HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 2004-09-15SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 AT 6:00 PM
Special Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM
1. Resolution of Appreciation for Michael Cronin, Former
Police Chief, Retired with 28 years of Service (PD) -
File 102 x 9-3-30
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 11632
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
FOR MICHAEL CRONIN, FORMER
POLICE CHIEF, RETIRED WITH 28
YEARS OF SERVICE
Phillips and Mayor Boro
2. PUBLIC HEARING — DRAFT SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020:
PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
APN: CITYWIDE AND SAN RAFAEL PLANNING AREA; CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, APPLICANT —
FILE 115 (2020)
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Principal Planner Linda Jackson announced that the purpose of this hearing was to take public
comment on responses to comments on the adequacy of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for the
Draft San Rafael General Plan 2020 (green volume). She recognized the interest a lot of people have
in the Draft General Plan 2020 (yellow volume) and noted that the public hearing on the merits of this
document would begin on September 27, 2004.
Ms. Jackson introduced the EIR team: Bob Berman and consultants, Tiffany Wright, Attorney, and
Nader Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer.
She listed the three documents making up the Final EIR:
• Background report, received by Council at the commencement of the General Planning process;
• The Draft EIR;
• Response to Comments document.
Ms. Jackson reported that from January to March of 2004, the Planning Commission conducted an
extensive review of the Draft EIR. Over nine public hearings, the Planning Commission heard
hundreds of comments and they made a commitment to respond to every single one, not merely on the
Draft EIR, rather on the Draft Plan, hence the volume of the "Responses to Comments."
Noting that the City Council's public hearing is not required by CEQA (California Environmental Quality
Act), Ms. Jackson explained that in fact, CEQA does not require a public hearing before the Planning
Commission. However, local guidelines require this, particularly a hearing before the deciding body, in
this case the City Council, and it is done in the spirit of providing for maximum community review and
comment on the environmental document.
Ms. Jackson reiterated that the purpose of this evening's proceedings was to listen to the community's
comments on the EIR document. She noted a letter was received this afternoon (from Stephen L.
Kostka, Bingham McCutchen LLP), copies of which were distributed to the City Council, with additional
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 2
copies available in the lobby for the public. Not having had an opportunity to review the letter, Ms.
Jackson stated staff expected more comments tonight on the final EIR and would respond as
necessary.
For further background on the environmental review and impacts, Ms. Jackson indicated that Bob
Berman would provide a brief overview and Nader Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer, would provide an
overview of the traffic impacts in the EIR. She explained that staff wanted to give Council some
additional background on traffic because regional and local traffic were two of the top three issues dealt
with by the Steering Committee, and to that end, Mr. Mansourian would present background on his
analysis of traffic in San Rafael and the environmental impacts.
Bob Berman, Nichols Berman, stated that working with City staff, he had been primarily responsible for
preparing the EIR. As noted by Ms. Jackson, he stated the Final EIR consisted of three documents:
Background Report;
Draft EIR, dated February 2004; and
Response to Comments, dated August, 2004.
As noted by Ms. Jackson, Mr. Berman stated the Response to Comments document responds to all
written comments received on the Draft EIR, plus comments received at the February 24, 2004 public
hearing before the Planning Commission. He indicated that this document also included responses to
comments on the General Plan, explaining that any comments received by the City, Planning
Commission, via public hearings, written comments or comments received by e-mail through the City's
website through April 27, 2004, were responded to in this Response to Comments document.
Mr. Berman reported that in Chapter 3, the document includes what is referred to as "Master
Responses." These are consolidated responses to the more re -occurring issues raised during the
public review process, explaining:
Master Response a) deals with the San Rafael Rock Quarry and additional information was provided
regarding noise, truck traffic and the impact of recent litigation in Marin County regarding the operation
of the quarry and how it would affect issues related to the General Plan 2020.
Master Response b) deals with an issue regarding Traffic Levels of Service. Mr. Berman explained that
a new policy is proposed as part of General Plan 2020, referred to as Policy C-5, which evaluates
exceptions to the Traffic Levels of Service.
Master Response c) is a comprehensive update of the status of the Loch Lomond Marina project. Mr.
Berman noted there was a specific proposal which would eventually go through its own environmental
review; therefore, the General Plan looks at more of the overview as to how that fits into the General
Plan itself.
Master Response d) deals with a number of issues which arose regarding Canalways, issues regarding
the site designation in terms of the General Plan designation. Mr. Berman stated there were questions
concerning whether the site was accurately portrayed as wetlands, salt marsh harvest mouse habitat,
and these issues were looked at.
The final Master Response deals with the overall issue of noise, especially as it related to the San
Rafael Rock Quarry.
Mr. Berman reported that Chapter 4 of the EIR responds to each of the comments received regarding
the environmental impacts on the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and Section 5 deals with the responses to
the comments related to the General Plan.
Mr. Berman stated Chapter 6 of the EIR provides a complete set of proposed revisions to the Draft EIR
in response to EIR comments. He indicated this includes an updated cumulative impact section, as
well as an alternative section.
Indicating that one of the issues always raised ongoing from the Draft to the Final EIR was "Has
significant new information been added to the EIR that would require re -circulation", Mr. Berman stated
that after review of the document by City staff, himself and others, they reported to the Planning
Commission, and now to the City Council, that there was no significant new information requiring re-
circulation of the Draft EIR in conformance with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA guidelines.
