The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCM Parking Wayfinding Study____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: 4-3-591 x 245 Council Meeting: 01/16/2018 Disposition: Accepted Report Agenda Item No: 8.b Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Management Services Prepared by: Jim Myhers Parking Services Manager City Manager Approval: __________ TOPIC: DOWNTOWN PARKING/WAYFINDING STUDY SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT PURPOSE: To provide a summary of the recommendations made in the Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study final report (Attachment 1), as well as input received by the Community Working Group established to do so. Staff is seeking Council feedback on the recommendations presented. BACKGROUND: The General Plan 2020 (adopted in 2004) included a number of policies to help the City prepare for SMART rail service, including the development of a Downtown Station Area Plan; adopted by City Council in 2012. Along with its adoption, the plan called for the City to study the downtown station area and implement policies and recommendations in anticipation of SMART. On December 1, 2014, the San Rafael City Council accepted a $250,000 grant from the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) to fund a Parking and Wayfinding Study. The objectives of the study were to analyze the City’s current public parking; explore anticipated future parking needs including transit ridership; examine and upgrade the current wayfinding program for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians; and to propose parking policies and management options to maximize usage of existing parking supply. Based on feedback from the community and recommendations from stakeholders, the study was expanded beyond the original scope of the Downtown Station area to include the greater Downtown San Rafael area. The study was conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 The Parking and Wayfinding Study project was divided into the following four distinct phases: In Phase 1, Kimley-Horn and Associates collected a significant amount of supply/demand data on the current state of parking and wayfinding in the downtown area. This included, but was not limited to on- street metered parking usage and rates, usage at public and private parking infrastructure within the downtown area, traffic counts, destination-based parking behaviors, pedestrian counts on paths of travel, and extensive public outreach including in-person and online surveys. The information gathered included not only data about public parking facilities and options, but also included usage at private lots and structures. Based on the data gathered in Phase 1, a draft report with the consultant’s findings and recommendations was submitted to the City in Spring 2016. In Phase 2, City Staff presented the draft report and consultant recommendations to a number of stakeholder groups. Based on the community’s feedback from this initial round of outreach, staff recommended that more time needed to be spent with key stakeholders who are deeply knowledgeable and concerned with parking needs in the downtown area. This Community Working Group (CWG) worked together on fully understanding, evaluating, and customizing the consultant recommendations in the draft report to fit San Rafael. In December 2016, the CWG was formed and includes the following 10 community members: • Jerry Belletto: Neighborhood Representative • Dirck Brinkerhoff: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing, local resident and commercial realtor • Jeff Brusati: Downtown business owner (T & B Sports) • Bill Carney: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing, Sustainable San Rafael • Adam Dawson: Downtown business (Mike’s Bikes) • Judy Ferguson: Forbes neighborhood resident • Wick Polite: Developer, Seagate Properties • Jackie Schmidt: Montecito Area Residents Association • Roger Smith: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing • Joanne Webster: San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Phase 1 •Information Gathering •Summer 2015 -Summer 2016 Phase 2 •Draft Report + Consultant Recommendations + Initial Public Outreach •Spring -Fall 2016 Phase 3 •Feasibility Analysis + Comprehensive Engagement Effort •Winter 2016 -Summer 2017 Phase 4 •Final Report + City Staff Recommendations •Winter 2017 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 As a part of Phase 3, the CWG met monthly from January to October 2017 engaging in meaningful discussions and providing thoughtful and thorough feedback on each set of recommendations in the draft report. The group spent a total of over 25 hours with City staff from the City Manager’s Office, Parking Services, Economic Development, Public Works, and Community Development and Kimley-Horn reviewing and providing input. In Phase 4, in July of 2017, Kimley-Horn delivered a final draft report to the City after incorporating feedback from the CWG meetings. At the Council meeting on October 16th, City staff and Kimley-Horn presented on existing conditions data and the findings of the information gathering, data collection, and public surveying that was conducted from 2015 to 2016. This presentation provided a foundation from which Council may weigh in on the final set of City staff recommendations. On January 16, 2018, City staff will present the final recommendations and plans for implementation, based on the collaborative work and analysis done by City staff, consultants, and the CWG. ANALYSIS: As presented on October 16, 2017, the data collected by Kimley-Horn on the current state of parking and wayfinding in the downtown area focused on several key findings: • Peak parking demand in the downtown area is from 11am – 3pm daily • On-street/metered parking averaged 70% capacity during peak times • Private lots surveyed averaged 61% capacity during peak times • 7 City garages and lots averaged <85% occupancy o C Street Garage, A Street Garage, Fifth & C Street lot, Fifth & D Street lot, Menzies, 1550 4th Street lot, 1412 2nd Street lot • 5 City garages and lots averaged >85% capacity o 3rd and Lootens (1st floor), 3rd and Cijos, Walgreens, 5th and Lootens, 5th and Garden In total, 6,709 total parking spaces were surveyed: 24% of spaces being on-street/metered parking, 19% in City garages & lots, and 56% in private lots. The majority of surveyed visitors to the downtown area parked 1-2 blocks from their intended destination, and stayed downtown for an average of 1-3 hours. Of those surveyed, 62% stated that they park most often in on-street/metered parking spaces, and expressed their desire for more parking on 4th and 3rd Streets in the central downtown area. Using the recommendations by Kimley-Horn in their original draft report as a starting basis, the CWG analyzed and refined final recommendations for seven major focus areas: 1. SMART 2. Wayfinding 3. Marketing and Promotion 4. Parking Policies 5. Zoning and Development Standards 6. Pedestrian Network 7. Bicycle Parking Infrastructure The following recommendations are a summary and more detailed, comprehensive description of each consultant recommendation. Corresponding City staff recommendations and specific feedback from the CWG can be found in Attachment 2 (Summary of Staff Recommendations & Community Working Group Input – October 2017). SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 Focus Area 1: SMART At the time the study was conducted, and still to present, northbound ridership on SMART and the long term effects on parking in the surrounding area remain largely unknown. However, in anticipation of some increased demand for all day parking next to the station, the study recommended (1) public outreach to direct SMART parkers to nearby garages and (2) increasing the time limits on some meters near the station from two to ten hours. Staff, with the agreement of the CWG, implemented both of these recommendations when passenger service began in July 2017. Specifically, Public Works installed electronic changeable message and static signs prior to SMART’s first day of operation to advertise the best parking options for train parkers. Additionally, during the first three weeks of SMART operations, parking staff spoke with northbound and southbound riders on the trains and at the platforms about the City’s recommended train parking facilities. Flyers with the information have been distributed as well. As of November, 2017, a consistent uptick or trend in parking has not been seen in the 3rd/Lootens parking lot, nor at the meters near the SMART station on Tamalpais Ave. Going forward, staff will continue to monitor parking in the area to see if additional meters need adjustments and if additional signage directing SMART parkers is needed. Focus Area 2: Wayfinding The initial study mapped major vehicular and pedestrian routes downtown to determine where wayfinding and safety improvements could be made to be most effective for those traveling by car and foot downtown. While the initial study recommended both improved physical signage and technology- based solutions such as apps or mobile responsive website, the working group and City staff agreed that physical signage should be prioritized. Signage (prototypes of which have already been installed downtown) would focus on simplicity and consistency with the new city logo and branding in place. The simple blue “P” signs for parking are intended to direct more cars to the public lots, and the blue color is expected to be more familiar to visitors than the existing beige-colored signs. The pedestrian- directed wayfinding signage is intended to encourage more walking and biking, and get visitors to different areas of the downtown, including the West End. The new signage has been easy to install and has received positive feedback. Technology-based solutions will be explored in the future, but staff is seeking data first on how frequently these types of applications and maps would be used by visitors prior to making a major investment. Focus Area 3: Marketing and Promotion The focus of the study’s recommendations as they related to marketing were to make more people aware of the availability and convenience of the Downtown parking garages, and thereby increase their utilization. While the CWG presented a variety of ideas, the idea that was most widely agreed upon between the CWG and staff was implementing free parking on Saturday’s in the currently underutilized A and C Street garages as a 6 month pilot. Staff has begun work on SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 the marketing materials for the program (flyers and social media) and anticipates launching the pilot program in early 2018 (See Attachment 3). Once the program has begun and its success can be evaluated based on capacity levels in both garages and merchant feedback, staff will continue to explore additional incentive programs to encourage garage parking. Focus Area 4: Parking Policies Rates The study suggested that a possible approach to mitigating the high demand (>85% occupancy) at certain lots and on-street parking spaces during peak times would be to implement variable parking rates: e.g. adjust rates upward or downward so as to increase or decrease the demand for parking in those areas. This rate policy would be approved by the City Council, and only be implemented when pre-determined criteria is met (such as the lot or street is at >85% occupancy). The higher rates would drive those unwilling to pay the premium to the less- crowded lots; and lower rates would reward those who elect a farther walk with a cheaper parking rate. The goal would be to maintain optimal occupancy in busy parking areas. The CWG was in general supportive of the idea, especially since any rate changes would be made based on predetermined criteria approved by the City Council. Enacting this type of variable pricing would require a revision to our current municipal code and would require an extensive public noticing. Time Limits The study, and majority of the members of the CWG, were in agreement that the existing standard 2-hour time limit on parking meters is sufficient to serve the needs of downtown; the one exception being the addition of 20-minute meters to accommodate quick stops. After collaboration with some CWG members, staff changed 11 meters from a 2-hour to a 20-minute limit. The following are the locations of the changed meters: 4th& E St, northwest corner (2 meters); 4th & D St, southwest corner; 4th & D St, northeast corner; 4th & C St, northwest corner; 4th & B St, northeast corner; 4th & A St, southwest corner; 4th & A St, southeast corner; 4th & Lootens, northwest corner; 4th & Cijos St, southwest corner; 5th& Garden lot. Staff will also continue to monitor the non-metered streets in the downtown area to see what, if any, impact they are experiencing by SMART or other long-term parkers. If warranted, the City will explore a Residential Permit Program for areas adversely affected by long-term parkers. Parking Supply A key piece of the study was its recommendation that much of the downtown parking demand could be satisfied were the City to find a way to partner with the owners of the underutilized private lots, and allow public access: a concept called “shared parking”. The study found that at peak times, there are approximately 1,807 total stalls available of which 81% are located in private facilities. Additional spaces freed up in existing private lots would potentially mean that costly new parking infrastructure would not have to be constructed, and importantly, that downtown lots eyed for additional public parking lots or structures could instead have a commercial or residential use. While the majority of the CWG agrees this is a worthwhile topic to explore, several are not confident that it will work for downtown San Rafael. In the meantime, the City is exploring this shared parking model as a possibility in East San Rafael, where a serious parking crunch has left few options for increasing the supply of parking. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 Focus Area 5: Zoning and Development Standards Parking District The downtown parking district is a geographic area bounded by E St, Fifth Ave, 2nd St & Lincoln Ave. The advantage of the parking district is that any development inside the boundary can rely on nearby public parking lots to satisfy parking requirements for the first floor of their building. Parking requirements for developments are based on the existing municipal code. Developments outside the district boundaries must satisfy all of their required parking with the installation of private off-street spaces on their property. The study suggested (1) expanding the boundaries of the parking district (or creating a new district) to include the west end and the area near highway 101 and (2) making changes to the existing code to allow the use of off-street parking in developments to be made available for public use and to allow a greater distance for employee parking. While the CWG emphasized that the City proceed with caution in changes that would decrease available parking (such as allowing developments to build less off-street private parking), most all were supportive of the code changes which would encourage the shared public use of private off-street parking, and allow businesses greater distances for remote parking options. After pursuing these options, City staff will use modeling software to explore the impacts of either expanded boundaries of the existing parking district or the establishment of new districts on the West End and around the Transit Center. Parking Requirements The study recommended that the municipal code be amended to decrease the existing parking requirements for developments by allowing developers to pursue more shared parking and by decreasing the current parking requirements for businesses and developers downtown by 20%. Staff and the CWG were in agreement that these policies were worth pursuing, with the caveat SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 that the 20% decrease be evaluated on a case by case basis for certain micro areas downtown with exceptionally high parking demand. Miscellaneous Zoning In addition to broader themes, the study also identified a number of miscellaneous zoning rules that could be changed to achieve the City’s parking goals. These included establishing guiding principles defining the target parking customer in San Rafael and integration with transit, allowing tandem parking, allowing the implementation of automated/mechanical parking devices, establishing design standards for parking garages and ground floors, and simplifying parking use rules by reducing the number of types from the current 50. Bicycle Parking Requirements The study suggested that bicycle parking be encouraged for new, multi-unit residential developments. City staff and the CWG agreed, but want to conduct additional outreach to other cities that have implemented these policies. Implementation of the above recommendations will require amendments to the City Municipal Code Chapter 14.18 (Parking Standards). All code amendments will require noticed public hearings, a review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and action by the City Council. On January 9, 2018, City staff will present an informational report to the Planning Commission on the Zoning & Development standards portion of the study and recommendations being made by staff. The feedback received at this meeting will be shared at the City Council meeting on January 16, 2018. Focus Area 6: Pedestrian Network A variety of suggestions were made for curb, sidewalk, and striping improvements, which are consistent with policies the City has already pursued in plans to improve pedestrian connectivity and safety downtown. The consultant recommendations for improvements were focused on where visitors park downtown, and the path they travel to their destinations. City staff and the CWG agreed that improvements such as re-striped crosswalks, curb bulb-outs to shorten the crosswalk length, and wider sidewalks where possible should be pursued. Staff will align the study’s recommendations with those in the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan, currently being updated. Focus Area 7: Bicycle Parking Infrastructure While City Staff, the CWG, and the consultants were all in agreement that there are certainly opportunities and demand for more bicycle parking in the downtown area, there was some disagreement as to where and which type of bicycle parking. The consultants suggested a combination of U-shaped racks on 4th Street, a large bicycle corral near City Plaza, and cages near SMART and the transit center. The CWG had concerns over the safety of bicycle corals, and opined that most riders would prefer to park their bike closer to their destination (and therefore the racks along 4th street were more favorable). The group and City staff also decided that large improvements and installation of bicycle parking at the transit center should be put on hold until the transit center design and construction is completed. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 The study also suggested explored bringing bike-share to San Rafael. The City and stakeholders are looking at possible funding options for bike-share, including public-private partnerships and grants. ACTION PLAN: City staff has begun development of a detailed action list of next steps for each of the recommendations to be prioritized in the next two (2) years, or in the “short-term”, which will be highlighted in staff’s presentation at the January 16th Council meeting. Parking Services, Public Works, Community Development, City Manager’s office and Economic Development have all provided initial input on the processes necessary to carry out the next steps as well as a general timeline. This action plan will grow and change over time and will guide the implementation/exploration process of the work being suggested in the study. Items such as new technologies will be incorporated into the plan as they evolve over time. One of the specific items staff recommends implementing in 2018 is the Marketing & Communications Plan (see Attachment 3). This plan was developed with CWG input in response to recommendations made in the study that the City implement both temporary and multi-year marketing campaigns to increase awareness of available garage parking as well as the programs being offered for downtown parkers. Kimley-Horn’s data collection results indicate that occupancy levels are relatively low in both the C St. and A. Street garages (See Table 6 below) during the weekday peak and very low on Saturdays. The four components of the Marketing & Communications plan include: 1. Creating marketing collateral (collaborate with BID & merchants for new parking informational materials), 2. Promoting Garage Parking (free Saturday’s 6-month pilot that will be evaluated midway through the pilot), 3. Establishing a social media presence on Facebook & Instagram, and 4. Conducting more public outreach. The goal of the marketing plan is to bring more customers to the garages and to create innovative ways to bring awareness about downtown parking options through the items listed above. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: As noted in the previous reports and presentations, the City and Kimley-Horn conducted extensive community outreach and public engagement throughout the entirety of the Downtown Parking and Wayfinding Study process. During the initial study, more than 1,200 residents and visitors responded to the online survey, and three in-person “pop-up” workshops were hosted downtown. Once the draft study was finalized, City staff and Kimley-Horn presented the results to stakeholder groups in the community such as the Chamber of Commerce, Citizen Advisory Committee, Economic Development Subcommittee, Business Improvement District (BID), and Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and at the monthly meeting of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents. Feedback was sought at these meetings, and the public was able to provide feedback online. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 The CWG was formed as a result of these presentations made to stakeholder groups. As discussed earlier in length, the Working Group was the process by which all recommendations provided by Kimley- Horn were analyzed and finalized with City Staff. Staff also conducted a briefing with the Planning Commission on January 9th, 2018. The briefing primarily consisted of the recommendations related to zoning and development. The commission had several questions and comments, primarily concerning the projected completion date of some of the recommendations. The commission voted unanimously to accept the project. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the Marketing & Communications Plan attached, results in a loss of revenue of approximately $42,000 should the free Saturdays parking pilot program continue for the full 6-months as well as expenses of approximately $11,500 for outreach materials (See Attachment 3). There are also costs associated with the implementation of the remaining recommendations of the study, which will be presented as part of the annual budget process. Any expenditures from the study’s recommendations will come from the Parking Enterprise Fund. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Accept the final report and provide feedback on staff recommendations. 2. Reject the final report and provide feedback on staff recommendations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive public comments and take one of the optional actions set forth above. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1 - Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report July 2017 2. Attachment 2 - Summary of Staff Recommendations & Community Working Group Input – October 2017 3. Attachment 3 - Marketing & Communications Plan 2017-2020 Attachment 1: Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report July 2017 Parl(ing ~INAL R~PORT JULY 2017 TABLE 01= CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Study Area and Project Process ........................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Summary of Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 2 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Data Collection Methodology .............................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Existing Parking Supply ................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Existing Parking Demand .................................................................................................................. 17 2.5 Parking Duration/Turnover ................................................................................................................ 34 2.6 Parking Duration Time Limits ............................................................................................................ 35 2.7 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 36 3. Project Outreach .......................................................................................................................................... 37 3.1 Public Outreach Activities and Summary of Public Survey Results ............................................................. 37 3.2 Input on Draft Report and Findings .................................................................................................... .41 4. Park+ and Projection of Future Parking Demand ................................................................................................. .42 4.1 Scenario Development.. ................................................................................................................. .44 4.2 Existing Conditions Scenario ........................................................................................................... .44 4.3 Near-Term Development Scenario ..................................................................................................... .46 4.4 Long-Term Development Scenario ...................................................................................................... 50 4.5 Maximum Demand Scenario ............................................................................................................. 53 4.6 SMART Parking Demand .................................................................................................................. 56 4.7 Establish a Rate Policy for Adjusting Rates in the Public Supply (On-and Off-Street) ..................................... 59 5. Zoning and Development Standards ................................................................................................................. 60 5.1 Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 60 5.2 Assessment and Recommendations -Zoning and Development Standards .................................................. 60 San Ralael Downiowil Parking/Waylindin9 Siudy II 1=1",,1 Ponnrl Ii ,1\1 ?n1 7 p 5.3 Off-street Parking Requirements .. : ...................................................................................................... 65 5.4 Shared Parking .............................................................................................................................. 67 5.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................... .71 6. Bicycle Parking .......................................................................................................................................... .72 6.1 Existing Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................ .72 6.2 Planned and Proposed Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................... ..75 6.3 Current Bicycle Parking Requirements ............................................................................................... ..75 6.4 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... .75 7. Pedestrian Network ....................................................................................................................................... B1 7.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................. 81 7.2 Planned Pedestrian Improvements ...................................................................................................... 84 7.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 86 B. Wayfinding ................................................................................................................................................. BB 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 88 8.2 Wayfinding Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 89 8.3 Existing Signage Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 91 8.4 Proposed Signage Placement. .......................................................................................................... 93 8.5 Proposed Signage Graphics .............................................................................................................. 95 8.6 Material Options ........................................................................................................................... 110 BB. Variable Message Signs ............................................................................................................................. 122 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... A-1 San Ralal'! Downtown alklnoIWay1indillg Stu(ly III ell,., 1/0"",,1 _ .. Ih,? 7 p LIST 01= I=IGURES Figure 1: Project Process .................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Study Area Boundaries ........................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Parking Study Area Block Numbers ......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4: On-Street Parking Supply by Type ............................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5: Off-Street Parking Supply by Type (PublicL ............................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Off-Street Parking Supply by Type (PrivateL ........................................................................................... .15 Figure 7: Weekday Downtown Parking Occupancy (%L ........................................................................................ ..18 Figure 8: Weekend Downtown Parking Occupancy (%L ........................................................................................ ..18 Figure 9: Weekday Downtown Parking Occupancy (Spaces) ...................................................................................... 19 Figure 10: Weekend Downtown Parking Occupancy (SpacesL .............................................•................................... 19 Figure 11: Weekday Public vs. Private Parking Occupancy (%L ................................................................................ 20 Figure 12: Weekend Public vs. Private Parking Occupancy (%L ............................................................................... 20 Figure 13: Weekday Public vs. Private Parking Occupancy (SpacesL ......................................................................... 21 Figure 14: Weekend Public vs. Private Parking Occupancy (SpacesL ........................................................................ 21 Figure 15: Weekday Peak (1 PM-3PM) Off-Street Public Parking Occupancy -Downtown Planning Study Area ...................... 23 Figure 16: Weekday Peak (1 PM-3PM) Off-Street Private Parking Occupancy -Downtown Planning Study Area ..................... 24 Figure 17: Weekday Peak (1 PM-3PM) On-Street Parking Occupancy -Downtown Planning Study Area ............................... 25 Figure 18: Weekend Peak (1 PM-3PM) Off-Street Public Parking Occupancy -Downtown Planning Study Area ...................... 26 Figure 19: Weekend Peak (1 PM-3PM) Off-Street Private Parking Occupancy -Downtown Planning Study Area ..................... 27 Figure 20: Weekend Peak (1 PM-3PM) On-Street Parking Occupancy -Downtown Planning Study Area ............................... 28 Figure 21: Edge of Downtown Parking Occupancy ................................................................................................... 29 Figure 22: Weekday Peak (1 PM-3PM) Parking Occupancy -Edge 01 Downtown ............................................................ 30 Figure 23: Weekend Peak (11 AM-1 PM) Parking Occupancy -Edge of Downtown .......................................................... 31 Figure 24: Weekday Peak (1 PM-3PM) Parking Occupancy ........................................................................................ 32 Figure 25: Weekend Peak (1 PM-3PM) Parking Occupancy ........................................................................................ 33 Figure 26: Example Parking Pricing Sensitivity Chart... ............................................................................................ 