HomeMy WebLinkAboutBicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee 2018-08-01 Agenda
Individuals requiring an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or a modification of
policies or procedures to participate in a City program, service, or activity, should contact the
office of the ADA Coordinator as soon as possible, but no later than 48 hours before the
scheduled event: Bill Guerin, 111 Morphew St., P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915;
Phone: 415-485-3355; Fax: 415-485-3334; TTY: 415-485-3198; e-mail:
bill.guerin@cityofsanrafael.org
City of San Rafael
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
Agenda for Wednesday August 1, 2018
6:00 PM
Community Development Conference Room
3rd Floor, City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of meeting minutes
a. Regular Meeting: June 6, 2018
b. Special Meeting: June 28, 2018
3. Public Comments for Items Not on Agenda: 2 min each
4. Tamalpais Pilot Project Debrief (Lauren Davini)
5. City Construction Projects Update (Kevin McGowan)
6. Uncontrolled Crosswalk Evaluation and Prioritization (Lauren Davini)
7. BPMP Wrap-Up (Lauren Davini)
City of San Rafael
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Rafael
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
Wednesday June 6, 2018 @ 6:00 PM
Community Development Conference Room
3rd Floor, City Hall
Members present: DJ Allison, Jim Geraghty, Joakim Osthus, Kate Powers, Jerry Belletto (alt)
Members absent: Amy Beresford, Barry Bergman, Tim Gilbert, Kevin Hagerty, Shoshana
Harlem
Staff present: Lauren Davini, Charmine Solla, Simon Vuong
Others present: Jeff Olson, Carol Galloway, Lori Schifrin, Nancy Zee, Camille Miller, Edith
Lawrence, Eileen Prendill, Sean Prendill, Bill Carney, Phil Abey, Joanne Webster, Craig
Murray, Alezz Laielen, Jean Severinghaus, Patrick Siedler
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments: 2 min each
a. Carol Galloway – opposed to seat wall removal, has a record of
supporters by petition and e-mail
b. Jeff Olson – opposed to tree removal and seat wall removal. Appreciates
shade trees provide
c. Alezz Laielen – Doesn’t see good justification for tree removal. Likes
benches. Suggested plantings in pots with flowers if roots prevent. Does
not like planters in front of Joe’s. Thinks the pink sidewalks/benches look
dirty. Doesn’t like the homeless meters. Doesn’t want use of glyphosate.
Likes the old lights
d. Camille Miller – Collected 58 signatures in support of keeping seat walls.
Wants to know why the City is considering replacing them. Suggests
regular power washing. Likes the versatility of the benches. Spoke to
some business owners who think they should be cleaned, maintained.
Doesn’t think this is a solution to dealing with homelessness.
e. Patrick Seidler – SMART Board endorsement for the pathway. Thank you
to BPAC. FTA Approval needed, but expects San Rafael to get it. Project
A-10 in BPMP is important and should be ranked as high as other north-
south greenway projects.
f. Lori Schifrin – commented Tamalpais West was a bikeway longer than
one week despite the posters on the A-frames. Doesn’t think it was
useful. Suggested there should have been a call-in number (instead of
just text)
g. Nancy Zee – Lots of traffic (congestion) resulted because of Tamalpais
Project
h. Jean Severinghaus – Expressed thanks to staff for Tamalpais bikeway.
Taxis on West Tamalpais from 3rd to 2nd are becoming a nuisance.
i. Bill Carney – On behalf of Sustainable San Rafael, request keeping the
concrete benches. Removing them would result in a loss of 70% of
seating downtown. Suggested power washing seats and sidewalks.
Suggested phasing tree replacement over a period of time to maintain
canopy. Replacements of similar scale/size. Suggested ornamentals.