Mr. Berman reiterated that CEQA does not require public hearings, rather public review of the EIR. He
stated the City goes the extra mile in requiring, in this case, public hearings before both the Planning
Commission and City Council. He stated that tonight's hearing was to receive comments regarding the
adequacy of the responses to the Draft EIR, i.e., were the responses in the Response to Comments
document adequate, was the proper job done, or whether there were additional lingering questions.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 3
As noted in the staff report, Mr. Berman stated that associated with the implementation of General Plan
2020, there were fourteen significant unavoidable impacts. He stated that for each significant
unavoidable impact, the City Council would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, which explains why the City is willing to accept the significant impact. Again, Mr.
Berman stated that Council was not being requested to certify the EIR tonight, rather this would happen
at the end of the process, presumably at the same hearing at which General Plan 2020 is adopted. He
stated that at that time, Council would have to adopt Overriding Considerations.
Mr. Berman noted that for several of the impacts, especially those related to public services, situations
were identified where new facilities are currently needed by General Plan 2020; however, the sites had
not yet been developed or identified and probably would not be identified for several years. He
indicated they wished to take the conservative approach to the effect that there could be impacts
associated with that future development and since the specific sites were not known, it would be too
speculative to determine whether those impacts were significant, or less than significant. Mr. Berman
stated they took the conservative approach that they could be significant; therefore, there was a
significant unavoidable impact.
Mr. Berman reported there were also situations where the mitigation required was beyond the
jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael, and since it was beyond its jurisdiction, the City could not be
assured that the mitigation would be implemented. Again, taking the conservative approach, they were
identified as significant unavoidable impacts.
Concerning the significant unavoidable impacts, Mr. Berman stated many were related to traffic and Mr.
Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer, would provide a brief overview of the traffic impacts and analysis
carried out.
Mr. Berman stated the EIR identifies significant unavoidable impacts at Third and Union Streets,
primarily because of proposals regarding safety improvements, Level of Service (LOS) problems at
Lincoln Avenue and Highway 101 southbound ramps. He indicated there were also issues related to
the Level of Service at Mission and Irwin, potential unacceptable Levels of Service on certain City
roadway segments, issues related to Levels of Service along certain segments of Highway 101 and
Interstate 580, and significant unavoidable issues related to the removal of on -street parking spaces
along Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Berman reported that Mr. Mansourian would go into more detail in terms of
that analysis.
Other unavoidable impacts identified:
• The potential for increased noise related to the SMART (Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit)
proposal. Mr. Berman stated that because this issue is unresolved, implementation of mitigation
measures would be required by other agencies beyond the jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael;
• Potential release of hazardous materials. Mr. Berman stated this concerned possible areas
where it was unclear whether hazardous materials currently existed. They would certainly be
identified through future construction and development projects; however, although mitigation
measures and policies were identified in the General Plan, because of the unknown situation,
this was identified as a significant unavoidable impact;
• Implementation of General Plan 2020 could well require some additional City services,
additional police and park facilities, and additional library services. Mr. Berman stated that
since the types or locations of these facilities had not been identified, it was not possible to
specifically state what the impacts would be; therefore, the conservative approach was taken to
the effect that there could be significant unavoidable impacts;
• It was also indicated that build -out of General Plan 2020 could generate waste water flows that
could exceed the treatment capacity of the Central Marin Sanitation Agency facilities. Mr.
Berman stated that mitigation measures were included and while the belief was that there would
be adequate facilities, since implementation of that mitigation is beyond the jurisdiction of the
City of San Rafael, it is identified as a significant unavoidable impact;
• Similarly, in terms of water supply, development consistent with General Plan 2020 could
increase demand for water within the planning area. He indicated that again, mitigation
measures are identified to reduce those impacts to less than significant; however, the
responsibility for those mitigation measures is beyond the jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael;
• Reporting that land sliding was identified, Mr. Berman stated development consistent with the
Plan could potentially expose people or structures to the damaging effects of land sliding. He
stated that mitigation measures were indicated within the General Plan, which would reduce
most land -sliding hazards; however, clearly, all landslides could not be mitigated entirely.
Again, he reported that the conservative approach was taken to indicate this was potentially a
significant unavoidable impact.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 4
Mr. Berman stated these were the unavoidable impacts, and at the end of the process, the City would
be required to prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Nader Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer, stated that Council was in possession of the accompanying
material to the slides he would present. In addition, he referred to a flyer inviting the public to attend an
Open House at the Public Works Department on September 21 and 22, 2004, to go over all the issues.
Mr. Mansourian made a slide presentation:
• Traffic Engineering had two components: 1) Operation and Design/ Construction; and 2)
Transportation Analysis and Impact Studies.
• City of San Rafael Traffic Model — Forecasting tools, which use mathematical probabilities to
generate future traffic conditions based on the interaction between land use, population, jobs,
housing, existing traffic conditions and roadway networks.
• Modeling and Analysis Components — Existing, Short Term (Baseline), General Plan:
Land Use Data Base
Trip Generation
Trip Type and Mode
Trip Distribution
Trip Assignment
Zone System
Street Network
Travel Time
Intersection Level of Service
Arterial Level of Service
Future Transportation Network
Future Mitigation
Continuous Model Updates
Mr. Mansourian stated that travel times were calculated for existing conditions, plus projects not
yet built, and for the General Plan. Results are input into software for the model system to
calculate the Level of Service for the intersections and arterials. From the results, future network
studies needed for the transportation system are looked at, together with mitigations. Mr.