35 Figure 27: Pop-Up Workshop Response Summary .................................................................................................. 39 Figure 28: Signage with Simple, Modest Style that is Easy to Read ............................................................................ .40 Figure 29: Signage that Directs Driver to Available Parking ....................................................................................... .40 Figure 30: Pedestrian-Oriented Signage to Key Downtown Destinations ....................................................................... 40 Figure 31: Signage Directing Bicyclists to Key Bicycle Routes/Connections .................................................................. 40 Figure 32: Signage with Vibrant, Colorful Style that Attracts the Eye ............................................................................ 40 Figure 33: Attractive Entry Feature that Welcomes Visitors to Downtown ...................................................................... 40 San Rafae l Down town Parl,lngIWay fl llding Study IV 1=,,,,,1 Ron",1 h d" ?n 1 7 p Figure 34: Park+ Study Area ............................................................................................................................ .43 Figure 35: Existing Conditions Parking Demand ..................................................................................................... .45 Figure 36: Near-Term Development Locations ......................................................................................................... 47 Figure 37: Near-Term Scenario Parking Demand .................................................................................................... .48 Figure 38: Long-Term Development Scenario Locations ............................................................................................ 51 Figure 39: Long-Term Scenario Parking Demand ..................................................................................................... 52 Figure 40: Maximum Demand Scenario Parking Demand .......................................................................................... 54 Figure 41: SMART-Related Changes to On-Street Parking ......................................................................................... 56 Figure 42: SATC/SMART Station Study Recommendations for Tamalpais Avenue ........................................................... 58 Figure 43 : Bike Parking Utilization on 4th Street ................................................................................................... ..73 Figure 44: Existing Bicycle Parking Facilities ....................................................................................................... ..74 Figure 45 : On-Street Bicycle Corral .................................................................................................................... .76 Figure 46 : Bicycle Cage ................................................................................................................................... .76 Figure 47: Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations .............................................................................................. .79 Figure 48 : On-Street Bay Area Bike Share Station .................................................................................................... 80 Figure 49: Sidewalk on east side of Tamalpais Avenue ............................................................................................. 81 Figure 50: Sidewalk on west side of Tamalpais Avenue ............................................................................................ 81 Figure 51: Lincoln Avenue and 4th Street.. ............................................................................................................ 82 Figure 52: Jaywalking at 3rd Street and Lindaro Street.. ........................................................................................... 82 Figure 53: ADA non-compliant curb ramp ............................................................................................................. 82 Figure 54: Standing Water at Curb Ramp .............................................................................................................. 82 Figure 55: Pedestrian Routes between Major Destinations ......................................................................................... 83 Figure 56: Limit Line Striped Separately from Crosswalk .......................................................................................... 86 Figure 57: Ladder-style Crosswalk ....................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 58: Existing Signage Map ......................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 59: Proposed Signage Map ...................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 60: 8'x4' VMS with special even information ............................................................................................... 122 Figure 61 : 4'x6' VMS displaying parking information only ..................................................................................... ..122 Sal' Rafael Dowl tOWl1 ParklllgflAlaylinding Studv v 1=11.:>1 Qp"nrl " till ?Il 1 7 LIST OF= TABLES Table 1: Summary of Public Parking Supply and Demand .......................................................................................... .1 Table 2: Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 3 Table 3: On-Street Parking by Type ...................................................................................................................... 11 Table 4: Off-Street Parking by Type .............................................................................................•....................... .13 Table 5: Total Parking Supply by Type ...............................................................................................................•.. .17 Table 6: Downtown Peak Period Occupancy Levels .........................................................•........................................ 20 Table 7: Edge of Downtown Peak Period Occupancy Levels ...............................................•....................................... 29 Table 8: Parking Duration/Turnover Summary ............................................•......................••..•........•........................ 34 Table 9: Park+ Calibrated Generation Ratios at Peak ("I PM)... ......................................•......•.......•............................. 42 Table 10: Existing Conditions Parking Occupancy by Type ..........•..............................................••.............................. 44 Table 11: Near-Term Land Use Intensities .............................................................................................................. 46 Table 12: Near-Term Conditions Parking Occupancy by Type •..................................................................................... 49 Table 13: Long-Term Land Use Intensities .............................................................................................................. 50 Table 14: Long-Term Conditions Parking Occupancy by Type ..................................................................................... 51 Table 15: Maximum Demand Parking Occupancy by Type ......................................................................................... 53 Table 16: Recommended Design Dimensions (Garage Parking Space) ......................................................................... 63 Table 17: Summary of Off-Street Occupancy .......................................................................................................... 68 Table 18: Bicycle Parking Reduction Examples ...................................................................................................... .17 Table 19: Residential Bicycle Parking Requirement Examples ................................................•..........•........................ 77 Table 20: Workplace Shower Requirement Examples ............................................................................................. ..18 Table 21: Proposed Pedestrian Improvements ........................................................................................................ 84 Table 22: Potential VMS Signage System ........................................................................................................... .123 Scm Ralae l Downlowll PalkinC}/Waylindlng Siudy VI !-in,,1 00"'1,1 I, ,ill 'In I 7 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 1San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction The City of San Rafael’s (City) Downtown area is a vibrant and sought after destination in Marin County and the Bay Area. With various types of new development continually occurring in the area, in addition to the transit center expansion, more visitors are anticipated to visit Downtown San Rafael potentially increasing the need for parking. The purpose of this study was to identify existing and future parking needs within Downtown San Rafael; recommend parking management strategies that maximize the supply and utilization of Downtown parking spaces (including those for bicyclists); and to develop viable options for a vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle wayfinding program within the Downtown area. The study also developed parking strategies that will improve parking management and operations. This report summarizes the process for the development of these recommendations, including a summary of existing conditions and findings, a summary of stakeholder outreach, and policy recommendations. Parking and wayfinding recommendations were formulated based on existing parking demands, future parking demand projections, future parking opportunities, and best management practices. The recommendations provide guidance for the City to properly plan for and manage parking in the Downtown area to meet and mitigate future parking demands. 1.2 Summary of Findings Existing parking conditions in the Downtown area were evaluated and results indicate that even during times of highest use on typical weekdays and typical Saturdays, the Downtown area, as a whole, has more than enough parking to accommodate the existing demand. While there is excess parking for the overall area, on-street parking in the most popular areas (such as 4th Street between Lincoln Avenue and E Street) is fully occupied. Some private and public parking lots also exhibit excess demand. In each of the locations where individual streets or parking lots are inadequate to accommodate the demand, other public parking is available in locations that are within typical walking distances for a downtown. Additional detail is provided in Table 1 and in Section 2 of this report. Multiple future-year parking scenarios were also evaluated. Based on the projections, it was found that the Downtown area will continue to operate with excess parking in both the near-term and the long-term conditions. As with existing conditions, several street blocks with on-street parking, as well as more off-street facilities, are expected to be fully occupied. The only tested scenario that was found to have a parking deficit was a maximum development scenario in which underutilized parking lots were removed from the supply and replaced by development that did not provide any replacement parking spaces— creating a situation of increased demand and decreased supply. Additional detail for each of the future year scenarios is provided in Table 1 and in Section 4 of this report. Table 1: Summary of Public Parking Supply and Demand Condition Demand Supply Surplus or Deficit Occupancy Detail Shown in Table Existing 5,032 7,827 2,795 64%9 Near-Term 5,814 8,669 2,855 67%11 Long-Term 5,991 8,715 2,724 69%13 Maximum Development 7,182 7,097 -85 100%14 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 2San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 1.3 Study Area and Project Process This study focuses on an area within two distinct boundaries—the Downtown Planning Study Area boundary, and the area within a half-mile radius from the future location of the Downtown San Rafael Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) station, which is anticipated to begin operations in Downtown San Rafael in 2017. These boundaries are shown in Figure 2 (Section 2). Wayfinding concepts and recommendations were focused within the Downtown Planning Study Area. Within the Downtown Planning Study Area, both on-street and off-street parking was studied. On-street parking was also studied within the half-mile radius from the SMART station. The area outside of the Downtown Planning Study Area, but within the half-mile radius of SMART, will be referred to as the “Edge of Downtown.” The project inventoried existing vehicle and bicycle parking facilities, the existing wayfinding system, and the pedestrian network within the vicinity of major parking and transit facilities. Weekday and weekend parking demand data was collected, and members of the public were surveyed to ascertain the existing constraints and demands on the Downtown parking supply. Community input on parking and wayfinding conditions was gathered through online and in-person surveys and through a series of pop-up workshops. Using the collected demand data, a parking model was developed and combined with information provided by the City on future development to project future parking demand in Downtown. Existing and projected parking demand information was used as a basis to formulate recommended changes to zoning and development standards, and parking management strategies. The project process is summarized in Figure 1. 1.4 Summary of Recommendations Even with the overall adequate supply of parking within the Downtown area, there are recommendations for improving conditions related to parking. These conditions include improvements to the pedestrian system, bicycle parking, zoning rules, parking management, and the areas that will most directly be impacted by the SRTC relocation and the arrival of the SMART train. Table 2 summarizes the recommendations. Details on the recommendations and their derivation are included within the report. For the purposes of this study, the phases used to align recommendations and strategies are presented with the following time horizons, recognizing that the economy can either speed up or slow down these timeline estimates: • Short-Term –0-2 Years –Includes implementation of SMART Phase 1 • Mid-Term: 2-5 Years –SMART Phase 2 – Relocation of SRTC • Long-Term: Year 5 to 2040 Figure 1: Project Process San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 3 Table 2: Recommendations A cost rating is also provided ($ = low cost, $$ = medium cost, $$$ = high cost). Cost ratings consider both the monetary and staff resources needed to implement a recommendation. Recommendation Timing Report Section Cost Intended Outcome Options Parking Management Time Limits Within Existing Downtown Parking District Maintain the existing two-hour time limit for metered parking on weekdays. Short-term 2.6 0 No change recommended for weekday: spaces are occupied and surveys showed little request for extended hours. Increase weekday time limit to three hours with a premium rate: While there was not a strong demand shown for an extension during the week, it would provide the benefits of easier communication for additional time on Saturday and it will be a benefit to some users. The potential negatives are that it will reduce turnover on the busiest streets, leading to longer walks for up to 50% of mid-day parkers This may also entice more employees to use on-street parking; therefore, if a longer time period is used, the one-hour extension should be at a premium rate. An appropriate premium rate may be twice the standard hourly rate. Decrease weekday time limit to one hour. This will increase turnover and number of parkers who can park closer to their destination. This will create problems for parkers who need to park for just over one hour (e.g. those who drive Downtown for lunch). On Saturday allow for meter feeding to extend stays for an additional hour (from 2 hours to 3 hours) with the extra hour being charged at a premium rate. An appropriate premium rate may be twice the standard hourly rate. Short-term 2.6 $ Respond to requests for extended parking on Saturday. This will provide greater a comfort level for parkers who may like to spend approximately two hours Downtown. Provide one-hour extension at standard rate. This will decrease turnover on the busiest streets, leading to longer walks for up to 50% of parkers. This may entice more employees to use on-street parking. Provide two-hour extension at a increasing premium rate; this will help mitigate reduced turnover by discouraging some from choosing the extra hour or second hour. Vicinity of Downtown SMART Station Upon opening of the new SMART station, use signs and information boards to encourage drivers to use the long-term parking at the 3rd & Lootens parking garage Short-term 4.6 $ Direct long-term parkers to the available garage to improve their experience and maximize the use of existing, available parking Also post information on City website. Change the time limit of the eight, on-street metered parking spaces on Tamalpais Avenue between 4th St and Fifth Avenue from two hours to 10 hours Short-term 4.6 $ Accommodate some of the anticipated SMART parking demand Alternately, using a shorter time limit will effectively remove these spaces from use by most SMART users, thereby moving more SMART parking demand farther from the station, which would be in conflict with the goal of encouraging people to use the train. Maintain the 10-hour time limit already in place at on-street spaces on Tamalpais Avenue between Fifth Street and Mission Avenue.Short-term 4.6 0 Accommodate some of the anticipated SMART parking demand. Alternately, using a shorter time limit will effectively remove these spaces from use by most SMART users, thereby moving more SMART parking demand farther from the station. After finalization and approval by City Council, implement the short-term recommendations from the 2017 SRTC/SMART station plan.Short-term 4.6 0 Consistency with station area planning: prepare for SMART. Draft recommendations include actions for 2017 implementation, including significant changes to operations and parking near the station. Rates Establish a formal system within City code that provides a basis for on-street and off-street rates to be reviewed routinely and adjusted based on a specified set of performance metrics without having City Council adopt the specific rates Short-term 4.7, 5.2 0 Provide Parking Services staff the flexibility to manage the parking system to optimum occupancy levels. Routine review and potential adjustment of rates could occur as frequently as twice per year for on-street parking and once per year for off-street parking. City code could be modified to allow rate changes at the discretion of Parking Services staff within a given hourly rate range. An example is that the rates could be allowed to be adjusted by staff up to a maximum allowable standard rate of $4 per hour for on-street parking. This would provide staff with the flexibility to create annual or semi-annual adjustments based on an ongoing monitoring of parking usage within Downtown. Alternately, city code could be modified to allow rate changes at the discretion of staff without setting limits on the rates. The maximum frequency of changes (e.g. annual, semi-annual, or other) could be codified. San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 4 Recommendation Timing Report Section Cost Intended Outcome Options Consider a pricing structure within this framework in which prices are adjusted upward or downward based on the following target metrics for the Downtown area: adjustments to reflect changes in the true cost of parking, managing the overall Downtown area to a typical peak period occupancy of 75% to 85%, and managing individual facilities to a maximum occupancy of 95%. Individual facilities consist of surface lots, garages, and aggregated blocks of on-street parking. It is recommended that off-street parking rates and enforcement rates be reviewed annually and that on-street rates be reviewed as frequently as twice per year. This recommendation requires monitoring actual parking usage on an annual or semi-annual basis. If pursued, this variable pricing approach could be started as a pilot project. (This recommendation is similar to the prior item, but is not dependent on staff having the flexibility to adjust rates without adoption of the new rates by the City Council). Short-term 4.7, 5.2 $$ Use variable rates to manage the overall Downtown parking supply and the supply of individual streets and off-street facilities in a manner that meets the City's objectives. Keep existing pricing, as it will not improve turnover in high-demand locations or increase parking in underutilized areas; but is easier for the public to understand and easier to advertise. Increase rate from $1.50 to $2.50 per hour on 4th Street from Lincoln Avenue to E Street to increase turnover and increase the likelihood of available parking while leaving the off-street parking rates unchanged. Observe parking during peak times with a goal of having 10 to 20 spaces of the 144 total spaces open and available. Confirm that demand is shifting to the less-expensive parking structures and not just leaving the City. If $2.50 per hour does not increase availability, consider raising rate to $3.50 per hour on 4th Street meters. Extend rate increases to adjacent on-street parking, if demand warrants. Other Management Activities Monitor the free time-limited on-street parking east of Highway 101 and on Lincoln Avenue north of Fifth Avenue; consider stricter enforcement of time limits if it is observed that vehicles use those spaces for SMART parking. Short-term 4.6 $ Maintain availability of spaces for local use. Monitor and provide warnings prior to enhanced enforcement: provides a grace period after opening of SMART station. Begin aggressive enforcement in conjunction with opening of the SMART station; potentially creating an immediate change in behavior. Public outreach as the new SMART station is opening with suggested parking locations—paper and website versions. Use the same outreach to also inform about enforcement of parking regulations in time-limited zones, as well as residential areas.Short-term 4.6 $Proactively manage anticipated SMART parking. Upon opening of new SMART station: place signs or information boards near station to alert motorists of available parking at parking garage at 3rd & Lootens. Short-term 4.6 $Proactively manage anticipated SMART parking. Monitor free, unrestricted on-street parking in the Montecito, Lincoln/San Rafael Hill, and Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhoods. If it is observed that vehicles use those spaces for SMART parking, initiate dialogue with these neighborhoods about the City’s residential permit parking program.Short-term 4.6 $ Maintain availability of spaces for local use and minimize automobile intrusion in residential areas. Seek enforcement of parking regulations at Caltrans Park & Ride lots.Short-term 4.7 $ Preserve the Park & Ride spaces for the intended users (motorists using ridesharing, transit, or bikes). Overnight parking for camping and parking for local land use access is not allowed. With the opening of the new SMART service, the City may seek to have spaces leased by Caltrans to local businesses returned to public availability for commuters. Initiate dialogue with operators and managers of privately held parking facilities in an effort to create shared parking opportunities in the future, such as the use of parking at San Rafael Corporate Center for SMART/SRTC parking. Short-term 4.6, 4.7 $ Begin planning for the future with an intent of having agreements that will accommodate growth in parking demand. Zoning and Development Standards Adopt clear and strategic Guiding Principles as formal policies for the operation and management of public parking, as stated in City code chapter 14.18.010. Short-term 5.2 $ Allow Parking Services staff to implement and fulfill the City's goal for parking. Amend 14.18.040: Add language stating that approved parking for developments may be made available to the public (and not just users of the subject land use) to encourage that all parking approved under 14.18.040 (A – F) be made available to the public.Short-term 5.2C $ Increase supply available to the public by providing incentives to owners of private parking facilities. Modify 14.18.060 A – Downtown Parking Assessment District: Consider expanding Downtown Parking district boundaries.Short-term 5.2D $ If desired, expand the boundaries to reflect current or desired land uses and parking patterns in the blocks adjacent to the current district. If there is interest, the City should consider expanding the district boundaries east toward US 101 and west toward or past E Street. An option is to leave the district boundaries unchanged and not provide the benefits of the Downtown district to nearby areas. San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 5 Recommendation Timing Report Section Cost Intended Outcome Options Clarify 14.18.060 A – Downtown Parking Assessment District: Waiver of first 1.0 of FAR does not imply that City facilities are intended to accommodate the waived demand.Short-term 5.2D $ Provide clarity of language reflecting that the existing waiver of a portion of demand reflects actual parking demand within the parking district. Clarify 14.18.080 – Parking requirement for reciprocal uses with shared parking facilities. Short-term 5.2E $Clean up language to reflect City's policy. Revise 14.18.220 B - On-site and remote parking: Allow remote parking to be a greater distance for uses within Downtown district.Short-term 5.2H $ Allow remote parking areas for land uses within Downtown Parking district to be a greater distance, reflecting people's tolerance for walking downtown. Eliminate 500-foot radius and allow remote parking to be located anywhere within the Downtown Parking district. An alternate to eliminating the 500-foot radius limit would be to create a larger radius that better reflects typical pedestrian tolerance for walking in a downtown setting; use a 1,300-foot or 1,500- foot radius instead of the current limit. Revise 14.18.120 to add an additional exemption to tandem parking to allow for implementation of automated parking or other mechanical parking devices. Short-term 5.2.1 0 Allow for innovative parking solutions. Simplify minimum parking requirements for the Downtown area, as now provided in Chapter 14.18.040. Medium-term 5.2B $$ Update language to make it clearer for developers, and easier to administer. Simplify from 50 land use types to five general land use types. This action would require a specific data collection and analysis effort in order to determine appropriate replacement rates. Combine some of the land use types to simplify development and review. Initiate a pilot program to reduce minimum parking requirements in the Downtown area by 20 percent from current levels (Option 2, as described).Medium-term 5.3 $ Allow new development in the Downtown area to build less parking, if desired, in order to reduce the oversupply of parking. Option 1: the current code may be maintained, which allows for special studies to justify reduced parking. Option 2: the current minimum requirements could be reduced for a period of years. This requires monitoring of the parking supply to determine the effect on the overall availability of parking in the Downtown area. Based on observations, the reductions could be continued, discontinued, or increased (e.g. going from 10% to 20%). Option 3: eliminate minimum parking requirements in the Downtown area for a period of years, allowing developers to provide the amount of parking that they determine to be appropriate. This requires monitoring of the parking supply to determine the effect on the overall availability of parking in the Downtown area. Based on observations, the provision for market based parking could be continued or discontinued. Establish design standards (exterior and ground floor) for parking garages.Medium-term 5.2G $$$ Make parking garages more attractive to users and, where appropriate, more active relative to the adjacent street. For new parking structures in areas with a high amount of pedestrian traffic or active adjacent uses, standards for design could be implemented that require appropriate ground floor design. Consider revisions to parking dimension requirements within Downtown garages.Medium-term 5.2F $ If adopted, reduced dimension requirements would allow for smaller floor plates of garages within the Downtown area, creating more affordable parking structures. Downtown District parking structures already allow for reductions of dimensions below the standards outside of the Downtown area. Further reductions may be achievable. City to undertake an effort to develop a shared parking arrangement with owners of private parking facilities to enter into a shared parking program that is offered to the public in a common and seamless basis. Recommendation includes the need to amend 14.18.040 to add language stating that approved parking for developments may be made available to the public and/or used to satisfy parking requirements for other developments.Long-term 5.4 $$ Increase the visible and known supply of parking available to the public by creating a common awareness and advertising program. Provide reductions in parking requirements for developers who provide bicycle parking. Long-term 6.4 $ Improve conditions for cyclists by providing more convenient parking. Allow reduction of one automobile space for every five bike spaces. Allow reduction of one automobile space for every 10 bike spaces. Encourage bicycle parking for new, multi-unit residential developments. Long-term 6.4 $ Improve conditions for cyclists by providing more convenient parking.Options include allowing for higher density in exchange for bike parking. San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 6 Recommendation Timing Report Section Cost Intended Outcome Options Bicycle Parking Along 4th Street, install single inverted U-shaped bike racks in feasible locations where they are currently not currently available. New bicycle parking should not block the pedestrian movement on the sidewalks. Short-term 6.4 $$ Improve conditions for cyclists by providing more convenient parking. It is desirable to have smaller installations in more locations distributed throughout the Downtown area in order to get the designated bicycle parking closer to the destinations of riders. The most suitable location for this is along the north side of 4th Street between Court Street and E Street. Other suitable locations include the north side of the Cijos Street/4th Street intersection, and short- term uses on 4th Street east of Highway 101 (may be disrupted by SMART). Install a bicycle corral on 4th Street adjacent to City Plaza. Short-term 6.4 $ Improve conditions for cyclists by providing more convenient parking. An on-street corral replaces one on-street vehicle parking space with eight to 12 bicycle parking spaces. Install bicycle rooms/cages near SMART/SRTC and major employment centers. Medium-term 6.4 $$ Improve conditions for cyclists by providing more convenient parking and better facilities. Preferred locations in San Rafael would be in the relocated transit center and in the Downtown garages (A Street or C Street) to encourage bicycle commuting to and from Downtown employers. Within the Downtown garages, existing vehicle parking spaces can be converted into a bicycle cage space by utilizing fencing and an access-controlled gate. If a bicycle cage is infeasible at the relocated transit center due to space constraints, instead consider using bicycle lockers for their smaller footprint. Evaluate proposed bike share station locations as part of Bay Area Bike Share via TAM.Medium-term 6.4 $$ Improve non-automobile movement through the City. Station locations proposed at SRTC, City Plaza, and the West End. An alternate that TAM may pursue is a bike share program that uses smaller footprint stations in more locations. Pedestrian Network Stripe limit lines separately from crosswalk striping at the following intersections: • 2nd Street and Lincoln Avenue • 2nd Street and Lindaro Street • 3rd Street and Lincoln Avenue • 3rd Street and Lindaro Street • 3rd Street and Hetherton Street • 3rd Street and Tamalpais Avenue Short-term 7.3 $$ Improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking. This recommendation is subject to revision based on a more detailed study at 3rd Street and Hetherton Street that is being undertaken by the City. Restripe crosswalks at the following intersections to increase pedestrian visibility; priority should be given to the crossings in front of 3rd Street and 2nd Street traffic: • 2nd Street and Lincoln Avenue • 2nd Street and Lindaro Street • 3rd Street and Lincoln Avenue • 3rd Street and Lindaro Street Short-term 7.3 $$ Improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking.Additional locations that may need restriping may be suggested by stakeholders. Install warning signs or barriers in the vicinity of 3rd St and Lindaro Street to encourage crossing of 3rd Street only in the marked crosswalk.Short-term 7.3 $$ Improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking. This recommendation is subject to revision based on a more detailed study that is being undertaken by the City. Widen and repair sidewalks along West Tamalpais Avenue between 3rd Street and 4th Street.Medium-term 7.3 $$$ Improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking. Explore option to improve sidewalks as part of SMART station interim improvements as part of a complete review of Tamalpais Avenue. San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 7 Recommendation Timing Report Section Cost Intended Outcome Options Improve pedestrian access between Caltrans Park & Ride lots and SRTC. Medium-term 7.3 $$$ Improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking. Where feasible, widen sidewalks on the east side of Hetherton between Mission and 3rd Street. This recommendation is subject to revision based on a more detailed study at 3rd & Hetherton that is being undertaken by the City. If sidewalk improvements are not feasible, use signage or barriers to direct pedestrians to cross Hetherton Street and utilize the Puerto Suello multi-use path as a north-south connection. Provide a pedestrian path east of the Lincoln Avenue SRCC parking garage that connects Lincoln Avenue to 2nd Street along the western bank of Mahon Creek. Medium-term 7.3 $$ Improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking. Implement pedestrian improvements associated with 2012 SMART station plan. Medium-term 7.2 $$$ Improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking. In addition to the 2012 report, updated SMART station recommendations are being developed separately from this report. Install curb bulb-outs where feasible to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Medium-term 7.2 $$$ Improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking Potential locations for this improvement include the northern leg of the 3rd/Tamalpais intersection and the southern leg of the 4th/Tamalpais intersection. Wayfinding & Public Outreach Consider implementing end-user technologies, such as a mobile-responsive website or text-message maps to enhance wayfinding in the Downtown, if cost- effective.Short-term 7.3 $$$ Improve information to occassional visitors to Downtown, such as whether parking is available and assisting in finding the most convenient available locations. At a minimum, update City website to direct motorists to default locations. Confirm that commercial driving mapping programs such as Google and Inrix display the key City parking facilities. Consider temporary marketing and promotional programs targeted at both businesses and visitors: Make more people aware of the availability of parking and the convenience and preference for the use of garages.Short-term 8.2 $$ Make business owners and visitors aware of the location and availability of parking within the Downtown area. Possible options include advertising, one month promotions of free/discounted garage parking, and providing a limited number of free one-hour vouchers to all merchants. Implement an integrated program for outreach, information, and promotion. Plan on a multi-year campaign that will improve awareness over time. Medium-term 8.2 $$ Make business owners and visitors aware of the location and availability of parking within the Downtown area. Implement the proposed signage improvements in the Downtown area. Medium-term 8.4 $$$ Improve physical signing and markings for occassional visitors. All or part of the proposed package may be implemented. Explore the feasibility of implementing a variable messaging system (VMS) based parking guidance system in the Downtown area. Medium-term 8.7 $$$ Improve physical signing and markings for occassional visitors. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 8San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 2: Study Area Boundaries 101 City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 1: Study Area Boundaries LibraryLibrary City Hall Mission San Rafael Bettini Transit Center Court House Square City Hall Mission San Rafael Bettini Transit Center Court House Square SMARTPost OcePost Oce City Plaza City Plaza Albert ParkAlbert Park San Rafael Community Center San Rafael Community Center San Rafael High School San Rafael High School Marin Academy Marin Academy Dominican University Dominican UniversityDominican University Dominican University 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILL O AVE LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DR2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL DRGRAND AVEJEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WAT T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILL O AVE LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DR2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL DRGRAND AVEJEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WAT T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STDowntown Planning Study Area Boundary Downtown Parking District Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Fringe of Downtown LEGEND Francisco Boulevard West Francisco Boulevard West Montecito/ Happy Valley Montecito/ Happy Valley Dominican/ Black Canyon Dominican/ Black Canyon Lincoln/ San Rafael Hill Lincoln/ San Rafael Hill DowntownDowntown Canal WaterfrontCanal Waterfront Picnic ValleyPicnic Valley Gerstle Park Gerstle Park Page 3 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 9San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 2.0 Existing Conditions As part of the initial phase of the study, an assessment of the existing parking conditions within the study area was conducted. The assessment included: • Existing parking supply; • Current restrictions and time limits; • Existing parking demand; and • Parking duration and turnover. 2.1 Study Area Parking conditions were assessed within both the Downtown Planning Study Area boundary and the area within a half-mile radius from the future location of the Downtown San Rafael Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) station. These boundaries are shown in Figure 2, on page 8. Public parking facilities (on-street parking and City-owned off-street lots/garages) were studied within the Downtown Planning Study Area boundary and the half-mile radius from SMART. Within the Downtown Planning Study Area—which represents the core of Downtown San Rafael—the Caltrans Park & Ride lots under Highway 101 and other privately-owned parking facilities were also studied. For the remainder of this report, the area outside of the Downtown Planning Study Area, but within the half-mile radius of SMART, will be referred to as the “Edge of Downtown”. Data and information collected in the Edge of Downtown will be supplemental to the analysis of the Downtown Planning Study Area, which is the primary focus of this study. 2.2 Data Collection Methodology Existing weekday and weekend parking data was collected through parking inventory and occupancy surveys, which were performed in August 2015 by Kimley-Horn and Wiltec Traffic Data Services. Parking data included the following: • Inventory of on-street and off-street parking spaces by block face (north, south, east, west) and by individual parking lot/garage; • Review of current parking pricing, time limits, and other restrictions; • Weekday parking occupancy survey data collected every two hours from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM (collected Wednesday, August 26th, 2015); • Weekend (Saturday) parking occupancy survey data collected every two hours from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM (collected Saturday, August 29th, 2015); and • Parking turnover data collected for on-street and off-street public parking locations during typical weekday and weekend (Saturday) conditions. Surveys were performed on specific days of the week to make sure that they would be representative of typical weekday and weekend parking demand. Employee parking demand is typically higher during weekday business hours, while Saturdays are typically peak demand weekend days because residents and out of town visitors are attracted by the shopping, dining, entertainment, and other leisure activities in the Downtown vicinity. Based on input from City staff and review of historic parking activity/revenue trends within the Downtown area, the data collection efforts were scheduled for late August in order to secure surveys that reflected the peak parking demand period of the year (August-October). Surveys excluded any parking facilities that were closed for construction, as well as private lots with access restrictions. To conduct the parking surveys, each block within the study area was assigned a number (as shown in Figure 3. Each block face was labeled north (N), south (S), east (E), and west (W) for collecting on-street parking data. For off-street parking data collection, each off-street lot or garage was designated a lot ID number. Where pavement markings were not present, the number of spaces was estimated by visual observation. During data collection, the number of occupied spaces was counted at each on-street and off-street location every two hours. Detailed parking supply and occupancy data for all on-street and off-street parking areas is included in the Appendix. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 10San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 3: Parking Study Area Block Numbers City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 2: Parking Study Area Block Numbers 101 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLRIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHEC O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLRIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHEC O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 41 55 23 4039 54 38 37 36 353433 32 3130 29 28 27 26 25 24 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 57 56 58 59 61 70 71 72 73 85 86 87 88 9392 98 89 9094 91 84 95 96 97 101 108 109 110 111107 106 104 105 100 102 99 103 74 60 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 8112 114 115113 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Block Number LEGEND XX DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 11San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 2.3 Existing Parking Supply On-Street Parking Supply The supply of on-street parking within the Downtown Planning Study Area consists of parallel parking that is either metered, free with a two-hour time limit, or free with no time limit. The Downtown Planning Study Area contains a total of 1,627 on-street parking spaces. The Edge of Downtown contains 1,490 total spaces and consists largely of unrestricted parallel parking on residential streets. A breakdown of the on-street parking by type is shown in Table 3. Figure 4, illustrates the location and type of the on-street parking supply. Table 3: On-Street Parking by Type Parking Type Number of Spaces On-Street Parking - Downtown Planning Study Area 1,627 Metered 782 Two-Hour Time Limit 487 20-Minute Time Limit 5 Unrestricted 335 Loading Zone 18 On-Street Parking – Edge of Downtown 1,490 Two-Hour Time Limit 192 Four-Hour Time Limit 106 10-Hour Time Limit 20 Unrestricted 1,158 Loading Zone 14 Total 3,117 On-street parking restrictions are enforced Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays. Paid spaces are enforced from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, while time limited spaces are enforced from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, with the following major exceptions: • Yellow curb (active loading) spaces are limited to loading only from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. • White curb (passenger loading) spaces are limited to loading only from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. • Green curb spaces are limited to 20-minute parking from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. • Parking is prohibited from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, at the following locations: Lincoln Avenue, north of 2nd Street Irwin Street, from 3rd Street to Mission Avenue Mission Avenue, from Nye Street to Lincoln Avenue DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 12San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 4: On-Street Parking Supply by Type 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station On-Street Parking: Metered Free with Time Limits Unrestricted Loading Zone LEGEND No Parking Block Number *Parking prohibited along Lincoln Ave north of 2nd Street during PM commute period (4PM-6PM) 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 3: On-Street Parking Supply by Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 41 55 23 4039 54 38 37 36 35343332 3130 29 28 27 26 25 24 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 57 56 58 59 61 70 71 72 73 85 86 87 XX 88 9392 98 89 9094 91 84 95 96 97 101 108 109 110 111107 106 104 105 100 102 99 103 74 60 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 8112 114 115113 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 13San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Off-Street Parking Supply The inventory of off-street parking within the Downtown Planning Study Area boundary included both public (City-owned) and private lots and garages, including the Caltrans Park & Ride lots under Highway 101. No public off-street parking facilities were identified within the Edge of Downtown and private parking facilities were not studied within this area. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the off-street parking supply by type, including public lots and garages. There are approximately 5,082 off-street parking spaces within the Downtown Planning Study Area, including 1,297 public parking spaces located within 13 City-owned (or leased) lots and garages. Approximately 60 percent of the total public off-street parking supply is located within the two large parking garages at 3rd Street & C Street and 3rd Street & A Street. The public parking supply is predominantly paid. Most private lots in the study area have no access restrictions, but have signage indicating that parking is restricted to tenants or customers only. Table 4 , provides a breakdown of the public off-street parking inventory by facility, while detailed information for each public and private off-street parking facility can be found in the Appendix. Figure 5, illustrates the public off-street parking facilities. Figure 6, illustrates the private parking facilities identified within the Downtown Planning Study Area boundary, including the Caltrans Park & Ride lots under Highway 101 and lots that could not be studied due to access restrictions or ongoing construction. Table 4: Off-Street Parking by Type Type Number of Spaces Public Lots & Garages 1,297 Paid: Five-Minute Limit 4 Paid: 30-Minute Limit 6 Paid: Two-Hour Limit 252 Paid: Four-Hour Limit 14 Paid: All-Day 892 Paid: Electric Vehicle Parking 8 Reserved/Permit Only 50 Free: 30-Minute Limit 3 Free: Two-Hour Limit 20 Free: Specific Commercial Use Only 8 Handicap Spaces 40 Private Lots 3,785 Caltrans Park & Ride Lots (Free)196 Other Private Lots 3,589 Total 5,082 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 14San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 5: Off-Street Parking Supply by Type (Public) 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Off-Street Parking: Public Parking Lot (Short-Term Parking) Public Parking Lot (Long/Short-Term Parking) Public Parking Garage (Long/Short-Term) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Off-Street Facility ID Number# LEGEND Notes: *1550 4th Street lot is a public/private lot rented by the City. See Appendix for detailed parking inventory by type. **1412 2nd Street lot includes 17 total spaces: 3 public metered spaces and 14 spaces rented monthly by a taxi company. ***The northern half of the Menzies lot (31 of 58 spaces) is reserved for City employee parking. ****The first floor of the 3rd Street & Lootens lot (ID #92) is 2-hour paid parking. The second floor (ID#218) is all-day paid parking. 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLRIDGE AVEUNION STTERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DR2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PACHE C O S T GRAN D AVE BEL L E A V E IRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLRIDGE AVEUNION STTERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DR2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PACHE C O S T GRAN D AVE BEL L E A V E IRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST89 87 92 95 40 94 38 50 218**** 89 87 92 95 40 94 38 50 28*28* 153 154 179*** 124**124** 153 154 179*** 218**** C St GarageC St Garage A St Garage (2 hr lot at entry) Menzies Lot (Permit Required) Menzies Lot (Time-Restricted) 1550 4th St Lot 1412 2nd St Lot 5th Ave & D St Lot 5th Ave & C St Lot (upper level = all-day parking) 5th Ave & C St Lot (upper level = all-day parking) Menzies Lot (Permit Required) Menzies Lot (Time-Restricted) 5th Ave & Lootens Pl Lot5th Ave & Lootens Pl Lot1550 4th St Lot 1412 2nd St Lot 5th Ave & D St Lot 3rd St & Lootens Pl Structure (upper level = all-day parking) 3rd St & Lootens Pl Structure (upper level = all-day parking) 5th Ave & Garden Ln Lot5th Ave & Garden Ln Lot Walgreens Lot 3rd St & Cijos St Lot Walgreens Lot 3rd St & Cijos St Lot A St Garage (2 hr lot at entry) City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 4: Off-Street Parking Supply by Type (Public) DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 15San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 6: Off-Street Parking Supply by Type (Private) 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Off-Street Parking: LEGEND Private Lot Private Lot (Not Included in Occupancy Study)* *Indicates lots were included in inventory, but not included in occupancy surveys due to construction or access restrictions. Caltrans-Owned Park and Ride Lot 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLRIDGE AVEUNION STTERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE A N D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DR2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PACHE C O S T GRAN D AVE BEL L E A V E IRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLRIDGE AVEUNION STTERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE A N D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DR2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PACHE C O S T GRAN D AVE BEL L E A V E IRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST173 2 148 69 5 136 1 145 6 76 116 78 47 65 3 174 41 90 109 144 175 114 180 164 14 113 49 147 53 79 100 112 146 169 10 51 159181 46 77 137 87 20 4 85 32 102 67 91 84 24 160 74 9 132 104 29 81 210 35 88 155 45 167 120 111 27 122 127 96 142 119 139 31 101 130 39 165 143 115 186 11 55 23 16 156 57 33 204 58 83 161184 163 138 86 21 17 48 172 54 34 108 60 66 140 82 162 73 129 63 18 106 62 30 44 43 178 97 25 131 70 13 190 192 72 12 168 26 75 98 128 133 68 105 80 205 171 134 123 170 93 37 22 201 118 71 59 61 193191 202 52 189 135 141 195196 99 199 110 117 42 194 158 177 64 19 183 36 126 107 182 176 157 125 187 193 200 188 208 121 197 185 206 198 203 207 173 2 148 69 5 136 1 145 6 76 116 78 47 65 3 174 41 90 109 144 175 114 180 164 14 113 49 147 53 79 100 112 146 169 10 51 159181 46 77 137 87 20 4 85 32 102 67 91 84 24 160 74 9 132 104 29 81 210 35 88 155 45 167 120 111 27 122 127 96 142 119 139 31 101 130 39 165 143 115 186 11 55 23 16 156 57 33 204 58 83 161184 163 138 86 21 17 48 172 54 34 108 60 66 140 82 162 73 129 63 18 106 62 30 44 43 178 97 25 131 70 13 190 192 72 12 168 26 75 98 128 133 68 105 80 205 171 134 123 170 93 37 22 201 118 71 59 61 193191 202 52 189 135 141 195196 99 199 110 117 42 194 158 177 64 19 183 36 126 107 182 176 157 125 187 193 200 188 208 121 197 185 206 198 203 207 149 151 215 152211 150 213 216 209 214 212 149 151 215 152211 150 213 216 209 214 212 56 15 103 166 56 15 103 166 City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 5: Off-Street Parking Supply by Type (Private) DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 16San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Parking Rates and Restrictions Paid parking at public off-street and on-street locations is priced at the following rates: • $1.50 per hour for on-street metered parking. • $1.00 per hour at the A Street and C Street garages. • $0.75 per hour at all other hourly paid lots. The City sells 1-hour parking validations (for $0.10 each) to businesses who wish to provide their customers with parking validation. Validations can be used only at the A Street and C Street garages. In addition to hourly parking, there are a number of discounted parking options available for frequent parkers: • $73.00 per month for monthly parking permits at the A Street and C Street garages. A business group discount of $5.00 per card is given to accounts with four or more cards. • $63.00 per month for monthly parking permits at five public lots (Fifth & D Street, Fifth & C Street, 3rd & B Street, 3rd & Lootens, and 1550 4th Street). • $25.00 for a Frequent Parker Card – gives a 50 percent off parking rate for 12 months or 250 uses (for A Street and C Street garages only). • City Parking Permits are required in sections of some public lots and are available to City employees only. As of September 2015, the City noted that there were approximately 348 monthly parking permit holders in the C Street Garage, 335 monthly permit holders in the A Street Garage, and 161 Frequent Parker Card holders. Parkmobile Parking App San Rafael provides Downtown parking customers with the option of paying for parking at on-street meters and off-street paid lots using the Parkmobile payment service. Parkmobile enables customers to pay for parking using the Parkmobile smart phone app or by calling a toll-free number. The Parkmobile system allows users to pay when initially parking, and/or extend their parking time remotely by up to two hours. Within Marin County, Parkmobile is also used by the City of Sausalito and the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. Other Bay Area cities that utilize the Parkmobile system include Oakland, Vallejo, and Santa Cruz. Restrictions/Enforcement In public lots, parking is enforced from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday, with the following exceptions: • Parking in the A Street and C Street garages is enforced Monday through Saturday from 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM. • Parking in the lot at 830 3rd Street (Walgreens) is enforced Monday through Saturday from m 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. All public lots and garages are free on Sundays. Electric Vehicle Charging Two electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces are available for parking customers at each of the following locations: • A Street Garage • C Street Garage • 3rd Street & Cijos Street Lot • Fifth Avenue & Lootens Place lot While EV charging is free, customers still pay standard parking rates for these spots. Charging stations are managed by ChargePoint, Inc. Customers can initiate charging by registering and activating a ChargePoint card, or by calling a toll-free number. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 17San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Total Parking Supply Table 5 summarizes the total Downtown parking supply. There are 8,199 total parking spaces identified within the Downtown Planning Study area and the Edge of Downtown. Approximately 2,924 public parking spaces are provided within the Downtown Planning Study Area boundary. Table 5: Total Parking Supply by Type Parking Type Number of Spaces Percent of Total On-Street: Downtown Planning Study Area 1,627 20% On-Street: Edge of Downtown 1,490 18% Off-Street: Public Lots & Garages 1,297 16% Off-Street Private Lots 3,785 46% Caltrans Park & Ride Lots (Free)196 Other Private Lots 3,589 Total 8,199 100% Total 9,317 100% 2.4 Existing Parking Demand Downtown Planning Study Area Parking Demand Parking demand within the Downtown Planning Study Area was estimated by recording the percentage of parking spaces (public and private) that are occupied at a given time of day. Parking demand is independent of the parking supply. Typically, there is a single peak period in the day in which the highest percentage of parking spaces are occupied. The peak parking demand period within the Downtown Planning Study Area for both the weekday (Wednesday) and weekend (Saturday) surveys was found to occur between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM. Although the 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM time frame was the period with the highest parking demand. Similar levels of demand were also observed between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM, indicating that parking demand is generally highest between 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM on both weekdays and weekends. While off-street parking saw demand fall off after the peak period, demand for on-street parking stayed relatively constant throughout the afternoon and evening. This is indicative of the evening demand for Downtown retail and dining uses, whose patrons would be most likely to use on-street parking. Figure 7 through Figure 14, illustrate the trends in parking demand by time of day for the weekday and weekend surveys. Detailed parking occupancy data is included in the Appendix. During peak conditions, the total parking occupancy in the Downtown Planning Study Area was approximately 66 percent for the weekday survey and 46 percent for the weekend survey. Table 6 summarizes the peak occupancy levels for on-street and off-street parking within the Downtown Planning Study Area. Figure 15 through Figure 20, illustrate the parking occupancy levels for peak weekday and weekend parking conditions in the Downtown Planning Study Area. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 18San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 7: Weekday Downtown Parking Occupancy (%) Figure 8: Weekend Downtown Parking Occupancy (%) DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 19San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 9: Weekday Downtown Parking Occupancy (Spaces) Figure 10: Weekend Downtown Parking Occupancy (Spaces) DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 20San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 11: Weekday Public vs. Private Parking Occupancy (%) Figure 12: Weekend Public vs. Private Parking Occupancy (%) DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 21San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 13: Weekday Public vs. Private Parking Occupancy (Spaces) Figure 14: Weekend Public vs. Private Parking Occupancy (Spaces) DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 22San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Table 6: Downtown Peak Period Occupancy Levels Type Supply Weekday Peak Period (1PM-3PM) Saturday Peak Period (1PM-3PM) Occupancy (Spaces) Occupancy (%)Surplus Occupancy (Spaces) Occupancy (%)Surplus C St. Garage; 900 C St.390 260 67% 130 100 26% 290 A St. Garage; 1116 3rd St.388 285 73% 103 99 26% 289 Fifth & C St.95 69 73% 26 55 58% 40 3rd & Lootens - 2nd Floor 89 68 76% 21 68 76% 21 3rd & Lootens - 1st Floor 82 79 96% 3 71 87% 11 3rd & Cijos 47 41 87% 6 46 98% 1 830 3rd St. - Walgreens 32 31 97% 1 24 75% 8 Fifth & D St.31 22 71% 9 11 35% 20 Menzies – Permitted Spaces 31 21 68% 10 9 29% 22 Menzies - Time Limit Spaces 26 13 50% 13 13 50% 13 Fifth & Lootens 26 23 88% 3 17 65% 9 Fifth & Garden 23 20 87% 3 14 61% 9 1550 4th St. Lot 19 14 74% 5 11 58% 8 1412 2nd St. Lot 18 9 50% 9 7 39% 11 Public Garages/Lots 1,297 955 74% 342 526 41% 771 Private Lots 3,785 2,320 61% 1,465 1,536 41% 2,249 On-Street - Within Planning Study Boundary 1,627 1,134 70% 493 994 61% 633 Total (Downtown Planning Study Area) 6,709 4,409 66% 2,300 3,056 46% 3,653 Notes: - Locations where parking demand exceeds a practical capacity of 85 percent are highlighted. - The practical capacity for parking is defined as 85 percent to 90 percent utilization of parking spaces. Keeping about 10 percent to 15 percent of the spaces vacant provides a cushion in excess of necessary parking spaces to allow for the dynamics of parking (i.e., people circulating in search of a space, and moving in and out of parking spaces). When occupancy exceeds the practical capacity, drivers will experience delays and frustration while searching for a parking space, as well as contribute to area traffic congestion while circling the block looking for parking. - Private lots that were inaccessible, abandoned, or blocked due to construction were omitted from inventory and occupancy totals. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 23San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 15: Weekday Peak (1PM-3PM) Off-Street Public Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area 101 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STC St Garage A St Garage (2 hr lot at entry) Menzies Lot (Permit Required) Menzies Lot (Time-Restricted) 1550 4th St Lot 1412 2nd St Lot 5th Ave & D St Lot 5th Ave & C St Lot (upper level = all-day parking)5th Ave & Lootens Pl Lot 3rd St & Lootens Pl Structure (lower level = 2-hour parking) 3rd St & Lootens Pl Structure (upper level = all-day parking) 5th Ave & Garden Ln Lot Walgreens Lot 3rd St & Cijos St Lot Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Peak Occupancy/Supply Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% XX/XX 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100%Total Supply Occupancy (Spaces) 9551,297 74% Occupancy (%) C St Garage 5th Ave & C St Lot (upper level = all-day parking) Menzies Lot (Permit Required) Menzies Lot (Time-Restricted) 5th Ave & Lootens Pl Lot 1550 4th St Lot 1412 2nd St Lot 5th Ave & D St Lot 3rd St & Lootens Pl Structure (lower level = 2-hour parking) 3rd St & Lootens Pl Structure (upper level = all-day parking) 5th Ave & Garden Ln Lot Walgreens Lot 3rd St & Cijos St Lot A St Garage (2 hr lot at entry) City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 8: Weekday Peak (1PM-3PM) Off-Street Public Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area 260/390 9/18 14/19 21/31 13/26 22/31 69/95 285/388 68/89 31/32 41/47 20/23 23/26 79/82 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 24San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 16: Weekday Peak (1PM-3PM) Off-Street Private Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100%Occupancy (Spaces) 2,3203,785 61% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D A VE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D A VE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 9: Weekday Peak (1PM-3PM) Off-Street Private Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 25San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 17: Weekday Peak (1PM-3PM) On-Street Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100%Occupancy (Spaces) 1,1341,627 70% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL DR GRAN D A VE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL DR GRAN D A VE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 10: Weekday Peak (1PM-3PM) On-Street Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 26San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 18: Weekend Peak (1PM-3PM) Off-Street Public Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Peak Occupancy/Supply Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% XX/XX 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100%Occupancy (Spaces) 5261,297 41% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STC St Garage 5th Ave & C St Lot (upper level = all-day parking) Menzies Lot (Permit Required) Menzies Lot (Time-Restricted) 5th Ave & Lootens Pl Lot 1550 4th St Lot 1412 2nd St Lot 5th Ave & D St Lot 3rd St & Lootens Pl Structure (lower level = 2-hour parking) 3rd St & Lootens Pl Structure (upper level = all-day parking) 5th Ave & Garden Ln Lot Walgreens Lot 3rd St & Cijos St Lot A St Garage (2 hr lot at entry) City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 11: Weekend (1PM-3PM) Peak Off-Street Public Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area 100/390 7/18 11/19 9/31 13/26 11/31 55/95 99/388 68/89 24/32 46/47 14/23 17/26 71/82 100/390 7/18 11/19 9/31 13/26 11/31 55/95 99/388 68/89 24/32 46/47 14/23 17/26 71/82 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 27San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 19: Weekend Peak (1PM-3PM) Off-Street Private Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100%Occupancy (Spaces) 1,5363,785 41% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D A VE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D A VE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 12: Weekend (1PM-3PM) Peak Off-Street Private Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 28San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 20: Weekend Peak (1PM-3PM) On-Street Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100%Occupancy (Spaces) 9941,627 61% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D A VE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D A VE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 13: Weekend (1PM-3PM) Peak On-Street Private Parking Occupancy - Downtown Planning Study Area DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 29San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Edge of Downtown Parking Conditions On-street parking demand in the Edge of Downtown remained relatively constant throughout the survey periods. This is demonstrated in Figure 21. The demand for parking ranged between 61 percent and 62 percent for the weekday survey, and between 59 percent and 62 percent for the weekend survey; because of this low variability in parking demand, there is no single peak period for the Edge of Downtown. Table 7 shows a breakdown of the parking demand in four different quadrants of the Edge of Downtown area, which are named after the neighborhoods in which they are located. Figure 22 and Figure 23, illustrate peak period and day-long trends in parking demand for the weekday and weekend in the Edge of Downtown area. Due to the lack of a true peak period, demand is shown for the 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM period for the weekday and weekend surveys, which were the peak periods for the Downtown Planning Study Area.. Detailed parking occupancy data for the Edge of Downtown is included in the Appendix. Additionally, Figure 24 and Figure 25, show peak period occupancy data for the entire study area for the weekday and weekend. Figure 21: Edge of Downtown Parking Occupancy Table 7: Edge of Downtown Peak Period Occupancy Levels Area Supply Weekday Peak Period (1PM-3PM) Saturday Peak Period (1PM-3PM) Occupancy (Spaces) Occupancy (%)Surplus Occupancy (Spaces) Occupancy (%)Surplus Lincoln/San Rafael Hill 290 172 59% 118 195 67% 95 Dominican/Black Canyon - Montecito/Happy Valley 636 356 56% 280 366 58% 270 Francisco Boulevard West - Canal Waterfront 171 106 64% 62 102 60% 69 Gerstle Park - Picnic Valley 393 279 71.