Downtown Streets team could help.
j. Joanne Webster – On behalf of Chamber of Commerce. Supports the
BPMP. Seat walls – some merchants have issues with seats along store
fronts. Suggested mosaic tiling art work over existing benches. Trees that
are too large may block signs. City should strive to keep string lights. At
this time, opposes permanent bike lane on Tamalpais. Wants more
careful implementation in the future.
k. Craig Murray – Encourage monthly BPAC meeting. In Richmond, they
have had more success planning in building projects, thanks to more
frequent meetings.
l. Phil Abey – Asked that SRHS connection from 4th/Union be considered in
BPMP
3. 4th Street Rehab/Seat Walls
a. Phil Abey led an informal presentation about the options the City is
considering
b. Simon Vuong said Economic Development Department does not have a
date to bring this to City Council at this time
4. Status/schedule for Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)
a. Kate Powers asked Staff to review original BPMP contract. Asked for
more outreach to get more feedback
b. Main comments are that the text is too small/too light
c. Staff said map size won’t change; it was established early on and re-
sizing the map would result in having to re-format the entire document
d. Committee member asked that the ped/bike overcrossing from Canal to
West Francisco be added back in as a project
e. Committee does not accept BPMP as-is. Staff to reach out to the Canal
and follow up with Alta on readability
f. Staff will ask Alta to provide a revised draft; proposes special meeting to
discuss just the BPMP
Due to time constraints, the following items were not discussed:
5. Status of Tamalpais West Pilot Project
6. San Rafael General Plan 2040 Update
7. Vision Zero
City of San Rafael
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the San Rafael
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
Thursday June 28, 2018 @ 6:00 PM
Community Development Conference Room
3rd Floor, City Hall
In attendance:
San Rafael staff: Lauren Davini, Department of Public Works (DPW) BPAC Liaison and Traffic
Engineer; Bill Guerin, Director of DPW; Kevin McGowan, Assistant Director of DPW; Charmine
Solla, Deputy Public Works Director
BPAC members: DJ Allison (chair), Barry Bergman, Jim Geraghty, Tim Gilbert,
Kevin Hagerty (vice chair), Joakim Osthus, Kate Powers
BPAC members absent: Jerry Belleto (alternate), Shoshana Harlem
Others: Suzanne Karch; Lori Schifrin; Patrick Seidler, Transportation Alternatives of Marin;
Jean Severinghaus, CalTrans District 4 Bicycle Advisory Committee
1. Call to Order
Kevin Hagerty called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. Attendees introduced themselves. (DJ
arrived a bit later.)
2. Public Comments: 2 min each
Suzanne Karch commented on the West Tamalpais Avenue demonstration project. She
doesn’t think closing a lane by turning W. Tamalpais into one lane and taking away parking,
close to the train station where there are already traffic issues, is a good idea. Suzanne
makes deliveries to Hospice in a 15-foot truck. During the pilot she was unable to turn in,
back out, or park on the street. She said several other Hospice clients commented similarly.
She said nearby MCIL clients who are disabled had trouble getting to MCIL’s office and
parking too. She hopes DPW will reconsider that location. She submitted comments to DPW
during the pilot comment period.
Patrick Seidler on same topic suggested segment below Fourth street should be on East
side of Tamalpais b/c there are not driveways there. He stated that since the 1970’s, that
alignment of the North South Greenway has been desired as the safe passage right-of-way
through San Rafael from the Golden Gate Bridge to Cloverdale. He thanked DPW for
piloting the demo project and said it is the responsibility of the City to get people through the
city safely.
Jean Severinghaus said she enjoyed reading the 50 pages of comments on the project. The
comments she sent in were about why demonstration project was so valuable. She agreed
with Patrick that it would be preferable to move the route to the east side of Tamalpais in the
area near Whistlestop, despite its planned location in the Downtown Station Area Plan.
DPW will report on demonstration pilot at a future BPAC meeting.
3. Designation of new GP 2040 Steering Committee Alternate
Joakim will step down as BPAC’s Alternate representative on San Rafael’s General Plan
2040 Steering Committee. Alternates can attend any steering committee meetings but would
only be required to attend the meetings DJ, BPAC’s designated representative, cannot. The
Steering Committee meets the second Wednesday of each month. Meetings are open to the
public.