Mansourian stated that the model needs to be continuously updated and maintained.
• Traffic Model 2003
Indicating that the model was last updated in 2003, Mr. Mansourian noted that for the City of
San Rafael there are 1,359 nodes for the intersections. The City was divided into 282 zones,
with 286 customized or trip rates for the land uses.
• Existing Land Use — Mr. Mansourian stated that each color represented a different type of
landuse, which was used by the model to generate the traffic.
• Travel Analysis Zone (TAZ) — for the San Rafael Planning area.
• Roadway Network- used in the model to generate the traffic.
• Traffic Counts — historic counts commencing in 1974 to 2003. These are average daily traffic
counts. Mr. Mansourian noted that southbound Lincoln Avenue by Mission in 1977 had 10,000
cars, and from 1999 — 2003, there were 10,567. As the counts go up and down, he indicated
the model is adjusted accordingly.
• Citywide Turning Movement Count (TMC) — Manual two-hour counts were taken at each major
intersection in San Rafael.
• This slide depicted a typical Turning Movement Count collected on December 17, 2003. Mr.
Mansourian explained that the count is compared to the previous one to recognize errors,
consistency, and to determine whether a land use change had significantly added volume to the
system. Pedestrians and bicycles are counted at this time.
• City Traffic Modeling — Mr. Mansourian reported:
■ The San Rafael Traffic Model was one of the most sophisticated in the Bay Area:
■ A high standard (95%+) confidence level goal had been achieved;
■ Data collected corresponds with ABAG, MTC, Marin CMA (or TAM) assumptions, such
as mode split, land use , freeway and transit;
■ The model is also linked to a very complex GIS system;
■ A Level of Service analysis was conducted for 122 intersections and 28 roadway
segments.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 5
Traffic Model 2003 Summaries — Mr. Mansourian stated that in summary, when the model was
evaluated, it revealed that 43% of the morning traffic and 48% of the PM peak traffic was
generated in the City, from the neighborhoods and businesses. 57% of the morning and 52% of
the PM peak originated or ended outside of San Rafael, e.g., living in Novato and working in
San Rafael. He indicated there were no transit related trip reduction assumptions for City of
San Rafael traffic models since that data was not available, e.g., SMART.
Regarding trip generations, Councilmember Cohen requested confirmation that for both morning
and afternoon, slightly more than half (between 50% and 60)%) of the trips either start or end in
San Rafael, but not both, while the other half (43% to 48%) both start and end in San Rafael.
Mr. Mansourian confirmed that half of the trips begin and end in San Rafael and the other half
originate from somewhere else, ending in San Rafael, or starts in San Rafael to go elsewhere.
Councilmember Cohen confirmed with Mr. Mansourian that this includes those living in Novato
and working San Rafael, together with people who live in San Rafael and work in Oakland, etc.
Study Intersections and Arterials — Mr. Mansourian indicated that the furthest east is the
intersection of Loch Lomond and Point San Pedro Road, and the furthest uproad is the Smith
Ranch Road area.
Scenarios Analyzed:
AM Peak (7-9) and PM Peak (4-6);
Existing traffic;
Baseline (existing background traffic plus approved projects not yet built or vacancies, and
funded or approved roadway improvements); and
The General Plan 2020 traffic generated in addition to the baseline and future roadway system.
Existing Land Use Summary 2003 —
8,853,000 square feet Commercial;
7,746,000 square feet Office and Industrial/Office;
9,834 school students;
379 hotel rooms;
28,106 residential units.
• Baseline Land Use Summary Vacancies, and Approved 2002 — Approved
• 177,000 square feet Commercial;
1,285,000 square feet Office and Light Industrial/Office;
823 units of Residential; and
85 hotel rooms.
• Land Use Summary — This slide depicted the existing land uses on the far left, the tallest being
28,106, with the baseline to the right.
• Mr. Mansourian stated that The Next Step subsequent to setting up and running the model to
generate traffic, is the Post Process Analysis, which is the Level of Service (LOS) and Proposed
Improvements, based on those results.
• What is Level of Service (LOS) — Mr. Mansourian explained that LOS is a tool to measure
operation conditions and congestion levels:
■ Signalized and unsignalized intersections (measured by seconds of delay at the
intersections);
■ Arterial segments, based on travel speed and delay at intersections;
■ The LOS criteria and thresholds are different between signalized and unsignalized
intersections and arterials:
■ All have Level of Service ranked from A to F;
■ Letter ranking is not school grades. F is not failure;
■ LOS A is least delay, and LOS F most delay.
Table: Source — Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Mr. Mansourian stated this identified the rank system used:
■ Criteria for Signalized Intersections, e.g., should the delay per vehicle be less than 10
seconds, the LOS is A, and between 35 and 55 seconds, LOS is D;
■ Section 2 refers to two-way stop or all -ways stop controls, where the thresholds are
smaller, e.g., LOS D is between 25 and 35 seconds; and
■ For arterials, Urban Class System IV is used, because most of the system has a speed
of 25 to 35 mph. LOS A is when there is a speed limit of 25 mph or higher. When the
running speed of that arterial gets between 9 — 13 mph, the LOS would be D. Less than
7 mph would be LOS F.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 6
• Traffic Conditions — Current traffic conditions for intersections and arterials. Mr. Mansourian
stated that because Levels of Service are confusing, staff conducted actual travel time studies
during peak hours on random days and compared the results to the model.
• Travel Time Studies — To date, 573 travel time runs were conducted, mostly in downtown, East
and North San Rafael.