% 114 214 54% 179 Total (Edge of Downtown Area) 1,490 916 62% 574 877 59% 613 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 30San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 22: Weekday Peak (1PM-3PM) Parking Occupancy - Edge of Downtown 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100% Occupancy (Spaces) 9551,554 61% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 15: Weekday (1PM-3PM) Peak Parking Occupancy - Fringe of Downtown 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Occupancy 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%Dominican/Black Canyon - Montecito/Happy Valley 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%Francisco Boulevard West - Canal Waterfront 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%Gerstle Park - Picnic Valley DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 31San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 23: Weekend Peak (11AM-1PM) Parking Occupancy - Edge of Downtown 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100% Occupancy (Spaces) 8771,554 59% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 16: Weekend (1PM-3PM) Peak Parking Occupancy - Fringe of Downtown 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Occupancy 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%Gerstle Park - Picnic Valley 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%Francisco Boulevard West - Canal Waterfront 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%Dominican/Black Canyon - Montecito/Happy Valley DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 32San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 24: Weekday Peak (1PM-3PM) Parking Occupancy 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100%Occupancy (Spaces) 5,3258,199 65% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 17: Weekday (1PM-3PM) Peak Parking Occupancy DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 33San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 25: Weekend Peak (1PM-3PM) Parking Occupancy 101 Downtown Planning Study Area Boundary Half-Mile Radius from SMART Station Parking Occupancy: 0 - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 84% 85% - 89% LEGEND 89% - 100%Occupancy (Spaces) 3,9338,199 48% Occupancy (%) Total Supply 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPRO S P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STCity of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 18: Weekend (1PM-3PM) Peak Parking Occupancy DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 34San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 2.5 Parking Duration/Turnover Parking duration surveys provide insight into how individual parking spaces are used within a given street segment, lot, or garage, based on how frequently each space turns over for a new vehicle during a given time period. Key locations were selected for parking duration field surveys to observe typical turnover frequency within a variety of Downtown parking areas. The primary focus of this study was on City-owned lots, garages, and high-demand on-street parking segments, such as areas along the 4th Street commercial corridor. The parking duration surveys were performed using a license plate recognition (LPR) camera, which records license plate numbers and then automatically translates them into a unique ID number for privacy purposes. The LPR camera recorded information for each individual space, once every hour between 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM on a typical weekday (Thursday, November 12th, 2015) and weekend day (Saturday, November 14th, 2015). With these records, the number of times an individual vehicle was observed during the survey period was tracked. Vehicles observed only once during the survey period were omitted from the dataset to prevent skewing of the data caused by vehicles observed at the start and end of the survey period. Table 8 lists the individual facilities that were surveyed, as well the distribution of vehicles that were parked between two to four hours of the survey period. The following are key findings of the parking duration/turnover studies: • Vehicles were generally compliant with the posted parking time limits. • Among the facilities surveyed, 4th Street had the shortest parking duration – 96 percent of vehicles observed in the weekday survey were parked for two hours or less. This is consistent with the parking demand of nearby uses and the posted time limit of two hours. • Among off-street parking facilities, the 3rd & Cijos Lot had the shortest parking duration – 78 percent of vehicles observed in the weekday survey were parked for two hours or less. • The Caltrans Park & Ride lot had the longest parking duration – 55 percent of vehicles observed remained at the lot throughout the duration of the weekday survey period. • The A Street Garage and C Street Garage had similar levels of demand for short-term and long-term parking. This is consistent with the mix of short-term uses (such as restaurants) and long-term uses (employee parking) that are located near these facilities. The parking duration/turnover data collected as part of this task will be supplemented with additional information collected as part of the Downtown Parking User Surveys. Table 8: Parking Duration/Turnover Summary Area Weekday Peak Period (1PM-3PM) Saturday Peak Period (1PM-3PM) Surveyed Vehicles (%)Surveyed Vehicles (%) 2 Hours 3 Hours 4+ Hours 2 Hours 3 Hours 4+ Hours 4th Street (Hetherton to E Street)96% 4% 0% 74% 23% 3% Fifth Avenue (Hetherton to E Street)60% 27% 13% 65% 27% 8% B Street (Mission to 2nd)70% 10% 20%–1 3rd & Cijos Lot 78% 4% 17% 50% 29% 21% 3rd & Lootens Lot 38% 31% 31% 51% 16% 33% Fifth Avenue & C Street Lot 38% 25% 38% 49% 37% 14% A Street Garage 32% 34% 34% 42% 30% 28% C Street Garage 23% 32% 45% 36% 17% 47% Caltrans Park & Ride (Between Fifth & Mission)9% 36% 55% 13% 0% 88% Notes: 1. Data from the weekend survey on B Street was omitted due to a small sample size. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 35San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 2.6 Parking Duration Time Limits Parking pricing is a very controversial aspect within the San Rafael community, and in general is very common in similar sized communities. A willingness to pay $0.25 more for an hour or so of parking is incomprehensible to most drivers, eluding that such an increase may potentially impact businesses within the community. This is a valid concern because when it comes to parking pricing in communities similar in size to San Rafael, perception governs the decision-making process. The outreach survey results illustrate important perceptions on parking pricing, yet the parking occupancy data shows a high parking demand for on-street parking spots close to destinations in Downtown. Parking demand on the streets is at 70 percent on weekdays and at 61 percent on Saturdays. Typically between 60 percent and 80 percent of supply should be maintained for on street parking. Increases of up to $1 per hour could result in a change in parking behavior, however, an increase of $0.25 per hour is not anticipated to result in a significant change in parking demand (Case study: Chestnut Street and Lombard Street and San Francisco). It is recommended that the City monitor parking demand by month and develop demand curves. This information can be used to price certain locations higher or lower to increase or decrease parking utilization (see Figure 26 for an example). Figure 26: Example Parking Pricing Sensitivity Chart Public outreach efforts found that the bulk of Downtown visitors said that their visits lasted between 30 minutes and three hours. Turnover data indicated that the majority of on-street parkers stayed for two hours or less, while longer durations were observed in off-street lots. However, on-street parkers stayed for longer visits on the weekends. Although the ParkMobile application currently allows for on-street parkers to extend their parking duration up to four hours, the turnover data indicates that this feature is not significantly used on 4th Street, where the demand for parking is highest; its impacts on parking occupancy in critical areas are thus minimal. It is recommended that the existing two-hour time limit for metered spaces be maintained on weekdays. On weekends, it is recommended that the two-hour limit be maintained, but with parkers allowed to feed the meter up to a maximum of three hours, to allow for more extended weekend visits, when the demand for on-street parking is lower, but parking durations are longer. It is also recommended that the City establish a framework to adjust pricing based on demand to maintain occupancy levels at 85 percent. This is discussed in further detail in Section 5.2. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 36San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 2.7 Findings The key parking trends and findings based on review of the detailed parking survey data and in-person field observations are summarized as follows: • The Downtown Planning Study Area experienced the highest overall parking demand between 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM during both the weekday (Wednesday) and weekend (Saturday) surveys. Both on-street and off-street parking demand peaked within this period. • The peak parking occupancy for all facilities (public and private, on-street and off-street) observed within the Downtown Planning Study Area was approximately 66 percent during weekday conditions, and roughly 46 percent on Saturday. • The peak weekday parking occupancy observed for public parking facilities (public garages/lots and on-street spaces) within the Downtown Planning Study Area was 74 percent for off-street lots/garages and 70 percent for on-street parking. This provides a surplus of 342 off-street parking spaces and 493 on-street parking spaces (835 total spaces) during the peak parking demand period. • The peak weekend parking occupancy observed for public parking facilities (public garages/lots and on-street spaces) within the Downtown Planning Study Area was 41 percent for off-street lots/garages and 61 percent for on-street parking. This provides a surplus of 771 off-street spaces and 633 on-street spaces (1,404 total spaces) during the peak parking demand period. • The Edge of Downtown saw a constant level of demand for on-street parking; total occupancy stayed between 59 percent and 62 percent for the weekday and weekend survey. The following trends were observed within particular areas of the Edge of Downtown: On-street parking near commercial uses in the Francisco Boulevard West & Canal Waterfront neighborhoods saw parking demand decrease in the evening. On-street parking demand in residential areas saw few changes in demand throughout the day, indicative of residents using on-street parking as additional vehicle storage. • On-street parking on 4th Street between E Street and Lincoln Avenue experienced high utilization (>90 percent) throughout much of the weekday and weekend periods. • The following public off-street parking facilities were observed to have a peak parking demand that exceeds the practical capacity of the facility (85 percent): 3rd Street & Lootens Lot – 1st Floor (96 percent weekday; 87 percent weekend) 3rd Street & Cijos Lot (87 percent weekday; 98 percent weekend) Walgreens Lot (97 percent weekday) Fifth Avenue & Lootens Lot (88 percent weekday) Fifth Avenue & Garden Lot (87 percent weekday) • The Caltrans Park & Ride lots experienced high utilization (>90 percent) throughout most of the weekday survey. • Among public off-street parking facilities, the majority of the parking surplus was located in the A Street and C Street garages. In the weekday peak period, 233 out of 342 (68 percent) of open spaces in public-off street facilities were located in one of these garages. In the weekend peak period, 579 out of 771 (75 percent) of open spaces were located in either facility. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 37San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 3. PUBLIC OUTREACH To provide robust public input into the parking/wayfinding study, the City engaged stakeholders through a variety of mechanisms including: online, text-based, and intercept surveys of Downtown users; and pop-up workshops at key events. These methods help to enable businesses and their customers, transit users, residents, advocacy groups, and visitors in building awareness of the project’s purpose and need, solicit input on parking issues and priorities, and garner support for recommended improvements and strategies in the Downtown San Rafael area. Input received through the public outreach process provided anecdotal information to accompany the data gathered for the parking and wayfinding study. The details and results of these outreach activities are outlined below. 3.1 Public Outreach Activities and Summary of Public Survey Results Significant findings of the public outreach activities and the public survey were: • Most respondents traveled to San Rafael by private vehicle, and their highest parking priority was the ability to find a spot easily and in close proximity to their destination (within one or two blocks). Many respondents wanted to see more parking along 4th and 3rd streets and believed it was important to have signage that is easy to read and directs people to parking and designated bicycle routes. • Most respondents paid for parking, and that while cost wasn’t the most important factor to them, it could limit the duration of their visits. • Merchants were concerned about strict parking enforcement discouraging residents from parking in the area and affecting their shopping habits; however, merchants expressed approval of the free holiday parking program. • Many respondents were aware of parking validation, but were unaware of which businesses offered it for customers; 75 percent of respondents were willing to park in public garages more often if parking validation were offered at more businesses. Most people were unaware of the availability of monthly passes and/or Frequent Parker Cards. • Most respondents would not visit Downtown more often, even if parking was either easier to find or less expensive. The following information provides more details of the results of the intercept, online, and text-based surveys, and pop-up workshops. Copies of public input from the public outreach process are in the Appendices. Intercept Survey On Saturday, October 17, 2015 and Thursday, December 17, 2015, two Circlepoint staff conducted intercept surveys at key Downtown points of interest, such as the Downtown business corridor and City-owned parking garages and lots. Full reports on both days of survey- ing, as well as the completed paper surveys are in Appendix A. On October 17, 2015, 21 people completed the survey; however, an estimated 30 people provided feedback, but were unable to complete the survey. The businesses that provided feedback were Verizon, Goodwill, Lotus Chaat and Spices, Ponsford’s Place, and Folk Art Gallery. A representative sample of the comments and responses provided during the intercept survey outreach indicated: • The price to park and close proximity to the intended destination are the two most salient factors with respect to Downtown parking. Most participants indicated they paid for parking. • Strict parking enforcement is a key theme in the input on Downtown street parking. The strict enforcement discouraged residents to park in the area and businesses felt it affected their customers shopping habits. Several people thought meter enforcement was excessive and sometimes overbearing. • People were aware of parking validation, but they were unaware of which businesses offered parking validation for customers. • Several businesses would like to offer customers validation. One business noted they would like to purchase the validation in smaller allotments, as they were unable to give all of their validation coupons to customers before they expired. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 38San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 • The City needs more street parking. • Most participants traveled to the City by private vehicle. On December 17, approximately 60 postcards were handed out and 25 posters were hung within the study area. Specific businesses (community spaces, popular restaurants, and retail stores) were targeted to leave project outreach collateral, including T&B Sports, Sol Food Café, Bella, Taqueria San Jose, Mike’s Bikes San Rafael, Trips for Kids, Knimble, Aroma Restaurant, Starbucks Coffee, Royal Ground Coffee, Open Secret Bookstore, Cafe del Soul, Wellsfargo Bank, Crepevine Restaurant, Copperfield’s Books, Arizmendi Bakery and Café, and Yet Wah Restaurant. Several of the businesses and parking garages already had project collateral provided by City staff. In these instances, postcards were refreshed if the business was running low and posters were repaired if torn. While most people declined to take the full survey on the spot, many people engaged in conversation. A representative sample of comments and themes provided during the survey outreach indicated: • Shoppers and merchants are grateful for the City’s holiday parking program, which offers three hours of free parking in the City-owned garages. The free holiday parking incentive appeared to have diminished some of the negative sentiment regarding parking restrictions and cost expressed during the first round of intercept surveys in October 2015. • Merchants are grateful for the free holiday parking because they felt it encouraged shoppers to spend more time in their stores. Businesses were supportive of the City’s efforts to engage the public in expressing their opinions about local parking issues and desired improvements. • Several members of the public and business owners were interested in taking the survey themselves, as well as encouraged others (customers, friends, or family) to do the same. Because of the widespread promotion of the survey, several residents and business owners said they believe the City is taking their concerns about parking seriously and wants to find solutions for long- term improvements. Online and Text-Based Surveys Downtown area stakeholders were invited to complete an online survey or text-based survey. The online survey opened on October 9, 2015 and closed on December 31, 2015. With a total of 1,227 completed surveys. 1,218 of the surveys were completed in English while nine surveys were completed in Spanish. The text-based survey opened on October 9, 2015 and closed on December 31, 2015, with 16 text-in participants responding to at least one text question. The full English online survey results are in Appendix B; full Spanish online survey results in Appendix C; and full results of the text-based survey in Appendix D. A summary of the online and text-based survey issues, priorities, and comments indicated: • Most respondents visit Downtown because they either live or shop in the area. • Over 30 percent of participants travel to the Downtown area three or more times per week. • Approximately 64 percent of online participants stated they rarely or never visit the Downtown area due to parking that is either too expensive or too difficult to find. • Over 95 percent of online participants travel to the Downtown area by private vehicle; most respondents to the text-based survey also travel to the Downtown vicinity by private car. • Most participants park most often on-street and in public parking garages. • Most participants park for one to three hours per visit to the Downtown area. • Participants overwhelmingly park one to two blocks from their intended destinations and spend one to five minutes searching for a spot. • Over 70 percent of participants typically pay for parking, but the price of parking limits the duration of their visit. • Approximately 67 percent of online participants are sometimes or very willing to walk farther for low-cost parking. • Approximately 38 percent of online participants would not visit the Downtown area more often even if parking was either easier to find or less expensive. • Participants were split, in half, on their knowledge that several Downtown merchants offer validation for the first hour free in two public garages. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 39San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 • Over 75 percent of participants were willing to park in public parking garages more often if parking validation were offered at more businesses. • Most participants were unaware of the availability of monthly parking passes and/or Frequent Parker Cards. • On a scale of 1-6, the following factors were the most important to online participants: 1. Ability to find parking space in short amount of time 2. Proximity to destination 3. Safety 4. Cost 5. Ability to park for extended period (more than two hours at a time) 6. Ability to park for extended period (more than three hours at a time) Pop-Up Workshops Downtown area stakeholders were invited to review project exhibit boards and place colored stickers and post-it notes to indicate their priorities and comments. Three pop-up workshops were held at the Downtown Art Walk (12/11/15), Bio Marin (12/11/15), and Winter Wonderland (11/25/15) events. The full Art Walk and Bio Marin results are in Appendix E, and the full Winter Wonderland results are in Appendix F. Parking Downtown Display Board At the pop-up workshops at Downtown Art Walk, BioMarin, and Winter Wonderland, 120 participants provided responses on the parking exhibit boards. Figure 27: Pop-Up Workshop Response Summary DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 40San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Wayfinding Display Board At the pop-up workshops at Downtown Art Walk, Bio Marin, and Winter Wonderland, 31 participants provided responses on the wayfinding exhibit boards. Figures 28 through 33 illustrate the responses to different types of signage. Figure 28: Signage with simple, modest style that is easy to read Figure 29: Signage that directs driver to available parking Figure 30: Pedestrian-oriented signage to key Downtown destinations Figure 32: Signage with vibrant, colorful style that attracts the eye Figure 31: Signage directing bicyclists to key bicycle routes/ connections Figure 33: Attractive entry feature that welcomes visitors to Downtown DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 41San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 “Tell Us What You Think” Display Board At all three pop-up workshops, a blank exhibit board was provided with sticky notes for the public to write and post their comments. At the three workshops, 41 participants responded. Below is a summary of their responses: • Improve wayfinding for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. • Increase secure bike parking in the Downtown area. • Increase parking spots and garages for Downtown visitors and residents. • Parking in the Downtown area is too expensive. • Focus project efforts on reducing the traffic levels in the Downtown vicinity. • Parking in the Downtown are meets the community’s needs. • The price to park and close proximity to the intended destination are the two most salient factors with respect to Downtown parking. • Readjust the price to park in the Downtown parking lots to an on-demand structure. 3.2 Input on Draft Report and Findings Input from interested parties was provided through the process of completing the parking and wayfinding study. After the completion of the data collection, analysis, and findings, the first drafts of the study were provided to groups by the City. Comments were received in late 2016. Revisions to the first draft of this report were made based on the comments received. Groups providing input included the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Chamber of Commerce. After the report was revised, a stakeholder group was convened to provide review and input on the study findings. A series of meetings were convened by the City beginning in January 2017 to discuss each section of the report and each of the recommendations. City staff documented the meetings, including changes made to the report, initial reactions by City staff to the report recommendations, and the comments provided by the stakeholder group. In the cases of some recommendations, all three (report, City, stakeholder group) aligned. In other cases, the report recommendations are different than the initial reaction by City staff and/or the consensus of the stakeholder group. The meetings, which were typically held at three to four week intervals, resulted in improvements to the draft report and recommendations, which have been incorporated into this final report. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 42San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 4. PARK+ AND PROJECTION OF FUTURE PARKING DEMAND After collecting existing parking supply, parking demand, and land use data, a parking model in Park+, Kimley-Horn’s proprietary parking modeling software, was developed. Park+ used to model existing conditions and project future parking conditions under three different future scenarios. This section presents a summary of the Park+ scenarios, assumptions, and analysis results for the study area (shown in Figure 2), and discusses the development of four Park+ scenarios that represent the existing, near-term, long-term, and maximum development potential of the study area and the associated parking impacts. The scenarios presented in the following sections were developed based on data provided by the City and developed based on data collected in the field. The data used in this model includes: 1. Land use information – provided by the City, representing the type of land use and its intensity (e.g. 5,000 square feet [sf] restaurant or 50-unit condominium). 2. Parking information – parking data was collected in the field and consisted of parking capacity, user type, restrictions, price, and occupancy for peak hours and non-peaks conditions. To provide the most accurate representation of parking in the Downtown area, supply and demand information was assumed for lots that were not accessible during data collection. 3. User information – assumptions were made based on knowledge of the area, inventory taken during parking data collection, and conversations with the City regarding walking distances, modal split, and user behavior characteristics. These assumptions were used as input values in the model. 4. Scenario information – including ongoing and projected developments and associated parking, provided by the City. Based on this data, a calibrated base model was developed that reflects the existing parking demands and patterns. The primary output of the model calibration was the creation of custom parking generation rates. The custom parking generation rates are shown in Table 9 below. Table 9: Park+ Calibrated Generation Ratios at Peak (1PM) Land Use Type Park+ Peak Demand Rate Urban Land Institute (ULI) Parking Demand Rate Residential 0.71 spaces per dwelling unit 1.65 spaces per dwelling unit General Retail 0.77 spaces per 1,000 SF 3.60 spaces per 1,000 SF for retail Restaurant 4.5 spaces per 1,000 SF 16 -18 spaces per 1,000 SF for lounge/restaurant Office 1.5 spaces per 1,000 SF 2.80 spaces per 1,000 SF DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 43San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 34: Park+ Study Area DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 44San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 4.1 Scenario Development Using the assumptions and calibrated data presented in the previous section, the Park+ model was used to evaluate four distinct scenarios: 1. Existing Conditions – represents today’s peak conditions within the study area boundaries. 2. Near-Term Development – represents new development that is approved, under construction, or in the review process. 3. Long-Term Development – represents new planned development based on the General Plan 2020. 4. Maximum Capacity Conditions – represents where the population continues to grow in the study area, consuming the available parking supply. The following sections describe the analysis and outputs from each scenario. 