Tim mentioned he’ll be terming out in November after 14 years on the BPAC. Jim Geraghty
volunteered.
Action: BPAC voted unanimously that Jim Geraghty serve as new BPAC Alternate.
(DJA/KH)
4. Status/schedule for Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan Update adoption -- Preparation of
BPAC Recommendation to Council
After the Bike Ped Master Plan Update meeting for the public, Alta was asked to make
changes to the draft, including increasing size and darkness of font, and adding additional
projects to plan including Canal connector from the Canal to W. Francisco, the Hwy 580/Sir
Francis Drake flyover, and Bellam Blvd. improvements. Also Lauren, Jim, Kate and Jean
met with Omar Carrera of the Canal Alliance. Omar requested that secure bike parking
facilities in the Canal be added to the plan.
BPAC is now tasked with making a recommendation to City Council on whether to adopt
plan as updated for their meeting on July 16. DPW is applying for an ATP grant, due the end
of July, to fund construction of the unfunded portion of the 2nd to Andersen multiuse path. In
order to be eligible for the grant, that project has to be listed in an adopted bike plan. Bike
Ped plans are required to be updated every five years.
The current draft is a good plan and there has been a lot of work that has gone into it, not
only by the consultant, Alta, but by DPW staff, and all the stakeholders that have given
input. However, there are additional changes needed.
Kate said she thought that Alta’s scope of work included more meetings with BPAC to go
over details of plan and list of proposed projects.
The largest change that continues to be needed in the Masterplan Update is that the maps
need to be legible in order to be useful in conveying their information.
Kate would like to see the text on the right-hand sides of the illegible maps moved to their
own pages preceding each corresponding map so that maps pages could use that additional
space to then be expanded to fit entire 11” x 17” page with only legend text on the maps.
The pdf maps online don’t improve the legibility of the detail of the maps because while they
can enlarge, they don’t expand the detail or improve legibility especially in areas of great
overlap. It is suggested that maps online would be more readable if they were GIS maps,
not pdfs. Converting the maps to GIS maps would give the level of detail and the layers
desired. DJ suggested that the City get the data to host these maps after the plan is
adopted.
Information on the maps is not redundant to the tables but provides another way to
understand the location and context on proposed projects. What is process of upgrading the
maps to a GIS? Try to get Alta to get maps to get shape files online.
Maps needing improvement are:
Joakim said the “Land Use” map on page 5 would be more valuable if the bike network were
laid over it. Land Use map shows some of the points of origin and destinations in the City
and by including network overlay, we would be able to see whether the network provides
arteries to these locations. Schools, shopping centers, transit hubs should be added. Also,
the existing map does not identify some of the employment centers mapped. Detail of “Land
Use” map would have to be larger to be legible.
In general maps on pages 8, 13, 18, 22, and 24 that are of whole city are hard to read. On
“Existing Bikeways” map, page 8, the specific “network gaps” and areas that “need bike
parking are hard to locate. Similar comments on “Existing Walkways” map on page 13.
“Previous Plan” on page 18, impossible to read in 11” x 18” format without a magnifying
glass and even then there are not enough street labels to provide valuable information.
Similar to other maps, symbols and street names on pages 22 and 24 “Bike Collisions” and
“Pedestrian Collisions” are impossible to read or glean information from. Maps on page 23
and 25 are helpful expansions for downtown but need to expand to include “Pedestrian
Collisions” and “Bike Collisions” as far south as Bellam Blvd.
Mapping of existing and proposed bike racks and lockers, pages 10 and 53, should include
other areas of San Rafael, not just downtown.
“Areas of Concern” map on page 27. Symbols for publicly-identified areas of conflict and
categorized comments are very small and hard to discern. Changing the colors of symbols
on this map may help especially after it is enlarged.
