat a goal was established that by the first Council meeting in March this issue would be brought back for adoption. That is about a month from now, and there is work to be done to answer some questions from Councilmember Cohen and other issues raised. It may not be realistic to bring it back at the first Council meeting in March, but he would like to take some time and analyze what we need to do and bring a report to the next Council meeting explaining the issues we still need to look at and perhaps bring it back for the second meeting in March. He stated it was not our intention to have the Council adopt this model tonight without answering your questions. SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 9 SRCC/MINUTES (Spec. Jt.)1/31/96 Page 10 Mayor Boro noted it has been touched on by Councilmembers as well as people in the audience, that once we adopt this, we can go forward and use this as a tool. We have to decide before we go forward if there are policy issues or, if we adopt this, can we use it as a planning tool? We should have analysis from the staff on that. Councilmember Heller asked if we have any accident reports for the intersection? She stated she has never seen any, but feels the community should look at the reports and see how bad those different legs are. Mr. Bernardi responded he has seen the 1995 year diagrams for that intersection, and Mr. Mansourian has been gathering the data for two or three previous years for that. Councilmember Cohen stated he agrees with Mrs. Bridges on going forward. He stated we needed to have this meeting to have the draft model working so we can move forward. There are a lot of issues we can work on over time. He agreed with Mrs. Bridges, and really wants staff to focus on how we can go ahead with the PPP, which we have delayed for an unreasonably long period of time. We needed to have this draft model working, particularly for the project Mrs. Bridges mentioned, but it has been too long and we need to move forward. He noted that another goal we set was to do a survey of the Terra Linda Valley, and a lot of the land use issues will come up in that process. With regard to Mrs. Bridges' remark about 1988, Councilmember Cohen stated that the LOS evaluation measures capacity, and the PPP allocates it. In changing the method of measuring capacity, we need to have some grasp on how we are going to do that before we can do the allocation, because we do not know what it is we are allocating. He noted that what we used to do with the intersections, in addition to having Mid -LOS B, we talked about Critical Moves, so we had a method of analyzing particular movements which were worse than others. The discussion about analyzing individual legs of the intersection gets us pretty much to the same place. We may not be able to hold every one of those legs to LOS B under this method, but we need to have a discussion on it and that is where the focus should be. We cannot delay this for two more years while we re -write the General Plan. Mrs. Carol Dillion described an accident in which she was involved about a year ago at the Freitas Interchange, caused by a driver unfamiliar with the area, which was very costly. Mayor Boro thanked the Planning Commission for their attendance, as well as the members of the Council and staff, and the audience for their participation. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the meeting at 9:35 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1995 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/31/96 Page 10