• Travel Time — Mr. Mansourian stated these were not a criterion to measure a project impact,
rather tools to better understand intersection and roadway segment operation, delay and Level
of Service. The random tests were conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
and 6:00 p.m. on various segments.
• Additional Travel Time Studies — Mr. Mansourian reported that at the Planning Commission
hearings in March, 2004, issues arose and staff was requested to conduct some additional
studies, i.e., late peak hours. These studies were conducted mainly from Point San Pedro
Road/Lochinvar to Highway 101 southbound on-ramp or Highway 101 northbound on-ramp.
Second and Third Streets were also evaluated.
• Special Route Studies — Special route studies from Highway 101 to some neighborhoods were
also conducted.
• Arterial Average Travel Speed — Mr. Mansourian explained that each dot on this graph
represented the running speed of an arterial tested.
LOS A - above Green line
LOS B - above Blue line
LOS C — above Purple line
LOS D — above Red line
LOS E — above Lavender line
Most arterials tested at AM peak, noon, and at PM peak, operate at LOS D or better.
Those below that level were revisited to ascertain the reason.
• AM Travel Time: EB Second Street — Reflects some 24 or 25 studies carried out on Eastbound
Second Street — vertical axis denotes travel time.
• PM Travel Time: EB Second Street — A similar study carried out for PM peak shows travel times
of between 2 and 6 minutes from Second and Fourth to Grand. Additional studies were
conducted in March and May, and the dashed yellow line indicates the days in March when
schools were out, resulting in a significant drop in traffic. The purple baseline model prediction
is higher; however, follows similar patterns.
• AM Travel Time: WB Third Street — This Third Street graph varied between 2 '/2 to 6 minutes on
different days and hours in the peak hour, e.g., 8:15 and 8:45 a.m. could produce a 2 or 1
minute difference when tested.
• PM Travel Time: WB Third Street — Similar studies conducted.
• AM/PM Travel Time: EB Bellam — Commencing at Andersen, it took approximately 2 '/2 minutes
to Kerner in the AM peak and approximately the same for the PM peak.
• AM Travel Time: SB Francisco E- In April, 2003, Medway to Shoreline took approximately 3
minutes.
Councilmember Cohen confirmed with Mr. Mansourian that the purple line with the large
squares was the baseline measurement. Using the PM Travel Time: SB Francisco E graph as
an example of several trips, he noted that one of the travel times was actually worse than
baseline for approximately three-quarters of the trip. Confirming that baseline traffic includes
approved but not built, or built but vacant, Councilmember Cohen noted that sometimes what is
experienced on the street is worse than those baseline projections. Mr. Mansourian stated he
would present some slides identifying the cause of this.
• AM Travel Time: SB Redwood Hwy and Civic Center — Mr. Mansourian reported that on April
22, 2003, at 8:22 a.m., at Southbound Redwood Highway and Civic Center, a one minute delay
was experienced at the Freitas interchange, i.e., one car could not make a left backing up the
remainder.
• AM Travel Time: EB Freitas — The model indicates a longer delay at the northbound 101 on-
ramp on eastbound Freitas; the information is evaluated in an effort to mitigate this.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 7
• PM Travel Time: EB Freitas — Mr. Mansourian explained that the top line represents EIR 2020
volume, with the baseline one lower. He noted that the angle and pattern being followed
appears similar in North San Rafael.
• AM Travel Time: SB Las Gallinas — Las Gallinas between Lucas Valley and Merrydale over -
crossing takes approximately 5 minutes in the a.m.; however, on 4/24/03 at 7:52 a.m., it took
almost 8 minutes (Freitas intersection).
• PM Travel Time: SB Las Gallinas — no comment.
• What will happen to my commute? — Explaining this, Mr. Mansourian stated that some special
route travel times were conducted between the neighborhoods and Highway 101.
• Special Route Map/Special Route Average Travel Speed — Tests were run from major
neighborhoods to Highway 101, north and south. When all travel times were plotted in the
system, most were running at LOS C or better on average, for the entire length.
• AM/PM Travel Time: Special Route 1 (D (cD- Bayview — Lincoln (cD- 101 SB Ramp) —
From the Gerstle Park neighborhood, commencing at D and Bayview, traveled to First and C, to
eastbound Second, taking a left on Lincoln Avenue to Highway 101 southbound on-ramp. On
various days travel times were approximately 7 — 9 minutes, with the model following a similar
pattern.
• AM Travel Time: Special Route 2 (101 SB (off Lincoln — D (d-) Bayview) — Similar pattern,
approximately five minutes, also applies to Highway 101 northbound.
• AM Travel Time: Special Route 9 (5t" (a_ California — 2nd — 101 SB) — Mr. Mansourian reported
this took approximately 5 — 6 minutes on average, with PM peak taking 5 — 6 minutes also.
• AM Travel Time: Special Route 10 (101 NB — 3rd — 51" a- California) — This took approximately 5
minutes and likewise for the PM peak.
• AM Travel Time: Special Route 11 (Pt. San Pedro a- Lochinvar — Hetherton — 101 SB) — Mr.
Mansourian reported that many studies were conducted for this route. Travel time varied from
between 5 and 9 minutes. For the PM peak, travel time varied between 5 and 11 minutes. He
referred to the notation for PM travel times "Accident @ 580 EB, SB 101 congested" and
explained that everything was backed up through downtown. On March 17, 2004, the dashed
blue line identifies an accident in the same area, backing up the system. He noted that when
congestion started at Third and Irwin and Third and Hetherton, travel time took much longer.