“Priorities Areas” map on page 31 should have streets and street names on base for easier
identification of where the areas of highest priority are located.
The map “All Projects” on page 34 is illegible but is followed by Group maps. It would be
preferable that all maps were legible both in the 11” x 17” hard copies and online. Page 34
legend shows the color coding for existing and proposed bikeways and projects. Some
colors are indistinguishable from each other. New bike routes and bike boulevards need to
be different colors. It would very helpful to have that legend also on the Group maps so
there is no flipping back and forth to read symbology.
The symbols of proposed projects in downtown area Group D, on page 42, are on top of
each other. It’s difficult to distinguish D2, a Class 4 protected bikeway, from most of the
other D symbols which represent intersections. D2 is one of the most important proposed
projects of the whole area. Color differentiation as mentioned for page 34 would help.
There are projects on Group maps and corresponding proposed projects tables where
symbol colors don’t match Class/Type of project as described. All proposed projects
symbols/colors on maps and tables should be checked to make sure they reflect accurately
what is proposed. For example, A3 and A14 in table pages 36 and 37, are not shown in
correct color in ID column of table but are correct color on map. Another segment, on page
51, project G2, symbols are in correct color but segment does not appear to be depicted
correctly on map.
Appendices are valuable. They give the background information on where all the priority
projects came from. However, in Appendix C, documentation of public comments submitted
digitally on online maps, or as dots on maps at public meetings, need to be conveyed with
those corresponding geo-locations to make sense or have value. Kevin McGowan
suggested that comments be associated with areas rather than intersections. A link to a GIS
map of shape files or layers is desired. Again, the City should be given access to that data.
The links to other existing plans in Appendix F are very valuable, as are the list of relevant
projects in those plans.
Jean stated that while the plan started out rough, it has grown into a great plan. After
reading through the hard copy and the appendices online she couldn’t tell if all of the
stakeholder questions and comments had been answered and incorporated, specifically
those of Safe Routes to School, the Bay Trail, MCBC, Jean’s for Caltrans, Transportation
Alternatives of Marin, and BPAC member’s comments. It’s important to make sure the
bicycle advocates comments are in the plan because they are the people who have been
riding the pathways and looking at them with large numbers of the public, for many years, so
their input is very valuable. Lauren said there is a link in Appendix O that has Alta’s
responses to comments.
According to Jean, the block by block discussion that normally happened during other
bicycle pedestrian masterplan updates didn’t happen in San Rafael’s process. As a result,
there’s a missing link in the northern section of the North-South Greenway and one in the
Bay Trail. Jean wanted to know how she and others could make sure their comments are
incorporated.
Patrick passed out four maps: Group A Northgate Promenade and North-South Bikeway
Map Reconciliations; Group C 2010 Cross Marin Trail – Adopt in Full; Group D Central San
Rafael Connections including a segment of Safe Routes to School to Davidson Middle
School, completion of the North-South Greenway from 2nd to Mission on Tamalpais and
protected intersections on both sides of Highway 101 in the Transit Center area; and Group
F Canal Connections.
Patrick stated that the segments referenced in his maps are key projects from existing plans
referenced in the Coordination section of the draft update but some of the sections of those
projects were not incorporated and need to show up on the final maps and referred to
properly in the corresponding tables, otherwise they will never have a chance of being
completed.
Patrick stated that the reason the current pathway from Anderson to 2nd has been so hard
to implement, at least in part, is because it wasn’t in San Rafael’s BPMP. In addition, he said
that he has never seen any plans in the County changed after they were adopted. So
including these sections and paying attention now to the details in the proposed projects
section is critical.
Discussion included a section of the Promenade in Northgate that was built by Macerich. It
should be shown in the plan. There is new ownership of the property and it’s important to
ensure that MUP remains.