4.2 Existing Conditions Scenario The existing conditions scenario was built using the land use information provided by the City and parking data that was gathered in the field. This model represents current conditions, as of August 2015. A summation of the land use intensities that were incorporated into the model is shown below. • Residential – 1,182 units • General Retail – 830,627 sf • Restaurant – 172,348 sf • Office – 1,842,474 sf • Parking Spaces – 7,827 spaces Figure 35 illustrates the parking demand in the study area associated with these land use intensities and the parking supply. The numerical results of the model are presented in Table 10, which summarizes parking demands for the Downtown Planning Study Area as a whole and available public parking. Public parking facilities are considered to be on-street parking and off-street facilities that allow for general public parking and are not restricted to specific users (e.g residents) or a particular business or land use. A downtown parking system is typically considered to be at a critical capacity at occupancies between 85 percent and 90 percent. When a large, complex system experiences occupancies greater than 85 percent to 90 percent, users can become frustrated, as it is difficult to find those remaining available spaces. The public parking within the study area experiences demands that are below the 85 percent to 90 percent threshold, and the study area, as a whole experiences even less parking demand. These results indicate that although there is a surplus of parking, the public parking facilities experience greater demands than the private facilities. Additionally, there are individual parking facilities throughout the study area that experience occupancies above 90 percent. For individual facilities, such as a parking garage, ideal occupancies can range up to 95 percent. Of the 287 facilities and on-street spaces that are available for public parking, 137 facilities experience occupancies of 90 percent or greater. Location Parking Demand Parking Supply Surplus/Deficit % Occupied Study Area 5,032 7,827 2,795 64% Public Parking 2,242 3,044 802 74% On-Street 1,082 1,439 357 75% Off-Street (Public)1,160 1,605 445 72% Table 10: Existing Conditions Parking Occupancy by Type DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 45San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 35: Existing Conditions Parking Demand DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 46San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 4.3 Near-Term Development Scenario The development included in the Near-Term scenario was provided by the City. These projects are planned, pending, under construction, or currently under review by the City. Table 11 presents the project name, number, use, and intensity. Figure 36 illustrates the location of each of these projects and Figure 37 illustrates the parking demand in the study area associated with the addition of these developments. Table 11: Near-Term Land Use Intensities Project No.Project Land Use Intensity 1 1203 Lincoln Ave Multifamily Residential 36 units 2 524 Mission Ave Multifamily Residential 15 units 3 Whistlestop - 999 3rd St project Multifamily Residential 50 units 3a Whistlestop - 999 3rd St project Senior Services 16,000 sf 4 700 3rd St General Retail 6,500 sf 4a 700 3rd St Multifamily Residential 10 units 5 San Rafael Corporate Center - Parking Garage Parking Garage 661 spaces 5a San Rafael Corporate Center - Parking Garage Expansion Parking Garage 300 spaces 6 San Rafael Corporate Center - Lincoln Ave Office 80,000 sf 7 San Rafael Corporate Center - Lindaro St Office 72,000 sf 8 PG&E - 999 3rd St Office 200,000 sf 9 1001 4th St Multifamily Residential 100 units 9a 1001 4th St Parking 100 spaces 10 809 B St /1212 + 124 2nd St Multifamily Residential 100 units 10a 809 B St /1212 + 124 2nd St General Retail 2,000 sf 12 703-723 3rd St/898 Lincoln Multifamily Residential 100 units 13 1313 Fifth Ave City Public Safety Center 44,000 sf 14 1201 Fifth Ave Office 5,000 sf 16 910 D Street (Post Office)Multifamily Residential 61 units 19 G Square (1700 4th St)Multifamily Residential 10 units 20 21 G St Multifamily Residential 8 units 20a 21 G St Parking 16 spaces DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 47San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 36: Near-Term Development Locations DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 48San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 37: Near-Term Scenario Parking Demand DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 49San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 The numerical results of the model are presented in Table 12, which summarizes parking demands for the study area as a whole and available public parking. In the near-term scenario, parking occupancies increase for both the study area as a whole and for the public parking facilities. However, the occupancies are still below the 85 percent to 90 percent threshold that is used to identify when a parking system becomes stressed, likely continuing the users experience with the similar parking conditions that exist today. With that said, there are individual parking facilities throughout the study area that experience occupancies above 90 percent. Of the 284 facilities and on-street spaces that are available for public parking 143 facilities experience occupancies of 90 percent or greater during the peak hour (1:00 pm). Additionally, Table 12 indicates that although on-street facilities are not at the threshold, they are more heavily used than other parking facilities. As the study area continues to develop, the on-street parking facilities will be the first to approach that threshold. Table 12: Near-Term Conditions Parking Occupancy by Type Location Parking Demand Parking Supply Surplus/Deficit % Occupied Change 1 Study Area Total 5,941 8,785 2,844 68%4% Public Parking 2,307 3,013 706 76%2% On-Street 1,127 1,439 312 78%3% Off-Street (Public)1,180 1,574 394 75%3% Notes: 1. Change is reflective of difference in projected occupancy between Existing and Near-Term Scenarios DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 50San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 4.4 Long-Term Development Scenario The long-term development projects were identified from the assumed growth as part of the General Plan 2020. Table 13 identifies the development land use and associated intensities incorporated into the model. Figure 38 illustrates the location of these developments. Figure 39 illustrates the parking demand in the study area associated with the addition of these developments. It should be noted that the long-term scenario is built from the near-term scenario, therefore developments that were included in the near-term scenario are also incorporated into the long-term scenario. The numerical results of the scenario are presented in Table 14, which summarizes parking demands for the study area as a whole and available public parking. Table 14: Long-Term Conditions Parking Occupancy by Type Location Parking Demand Parking Supply Surplus/Deficit % Occupied Change 1 Study Area 5,991 8,715 2,724 69%1% Public Parking 2,290 2,943 653 78%2% On-Street 1,152 1,439 287 80%2% Off-Street (Public)1,138 1,504 366 76%1% Notes: 1. Change is reflective of difference in projected occupancy between Near-Term and Long-Term Scenarios. Table 13: Long-Term Land Use Intensities Project No.Project Land Use Intensity 40 637 Mission Multifamily Residential 7 units 41 7-11/misc. B St Multifamily Residential 3 units 42 905 D St.Multifamily Residential 42 units 45 Citibank (former Metro commerce) Multifamily Residential 25 units 48 Fourth & Lincoln/D&S Auto Multifamily Residential 14 units 49 Fourth St., used car lots (retail)General Retail 5,000sf 49a Fourth St., used car lots (residential)Multifamily Residential 14 units 50 Goodwill (809 Lincoln Ave)Multifamily Residential 24 units 51 Library (1100 E St)Library 27,000sf 52 Lincoln and Third (902 Lincoln Ave)Multifamily Residential 11 units 53 Marin Color/Video Droid (898 Lincoln Ave)Multifamily Residential 54 units 55 Pac bell Lot (220 Shaver St)Multifamily Residential 29 units 58 Parking Lot by Beauty School (3rd & Cijos Lot) Multifamily Residential 16 units 59 Parking Lot by Beverly's at Lincoln (813 Fifth Ave) Multifamily Residential 6 units 60 Redwood Typewriter (902 Lincoln Ave)Multifamily Residential 9 units 62 West America Bank (1523 4th St)Multifamily Residential 48 units 63 West America Bank, 3rd/A St (1030 3rd St)Multifamily Residential 42 units 64 Zappetini Iron Works (1112 2nd St)Multifamily Residential 18 units DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 51San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 38: Long-Term Development Scenario Locations DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 52San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 39: Long-Term Scenario Parking Demand DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 53San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 In the long-term scenario, parking occupancies increase for both the study area as a whole and for the public parking facilities. However, the occupancies are still below the 85 percent to 90 percent threshold that is used to identify when a parking system becomes stressed, likely continuing the users experience with the similar parking conditions that exist today. Although on-street facilities are not at the threshold, they are more heavily used than other parking facilities. As the study area continues to develop, the on-street parking facilities will be the first to approach that threshold. Under this scenario there continue to be individual parking facilities throughout the study area that experience occupancies above 90 percent. Of the 284 facilities and on-street spaces that are available for public parking, 147 facilities experience occupancies of 90 percent or greater. Additionally, Table 12 indicates that although on-street facilities are not at the threshold, they are more heavily utilized than other parking facilities. As the study area continues to develop, the on-street parking facilities will be the first to approach that threshold. 4.5 Maximum Demand Scenario Under this scenario, it was assumed that undefined growth would continue to occur in the study area, and as such, parking facilities would be consumed by infill development. This scenario is based on the long-term scenario, incorporating the developments identified in both the near-term and long-term scenarios. Specific land uses and intensities were not identified for this scenario, but rather a population growth of 7.5 percent was assumed. In the absence of specific land use assumptions to incorporate into the model, it was assumed that parking facilities that had occupancies of 30 percent or below during the 1:00 pm peak hour would be consumed in some capacity to accommodate the growth. Therefore, those facilities were removed from this scenario, reducing the parking supply to 6,981 spaces. Under this scenario, the parking relationships for privately held parking were maintained. The intent of this scenario is to simulate increased land use intensities to the point of maximizing the capacity of the available parking supply. Figure 40 illustrates the parking demand in the study area associated with this scenario. With the reduction of 1,618 spaces, the demand generated by the study area land uses and assumed growth in population is pushed to the remaining facilities. The numerical results of the scenario are presented in Table 15, which summarizes parking demands for the study area as a whole and available public parking. Under this scenario, publicly available parking facilities are operating well above the 85 percent to 90 percent threshold. Additionally, there are facilities that remain below 50 percent occupied during the peak hour. These are primarily private facilities with restricted parking. Additionally, of the 284 facilities and on-street spaces that are available for public parking, 185 facilities experience occupancies of 90 percent or greater. With regard to land use development, the land use intensities increased to accommodate the population growth. The following is a summation of the additional land use intensities that resulted from this scenario. These values are based on the parking generation rates developed by the model for each land use type, the difference of the respective land use intensities, and the resulting demand generated. These values are hypothetical and represent the increase in land use intensities relative to the long-term scenario that would strain the projected parking supply. They do not indicate the latent capacity for additional development in the Downtown area. • Residential – 383 additional units • General Retail – 171,881 additional sf • Restaurant – 37,283 additional sf • Office – 731,199 additional sf Table 15: Maximum Demand Parking Occupancy by Type Location Parking Demand Parking Supply Surplus/Deficit % Occupied Change 1 Study Area 7,182 7,097 -85 100%31% Public Parking 2,666 2,826 160 94%16% On-Street 1,368 1,439 71 95%15% Off-Street (Public)1,298 1,387 89 94%18% Notes: 1. Change is reflective of difference in projected occupancy between Long-Term and Maximum Demand Scenarios DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 54San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 40: Maximum Demand Scenario Parking Demand DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 55San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Recommendations Based on the analysis, the following recommendations were identified: • Future Shared Parking Opportunities - Although the study area as a whole is not experiencing high demands, as the area develops the demands on the public facilities will start to approach that functional capacity threshold. The City has an opportunity at this point to start building relationships with operators and managers of privately held parking facilities in an effort to create future shared parking opportunities. • Caltrans Park & Ride - There are a handful of facilities that are experiencing occupancies greater than 90 percent in particular the Caltrans Park & Ride facilities located under Highway 101. If the Caltrans parking is occupied by the intended users of the facilities, then no action is required. Caltrans Park & Ride facilities are to be used “only by persons using a bicycle or public transit, or engaged in ridesharing…” per the California Vehicle Code. The City could seek enforcement of parking in these lots in order to make sure that they are being used as intended. • Variable Pricing to Manage Parking Demands - When a parking system is shown to consistently experience 85 percent to 90 percent occupancies, there may be cause to implement changes to the parking system to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Although the parking system within the study area as a whole is not operating at this level, there are locations throughout the study area that are. Therefore, it is recommended that the City consider dynamic pricing options to manage parking demands in areas that experience high demands. The intent of dynamic pricing is to establish prices that are appropriate for the demand in specific areas. In locations with high demand, the intent is to encourage users to either park for shorter periods of time, creating more turnover, or parking in facilities that are underutilized, distributing the demands and creating more availability in areas with high demand. The City should set the target occupancy range between 75 percent and 85 percent. The following considerations should apply: When occupancies are below 75 percent, downward rate adjustments should be considered. When occupancies are above 85 percent, upward rate adjustments should be considered. Rate adjustments should be adjusted based on how far they range from the target occupancy. Ï Occupancies between 60 percent and 75 percent and 85 percent and 90 percent should see smaller adjustments Ï Occupancies less than 60 percent and higher than 90 percent should see higher adjustments • Limiting Restricted On-Street Parking in Select Areas – Consider monitoring time limited on-street parking east of Highway 101 and on Lincoln Avenue north of Fifth Avenue; allowing for stricter enforcement of time limits if it is observed that vehicles use those spaces for SMART parking. • Limiting Unrestricted On-Street Parking in Select Areas – Consider monitoring free, unrestricted on-street parking in the Montecito, Lincoln/San Rafael Hill, and Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhoods; if it is observed that vehicles use those spaces for SMART parking, initiate dialogue with these neighborhoods about the City’s permit parking program. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 56San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 4.6 SMART Parking Demand In determining the ultimate parking demand generated by the Downtown San Rafael SMART station, ridership and mode of access projections that were produced as part of previous studies of the station were reviewed. It is anticipated that SMART will primarily be used for commuter trips; commuter trips originating at the Downtown San Rafael station are anticipated to primarily head northbound. The demand for Park & Ride spaces at the station was estimated by determining the number of passengers headed northbound on SMART who access the City’s Downtown station by car. Based on full-system projections in the 2005 SMART Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 16 percent of daily boardings at the City’s Downtown SMART station will be headed northbound, and 27 percent of daily boardings will be made by passengers who accessed the City’s Downtown station via car. When applied to ridership estimates provided in the most recent modeling update, this results in an estimated Park & Ride demand of 30 and 50 spaces for the years 2015 and 2035, respectively. Given the potential for ridership and demand to vary from what is projected, it is recommended that the City conservatively anticipate a parking demand of 30-60 spaces for the initial SMART opening. SMART-related parking demand will seek all-day parking as close as possible to the station. These vehicles are most likely to use the Caltrans Park & Ride lots. Since these lots are already at capacity, the demand for parking will spill over to the nearest parking facilities allowing all-day parking. From the perspective of the City, the most ideal locations for this demand to spill over would be the upper level of the 3rd & Lootens parking structure and the A Street Garage. These locations were observed to have surpluses of 21 and 103 all-day parking spaces. The use of a private off-street facility closer to the station would also be beneficial. It is recommended that the City initiate dialogue with private parking operators and managers to explore the potential for private parking supply to be used for SMART or SRTC parking. Outside of the above locations, there are several other less prominent locations where this parking demand could spill over. It is recommended that the City implement parking management strategies that encourage Park & Ride users to park at one of the structures mentioned above and not in the on-street spaces intended for temporary or residential use. Some demand could spill over to the free unrestricted or time-limited on-street spaces near the station. It is recommended that the City monitor these nearby time- limited spaces (located on Lincoln Avenue north of Fifth Avenue, and east of Highway 101) and strengthen enforcement if an increase in noncompliance is observed. The free unrestricted on-street spaces located nearby are located in front of residences. It is recommended that the City monitor the free, unrestricted spaces in the Montecito, Lincoln/San Rafael Hill, and Dominican/ Black Canyon neighborhoods located closest to the SMART station, and initiate discussions with these neighborhoods about the City’s residential permit policy—which allows for residents to petition for permits in their neighborhood. Currently, daytime use of these free, unrestricted on-street parking locations is not at capacity, and is below 50 percent, in many areas. This study has found that the current Downtown parking supply is not being used at full capacity; therefore, it is not recommended, at this time, that the City add additional parking supply to accommodate the initial SMART parking demand. However, it is recommended that the City pursue parking management and zoning policies (discussed in Section 5) that allow for more efficient use of the Downtown parking supply. In the long term, it is recommended that the City monitor SMART-related parking demand to determine the correct parking management strategies for future demand. Figure 41: SMART-Related Changes to On-Street Parking DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 57San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 The City is currently undertaking a study related to the SRTC/SMART station relocation. When that study is adopted by the City Council, it will include recommendations for station-specific needs. In its draft form, the study includes recommendations that will eliminate the Tamalpais Avenue on-street parking between 3rd and 4th Street. Figure 42 was taken from the draft SRTC station study and illustrates proposed changes in the area. Pending the final approval of the SRTC/SMART station report, it is recommended that time limits for on-street parking spaces near SRTC and the SMART station be increased to 10 hours to meet some of the anticipated SMART parking demand. These locations are shown in Figure 41, on the previous page, and were selected based on their close proximity to transit facilities and abutting land uses. There are currently 22 on-street spaces for which the exiting 10-hour time limit should be maintained; eight of those spaces are on Tamalpais Avenue between 3rd and 4th Street and may be eliminated as part of the SRTC/ SMART station improvements. An additional eight spaces that are recommended to be converted from two-hour time limits to 10-hour time limits. It should be noted that the spaces may not necessarily be used by only SMART riders. Based on observed occupancy data, it is estimated that of the 30 spaces supplied, 50 percent may be available for SMART users. It is also recommended that signs or information boards be placed at the transit center and SMART station to indicate that additional long-term parking is available at the 3rd & Lootens parking structure. Recommendations Based on the analysis, the following recommendations were identified: • Although the study area as a whole is not experiencing high demands, as the area develops, the demands on the public facilities start to approach that functional capacity threshold. The City has an opportunity at this point to start building relationships with operators and managers of privately held parking facilities in an effort to create shared parking opportunities in the future. • When a parking system is shown to experience 85-90% occupancies consistently, there may be cause to implement changes to the parking system to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Although the parking system within the study area as a whole is not operating at this level, there are locations throughout the study area that are. Therefore, it is recommended that the City consider dynamic pricing options to manage parking demands in areas that experience high demands. The intent of dynamic pricing is to establish prices that are appropriate for the demand in specific areas. In locations with high demand, the intent is to encourage users to either park for shorter periods of time, creating more turnover, or parking in facilities that are underutilized, distributing the demands and creating more availability in areas with high demand. The City should set the target occupancy range between 75 and 85 percent. The following considerations should apply: When occupancies are below 75 percent, downward rate adjustments should be considered. When occupancies are above 85 percent, upward rate adjustments should be considered. Rate adjustments should be adjusted based on how far they range from the target occupancy. Occupancies between 60 and 75 percent and 85 and 90 percent should see smaller adjustments Occupancies less than 60 percent and higher than 90 percent should see higher adjustments • Monitor time limited on-street parking east of Highway 101 and on Lincoln Avenue north of Fifth Avenue; consider stricter enforcement of time limits if it is observed that vehicles use those spaces for SMART parking. • Monitor free, unrestricted on-street parking in the Montecito, Lincoln/San Rafael Hill, and Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhoods; if it is observed that vehicles use those spaces for SMART parking, initiate dialogue with these neighborhoods about the City’s permit parking program. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 58San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 SAN RAFAEL TRANSIT CENTER RELOCATION STUDY Interim Transit Improvements Concept    NOT TO SCALE Remove bulb-outs and six on-street parking spaces Shift yellow centerline to the east to provide for bus turn Location of track barrier and crossing equipment Provide space for two bus bays with shelters. Requires relocation/removal of disabled and metered spaces Cijos Street Improvements Relocate bike parking Modify curb & gutter, remove four loading spaces to create curb space for three bus bays with shelters Airporters and Greyhound Modify signal to facilitate bus movements Figure 42 – SRTC/SMART Station Study Recommendations for Tamalpais Avenue DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 59San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 4.7 Establish a Rate Policy for Adjusting Rates in the Public Supply (On- and Off-Street) The purpose of the recommendation in this section is to provide City staff with the discretion and flexibility to manage the downtown parking system consistent with the guiding principles for the district. Understandably, adjusting parking rates is a controversial topic among downtown stakeholders. However, if rates are not routinely reviewed and adjusted within the context of a clear, fair, and objective policy framework, fiscal challenges or occupancy patterns may necessitate substantial increases that may be seen as reactive rather, than strategic. Best practices parking management would suggest that parking rates are adjusted periodically to assure the following: • Cover normal annual increases in operating costs of the system for which a fee is assessed (e.g., on-street meter system, off- street lot and/or garage). • Reflect space demand patterns, (e.g., using an occupancy standard as a decision-making trigger for adjusting rates, upward or downward). • Secure efficient use of parking supply. Using rate structures to encourage efficient use of all existing supply, by therefore minimizing surpluses in public off-street supply. • Provide for future need, as part of a comprehensive funding strategy. This includes normal capital planning and projected growth in the system. The City should establish formal systems within the municipal code that provide a basis for rate setting in both the on- and off- street systems. What is lacking in most jurisdictions is a routine commitment to rate evaluation at all levels (potentially including enforcement fines and fees) that objectively calibrates rates against a set standard of performance metrics. It is recommended that the City: Adopt performance metrics for rate review and adjustments into a formal operations policy. Best practices indicate two levels of analysis for determining adjustments. First: The true cost of normal operations, including supplies, operating fees, maintenance, and support, as well as the reasonable cost of financing debt. Cost recovery would be the base hourly rate plus annual/bi-annual adjustments to cover the costs of inflation within operating cost expenses. Second: Substantiate decisions to adjust rates including: • Sustained occupancies more than 85 percent. • Consistency with comparable cities. • Annually review and adjust rates for publicly owned off-street parking in accordance with established performance metrics, with emphasis on adhering to consistency with documented variations in normal operating costs. Rates could vary upward or downward based on occupancy/demand differences. • Biannually review and adjust rates for publicly owned on-street parking in accordance with adopted performance metrics. • Develop a set of comparable cities and routinely track their rate performance over time for on-street, off-street, and enforcement. • Integrate routine assessments of occupancy performance into both annual and bi-annual rate evaluations. • Adjust off-street rates annually. • Adjust on-street rates no less than every two years. Overall, it is essential that rate adjustment be viewed as a standard operating procedure within the overall parking management system; one that is data-base designed to support the fiscal health of the parking system, and not politicized. In addition, parking occupancy should be monitored with increases in fees to address concerns about shoppers going elsewhere because parking rates are perceived as being too high or that parking is cheaper or free elsewhere. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 60San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 5. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Zoning Standards implement the City’s broad goals, objectives and policies through regulation that is applied at a site-specific level. It regulates parking, land use, density and the size and placement of buildings. Zoning and regulations are often grandfathered in over many years and a desire to integrate land use and parking demand more efficiently, is typically overlooked. San Rafael is no exception. To provide a framework for “right-size” parking for the Downtown area, regulations and zoning must support the goals. Some of the goals and objectives include the promotion of alternative transportation modes, including walking and cycling. This project makes recommendations for policy reforms to correct conflicts and identify opportunities that encourage more efficient use of parking resources, through more efficient pricing, shared parking, in lieu parking options, parking resource brokerage, and other parking management techniques. The recommendations are specific to changes and/or revisions in current zoning and development standards related to parking in the City. 5.1 Approach The recommendations presented in this section are based on an understanding of key background City provided documents for the evaluation of current parking standards. Information provided included: • City’s Municipal Code, particularly Chapters 10.09 Downtown San Rafael Business Improvement District and 14.18 Parking Standards; • Parking Services website; • 2015 Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Existing Conditions Report, prepared by Kimley-Horn; • Existing Off-Street Parking Fees & Charges (provided by City staff); • Resolution No. 13643 Meter Fee Increase (provided by City staff); and • San Rafael Downtown Station Area Plan (June 4, 2012). The recommendations are to better synchronize current parking standards with current parking needs and/or future development patterns. The overall goal of good parking management is to balance the appropriate level of parking necessary to meet demand, supporting existing and new development, while enhancing and augmenting the attractiveness of non-auto options in a growing urban area. 5.2 Assessment and Recommendations – Zoning and Development Standards Recommendations for revisions and/or clarification of the City’s existing zoning and development standards related to parking in the Downtown area are outlined below. In some cases, the recommendations suggest further information gathering or discussion at the City’s leadership level. Additional consensus may be required in order to determine whether some of the recommended changes have the desired level of support. A. Adopt Clear and Strategic Guiding Principles as Formal Policies for the Operation and Management of Public Parking (14.18.010) The statement of purpose in the City’s existing code (i.e., Chapter 14.18.010) is directed at the regulation of private parking, which is a common approach in most cities. The Parking Division webpage provides a “parking perspective.” Currently, there is not a policy framework that is intended to guide and/or trigger decision-making. As such, the City’s intended role in managing existing public parking and planning for new supply in the future is unclear. Without a defined policy framework, it may be difficult to assess and approve some of the changes in other elements of the parking code recommended below. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 61San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Principles should be developed in the following topic areas and adopted as policy elements within 14.18.010. Alternately, the principles may be developed as a separate approved policy and referenced within 14.18.010. 1. City’s Primary Role and Coordination of Public Supply Organization Role of community – stakeholder input (on-going) Management of existing public supply Responsibility for new supply 2. Defining Priority Customer for On and Off-Street Systems (Public Supply) 3. Capacity Management Triggers for decision-making Shared parking Pricing New supply based on demand-driven parking rates 4. Information Systems Performance metrics, monitoring, and reporting User information 5. Integration with other modes 6. Financial viability To improve the likelihood that the intent and purpose for parking management will be carried out over time, a consensus set of principles should be incorporated into the City Code and Policy. B. Simplify Minimum Parking Requirements for the Downtown Area, as now Provided in Chapter 14.18.040 The City’s Chapter 14.18.040 is structured with over 50 different use designations for which parking is required as a condition of development. These standards may not recognize or provide for the elastic nature of parking demand in a mixed-use downtown development environment. It is recommended that parking requirements for the Downtown area be reduced from the current 50 designations to five use types for the Downtown area. This would include minimum parking standards for categories such as: 1. Residential (ownership) 2. Residential (rental) 3. Commercial/retail 4. Institutional 5. Free-standing (single use) Each of these use types would have a single minimum parking standard that would be calibrated to actual demand. In order to implement this idea, data collection and a future analysis specific to the effort would be required. In the event that the data collection and analysis shows that there is not significant differentiation between a pair of categories, such as residential, or that another category is needed, the list above will be modified. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 62San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 C. Encourage All Parking Approved Under Chapter 14.18.040 (Sections A – F) be Made Available to the Public The primary idea explained in this section is to encourage new privately owned parking be made available to the public. It is not advocating that private parking be required to be made available to the public. The form of encouragement may reside in various incentives the city may provide to private owners, including the example described. Many cities do not allow parking approved within a minimum requirement to be provided to other “non-accessory” uses, thereby limiting the sharing of parking that may be underutilized or available during evenings, weekends or events. Based on existing City policy and vision documents, encouraging shared parking within existing and new developments is a key goal to maximize parking resources to the highest degree. However, the City’s code is not clear on operating allowances and requirements that encourage existing and new parking to be shared in a manner that maximizes the use of parking that is built. A model, such as the Dana Point, California model, allows developers to choose a lower minimum requirement for commercial parking (2.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet) if they are made available to the public. If the developer will not provide parking to the public then the citywide zoning requirements for parking continue to apply (which are higher, would cost the developer significantly more, and could result in oversupply and continued vacant parking spaces). Another model, the Portland, Oregon model, simply indicates that new parking approved in the downtown area is “commercial” parking, meaning it allows it to be used/shared with any other use in the downtown area. This is at the parking owners’ discretion and does not require any further approvals from the City. It is recommended that an additional Section (G) be added to Chapter 14.18.040 that would state: “G. Operation. Parking approved under this section may be operated to serve the uses for which the parking was approved, shared with other uses within the Downtown Parking Assessment District, and/or be made available to the public.” The suggested language above includes the effect of the recommendation of this section as well as section 5.3 of this report. D. Clarify Chapter14.18.060 Section A – Downtown Parking Assessment District Currently, the code language related to the Downtown Parking Assessment District may not be clearly understood by all who read it. As outlined, Chapter14.18.060 Section A allows parking for non-residential uses in the Downtown Parking Assessment District to be “provided by the Parking Assessment District.” This is applicable for the first 1.0 floor area ratio (FAR) of the total SF of the building. This provision thereby waives minimum parking requirements for the first 1.0 FAR of new development. It is not clear whether the language “provided by the Parking Assessment District” confers an entitlement to parking for the new user (up to 1.0 FAR) within existing public (City owned) supply or that the minimum requirement for that portion of the FAR is simply waived with no further responsibility by the City. A recommendation is for the City to continue discussions in regards to the original intent of this code provision, particularly if there is interest in expanding the Downtown Parking Assessment District to other areas. An example of language could state: A. “Minimum required parking for up to 1.0 FAR of the total square footage of the building is provided by the parking assessment district is waived. “ As potential new development occurs, it is key that the City is clear with entitlement or no entitlement (waiver only). Associated with this is the idea that the boundaries of the Downtown Parking District could be expanded to adjacent blocks that have similar land use and parking characteristics as the existing district. The City could desire to move the boundaries east toward US 101 and west toward or past E Street, if there is a desire to pull those blocks into the benefits provided by the district. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 63San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 E. Clarify Chapter 14.18.080 – Parking Requirement for Reciprocal Uses With Shared Parking Facilities Chapter 14.18.080 states that when “two or more uses share a common parking area and when a significant and complementing variation in period of daily demands occurs (i.e., exclusive day and night uses), the zoning administrator may grant reductions in the total parking required through a use permit; provided, that in no instance shall the total parking required be less than would be required for any one (1) of the independent uses.” This is a good provision to have in the code as it supports and encourages shared uses in mixed use environments. However, it lacks a reference to how the shared use reduction request would be presented to the zoning administrator. For instance, through a shared use study conducted by a parking professional or transportation engineer. It is often good to leave these types of requirements open ended (therefore flexible), but there are also issues related to equity between developments where one request is approved and another denied. If a standard format is specified it can eliminate issues in the future and more shared use applications will be pursued by developers (leading to less parking built). It is recommended that current language in this provision be revised as follows: “When two (2) or more uses share a common parking area and when a significant and complementing variation in period of daily demands occurs (i.e., exclusive day and night uses), the zoning administrator may grant reductions in the total parking required through a use permit; provided, that in no instance shall the total parking required be less than would be required for whichever of any one (1) of the independent uses is greatest. The zoning administrator will base the grant of reduction on a shared parking demand study provided by the applicant and compiled by a transportation engineer or parking professional.” F. Chapter 14.18.130 – Parking Facility Dimensions Many cities size their minimum parking dimensions to standards that are more applicable to suburban surface lots where land area is not always a significant constraint on development. For instance, the City’s aisle width standards range from a minimum of 20 feet (ft.) (one-way, non-parallel) up to 26 ft. (two-way) depending on the angle of the built stall. These are very generous standards for downtown areas, particularly downtown areas where geometries and cost to build for parking garages are extremely challenging. In short, the larger the aisle width, the bigger the cost, as more concrete will be required during building. The City does also provide an allowance for reduced parking dimensions within the Downtown Parking District. Further reduction of the dimensions within the district could be considered by the Public Works Department. Many cities are moving to more urban standards for garages (in general) and downtowns (in particular). Table 14 is an example from Portland, Oregon which demonstrates a more compact urban form approach. Portland has a single minimum stall width (8 ft., 6 inches [in].), which has eliminated compact stalls. These standards have been applied since 1996 and have successfully resulted in efficient parking developments. The City could revise its dimension standards in Chapter 14.18.130 to distinguish requirements for surface lots and for parking garages, particularly for the Downtown area. A more urban standard for garage development can support more cost feasible parking. An example set of standards are provided in Table 16, is based on standards from Portland, Oregon. Minimum Parking Space and Aisel Dimensions Angle (A)Width (B)Curb Length (C) One-Way Aisle Width (D) Two-Way Aisle Width (D)Stall Depth (E) 0 (Parallel)8 feet 22 feet, 6 inches 12 feet 20 feet 8 feet 30 8 feet, 6 inches 17 feet 12 feet 20 feet 15 feet 45 8 feet, 6 inches 12 feet 12 feet 20 feet 17 feet 60 8 feet, 6 inches 9 feet, 9 inches 16 feet 20 feet 17 feet, 6 inches 90 8 feet, 6 inches 8 feet, 6 inches 20 feet 20 feet 16 feet Table 16: Recommended Design Dimensions (Garage Parking Space) Example: Portland, Oregon DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 64San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 G. Design Standards (Exterior and Ground Floor) for Parking Garages Currently, there are no clear design standards for parking structures in the code (other than 14.18.160 I - Parking lot screening and landscaping). The impact of above grade parking structures can have a significant impact on the Downtown area; from circulation, pedestrian scale, architectural compatibility, and activation of the ground level. It is recommended that a code section be added in Chapter 14.18 to clearly delineate standards for the design and development of parking structures such that, where appropriate, a new structure: 1. Complements the architectural integrity of the surrounding area 2. Provides ground floor active uses on the street frontage 3. Aligns elevator/pedestrian plazas toward transit and retail 4. Provides opportunities for the parking to be used by people parking at different land uses 5. Encourages public access Garages, particularly those that leave vehicles on the ground floor can, like surface lots, deaden activity at the street level. Appropriate locations to require active ground floor uses in new parking garages are locations where there are high pedestrian volumes and/or adjacent uses have a high amount of ground floor active uses already, such as adjacent retail space. H. Amend Chapter 14.18.220 B - On-site and Remote Parking Section B of Chapter 14.18.220 limits remote parking areas to within 500 feet of the specified use. It also states that remote areas may serve more than one use, provided that the gross number of spaces available shall not be less than the combined requirements for all uses served. This language could have negative implications if the City were to pursue future shared “district” parking facilities and downplay the importance of transit, bike, and walk linkages that could extend beyond 500 feet. In Chapter 14.18.230 - Parking spaces—In lieu payments, there is no distance requirement for parking provided because of in-lieu payments which will be “located as to serve primarily the general area and class of zoning district from which the respective in-lieu payments are derived.” Also, if the idea is that shared parking can result in demand that is less than the combined requirements of all uses served (by accounting for varied peak hours); the standard as currently written encourages more parking than might be necessary. It is recommended that current language in Chapter 14.18.230 Section B be revised as follows: “B. Remote parking areas shall be located within five hundred feet (500 ft.) of the specified use and shall possess direct and convenient pedestrian access. In the Downtown area, remote parking areas shall be located within the Downtown Parking District or within 1300 feet of the specified use. Remote areas may serve more than one use, provided that the gross number of spaces available shall not be less than the combined requirements for all uses served, unless the zoning administrator grants a reduction of stalls based on a shared parking demand study provided by the applicant and compiled by a transportation engineer or parking professional.” I. Innovative Parking Solutions In discussions with the 2017 stakeholder group, there was significant interest in allowing for innovative parking solutions. There are several automated parking systems commercially available that can reduce the cost and building area needed to supply structured parking. While it does not appear that City code specifically prohibits the use of automated parking, there is a section of code that may pertain and should be modified. It is recommended that Chapter 14.18.120 (Tandem Parking Prohibition) be amended to add a further exemption to the prohibition. Additional language could take the form of: E. As a part of an automated parking system or similar mechanical parking devices DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 65San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 5.3 Off-street Parking Requirements The City currently uses a variety of methods to manage parking in the Downtown area including requirements for off-street parking to support land uses and new development. Parking regulations in the City are currently based on regional or national standards and are not calibrated to the existing inventory or the current use. The recent data collection effort in Downtown showed peak hour occupancies demonstrating underutilized off-street facilities. Parking regulations should also support the City’s goals for growth, development, and a thriving Downtown. As the City considers alternative options for parking management, the options outlined below will help San Rafael achieve goals for the future of its Downtown, including: • Continued growth in commercial and residential activity Downtown • Optimized use of existing capacity, managing for 85 percent occupancy • A safe, attractive, and well-signed Downtown parking system • A system that integrates other modes of transport • A right sized parking system, support financially feasible development • Financially sustainable parking operations Off-street parking in the City is generally underutilized, especially for private parking facilities, which may indicate that the current requirements are higher than the actual parking demand. Data from this study suggest that weekday peak hour parking demand represents just 61 percent of supply weekdays in private off-street facilities. When public lots and on-street supply are added to the demand equation; peak weekday demand raises to 66 percent of total supply. Weekend parking demand totals just 41 percent in private lots, rising to just 46 percent when public on- and off-street assets are combined. Overall, the data suggest that parking is overbuilt in the Downtown Planning Study Area. Data observations are unable to specifically link demand to the specific land uses (and their occupied building area) delineated in the City’s code section 14.18.040 - Parking requirements. Chart 14.18.040 of the code segregates nearly 90 separate land uses for which specific and unique parking minimums are stated. This is done on purpose to indicate that on an areawide basis, parking is underutilized. While some individual lots are parked at or above 85 percent occupancy, the aggregate parking supply is underparked. Given that the entire parking system is 34 percent to 39 percent overbuilt based upon aggregate assessments for demand for all uses in the Downtown Planning Study Area; it is safe to assume the existing minimum requirements for parking may be too high. This can create barriers to new commercial and residential production given the high cost of parking construction and the current market feasibilities. The City’s current system has some identified deficiencies. The following provides a description of parking management strategies and regulations, including options, based on national standards, context-sensitive standards, and market-driven standards. Parking Requirements - Options Option 1: National Standards (Status Quo) This option involves maintaining current parking standards and requirements based on national standards versus using local conditions to inform parking management. To a degree this is where the current City code is, with no policy or data links (that the consultant could find) that justify or demonstrate that the parking minimums required have any correlation to actual demand for such uses. Challenges with this option include the following: • Current standards have resulted in an over-supply of parking based on recent data collection. • Does not acknowledge actual parking demands, capacities, land use availability, and cost of parking provision in the Downtown area. Option 2: Context-Sensitive Considering the aggregate nature of parking demand and supply in the study area, the City would undertake a pilot program for five or more years to reduce all current minimum parking by the current demonstrated overbuild in the system during the weekday peak hour DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 66San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 (i.e., reduce requirements by up to 20 percent). This option would require the City to routinely monitor parking utilization to track and measure (a) the impact of new reduced minimum standards (by land use type delineated in 14.18.040) as new developments (with the lower requirement) come on-line; and (b) refine regulations using the same peak hour demand methodology to recalibrate to changing conditions and evolving behaviors. Benefits of this option include the following: • A better understanding of existing resources and how they are being used since more data is available. • Maximized efficiency of the existing parking system with a better understanding of existing demand and occupancy (though not to specific land uses). • Parking requirements that are based on actual aggregate peak hour parking demand for all uses in the Downtown area. • Understanding of future resource needs through continual monitoring. Option 3: Market-Driven The market-based approach involves allowing the market to drive parking provision. This management option allows developers to determine the amount of parking that will be provided in their development based on the demand for parking they expect, depending on the land use type. Market-driven parking management may include maximums so that the City can set a ceiling for parking built, but setting no minimum requirements for parking. Benefits of this option include: • Economic efficiency for developers since parking supply is generally built at a level of demand that considers multiple feasibility factors rather than a static pre-established minimum. • An efficient use of space/land within a building (or site) since it is less likely that unused parking spaces will be built. • Reduced barriers to development, which could result in new and more compact commercial and residential development in the Downtown area. • A parking supply that is consistent with the urban character and density of the City. • Increased parking efficiency, whereby existing underutilized supplies become more attractive as share use opportunities. It is important to note that eliminating minimum parking requirements does not mean that parking will not built (as evidenced regarding “pipeline projects”), only that the developer and the market for a specific land use can determine the most feasible, marketable, and right sized approach. Such an approach would consider requirements from financiers, the availability of supply in the existing market, marketability of the product, and market competitiveness with similar uses (internal and external competitors). A market-driven approach relies on the property owner, the developer, and the market to determine the appropriate amount of parking. Recommendation Recent data collection results that show the existing parking system is underutilized, which is an indicator of a parking code that may require more parking than is needed to feasibly support a development. It is recommended the City initiate a pilot program based on Option #2, above, in which the parking requirements for new development in the Downtown parking district are reduced by a further 20 percent from the current requirements. The pilot program should last for a sufficient period of time, such as five years, to allow for new development to be approved and built with the reduced parking requirements. If there is sufficient development activity during the pilot program, the effect of the reduction should be monitored. Based on the findings, the reductions could be discontinued, continued, or enhanced. Parking standards could then be periodically refined and incrementally adjusted through data updates to facilitate a right sized code. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 67San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 5.4 Shared Parking The documented surplus of off-street parking in the Downtown area indicates that a shared use parking program should be actively pursued by the City and the Downtown Business Association. Recommendation Identify off-street shared-use opportunities based on data from the 2016 parking study and pursue share use agreements. • Establish a Business-to-Business and Business-to City outreach and communications partnership on parking issues, education and planning; a Customer First Partnership with the City’s BID. • Establish a program for narrowing surplus sites to “opportunity sites,” begin outreach to opportunity sites, negotiate agreements, and initiate program to direct targeted users (visitors/employees/residents) to shared use facilities. • Ensure that there are no code limitations to sharing existing parking for non-accessory uses. Observed data demonstrate that there are significant surpluses of parking in the existing off-street parking system, in both the public and the private parking supplies. Table 17 provides a summary of this finding. As the table indicates, there are 5,082 parking stalls located in off-street facilities in the Downtown vicinity. Of this total, 3,785 stalls (75 percent) are located in privately owned parking facilities; publicly owned facilities total 1,297 stalls (25 percent). At the weekday peak hour, there are approximately 1,807 stalls that are empty and unused.1 Of this total 1,465 stalls (81 percent) are located in private facilities. This pattern repeats itself on Saturday, when the surplus of unused off-street parking grows to 3,020 stalls of which 2,249 (75 percent) are in private control. The ability to capture these stalls, to direct new and future parking demand into existing supply versus building additional supply, will create efficiencies in current operations of parking and development costs associated with new land uses. The large parking surplus in private control indicates that the solution requires private participation and partnership. In other words, all partners in parking should be investing in solving Downtown’s parking issues. The solution to parking demand cannot be solved only in the public supply or by the City alone. Shared Parking Traditionally, parking management allocates the use of a given parking space to a specific land use on a single site. However, this single use parking system does not allow for use of these spaces when they are not occupied. Shared parking is a parking management tool that attempts to allow for more efficient use of parking spaces, by allowing them to serve two or more land uses. By taking advantage of underused parking spaces already built, shared parking can reduce the number of spaces necessary to meet demand for a given land use, parcel, or area; reducing the amount of land and accompanying cost necessary to supply parking. This reduction can create a variety of benefits for development, business interests, and urban design and communities, including: • Allows existing development to redeploy underutilized parking spaces to serve/benefit a larger community of users within a neighborhood/business district. • Allows new developments the flexibility to reach parking demand in the most cost-effective way without adding new, extraneous parking stalls to their community in excess of needed capacity. • Provide more opportunities for parking groups to meet their needs. • Allows for the flexible management of a parking supply, which leads to greater efficiency in the supply and reduces overall demand for parking in new development. • Can provide economic incentives to owners of underused supply (i.e., monthly, daily, weekend, evening, and event pricing). Example Programs Shared parking programs in various cities have had success in capturing unused supply in private facilities. For instance, the City of Seattle, Washington initiated e-park in partnership with the Downtown Seattle Association (DSA). e-park directs visitor parking into 12 privately owned parking garages in Seattle’s downtown, that were identified (through data collection efforts) as having significant 1 If this supply had to be replaced with structured parking, assumed at a cost of $32,000 per stall, the value of these unused spaces is approximately $57.8 million. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 68San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 surpluses of parking. For the most part, these 12 garages were originally sites serving single site office towers focused on tenant employee parking. The City of Seattle, in concert with the DSA: a. Catalogued opportunity sites (facilities with surpluses). b. Conducted peer-to-peer outreach to building/parking owners.2 c. Negotiated shared use agreements with willing partners. d. Developed protocols for tracking, reporting, and marketing the program. A key foundation piece of the e-park program is its branding and marketing component. The e-park logo is incorporated into entry/ exit plazas at all participating sites and is supported with a marketing and communications program support by both the City of Seattle and the DSA. The cities of Ashland, Gresham, Salem, and Oregon City, Oregon initiated shared use parking programs using a Customer First approach. The focus of these programs was to transition downtown employees (who were monopolizing on-street parking) into off- street facilities. Each of these cities: a. Conducted extensive data collection efforts to identify potential surpluses of parking in the off-street supply (generally public sector/city led). b. Engaged the downtown business associations to lead in outreach, communications, and education of potential private sector partners.3 c. Based on data efforts, developed a short list of opportunity sites and identified target owners. d. Established a target goal for the number of downtown employees to transition into opportunity sites. e. Initiated outreach to owners of private lots. f. Negotiated shared use agreements. g. Obtained agreements from downtown businesses to participate in employee assignment program. h. Created and sustained marketing and communications programs to support on-going awareness of the program.4 A key to each of the Oregon examples is the cataloguing of sites and a filtering process to determine which sites are actually “opportunity sites.” A recent example is Ashland, Oregon, whose parking plan was just adopted in 2016, launching in 2017. In advance of their 2017 plan launch, Ashland and its Chamber of Commerce identified 51 downtown parking sites with parking surpluses. They have begun a “filtering” process that examines each of the 51 parking sites; intending to narrow the number of sites to a manageable list of sites with a high probability of success. 2 Peer-to-peer outreach involves joint efforts between the City of Seattle and the DSA to make contact with private parking supply owners and negotiate shared use agreements. Having the DSA in a “lead” role in this process has proven highly beneficial as the outreach is based in the downtown business association’s vision for downtown, emphasizing a business based partnership for parking in the downtown. The program began with seven facilities and has now grown to 12. 3 Gresham and Oregon City both have active Main Street Associations. Salem partnered with the downtown Business Improvement District. Ashland has engaged with its downtown Chamber of Commerce and is launching its program in 2017. 4 See Attachment A Off-Street Supply Supply Weekday Peak Period (1PM - 3PM)Saturday Peak Period (1PM - 3PM) Occupancy (Spaces) Occupancy (%)Surplus Occupancy (Spaces) Occupancy (%)Surplus Public Garages/Lots 1,297 955 74%342 526 41%771 Private Lots 3,785 2,320 61%1,465 1,536 41%2,249 Total Off-Street Supply (Study Area)5,082 3,275 64%1,807 2,062 41%3,020 Table 17: Summary of Off-Street Occupancy (San Rafael, CA) DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 69San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 The filter looks at each site for: • Reasonable availability of supply – only sites with 25 or more stalls of surplus are considered an opportunity. • Proximity – only sites that are within 750 feet of key visitor and employment uses are considered (focused on a reasonable walk to a user’s intended destination).5 • Condition of site – all filtered opportunity sites are then evaluated for quality of lighting, pedestrian connectivity, pavement condition, striping, and potential for signage. Sites that are lacking in these areas would have plans for improving conditions created, if the property owner becomes a willing participant in the shared use program.6 Applicability to San Rafael (Opportunities and Challenges) The documented availability of off-street parking creates a compelling case for initiating a shared use program in the City. Key elements of such a program will require: Opportunities: 1. Data: The City has a very current database of information regarding surpluses of parking and its location. 2. The Downtown San Rafael Business Improvement District: As inferred earlier in this discussion, the most successful shared use programs are tied to broader downtown visions embraced by the business community through their business associations. Cities are a necessary partner to the vision, but the outcome of the vision is greater economic growth and vitality within a district, a private sector benefit. This relationship places parking as a community resource that should not only benefit the owner of the parking (and his/her tenants and customers), but the entire downtown, as well. As such, a foundation piece for a successful shared use program is a peer-to-peer communication of the purpose, value, and desired outcome of shared parking; something best led by the business community. The willingness of the City’s BID to initiate a public private partnership (P3) with the City to structure and implement a shared parking program project in the Downtown area presents itself as a key opportunity for capturing this supply. 3. Potential system efficiencies: Cities that have been successful in capturing unused parking supplies have seen that success correlated into financial benefits to parking owners and reductions in parking need for new development. Challenges 4. Code: Many cities do not allow parking approved within a minimum requirement to be provided to other “non-accessory” uses, thereby limiting sharing of parking that may be underutilized. Based on existing City policy and vision documents, encouraging shared parking within existing and new developments is a key goal, intended to maximize parking resources to the highest degree. However, the code is not clear on operating allowances and requirements that encourage existing and new parking to be shared in a manner that maximizes the use of parking that is built. 5 Sites outside this “walk corridor” are not necessarily eliminated from the list if they are currently, or planned to be, linked to transit/shuttle connections. 6 A shared use program in Kirkland, Washington created an incentive fund that was offered to private sector participants to fund lot improvements (lighting, signage, etc.). Ashland is considering such incentives. The Seattle e-park program provides all signage to the parking owners at no cost, as well as other incentives (software upgrades, façade improvements) in return for program participation. Customer First Example (Salem, Oregon) DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 70San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 It is recommended that an additional sub-section (G) be added to 14.18.040 that would state: “G. Operation. Parking approved under this section may be operated to serve the uses for which the parking was approved, shared with other uses within the Downtown Parking Assessment District, and/or be made available to the public.” Code and policy should be very clear that shared use arrangements are both encouraged and allowed. The recommended language above includes the effect of the recommendation described in this section as well as section 5.2.C of this report. 