• AM Travel Time: Special Route 12 (101 NB Off Ramp a- Irwin — Pt. San Pedro a- Lochinvar) —
Similar studies were conducted in March and May, 2004 when further construction commenced,
together with the Planning Commission's direction to evaluate more late peak hours. Travel time
took from 4 to 5 or 6 minutes. The average to Highway 101 northbound averaged 5 to 8
minutes of travel time.
Mr. Mansourian noted that there is a long distance between Third and Union and Point San
Pedro/Lochinvar; however, the speed is approximately 35 mph.
PM Travel Time: Special Route 14 (101 SB — Hetherton — Pt. San Pedro (a)_ Lochinvar) — Mr.
Mansourian noted that on May 8, 2003 at 5:44 p.m. because of the Farmers' Market, some
backup began at Third & Hetherton.
What did travel time studies conclude — Mr. Mansourian reported:
■ Confirmed the previous travel time studies and model prediction;
■ Less congestion when schools are not in session;
■ Traffic volume, delay and events (accidents) change daily but travel time continues to
have a similar pattern;
■ Freeway operation directly affects the roadway system.
Mr. Mansourian reported that with this information, staff evaluated the LOS analysis conducted
for intersections - the graphs reflect LOS D, E and F:
Existing AM — Level of Service F, at Second and A Streets, caused by installing a left -turn
arrow, for safety. He stated that it would improve as traffic signal systems are re -timed to
ensure better coordination;
Existing PM — Mission and Irwin and Second & A Streets - LOS F;
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 8
Baseline AM — Fifth and H intersection is unsignalized — presently all -ways stops would fail
fast in the Level of Service analysis. Staff to monitor the situation and report to Council
when operation by signal is required;
Baseline PM — Second and A @ F and Third and A at LOS E. Currently, the LOS for
downtown is E. Mr. Mansourian stated the intersection at Second and Grand would operate
at LOS E with 55 seconds of delay. (He noted that the number after the slash, i.e., E/66,
denotes the delay for the intersection);
General Plan 2000 AM/PM — These would be the Levels of Service expected with all listed
mitigation;
Councilmember Phillips inquired as to the percentage figures on the graphs
Mr. Mansourian explained this was Intersection Capacity Utilization, which basically indicates
how much of the intersection capacity was utilized. He noted 100% was not the cap, e.g.,
when the intersection reaches 100%, the LOS at Hetherton & Mission has only 51 seconds of
delay, whereas above that on the graph, LOS F, with 102 seconds of delay, denotes 138% of
the capacity is utilized. This indicates that another lane of traffic is needed because the existing
two lanes are getting overloaded or there are a lot of left turns.
EIR 2020 AM — Mission & Irwin at LOS E with 60 seconds of delay.
PM LOS F at Mission & Irwin, LOS E at Third and Union, LOS E at Second & A and Third &
A and LOS F southbound 101 off -ramp at Lincoln Avenue. These include the mitigations.
No Improvements and EIR 2020 Land Use and background traffic — Graphs depict AM peak,
with a lot more congestion for PM peak.
• Roadway Segment Level of Service Results — Color -coded graphs.
Arterial Level of Service — Baseline AM - Mr. Mansourian noted that when Arterial LOS is
calculated, short segments usually have the worst Level of Service. For example, in
downtown, most of the north/south (A,B,C,D,E) traffic should be expected to run at LOS
E or F because the timing is being sacrificed for Second, Third and Fourth Streets, and
Fifth Avenue, which have a lot more traffic, and the signal progressions are not as good.
He indicated that results were similar for Baseline PM peak.
Arterial Level of Service - EIR 2020 AM/PM by Arterial - Most segments in the
downtown area are running at LOS C and D, with a few at E, i.e., Bellam Boulevard
eastbound and westbound.
Roadway Improvements (1988 — Present) — Mr. Mansourian reported staff estimated that
approximately $25 million was spent on traffic improvements in San Rafael:
■ Lincoln/Los Ranchitos Road connector;
■ Merrydale Overcrossing;
■ Northbound 101 on ramp at Redwood Highway
■ N. San Pedro/Civic Center Improvements;
■ N. San Pedro/Merrydale Road Improvements;
■ Tamalpais connector (2nd to 3rd);
■ Second Street widening;
■ Andersen Drive Extension;
■ 20 intersections signalized; and
■ East San Rafael Traffic Improvements (LOOP, Phases I, II, III).
He explained that $1 million was spent on the North San Pedro & Civic Center Improvements in
2001, and McInnis Parkway connecting Civic Center Drive to St. Vincent's was deleted.
• Projects Under Design or Recently Constructed —
■ Signal Operation modified at Mission/Lincoln, Second/A and Third/A;
■ Third/Union Street Improvements — 95% complete for Phase I;
■ East San Rafael Phase III (widening of the Scotland Yard area, and the 580 ramp is
underway;
■ Signalization at Lincoln/Linden, Northgate/Los Ranchitos, Las Gallinas/Nova Albion,
Nova Albion/Arias — 95% complete.
Achieving Acceptable Operation Level on City Traffic System — Mr. Mansourian indicated that
sometimes a lot of money needs to be spent on mitigations, some of which would have
undesirable consequences, e.g., Third & Union, which could run sluggishly and have longer
cycle length, resulting in delay and a decreased LOS.