Patrick also requested that the preferred alternative in the Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin
Bikeway Feasibility Study along the Miracle Mile from San Rafael city limit east to the point
at which 2nd and 3rd Streets converge be shown as proposed project on map C and listed
in project table. Kevin McGowan expressed concern that a pathway on Miracle Mile was
currently not likely feasible and that there were reasons San Rafael did not adopt the Cross
Marin study. There was comment that it is important that San Rafael’s BPMP update reflect
the Cross Marin plan proposals. By including this section in San Rafael’s BPMP it may
ensure that it would be studied as an option, in the event that it did become feasible at some
future date.
Additionally, Patrick commented that the connection to Davidson Middle School is desired
by Safe Routes to Schools.
Patrick said the passage way to get to San Rafael Transit Center is on 4th and 5th streets.
He said the current maps do not contain that information even though it’s in the previous
BPAC Masterplan. He said there’s going to be a lot of investment in downtown San Rafael.
If we don’t have a plan for people to walk safely and bike safely to the transit center, it’s
going to be a disaster.
Bill asked how BPAC wants to address the projects called out in Patrick’s maps. Joakim
suggested that it would be valuable to see if projects from these older plans are still of
interest or priority. But the meeting schedule for approval at City Council would make this
tough. Kate suggested since they are projects in the other adopted plans in the Coordination
section of the draft, that they be listed as proposed in the BPMP update and under Status
“To be determined” so they can be analyzed for feasibility later. Bill said he would see what
Alta can incorporate before the final document is sent to Council. Some have already been
added in.
Joakim would have preferred more time to review the draft to allow for better preparation.
Joakim would like goals and the objectives of how plan will achieve its goals at the front of
the document. He said if someone were only to read a few pages of the plan, those should
be it. Objectives are more overarching than maps of projects. In draft update, objectives are
listed as “Tactics” in section on “Tracking Progress” at the end of document. Also “Tracking
Progress” section on pages 58 -60 should list Goals in the order they are ranked in
importance, similar to listing on page 44.
Joakim would like plan “Tactics” in “Coordination” section to address how plan and projects
coordinate with other jurisdiction’s plans. BPAC did not invite representatives from other
jurisdictions to give input but in hindsight probably should have.
Joakim said in the Connectivity Goal, there was no Tactic listed that addressed access to
schools and shopping centers on page 59. Previous version of plan update Safety Goal
included an objective to have a means for residents to report hazards. CRM system and
active website information should be added back in.
Barry asked if the intent is to adopt this Master Plan is so that it be included in General Plan.
Kevin McGowan said the intent was to adopt it, so DPW can apply for grants.
DJ said the utility of the plan is to use the plan to get money for ranked projects and BPAC
was spending a lot of time discussing presentation.
Kevin Hagerty thinks it’s important to stay on schedule and for Council to approve this plan
as substantially complete. Kevin McGowan suggested that this could be a living document
that BPAC could make changes and amendments going forward.
Tim raised the question of whether approval of the plan by Council written into the contract
with Alta as a condition of acceptance of their product. If the Council approves plan, is Alta’s
work completed? Alta said they would make corrections. Kevin said that Alta is out of
money. If the maps are changed over to GIS, they already have that, that shouldn’t be a
problem, but if there are significant changes to the appendices or addition of multiple
changes, they are likely going to need to charge more. DJ said that when the scope was
agreed to there were some assumptions made as to how many times the plan would be
reviewed and how many changes would need to be made. If there is a mistake that they
have depicted graphically, they will need to fix it. We need to get those comments to Alta so
they can make those changes.
How is the City going to make the updated Master Plan available to the public? Lauren
stated that it will be available online and print copies will likely be available on request but it
needs to be determined what the City’s policy will be on that. Tim contributed that it should
also be accessible to visually impaired to be ADA compliant. The maps won’t be easily read,
but for those who are using a screen reader, the document needs to be tagged as provided
for in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It’s unlikely the plan will be translated to
Spanish.
It was suggested that BPAC support making a recommendation to the Council to approve
the plan with some kind of notation or caveat that it is a living document and that there is
additional evaluation of mapping to communicate an open-ended need for adjustments.