He explained the aerial views for Third & Union.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 9
■ Network Improvements — Color -coded graph.
Proposed Roadway Improvements: Mr. Mansourian explained this listed what is absolutely
needed now, and the longer-term solutions. The 5 —15 year short-term projected cost would be
approximately $51 million, with the longer-term approximately $40 million. He indicated that the
longer terms included the pedestrian bridges at Third & Hetherton, Canal to Andersen Drive
and the North San Rafael Promenade. The Freitas / northbound 101 off -ramp would cost
approximately $12 million, using current dollars.
Indicating that while some suggested improvements do not cost much, they cause
inconvenience, Mr. Mansourian explained:
■ Grand Avenue — signalizing some intersections - in order to handle traffic to meet the
LOS for the intersection or arterial, parking would need to be restricted, especially at
peak hours.
■ Lincoln Avenue — Lincoln Avenue carried 13,000 cars at one end and 23,000 cars closer
to the higher section daily. Northbound is two lanes with a parking restriction between
4:00 and 6:00 p.m. The recommendation is to extend this to the southbound 101 ramp
when needed.
Mr. Mansourian reported that the EIR identified these as a significant unavoidable
impact.
■ Lincoln Avenue Southbound 101 Ramps — The area has very limited real estate to carry
out widening.
Mission & Irwin — will continue to operate at LOS F as the highway backs up to the
system.
Councilmember Phillips inquired whether all communities used the same designation — LOS A, etc. Mr.
Mansourian stated this was a standard of the Federal Highway Administration. Comparing LOS E in
San Rafael and San Francisco, Mr. Mansourian confirmed that the calculations for delay would be
similar should they choose this system. He noted that most cities, including San Rafael, use the
Highway Capacity Manual Methodologies.
Regarding removing parking from Lincoln Avenue, Councilmember Heller inquired whether this applied
to the PM peak hours only. Mr. Mansourian stated it was estimated that certain segments would
require AM peak also, notably the downtown section between Mission and Second, at least, when the
office buildings become occupied. He indicated that the situation would be monitored.
Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Mansourian for the great job he does for the City, and indicated that based on
his knowledge he believed the accuracy rate was higher than 95%.
Inviting members of the audience to address Council, Mayor Boro suggested they limit their comments
to three to five minutes per speaker.
Jim Stark, Consulting Planner, stated he had long been associated with St. Vincent's School for Boys.
He indicated they had three speakers wishing to address Council regarding St. Vincent's matters:
■ Brian Cahill, Executive Director, Catholic Charities CYO, of which St. Vincent's School for Boys
is a division;
■ Steve Borden, Catholic Charities CYO Board of Trustees, lifelong resident of San Rafael and
Managing Director of Northern Trust Bank; and
■ Stephen Kostka, Bingham McCutchen Law Firm, Legal Counsel to St. Vincent's School for
Boys.
Mr. Stark mentioned they were also joined by:
■ Michael Marovich, former Executive Director CYO;
■ Dennis McQuaid, member of the St. Vincent's land committee;
■ Cameron Madigan, also of the Bingham McCutchen Law Firm; and
■ Lorraine and Renee Silveira, whom he noted were in agreement with their positions this
evening regarding St. Vincent's/Silveira and that planning area.
Brian Cahill, Executive Director, Catholic Charities CYO, acknowledged that Council was aware of their
great disappointment in its action to remove them and the Silveiras from the Sphere of Influence, and
the subsequent exclusion of their properties from the Draft General Plan Update. He stated he
absolutely understood the basis of this decision, believing Councilmembers operated in what they
considered to be the best interests of San Rafael; however, while there was no malice or intent to harm
them, they were harmed by the action taken. Realizing they were somewhat slow in regrouping, Mr.
Cahill indicated they would respond faster next time.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Pagel 0
Reiterating points made previously, Mr. Cahill stated this land was their endowment. For them it had
nothing to do with profit, rather their endowment needs, a need to replace an aging facility and a need
to have revenue to support the ever-present gap, irrespective of how much fundraising is done, in the
cost of running St. Vincent's.
Mr. Cahill stated they have always recognized the other legitimate needs of this community in terms of
workforce housing, environmental protection, recreation, and believed there was ample evidence they
had worked hard and collegiately with the City Council and the competent City staff. He indicated it
was so clear that public policy of the City had consistently identified these lands as part of San Rafael,
and for those reasons requested Council to reconsider the decision to remove their property from the
Sphere of Influence and put the lands back in the General Plan Update.
Steve Borden, Catholic Charities CYO Board of Trustees, San Rafael resident and Managing Director
of the Northern Trust Bank. On behalf of the trustees, he expressed disappointment that St. Vincent's
was not included in General Plan 2020 and that the City had moved to have the property and that of
their neighbors, the Silveira family, removed from the Sphere of Influence, the planning area and the
urban service area. He stated the trustees understand there is a need for collaboration and a good
cooperative working relationship between San Rafael and the County regarding any development
opportunities for the property. They thought that the Memorandum of Understanding between the City
and County and the resultant policies and recommendations brought forward by the St.
Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Task Force were an excellent, inclusive and cooperative effort; however, the
politics of the last Board of Supervisors' Election had worked to upset much of the planning and public
policy development that had been in place for the St. Vincent's property and the Silveira ranch. Mr.
Borden indicated they further understood the City's concern regarding the resistance at the County
level to development at St. Vincent's; however, on behalf of the trustees, he stated that should the City
keep the property in its Sphere of Influence, the planning area and urban service areas, St. Vincent's
would not submit a development application for additional uses until deemed appropriate by the City
Council.
Stephen Kostka, Bingham McCutchen Law Firm, representing St. Vincent's School for Boys, reported
that his firm was representing St. Vincent's to help ensure fairness is restored to the process of land
use planning and environmental review, and that fairness is restored to the treatment of St. Vincent's
property.
Mr. Kostka stated that last year the City made a snap decision, which resulted in an abrupt change of
course, and in the process of making that decision, the land use, housing and environmental
implications of that action were not considered. Since then, it appeared as though the City had been
following a pre -determined course; however, the General Plan Update process, and accompanying EIR
process, are supposed to be open processes where the effects of the proposed changes to the plan are
fully evaluated in all the consequences, and the full range of alternatives to those proposals considered.
Mr. Kostka indicated that they had submitted comments on the Draft EIR and General Plan Update and
today submitted further written comments on the Draft Responses. He stated that many of these
comments concern the fact that the EIR is not a full, unbiased inquiry, rather a justification after the fact
for a decision it appears the City has already made. Mr. Kostka noted the environmental document
does not provide the information that would truly examine housing effects, land use effects,
environmental effects or the proposed changes to the City's General Plan, nor does it adequately
analyze the range of options available to the City. He stated that the EIR does not really weigh whether
it makes sense, from a housing or environmental perspective, to abandon St. Vincent's; it instead
assumes that result.
Indicating that the process started in 1998 promised an even-handed treatment of St. Vincent's, Mr.
Kostka stated that St. Vincent's was assured it would be a fair process; however, this is not what
happened because it was brought to an abrupt halt. He stated the conclusion of that process violated
the City's duties and commitments to St. Vincent's, commitments and duties the courts stated had both
a moral and legal component. Mr. Kostka stated the City need not continue on this path. It was time to
stop and rethink this course of action, rethink the options for treating St. Vincent's fairly.
Jim Stark indicated he had neglected to mention that Sister Marion Irvine of the Dominican Sisters was
a supporter of St. Vincent's and wished to address Council this evening.
Sister Marion Irvine, Dominican Sisters of San Rafael, serving as the Order's promoter of social justice.
She indicated she had no particular expertise in either environmental impact reports or general plans;
however, she had spent the majority of her religious life as an educator to children and youth, many of
whom were similar to the boys St. Vincent's serves. Sister Irvine reported that her Order had a close
affinity to St. Vincent's School for Boys, with their Sisters having staffed the school in the 1800s, and
their first cousins, the Dominicans of San Jose, having likewise served the boys in the 1900s. She
indicated that like St. Vincent's, the Dominican Sisters had been part of the landscape and fabric of San
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 11
Rafael and Marin County for well over one hundred years. At this time over half of their congregation of
Sisters serves within Marin County.
Sister Irvine stated that just as Dominican University (formerly Dominican College) had seen a whole
residential community in the City grow up around them, so too had St. Vincent's experienced a
suburban community grow adjacent to its lands. She believed it a matter of social justice that St.
Vincent's be able to develop a portion of its lands, not only for the welfare of the boys, rather also to
meet other important community and social needs, such as affordable housing and housing for seniors.
She noted it was a matter of long standing that St. Vincent's is within San Rafael's Sphere of Influence,
and requested that Council reconsider its position concerning including St. Vincent's in the General
Plan Update and Sphere of Influence. Like the Dominicans, Sister Irvine stated that St. Vincent's had
been a responsible and contributing member of the San Rafael community and deserved Council's
support.
Renee Silveira stated she was present to represent her father, Tony Silveira, owner of the Silveira
ranch property.
Noting that when she last addressed the City Council, the purpose was to express her family's dismay
at the City's decision to disassociate itself from the St. Vincent's and Silveira ranch properties, Ms.
Silveira stated she was again present to underscore their belief that it is very inappropriate and
inexcusable of the City to back away in the way it did. She indicated, however, that they are even more
resolute now than ever that their future should be with the City and not the County, noting it was no
secret how the County was dealing with their property presently. Ms. Silveira stated that after a
continuum of thirty years of public policy to place these properties within the City's Sphere of Influence
and urban services area, it was difficult to understand how the City could justify what it did.
Ms. Silveira stated that the Law Firm of Bingham McCutchen representing St. Vincent's had done an
excellent job of identifying a number of legal legitimate issues concerning the Draft General Plan, the
EIR and the Housing Element. That information had been shared with their counsel. They were in close
communication with St. Vincent's and were united with them in doing whatever was necessary to
defend their rights.
Ms. Silveira encouraged the City Council to rethink their decision to remove these properties from the
City's Sphere of Influence, rather include them in the General Plan 2020 and not squander the work
and energy of the City Planning staff and the countless community members who participated to date in
developing a balanced, equitable solution for the planning of St. Vincent's and Silveira. She reiterated
her request to reconsider this decision for the good of the City.
Roger Roberts stated that relative to the Response to Comments (EIR) on Page IX -12 with respect to
Evaluation of Project Merits, the language in Subdivision D of Policy C-5 carries through to the General
Plan itself, and he was unsure what the document states. He indicated it refers to "all feasible
mitigation measures have been required", "social, economic and other benefits outweighing the
project's impact on circulation" and he requested clarification as to what this language meant in the
minds of Council and staff. With respect to "all feasible mitigation measures" he was curious as to why
it reads this way, instead of "all necessary mitigation measures will be required." Mr. Roberts stated
this looked like some fancy footwork that would enable the City to increase congestion whenever it
willed, and he would like to know the criteria for so doing.