DJ had prepared a draft recommendation. Tim suggested adding “BPAC recommends
adopting this plan with the hope that DPW and the City continue to refine and use the
masterplan documents to continue to improve bicycle and pedestrian access in San Rafael.”
There was continued discussion on how BPAC can help get the plan approved and still have
a mechanism that makes sure Alta receives and makes the corrections/refinements needed
in the plan. Jean suggested to put future adopted changes live online like Caltrans plans to
with their bicycle plan. Patrick stated that in 25 years he has never seen a plan have
changes made to it once it was adopted. He emphasized that the items discussed now need
to get in the plan now. DPW will find out what Alta can include from the comments from this
meeting before the City Council meeting and what they will still work to correct after
adoption.
Action: BPAC approved recommendation with edits unanimously. Jimmy/Joakim
5. 3rd/Hetherton Traffic Study Final Report -- BPAC Recommendation to Council
San Rafael hired Kimley Horn to analyze traffic patterns at the intersection of Third and
Hetherton to look for ways they could improve traffic safety and better manage traffic
throughput. DPW brought the consultant’s alternatives for safety improvement and potential
traffic delays to a previous meeting at which BPAC made comments. The consultant
developed a preferred alternative that is scheduled to be presented to City Council as part of
the study. BPAC is asked to make a recommendation to the Council.
San Rafael was awarded $580,000 as part of a Highway Safety Improvement grant from
Caltrans. Intersection is in Caltrans right-of-way. Caltrans approval is required before
moving forward with design for the intersection. Charmine described the existing
configuration of the intersection and the recommended concept which removes the short
westbound left-turn pocket, upgrades signals and will include countdown information and
support visual and audio impairments, adds 5-second leading pedestrian interval signals to
north and south crosswalks (traveling east/west). Jean said it’s best to have leading
pedestrian intervals activated by a button. There will also be bulb-outs at corners to shorten
walking distances for pedestrians and reduce turning speeds. Pedestrians will be further
forward for better visibility of them.
Lori Schifrin suggested that solid white lines, also have bumps, so it’s clear where motorists
are not allowed to change lanes when approaching or going through intersection.
Jean recommended against a leading pedestrian interval light on the northwest corner
because pedestrians will not be seen by autos turning right. She said 85% of pedestrian
fatalities happen when a person or bike enter the intersection to the right of the driver. The
driver is typically looking to the left for oncoming traffic.
Jean stated that the southbound crosswalk across Third Street is the most popular
crosswalk. And that it’s an uncomfortable location to cross with all the cars turning right.
Jean asked that when in final design that there be a yellow flashing arrow or a red arrow to
delay cars turning right while pedestrians are crossing.
The concept will be recommended to Council as a pilot project. The discarded pedestrian
scramble option would have delayed westbound traffic 56-seconds vs a 3-second average
delay for adding a leading pedestrian interval signal.
The Caltrans grant will pay $118,000 for interim approach using paint and bollards. Final
design implementation would cost $284,000.
Kevin Hagerty said it’s important to define criteria for success of pilot project before making
the decision to implement any changes permanently. Charmine said DPW will be checking
collision rates and will monitor the level of service and travel times. Measurements will be
taken before and after, as well as at different times of the year. DJ suggested also tracking
severity of collision rates since turning speeds will be reduced. Joakim asked that LOS not
only be measured for autos but also for bikes and pedestrians during final design process.
Final design has to be procured through RFPs and Caltrans will need to approve it.
Kevin Hagerty asked that action by BPAC include the recommendation for the project to be
adopted as a pilot and that there be defined criteria for measuring the success of the project.
Jimmy reminded that BPAC’s role is also to reduce car use. Reducing car use takes
planning. Kevin Hagerty mentioned there’s no public transit to his residential area east of
downtown.
Action: BPAC unanimously approved recommendation. Jim/Joakim
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm.
Notes by KP