Nina Lilienthal -Murphy, President and Co-founder of the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood
Association, stated she had read the Final EIR and found it contained quite a lot of double-talk and not
a lot of hoped for solutions; however, she noted these were comments that needed to be worked on.
Indicating that LOS on Lincoln had been under discussion for over four years, Ms. Murphy stated she
wished to make it clear they did not want four lanes up and down Lincoln Avenue. She noted from Mr.
Mansourian's traffic study that more lanes were needed; however, she believed alternatives to the use
of a car were needed to reduce traffic, e.g., the bus system they had been trying to push for over ten
years, and signal lights. She was curious as to how many streets were at an LOS of F, where they are
and why they had not yet been resolved. She stated there were problems with height limitations.
Returning to LOS, Ms. Murphy stated they wanted to keep Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood a
neighborhood and hoped a signal light would be installed at Linden to assist pedestrians cross the
street and calm traffic; opening it up to four lanes would not work. She noted that Arnie Juge, retired
traffic police officer, stood for ten minutes in uniform attempting to cross the street without success.
Noting the motels (and nursery) kept people in the neighborhood, Ms. Murphy stated these are
businesses used all year long by visiting family and friends, etc., and are within walking distance to
homes. She indicated that this needed to be considered in the long term.
Regarding NE 75-7 — 75-13, Ms. Murphy stated she was disappointed in the Comments language
regarding traffic, congestion, speed, safety and parking. She quoted a response "comments are too
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 12
specific to be included in the General Plan", and believed this to be outrageous. Noting that they
preferred to keep their neighborhood a certain way, she indicated they wished to be listened to and
responded to accordingly, to enable them to maintain a neighborhood feeling. Ms. Murphy stated the
City and Police Department had done so well in beginning to calm the traffic that there could not be a
reverse.
Regarding height bonuses for affordable housing, Ms. Murphy noted she would like to see where the
law states the City needs affordable housing, as personally, she would prefer to see businesses pay
better salaries. She indicated that the average cost of a house in San Rafael presently was
approximately $700,000; by cutting it in half to $350,000, most people still could not afford to purchase
a house. She questioned what affordable housing was and for whom, also why bankers were not
offering affordable home loans. Ms. Murphy believed the reason for the traffic problems was the fact
that workers come from Napa, Sonoma, Vallejo and Richmond, which are affordable. Putting in more
homes would not make the City work, rather getting people out of their cars, taking care of traffic
solutions, stopping growth and height density. Ms. Murphy stated the EIR was affecting residents in a
horrible way.
Dwayne Hunn stated that in the early 1980s he started doing affordable housing and at that time, 82%
of the County was open or preserved space or agricultural land. Indicating he had always been
interested in St. Vincent's/Silveira, he explained that to him it is an ideal spot to do smart planning and
pedestrian oriented development by building a village people could walk around in, together with having
a train stop. Mr. Hunn stated he was dismayed that the Board of Supervisors put "no train stop at
Miller Station" in the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) — there had been a train -stop there
previously.
Mr. Hunn stated he looked at this as the perfect site to do smart planning / transit oriented development
and concurred with previous speakers that the San Rafael City Council had better leaders to take this
issue on. He believed it would be a huge headache for Council and staff; however, agreed the San
Rafael City Council had more leadership potential and insight available to it to do this type of project.
Mr. Hunn expressed the hope that Council would support this kind of development and have the Board
of Supervisors remove the MOU, as he did not believe the project could succeed without the image of
a train running through and stopping. Recognizing the sentiment that it was against this and that law,
Mr. Hunn stated people were around to change those positions; he heartily supported their efforts and
hoped the City Council could somehow help them.
Kevin Stockman, San Rafael, stated he enjoyed reviewing both the EIR and the Draft General Plan
2020 which helped him get to know the City much better, having lived in San Rafael for ten years. He
indicated he was representing himself and a group of 6 — 8 homeowners and residents in the downtown
area who live near San Rafael Creek. Mr. Stockman stated that San Rafael Creek, also known as
Mahon Creek, was a major scenic attraction for San Rafael; however, it was also the primary drainage
ditch for the City, and in reading the EIR, they were concerned that the Department of Public Works,
and possibly the City, currently do not realize how crucial planned maintenance is to maintain the
channel capacity of the creek. He indicated the EIR Section 9.10 — Floor Hazard - clearly states
"periodic dredging of these tidal channels is required." Also, the 1998 final Mahon Creek plan states
that a maintenance plan would include the frequency and methods of dredging.
Mr. Stockman stated that presently it appeared the City has no documented creek maintenance plan for
San Rafael Creek, and being a flood zone, they believed there should be one. Without it, the City has
escalated flooding risks, unneeded safety risks and potentially unnecessary economic losses. He
indicated that he would return with some neighbors when the Neighborhood comment section is open,
to request that consideration be given to adding some very small words to indicate the City should have
a creek maintenance plan for San Rafael Creek.
There being no further comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
As indicated at the outset, Mayor Boro stated the purpose of this evening's meeting was to hear from
the public and afford them the opportunity to discuss the adequacy of the Environment Impact Report
and Responses to the report. He was aware staff had been taking note of the questions raised and
would make responses as appropriate back to the City Council at the time of reviewing this plan (EIR)
for certification.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2004
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 09/15/04 Page 12