5. Time: A shared use program, intended to match those needing parking to parking that is underutilized, requires on-going outreach and management. Many cities establish shared use policies and code provisions that support those policies and code. But the approach is a “set it and forget it” format; lacking communications, outreach, on-going data collection, management, and marketing. To be successful, the City will need a program framework that is not in place at this time. Examples from other cities described herein provide a template for success and the partnership with the business community that will be necessary. All examples involve the investment of time and resources by project partners. 6. Education: Convincing potential partners to share parking requires outreach and education. Reluctance to share parking can hinge on questions related to reliability, safety, maintenance, and cleanliness, and not seeing the overall benefit of shared parking for an owner and the broader downtown. A shared use program in the City will need to have outreach materials prepared that answer these questions, sell the program, and encourage owners of surplus supply to participate. Again, this highlights the important role of a P3 with the Downtown BID. 7. On-going marketing and communications: Once implemented, shared use programs are generally tied into broader marketing and communications programs that support public on- and off-street parking systems. Marketing and communications need to be sustained, managed and funded. Key components of such programs include: Property owner outreach and education. Employee education program(s). Maps and other visitor communications materials to identify parking availability and “rules of use.” Parking/visitor information kiosks. Co-marketing opportunities with retail shops, hotels, restaurants, event venues. Alternative mode education and incentives. Interactive website(s). Tying all information to new brand/logo for public and shared use facilities. 8. Routine data collection/performance measurement: On-going data collection will be necessary to update system performance and document impacts of a shared use program (and other elements of a larger parking management plan). The Downtown area has a significant amount of unused parking located in off-street parking facilities. The combined weekday total of unused parking at the peak hour is 1,807 stalls. If considered in the context of replacement value, these stalls represent nearly $58 million of parking. Given this, it is incumbent upon the City to work with the business community to identify how much of this parking could be captured to provide parking for both existing and new businesses/developments in the Downtown area. Utilizing these spaces can result in a more efficient parking system (getting the right car to the right stall); provide revenue value to parking owners and lower long-term parking development costs. Capturing the benefit of these stalls will not be a simple task. Shared use programs in other cities are time consuming, organized, strategic, and involve near-term and on-going investment of resources. Initiating a shared use program in the City is highly recommended because the long-term benefit potential is high. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 71San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 5.5 SUMMARY The list of recommendations provided in this section were developed within the context of a thorough policy, strategy, and code review. These revisions will result in policy and code that is more in line with industry best practices and supportive of existing planning that calls for compact urban development, more efficient parking, shared uses, and encouragement of alternative modes. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 72San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 6. BICYCLE PARKING This section focuses on the assessment of the existing bicycle infrastructure related to parking and describes: • Existing bicycle parking facilities; • Planned bicycle parking facilities; • Current bicycle parking requirements; and • Recommendations to improve bicycle connectivity and parking facilities. A well-connected bicycle network will reduce the distance bicyclists must travel to reach their destinations. Such a network has many connections, direct and convenient routing, few dead-ends, and minimal physical barriers. Gaps in bicycle infrastructure (paths, lanes, access, and bicycle parking) can be a psychological or literal barrier to biking and walking. Connecting bicycle facilities to transit is very important to making transit as attractive as possible. Strategies to improve bicycle connectivity include: • Making sure bicycle facilities are constructed as a matter of course through a Complete Streets Policy. • Prioritizing access to transit. • Providing safe and secure bicycle parking and storage, on-site in private developments and in public spaces. • Improving the proximity of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to the Downtown area. It is important to identify visible and safe routes to housing centers, job centers, and transit hubs, while addressing gaps and obstacles to form a unified system. Wayfinding for bicycles is presented in Section 8 in this document. 6.1 Existing Bicycle Facilities An inventory of bicycle parking facilities was taken on January 6th, 2016. Bicycle parking was observed within the Downtown Planning Study Area and at Dominican University. The following data was collected as part of the survey: • Location; • Classification; • Class I: long-term, secure parking facilities such as lockers, cages, and bicycle stations; • Class II: short-term parking facilities such as racks; • Capacity; and • Condition (good/fair/poor) A total of 278 bicycle parking spaces were observed at 76 different facilities within the study area. Figure 44, on page 74, illustrates the location of these parking facilities with a 200-foot ft. buffer to approximate a one-minute walking distance. The majority of these facilities are single inverted U-shaped racks located along 4th Street. Most facilities were Class II, with the exception of bike lockers located in the Caltrans Park & Ride Lot. Full bicycle parking inventory data is provided in the Appendix. When judging facilities’ conditions, a rating of “good” (no visible damage or problems), “fair” (some damage, but still usable and secure), or “poor” (unusable/insecure) was provided. All facilities were rated “good” except for one rack located on 4th Street, which was rated “fair.” Cyclists prefer to park as close to their destination as possible, and will often choose to lock their bike to nearby objects (such as trees, signs, or parking meters) if a rack is not immediately available. This was confirmed in the field, where it was observed that cyclists often chose to lock their bikes to a tree or street sign directly in front of their destination instead of a bike rack across the street (see Figure 43). DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 73San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 43: Bike Parking Utilization on 4th Street DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 74San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 44: Existing Bicycle Parking Facilities 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E D U B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOOD L A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STDowntown Planning Study Area Boundary Bicycle Parking Facility (Lockers) Bicycle Parking Facility (Racks) 200-Foot Buffer LEGEND Class 1 Bike Path Class 2 Bike Lane Class 3 Bike Route City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 1: Bicycle Parking Locations DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 75San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 6.2 Planned and Proposed Bicycle Facilities The San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (2011) makes the following recommendations related to bicycle parking: • Encourage Marin County Transit to improve SRTC to include increased bicycle parking and weather-protected storage. • The addition of bicycle parking, including covered bicycle parking, according to national best practices, where feasible. • Install additional bike parking on commercial roads such as 4th Street. Explore constructing a “bicycle parking lot” near the intersection of 4th and A Streets. Add additional bike parking near the Rafael Theater. The SMART Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan makes the following recommendations related to bicycle parking: • If the Bettini Transit Center is relocated to the site east of the SMART station, consider building a bicycle parking facility shared with the SMART station. • Locate a “bike station”—an indoor facility for longer-term bike storage—in a ground floor space near the transit complex. • Consider allowing bicycle parking in lieu of some portion of required automobile parking. In addition to proposed facilities in the above planning documents, the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) conducted a feasibility study for a bike share system in January 2013. Within Downtown San Rafael, stations were proposed at SRTC Downtown, and 4th Street (west end). The study did not propose specific sites for these stations. 6.3 Current Bicycle Parking Requirements The City’s zoning code has the following requirements for bicycle parking: • Bicycle parking shall be required for all new nonresidential developments with 30 or more parking spaces, and for all public/ quasi-public uses. • Number of short-term spaces required: Five percent of the requirement for automobile parking spaces, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack. • Number of long-term spaces required: For nonresidential buildings with over (10) tenant-occupants, five percent of the requirement for automobile parking spaces, with a minimum of one space. • The number of short-term spaces required for public/quasi-public uses: To be determined by a parking study, or specified by a use permit. 6.4 Recommendations Based on a review of planned bicycle parking facilities and field observations, the following improvements are recommended. Figure 47 illustrates the locations of these recommended improvements. Parking Facilities Along 4th Street, install single inverted U-shaped bike racks in locations where they are currently not immediately accessible. The most suitable location for this is along the north side of 4th Street between Court Street and E Street. Currently, there are no facilities along this stretch of 4th Street. Although there are racks available on the south side of 4th Street, the added inconvenience of having to walk farther and cross a major street to reach one’s destination leads cyclists to instead use other objects (trees, street signs) to park their bikes. Other suitable locations include the north side of the Cijos Street/4th Street intersection, and near short-term uses on 4th Street east of Highway 101. Installation of a bicycle corral (Figure 45) on 4th Street, adjacent to City Plaza. An on-street corral will replace one on-street vehicle parking space with eight to 12 bicycle parking spaces. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 76San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Install bicycle rooms/cages (Figure 46) near SMART/SRTC and major employment centers. Bicycle cages are fenced cages or rooms that have bike racks inside and are access-controlled. They can be sized based on the allowed space, can be located inside an existing building or as a standalone structure, and are typically accessed with a cardkey or keypad. Ideal locations for this kind of facility in the City would be in the relocated transit center and in the Downtown garages (A Street or C Street) to encourage bicycle commuting to and from Downtown employers. Within the Downtown garages, existing vehicle parking spaces can be converted to a bicycle cage space by using simple fencing and an access-controlled gate. If a bicycle cage is infeasible at the relocated transit center due to space constraints, instead consider using bicycle lockers for their smaller footprint. Figure 45: On-Street Bicycle Corral Figure 46: Bicycle Cage DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 77San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Zoning Regulations Allowing for reductions in parking requirements for developers who provide bicycle parking should be considered. Many cities allow for bicycle parking to substitute motor vehicle parking up to a certain maximum. For example, the City of Portland, Oregon allows every five non-required bicycle parking spaces to reduce the motor vehicle parking requirement by one space, up to a maximum of 25 percent of required parking. Table 18 lists local and national examples of bicycle parking reductions. Requirements or incentives for showers and clothes lockers in new commercial developments to encourage bicycle commuting should be considered. Table 19 lists local and national examples of shower requirements and incentives written into local municipal codes. Table 19: Residential Bicycle Parking Requirement Examples Location Allowed Parking Reduction Maximum Allowed Reduction San Francisco, CA One Class 1 space for every two dwelling units up to 50 One Class 1 space for every four dwelling units over 50 No bicycle parking required for senior citizen or disabled housing. Group housing requires one Class 1 space for every three bedrooms Oakland, CA One Class 1 space for every four dwelling units, one Class 2 space for each 20 dwelling units Developments with private garages for each unit. Two-family dwellings or smaller Santa Monica, CA One Class 1 space per bedroom. Class 2 space requirement is 10 percent of the Class 1 requirement, with a minimum of two Class 2 spaces per project Senior citizen housing requires 0.5 Class 1 spaces per bedroom and 25 percent of Class 1 requirement for Class 2 spaces Portland, OR One and a half Class 1 spaces per dwelling unit in Central City; 1.1 spaces per unit elsewhere. One Class 2 space for every 20 dwelling units, with a minimum of two spaces per project Group living facilities require one Class 1 space per 20 residents. Dormitories require one Class 1 space per eight residents Santa Cruz, CA One Class 1 space for every dwelling unit Duplexes exempt from bicycle parking requirements Requirements or incentives for showers and clothes lockers in new commercial developments to encourage bicycle commuting should be considered. Table 16 lists local and national examples of shower requirements and incentives written into local municipal codes. Table 18: Bicycle Parking Reduction Examples Location Allowed Parking Reduction Maximum Allowed Reduction Portland, OR Every five bicycle parking spaces above requirement = one vehicle space 25 percent of vehicle parking requirement Denver, CO Every six bicycle parking spaces above requirement = one vehicle space 5 percent of vehicle parking requirement San Jose, CA Every 10 Class 2 or every five Class 1 spaces above requirement = one vehicle space 10 percent of vehicle parking requirement or two vehicle spaces, whichever is less Santa Monica, CA Every five bicycle parking spaces above requirement = one vehicle space 15 percent of vehicle parking requirement Oakland, CA Every six bicycle parking spaces above requirement = one vehicle space. The additional bicycle parking provided must preserve the same proportion of long-term and short-term spaces as was required by code 5 percent of vehicle parking requirement DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 78San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Table 20: Workplace Shower Requirement Examples Location Criteria Shower Requirement Locker Requirement San Francisco, CA Medical, professional, general business offices, financial services, business and trade schools, and general business services 0-9,999 SF None None 10,000-19,999 SF 1 2 20,000-49,999 SF.2 4 50,000+ SF.4 8 Retail, personal, eating and drinking services 0-24,999SF.None None 25,000-49,999 SF.1 2 50,000-99,999 SF 2 4 100,000+ SF 4 8 Oakland, CA Commercial uses with 150,000 SF of floor area or greater. All other uses exempted Minimum of two showers per gender, plus one shower per gender for each 150,000 SF above 150,000 SF Four lockers required per shower Santa Monica, CA Non-residential development 0-10,000 SF None One clothes locker for 75 percent of Class 1 parking spaces10,000-24,999 SF 1 25,000-124,999 SF 2 125,000+ SF 4 San Jose, CA Warehouse 0-84,999 SF 0 None 85,000-425,000 SF 1 425,001-635,000 SF 2 635,000+ SF Two showers, plus one shower for every 425,000 SF above 635,000 SF General Industrial 0-39,999 SF 0 40,000-200,000 SF 2 200,001-300,000 SF 3 300,000+ SF Three showers, plus one shower for each additional 200,000 SF above 300,000 SF Office, research, and development 0-29,999 SF 0 30,000-150,000 SF 2 150,001-225,000 SF 3 225,000+ SF Three showers, plus one additional shower per 150,000 SF above 225,000 SF Sunnyvale, CA Sunnyvale, CA No bicycle parking requirement; instead, parking reductions granted for showers and lockers: “The installation of employee showers and locker rooms may reduce required parking up to 3 percent of the total spaces.” DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 79San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 47: Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations 5TH AVE 4TH ST 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST LOVELL AVE5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 5TH AVE HAYES STLATHAM ST SHAVER ST2ND S T LINCOLN AVEMARINITA AVE MARINITA AVEIRWIN STGREEN WAYSTEVENS PLPROS P E C T D R RIDGE AVEUNION STPARK STJEWELL STJEWELL ST ALICE STVALENCIA AVETERRADILLO A V E LINDARO STLINDARO STLINCOLN AVERIT T E R S T F R A N C I S C O B L V D W FR A N C I S C O B L V D ETAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNWILKINS STLAUREL PLHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STE STCIJOS STCOURT STF STG STIDA STH STMISSION AVE MISSION AVE MISSION AVE AN D E R S E N D R AN D E R S E N D R JO R D A N S T LI N C O L N A V E DU B O I S S T RICE DRDE LUCA PLALBERT PARK L N WOODL A N D A V E W O O D L A N D A V EA STGRAND AVEYACHT CLUB DREMBARCADERO WAY2ND ST 3RD S T LAUREL PL PALO M A A V E PACHE C O S T CURTIS AV E HILLCREST DRRAFAEL D R GRAN D AVE JEWELL S T RAFAEL DR WA T T A V E NYE STPLUM TREE LNMAPLE S T LA VISTA WAY BEL L E A V EBELLE AVEIRWIN STIRWIN STGRAND AVEMARY STUNION STDowntown Planning Study Area Boundary Recommended Bicycle Parking Facilities: Lockers Racks Corral Racks Bicycle Cage Existing Bicycle Parking Facilities: LEGEND City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 5: Recommended Bicycle Parking Locations Bettini Transit Center Bettini Transit Center C St GarageC St Garage A St GarageA St Garage Consider bicycle cage/lockers and bike share station at SMART/SRTC Consider bike share station location Locate bicycle corral in or adjacent to City Plaza Utilize space within existing garages for potential bicycle cage(s) Consider bike share station location DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 80San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Marin County Bike Share The TAM completed a bike share feasibility study in 2013 and is considering various options to implement a bike share program in Marin County, either as part of the Bay Area Bike Share (BABS) program or as a separate system. Since that study was conducted, the BABS system has begun operations. It is operated by Motivate, in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BABS initially started out as a 700-bike pilot program, and is now planned to expand to a 7,000-bike system by 2017, with stations located in San Francisco, San Jose, and the East Bay. If the City were to participate in the BABS program, per MTC contract terms with Motivate (the private operator of the system), after the deployment of the 7,000-bike system, other cities in the MTC region that want to participate in the regional bike share system can develop a service agreement with Motivate using their own sources of funds. For a typical configuration, capital costs for bike share equipment are approximately $5,600/bike, plus $4,000 per new station for installation activities. MTC has allocated $4.5 million in funding for capital costs associated with expanding the bike share system to new communities. This funding would be distributed through MTC calls for projects. The 2013 bike share feasibility study proposed stations at the following locations: • San Rafael Transit Center: There is limited space within the existing SRTC site to accommodate bike share stations of the same size as those used in San Francisco; where sidewalk space is not available, bike share stations can be installed on-street by removing parallel parking (see Figure 48). Alternatively, smaller, more flexible bike share pods could be implemented to reduce the footprint of the station, or bicycles with wireless technology could be used. Wireless technology enables bicycles to be parked at any public rack, instead of specific bike share stations. Ideally, the bike share station would be located at or near SRTC and the Downtown SMART station, which will be located between 3rd and 4th Streets. The station should be in a location that does not require cyclists to cross automobile-oriented 3rd Street to access the Downtown area. Potential on-street locations include 4th Street between Lincoln Avenue and Hetherton Street. • Downtown San Rafael: The area around City Plaza is an ideal location for a bike share station. It is centrally located, has adequate off-street space available, and is located adjacent to a bike route on 4th Street. The station could be located either on- street or within City Plaza itself. Potential on-street locations include 4th Street adjacent to City Plaza or Court Street on the north side of City Plaza. • San Rafael 4th Street (West End): An on-street bike share station could be located on 4th Street between E and H Street. TAM is currently in discussions to implement a bike share pilot program in San Rafael, which would use smaller docking stations than those used in the BABS program. The bicycles under consideration could also be parked at any public bike rack, since they have wireless tracking technology located on the bicycle. TAM is considering installing seven to eight racks within the City. Currently, the rack locations are yet to be determined, but may include the three above locations, as discussed in the 2013 feasibility study. Additional recommended locations for bike share stations include City Hall and the BioMarin campus, to provide bike access to major employment centers. Figure 48: On-street Bay Area Bike Share station DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 81San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 7. PEDESTRIAN NETWORK All trips start and end with a pedestrian mode; whether it is from the car, bus, bike, or train to home, office, store, or movie theater. Good connectivity provides easy access to key destinations for pedestrians. Excellent connectivity actively seeks to discourage car use by making local trips easier and more pleasant by foot than by car. Connectivity affects the degree to which transportation networks such as streets, walking, and cycling paths connect people to their destinations (including intermediate destinations, such as public transport services). The good grid street system in the City allows for the ability to promote pedestrian activity. This section provides an overview of existing pedestrian infrastructure in the study area. The area was assessed through field surveys. Recommendations are made to improve the pedestrian experience and connectivity between Downtown origins and destinations, including working, shopping, dining and leisure locations, parking garages and lots, the SRTC, and the SMART station. Planned improvements have also been identified to enhance and promote pedestrian travel. The City study area includes sidewalks, crossings, and walkways which vary significantly in condition, width, and ability to establish a seamless and first-rate pedestrian experience. Wayfinding, which is integral to pedestrian mobility and connectivity, is addressed separately in Section 8. This section discusses three key areas including: • Existing pedestrian facilities assessment • Planned improvements in the study area • Recommendations for improving pedestrian connectivity 7.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities • Based on a review of the San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (2011), the SMART Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan (2012), and multiple field visits to the Downtown area , the following issues with the Downtown pedestrian network have been identified. These issues focus on connectivity between major destinations (Figure 55 illustrates the routes between these locations): • SRTC to Downtown The sidewalks on West Tamalpais Avenue between 3rd and 4th Streets are narrow, particularly on the east side of the street. Parking meters and signs also obstruct the pathway (Figure 49). Some pedestrians were observed walking in the street due to the lack of space for them to walk in both directions on the sidewalk. In addition, pavement on the west side of the street is damaged (Figure 50). Figure 49: Sidewalk on east side of Tamalpais Avenue Figure 50: Sidewalk on west side of Tamalpais Avenue DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 82San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 The intersection of Lincoln Avenue and 4th Street does not have pedestrian signal heads (Figure 51). It is anticipated that this improvement will be made as part of the RTSE project in Fall 2016. • San Rafael Corporate Center (SRCC) to SRTC The pedestrian route on the north side of 2nd Street between Tamalpais and Lincoln Avenue requires pedestrians to detour around the triangular landscape island at Ritter Street. The existing sidewalk on this route is narrow. North-south pedestrian crossings on 2nd Street at Lincoln Avenue and Tamalpais Avenue require crossing in front of five lanes of traffic. • SRCC to Downtown At the intersection of Lindaro Street and 3rd Street, there is no pedestrian crossing on the western leg of the intersection. Pedestrians were observed jaywalking at this location to avoid the time delay of making a legal crossing (Figure 52). • Caltrans Park & Ride Lots to SRTC On the east curb of Hetherton between Mission and 3rd Street, and the west curb between 3rd and 4th Street, non-standard sidewalk widths (less than 4 feet) and vegetation force pedestrians to walk uncomfortably close to vehicle traffic. There is no sidewalk on the east side of Hetherton between 2nd and 3rd Street. • Curb Ramps Generally, curb ramps in the Downtown area are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) non-compliant, except within the vicinity of SRTC (Figure 53). Standing water was observed at multiple curb ramps after rainfall (Figure 54). Some curb ramps will be replaced as part of the Regional Transportation System Enhancements (RTSE) project. These locations are located in Appendix I. Figure 51: Lincoln Avenue and 4th Street Figure 52: Jaywalking at 3rd Street and Lindaro Street Figure 53: ADA non-compliant curb ramp Figure 54: Standing water at curb ramp. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 83San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Figure 55: Pedestrian Routes Between Major Destinations DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 75San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - February 2017 Figure 56: Pedestrian Routes Between Major Destinations 101 City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Figure 7: Downtown Pedestrian Connections 5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST 3RD STLINCOLN AVELINDARO STLINCOLN AVERI T T E R S T FR A N C I S C O B L V D WTAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STCIJOS STCOURT STMISSION AV E A N D E R S E N D RA ST2ND STIRWIN ST5TH AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST 2ND ST 1ST ST TREANOR ST 1ST ST 3RD STLINCOLN AVELINDARO STLINCOLN AVERI T T E R S T FR A N C I S C O B L V D WTAMALPAIS AVETAMALPAIS AVEGARDEN LNHETHERTON STLOOTENS PLB STC STD STCIJOS STCOURT STMISSION AV E A N D E R S E N D RA ST2ND STIRWIN STSRTC/SMART to Downtown LEGEND San Rafael Corporate Center to SRTC Pedestrian Routes: Caltrans Park & Ride to SRTC San Rafael Corporate Center to Downtown Downtown Public Parking to Downtown SRTC/SMART to Canal Neighborhood Dominican University to Downtown Bettini Transit Center Bettini Transit Center SMART Station (Planned) SMART Station (Planned) San Rafael Corporate Center San Rafael Corporate Center Caltrans Park & Ride Caltrans Park & Ride C Street GarageC Street Garage 3rd & Lootens Garage 3rd & Lootens Garage 3rd & Cijos Lot3rd & Cijos Lot A Street GarageA Street Garage DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 84San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 7.2 Planned Pedestrian Improvements San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Table 21 lists the pedestrian improvements proposed in the San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (2011). Table 21: San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Proposed Pedestrian Improvements Location Issue Project Francisco Boulevard West Sidewalks are missing from SRTC to Rice Drive. Construct a sidewalk or pathway along Francisco Boulevard West, connecting the SRTC to the Mahon Creek Pathway trailhead and to Rice Drive. Grand Avenue and 2nd Street intersection On the southwest island, the traffic signal pole is directly in the accessible pedestrian path. Relocate traffic signal pole. Tamalpais Avenue at Mission Avenue Missing curb cuts at crosswalk across the southern leg of the intersection (including large median island on Tamalpais Avenue). Add curb cuts to enable better pedestrian movement, as well as ADA accessibility. Mahon Creek Path at Andersen Drive Curb cut missing at end of pathway onto Andersen Drive. Add curb cut to provide better pedestrian movement, as well as ADA accessibility. Access on Mission Avenue from the Library/City Hall to Boyd Park The sidewalk ends abruptly with steep drop-off and there is no sidewalk for the remainder of this section of the corridor. Conduct a study to find the best solution in this area. A standard concrete sidewalk may not fit in well at this location. West End and 2nd Street Long crossing distance for pedestrians from west end to 4th street with multiple crossings. On lower volume legs and crosswalks at end of West End, consider curb extensions and raised crosswalks. Also, consider pedestrian push- button actuated advance warning signs and beacons to alert motorists where visibility is limited. Reconfiguring traffic islands to shorten crossing distances should also be considered. Hetherton Street and 2nd Street Sidewalk and curb cuts are report to flood in heavy rains. This intersection is near SRTC. Improve drainage for easier mobility and safer conditions. Crossings of signalized intersections in the downtown vicinity Many intersections do not have pedestrian signal heads and others do not have “count-down” heads. Install “count-down” pedestrian signal heads at all signalized intersections. D Street (Wolfe Grade) No sidewalk on west side of the street. Work with property owners to widen, upgrade, maintain, and install sidewalks or shoulders, as feasible, on the east side of the street. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 85San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 SMART Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan The SMART Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan (2012) recommends the following pedestrian improvements: • Enhance the prominence, visibility, and safety of the 3rd Street crosswalks at Tamalpais Avenue and Hetherton Street through such avenues as widening the crosswalks to mitigate the strong desire for people to cross between the bus and rail stations. • Sidewalk widening on Tamalpais and at the intersection of 4th Street and Tamalpais, associated with the Tamalpais Avenue Complete Street concept. • Widen sidewalks along the frontages of redeveloped parcels (the redevelopment parcels included as examples in the Plan are shown). • Install additional barriers and fencing along 3rd Street between Tamalpais Avenue and Hetherton Street to prohibit jaywalking and direct pedestrians to use proper crosswalks. • Explore additional options for making West Tamalpais Avenue and Tamalpais Avenue between Mission Avenue and 2nd Street more inviting for pedestrians and transit riders. One possibility is to explore the feasibility of creating a multi-use path along the street that integrates with the proposed landscape treatment of the SMART right-of-way and East Tamalpais. Feasibility of this concept requires resolution of safety concerns for bicyclists, due to the closely spaced intersections and frequent curb cuts, as well as right-of-way and property access considerations. • Explore the potential for constructing a new sidewalk between 2nd and 3rd along the east curb of Hetherton Street and widening the existing sidewalks from 3rd Street to Mission Avenue. This will require coordination with Caltrans and the Marin Municipal Water District because the right-of-way is located within their jurisdiction. Also, a small parking lot located between 2nd Street and 3rd Street would need to be reconfigured to accommodate the new sidewalk segment. • If the Bettini Transit Center is relocated to the site east of the SMART station, make sure that improvements include safe and direct connections along the sidewalks between the SMART station platforms and the relocated bus platforms (on the 3rd Street and 4th Street frontages). • Install pedestrian wayfinding signage to highlight recommended pedestrian routes from the transit center to other destinations in the plan area and study area, including landmarks such as the Mission San Rafael Arcángel, City Hall, the 4th Street commercial corridor, the SRCC, the San Rafael Canal, and the surrounding neighborhoods. Wayfinding signage should be in accordance with the City’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan. • Explore the potential for improving the pedestrian experience at the five east-west crossings under Highway 101. Improvements may include lighting, public art, wayfinding signage, and improved landscaping. There is also the potential for widening the sidewalks into the existing Caltrans Park-and-Ride lots along a portion of these streets. However, this would require coordination with Caltrans as these parking lots are under their jurisdiction. A refined plan for the SRTC/SMART station is currently being developed by the City and will be subject to separate action by the City Council. New recommendations are expected to result from this 2017 study. Once adopted, any additional recommendations for the pedestrian network should be implemented. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 86San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 7.3 Recommendations Based on the review of planned pedestrian projects and in-person field observations, the following recommendations for pedestrian connections between major Downtown destinations should be considered: SRTC to Downtown • Explore options to widen and repair sidewalks along West Tamalpais Avenue between 3rd and 4th Street. • Stripe limit lines separately from crosswalk striping at 3rd/ Hetherton and 3rd/Tamalpais (see Figure 56). Striping vehicle limit lines in advance of crosswalks provides a buffer between vehicles and pedestrians and improves sight lines for drivers. SRCC to Downtown • Restripe crosswalks at 2nd/Lincoln, 2nd/Lindaro, 3rd/ Lincoln, and 3rd/Lindaro to ladder-style crosswalks (Figure 57) where they are not already implemented to increase pedestrian visibility; priority should be given to the crossings in front of 3rd Street and 2nd Street traffic. • Stripe limit lines separately from crosswalk striping at 2nd/Lincoln, 2nd/Lindaro, 3rd/Lincoln, and 3rd/Lindaro (see Figure 56). Striping vehicle limit lines in advance of crosswalks provides a buffer between vehicles and pedestrians and improves sight lines for drivers. • Use warning signs or barriers to encourage crossing of 3rd Street at the intersection of 3rd Street and Lindaro Street only within the marked crosswalk. • Install curb bulb-outs where feasible to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Bulb- outs utilize space in parking lanes to extend the sidewalk further into the street. The southern leg of the 3rd/Tamalpais is an example of a location where a bulb-out has already been provided. Potential locations for this improvement include the northern leg of the 3rd/Tamalpais intersection and the southern leg of the 4th/Tamalpais intersection. Caltrans Park & Ride Lots to SRTC • Where feasible, widen sidewalks on the east side of Hetherton between Mission and 3rd Street. If this is not feasible, use signage or barriers to direct pedestrians to cross Hetherton Street and use the Puerto Suello multi-use path as a north-south connection between SRTC and Caltrans Park & Ride lots. SRCC to SRTC • Provide a pedestrian path east of the Lincoln Avenue SRCC parking garage that connects Lincoln Avenue to 2nd Street along the western bank of Mahon Creek. Figure 56: Limit Line Striped Separately from Crosswalk Figure 57: Ladder-style Crosswalk DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 87San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Pedestrian Scrambles In studying potential pedestrian network improvements, the City was interested in more information about the provision of pedestrian scramble crossings in the Downtown area. Pedestrian scrambles are intersections that stop vehicle traffic in all directions to allow for pedestrians to cross in every direction, including diagonally, across the intersection. To accommodate these movements, a separate pedestrian phase is provided for in the signal timing of the intersection. This “scramble phase” is typically introduced once or twice during a traffic signal cycle. Pedestrian scrambles are best introduced in locations where high pedestrian volumes conflict frequently with turning vehicles. They can provide safety benefits by reducing the number of conflicting movements between vehicles and pedes- trians. To determine the feasibility of introducing pedestrian scrambles in the Downtown area, the City would need to perform a traffic analysis in which a pedestrian-only phase is introduced into the traffic signal cycle. The amount of time that is needed for this phase is dependent on the size of the intersection; pedestrians will need more time to cross a larger intersection, and thus more time would need to be allocated to the pedestrian phase. The addition of a pedestrian phase at an intersection would also require the signal cycle length to be increased, which may put it out of sync with the other signals if it was coordinated with them. The required changes to area traffic signals would need to be modeled to determine what the traffic impacts of installing a pedestrian crossing. The City would then need to consider the pedestrian demand at an intersection alongside the impacts of the crossing on pedestrian delay, pedestrian safety, and vehicle delay to determine if it considers a pedestrian scramble a feasible option. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 88San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 8. WAYFINDING 8.1 INTRODUCTION Wayfinding is integral to the success of any public space. Anticipating the circulation needs of the public, providing clear direction, and dispelling confusion is a sign’s primary concern. However, through thoughtful design, signage also plays a part in shaping identity, creating neighborhood character, and expressing the values of the community. Through both the ease of access and charm, a good wayfinding program will keep visitors coming back time and again. With its rich history, unique natural features, and beautiful views, San Rafael is one of the most distinct cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. San Rafael has a diverse population of residents within its unique Downtown. Navigation into and around Downtown San Rafael is the goal of this study, which focuses on creating an identity for the Downtown area, and improving the legibility and quality of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems. Project Context The parking and wayfinding study project site is located within the Downtown District of San Rafael, in Marin County, CA. Extending from D Street on the West to Lincoln Ave on the East, and from Fifth Avenue at the North to 2nd Street at the South, the Downtown District houses many landmarks and destinations. The Downtown District contains a vibrant mix of historic and modern buildings, parks, civic buildings, dining and retail establishments, and transit hubs. Additionally, the Downtown San Rafael Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) station, anticipated to begin operations in Downtown San Rafael in late 2016, will provide a regional transportation node that will increase the numbers of commuters and visitors. Wayfinding Analysis • Outline potential wayfinding tools (signage, technology, transportation enhancements, tourism tools, etc.). • Analyze existing physical conditions (city gateways, circulation, parking, pedestrian connections, etc.). • Prioritize recommendations. Objectives: • Create and implement a user-friendly and visible navigational system that will guide visitors and residents to and from Downtown San Rafael destinations. • Market Downtown San Rafael assets, including entertainment, cultural, historical, outdoor and other venues and activities. • Support unified messaging for Downtown San Rafael that can be reflected in the Wayfinding signage and carried throughout other aspects of the City’s marketing efforts. • Enhance the success and market potential for arts, entertainment, outdoor recreation, and other tourist sectors that build on core San Rafael assets. • Direct visitors to Downtown and other destinations from San Rafael’s major arteries as well as ease their wayfinding within the Downtown core. • Anticipate the continued evolution of Downtown and other districts, including traffic pattern changes, the addition of new attractions, and increased pedestrian traffic. Philosophy: • Provide visitors and residents with a sense of place and enhanced environment. • Create a great first impression; a City that is well planned, organized, friendly, safe and caring. • Cast an image consistent with the diversity that makes the City of San Rafael a welcoming and unique destination. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 89San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 8.2 WAYFINDING STRATEGY The study considers the variety of tools that users may encounter as they navigate through Downtown San Rafael. It recommends developing an overall wayfinding scheme supported on multiple platforms, including technology, signage, print materials, online maps and smart phones. The study also addresses current signage clutter, visibility and compliance issues. The following primary issues have been identified: • Help visitors navigate to their destinations as easily as possible. • Increase the functionality of wayfinding in and around Downtown San Rafael • Develop wayfinding solutions that assist in identifying neighborhoods, business districts, key regions, and destinations. • Create a wayfinding scheme that reinforces the community’s brand and commitment to tourism, ecological living, creativity and innovation. • Coordinate all wayfinding and tourism tools, including signage, identity, and technology. • Coordinate and build consensus with the stakeholders, approving agencies and community. Information Hierarchy The development of an organized information hierarchy is an important wayfinding issue to establish prior to beginning design work. This hierarchy establishes the information a visitor receives and the sequence and priority that it will be presented in. The hierarchy is communicated when receiving directions either verbally, printed or electronically (email, website, etc.). The use of consistent and simple terminology will help support the navigational process. Gateways Gateways for this project will vary in scale and complexity based on their location, environment and purpose. Gateways can make a statement and welcome a visitor or they can simply mark the city limit. For a city like San Rafael the excitement and anticipation a visitor has when arriving can be heightened by the gateway that lets them know they have arrived at a special place. Gateways may include more than just signage. Lighting, landscaping, architectural elements, and public art can also be incorporated. Parking Parking in any urban environment is always difficult. The issue of parking within this wayfinding study is not meant to be a study in parking capacities or utilization, but it does look at the parking situation from its placement in the wayfinding hierarchy and the image the City is presenting to visitors upon their arrival. If parking is easier to find and presented in an organized manner, the city will be perceived as a friendly and caring environment that is trying to assist its visitors and residents alike. The premise of parking in a downtown environment is to direct to the front door of a destination and allow the visitor to “circle” around the adjacent streets keeping their orientation until they can find a space or parking lot. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 90San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Wayfinding Tools Creating a sense of place is at the core of this program and a successful wayfinding system will help unify the visual context of San Rafael. The elements will reflect the San Rafael brand and attitude as an active, energetic and exciting place to be. The integration of technology into the wayfinding program will reinforce the message of innovation as a core value of the City of San Rafael brand. The incorporation of these devices and applications is now expected, especially by tourists and students. No longer considered a special enhancement, these wayfinding tools are a part of everyone’s daily routine. Consideration should be given to a variety of technological wayfinding approaches suitable to be accessed by all interested visitors. End-user Technology This is the utilization of technology where information is communicated to users through the visitor’s device (smartphone, tablet or laptop). This concept does not require the City to invest in hardware or infrastructure and eliminates issues of vandalism, theft, etc. The only investment is in development and ongoing maintenance. End-user technologies include: Text Message Maps Static orientation maps (at bus shelters, kiosks or on signs) that include a “text message number”. When keyed in, the user receives a return text message with information about the destination. This can be a short message about events, hours of operation, or the best place to park. Mobile-responsive Website A mobile-responsive website provides map-based location service for a variety of categories, including things to do, events, hotels, attractions, shopping, restaurants, college campuses, hiking trails, bicycle paths, parking lots, services, emergency points and any other point of interest (POI) on or near the City of San Rafael. It also allows visitors to view and use other information about a POI like phone numbers, customer reviews, and hours of operation. Features: Mobile-responsive website services. • Allows users to find attractions, restaurants, parking lots and other services within the City of San Rafael. • Local businesses share the best deals in town in real time to make sure visitors get the best prices during their stay. • Locals and visitors alike utilize the events calendar and live entertainment schedules. • Multiple languages. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 91San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 8.3 EXISTING SIGNAGE EVALUATION The existing signage in Downtown San Rafael is simple and consistent. The main theme is drawn from the architecture of Mission San Rafael Arcangel, located at Fifth Avenue, with an arch and bell form in a neutral color scheme of black, white, and beige. With plans to revamp San Rafael’s city logo, there’s an opportunity to unify inconsistent signage, modernize existing signage, incorporate more vibrant and eye-catching color, and create a stronger hierarchy of signage ranging from grand gateways to pedestrian-scaled wayfinding maps. • City Entrance Sign: A place-making signifier for both pedestrians and vehicles. • Approach from Highway: A small sign directs vehicles from major arteries into one of Downtown’s arteries. • Parking Sign on Traffic Signal: A simple easy to read sign directs vehicles towards parking. • Sidewalk Attractions Sign: Legible by vehicles and pedestrians, directs visitors to public spaces. • Sidewalk Parking Sign: A smaller sidewalk sign directs vehicles towards parking. • Hourly Parking Sign: A brightly colored parking sign with directional arrows leads drivers to public parking. • Lightpole Parking Sign: A brightly colored public parking sign with the universal symbol for parking tells drivers they have reached a parking lot. • Business District Sign: A signifier for a subsection of San Rafael. A N D E R S E N D R E APPROACH FROM HIGHWAY CITY ENTRANCE SIGN (ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION THAT SIGN FACES) DIRECTIONAL PARKING SIGN ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK ATTRACTIONS SIGN SIDEWALK PARKING SIGN 0 125 250 500 750' NORTH 2ND ST 3RD ST 4TH ST 5TH ST MISSIO N A V E LAUREL P L BE L L E A V E ALBERT P A R K L N RI T T E R S T LINDARO STA N D E R S E N D R LI N C O L N A V E FR A N C I S C O BL V DGRAND AVEF STE STD STB STA STLOOTENS PLLINCOLN AVETAMALPAIS AVEHETHERTON AVEIRWIN STC STCIJOS ST3R D S T HOURLY PARKING SIGN E F C C C C C C C C C C C E E C E C/E G E GG LIGHTPOLE PARKING SIGN G E E E E E D D E E E EFE/F E E D E A D 101 101 BUSINESS DISTRICT SIGN H H F DC A B HG PUBLIC PARKING LOT (SHORT TERM PARKING) PLANNING STUDY BOUNDARY PUBLIC PARKING LOT (LONG/SHORT TERM PARKING) 12 MILE RADIUS OF SMART STATION PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT CALTRANS-OWNED PARK AND RIDE LOT SAN RAFAEL BANNER ONE WAY STREET TRAFFIC DIRECTION 101 HIGHWAY 101 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 92San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 E APPROACH FROM HIGHWAY CITY ENTRANCE SIGN (ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION THAT SIGN FACES) DIRECTIONAL PARKING SIGN ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK ATTRACTIONSSIGN SIDEWALK PARKING SIGN 0 125 250 500 750' NORTH HOURLY PARKING SIGN E F C C C C C C C C C C C E E C E C/E G E GG LIGHTPOLE PARKING SIGN G E E E E E D D E E E EFE/F E E D E A D 101 101 BUSINESS DISTRICT SIGN H H HG F DC AB PUBLIC PARKING LOT (SHORT TERM PARKING) PLANNING STUDY BOUNDARY PUBLIC PARKING LOT (LONG/SHORT TERM PARKING) 12 MILE RADIUS FROM SMART STATION PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE SMART STATION CALTRANS-OWNED PARK AND RIDE LOT SAN RAFAEL BANNER SIGNAGE ONE WAY STREET TRAFFIC DIRECTION 101 HIGHWAY 101 A N D E R S E N D R 2ND ST 3RD ST 4TH ST FIFTH AVE MISSIO N A V E LAUREL P L BE L L E A V E ALBERT PA R K L N RI T T E R S T LINDARO STLI N C O L N A V E FR A N C I S C O BL V DGRAND AVEF STE STD STB STA STLOOTENS PLLINCOLN AVETAMALPAIS AVEHETHERTON AVEIRWIN STC STCIJOS ST3R D S TG STH STCITY HALL LIBRARY ALBERT PARK BOYD PARK COMMUN I T Y CENTER 1ST ST LINDARO STGARDEN LNNYE STLINCOLN AVETAMALPAIS AVEFigure 58: Existing Signage Map DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 93San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 8.4 PROPOSED SIGNAGE PLACEMENT Proposed signage takes the opportunity to modify the existing scheme with modern forms and crisp, clean lines that are reflective of San Rafael’s future. The mission bell form has been updated with a sleeker form and bright colors to provide more visual contrast and aesthetic interest to residents and visitors. The signage hierarchy has been structured in size and proportion to accomplish a variety of targeted tasks. The largest form of gateway/monument signage directs people in vehicles from transportation networks into the general downtown district. Next, signs at the Street Level/Vehicular signage level direct people from highways and the new SMART station within the downtown district to destinations, landmarks, and parking. At the Pedestrian level, smaller signs then lead visitors and residents to their destinations on foot. • San Rafael Sign: Maintain the existing place- making City sign. • Downtown Gateway: Creating a sense of arrival, the gateway signs tell visitors they are entering the Downtown area. • Monument Signage: A large-scale sign directs traffic from larger arteries into Downtown, slowly scaling down the signage. • Street-Level Vehicular Signage: Updated street directional signage to direct traffic. • Street Level Parking Signage: Updated street directional signage to direct vehicular traffic to parking. • Pedestrian Level Signage: Vehicle and pedestrian scale updated directional signage and wayfinding maps. • Sidewalk Signage: Small-scale signs identify nearby destinations. • Business District Sign: Maintain the existing place-making District sign. D O W N T O W N SAN RAFAEL 3 2 4 5 DOWNTOWN GATEWAY(E) SAN RAFAEL SIGN TO REMAIN (ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION SIGN FACES) MONUMENT SIGNAGE, APPROACH FROMHIGHWAY STREET LEVEL VEHICULAR DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE STREET LEVEL PARKING SIGNAGE 0 125 250 500 750' 6 PEDESTRIAN LEVEL SIGNAGE 7 SIDEWALK SIGNAGE 1 8 (E)BUSINESS DISTRICT SIGN 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 77 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 6 101 101 4/8 4/8 4 6 5 4 1 4 4 7 6 6 7 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 NORTH PUBLIC PARKING LOT (SHORT TERM PARKING) PLANNING STUDY BOUNDARY PUBLIC PARKING LOT (LONG/SHORT TERM PARKING) 12 MILE RADIUS FROM SMART STATION PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE SMART STATION CALTRANS-OWNED PARK AND RIDE LOT SAN RAFAEL BANNER SIGNAGE ONE WAY STREET TRAFFIC DIRECTION 101 HIGHWAY 101 A N D E R S E N D R 2ND ST 3RD ST 4TH ST FIFTH AVE MISSIO N A V E LAUREL P L BE L L E A V E ALBERT P A R K L N RI T T E R S T LINDARO STLI N C O L N A V E FR A N C I S C O BL V DGRAND AVEF STE STD STB STA STLOOTENS PLLINCOLN AVETAMALPAIS AVEHETHERTON AVEIRWIN STC STCIJOS ST3R D S TG STH STCITY HALL LIBRARY ALBERT PARK BOYD PARK COMMU N I T Y CENTER 1ST ST LINDARO STGARDEN LNNYE STLINCOLN AVETAMALPAIS AVE DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 94San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL 3 2 4 5 DOWNTOWN GATEWAY(E) SAN RAFAEL SIGN TO REMAIN (ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION SIGN FACES) MONUMENT SIGNAGE,APPROACH FROMHIGHWAY STREET LEVEL VEHICULARDIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE STREET LEVEL PARKINGSIGNAGE 0 125 250 500 750' 6 PEDESTRIAN LEVELSIGNAGE 7 SIDEWALK SIGNAGE 1 8 (E)BUSINESS DISTRICT SIGN 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 77 7 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 6 6 6 101 101 4/8 4/8 4 6 5 4 1 4 4 7 6 6 7 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 NORTH PUBLIC PARKING LOT (SHORT TERM PARKING) PLANNING STUDY BOUNDARY PUBLIC PARKING LOT (LONG/SHORT TERM PARKING) 12 MILE RADIUS FROM SMART STATION PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE SMART STATION CALTRANS-OWNED PARK AND RIDE LOT SAN RAFAEL BANNER SIGNAGE ONE WAY STREET TRAFFIC DIRECTION 101 HIGHWAY 101 A N D E R S E N D R 2ND ST 3RD ST 4TH ST FIFTH AVE MISSIO N A V E LAUREL P L BE L L E A V E ALBERT P A R K L N RI T T E R S T LINDARO STLI N C O L N A V E FR A N C I S C O BL V DGRAND AVEF STE STD STB STA STLOOTENS PLLINCOLN AVETAMALPAIS AVEHETHERTON AVEIRWIN STC STCIJOS ST3R D S TG STH STCITY HALL LIBRARY ALBERT PARK BOYD PARK COMMUN I T Y CENTER 1ST ST LINDARO STGARDEN LNNYE STLINCOLN AVETAMALPAIS AVENote: Signage placement is shown conceptually. Actual sign placement to be determined in field, to be clear from obstructing accessible paths and avoid conflicts with overhead/underground utilities and tree roots/canopies. Figure 59: Proposed Signage Map DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 95San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 8.5 PROPOSED SIGNAGE GRAPHICS The parking & wayfinding study for Downtown San Rafael, CA is a step in creating an identifiable and easily-navigable Downtown district. Signage is a major part of this identity and aides in the orientation of residents and guests within the Downtown district and its surrounding context. The following is a set of examples of the signage hierarchy described above, with variations of form, color, and identity signage. These utilize several draft versions of potential city emblems provided by the client, and are meant to offer concepts for the variety of colors and shapes they offer. A ST TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN A ST A ST TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 1 A B C D 0 8 16 32 48 2 A B C D 3 A B C D gateway / monument signage DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 96San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 series 1 - round emblem DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 1A 0 4 8 16 32' DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 1A 0 4 8 16 32' DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 97San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN A ST TRANSIT PARKING SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 0 4 8 16 32' 1B pedestrian level signage DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 98San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 street level vehicular signage sidewalk signage TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN MAP A ST SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 0 2 4 8 16' 1C 1D DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 99San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 1E DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 100San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 A ST TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN A ST A ST TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 1 A B C D 0 8 16 32 48 2 A B C D 3 A B C D gateway / monument signage series 2 - rectangular emblem DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 101San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 gateway / monument signage series 2 - rectangular emblem TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 0 4 8 16 32' 2A TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 0 4 8 16 32' 2A DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 102San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN A ST TRANSIT PARKING SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 0 4 8 16 32' 2B pedestrian level signage street level vehicular signage DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 103San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 pedestrian level signage street level vehicular signage sidewalk signage TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING A ST SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 0 2 4 8 16' 2C 2D DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 104San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 2E DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 105San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 A ST TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWNTRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN A ST A ST TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING TRANSIT PARKING SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 1 A B C D 0 8 16 32 48 2 A B C D 3 A B C D gateway / monument signage DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 106San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 series 3 - stylized mission emblem TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 0 4 8 16 32' 3A DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 107San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 A ST DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 0 4 8 16 32' 3B pedestrian level signage DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 108San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 street level vehicular signage A ST TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING DOWNTOWN MAP DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN TRANSIT PARKING SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 0 2 4 8 16' 3C 3D sidewalk signage DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 109San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 3E DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 110San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 sidewalk signage, continued 8.6 MATERIAL OPTIONS Material options were carefully selected to reinforce the wayfinding theme and hierarchy. This array of materials and material combinations, each with their unique qualities and characteristics. In the following pages, several options are explored at different scales to demonstrate their visual impact and feelings they can evoke. All materials are designed for maximum durability for outdoor applications. Perforated Mesh is available in wide array of patterns and can reduce some of the visual impact of larger structures by allowing a degree of transparency. Stainless Steel is highly durable, contemporary, and compliments many types of materials easily and effectively. Frosted Glass can be customized to be any color and creates unique light effects that change with the positioning of the sun. MATERIAL PALETTE OPTION 1 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 111San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Powder-Coated Steel is a strong and durable material that can be customized to virtually any shape, size, and color. Natural Hardwood provides a sense of warmth and brings a natural element to the urban environment. Board Form Concrete marries the durability of concrete with the natural texture of wood. Corten Steel is a material that looks better and better with age and brings with it a contemporary feeling that also echoes a city’s industrial past. MATERIAL PALETTE OPTION 2 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 112San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 GATEWAY SIGNAGE Standing at over 20 feet tall, the gateway signage denotes the arrival into the Downtown district. As the initial entry point, the visitors to the Downtown district will know to look for similar colors and materials to help them with their wayfinding needs from here on. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 113San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 ELEVATION MATERIAL OPTIONS DISTRICT SIGN DISTRICT SIGN CITY LOGO WITH BACKLIGHTING CITY LOGO WITH BACKLIGHTING GATEWAY SUPPORT COLUMNS GATEWAY SUPPORT COLUMNS 24’-0”4’-0”PLAN VIEW PERFORATED MESH STAINLESS STEEL POWDER COATED STEEL CORTEN STEELBOARD FORM CONCRETE NATURAL HARDWOODFROSTED GLASS DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 114San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 MONUMENT SIGNAGE Large directional signs point visitors to the most common destinations and can be seen by both pedestrians and vehicles. Optional electronic signs can inform visitors of any special events or public service announcements that may impact circulation to their desired location. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 115San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 4’-0”7’-0” EXTRUDED DISTRICT SIGN ELECTRONIC SIGN (NON-BLINKING OR SCROLLING) CITY LOGO WITH BACKLIGHTING FLOATING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS VOLUMETRIC MONUMENT EXPANDED SIGN BASE CITY LOGO WITH BACKLIGHTING EXTRUDED DISTRICT SIGN FLOATING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS 8’-0” min.25’-0”4’-0”PERFORATED MESH STAINLESS STEEL FROSTED GLASS POWDER COATED STEEL NATURAL HARDWOODBOARD FORM CONCRETE CORTEN STEEL ELEVATION PLAN VIEW MATERIALS ELEVATION PLAN VIEW MATERIALS 1 1 1 13 3 3 3 4 4 22 2 2 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 116San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 STREET LEVEL VEHICULAR SIGNAGE The bold arrows and strong colors of the street level vehicular signs are designed for maximum legibility. Visitors who may not be familiar with the area will be able to make quick decisions, allowing them to maintain focus on the road. This will result in more efficient circulation and improved safety for vehicles and pedestrians alike. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 117San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 CITY LOGO OR UNIVERSAL PARKING SYMBOL WITH BACKLIGHTING EXTRUDED DISTRICT SIGN DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OR ELECTRONIC PARKING AVAILABILITY SIGN DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OR PARKING AVAILABILITY SIGN ANGLED SIGN BASE EXTRUDED DISTRICT SIGN16’-8”7’-6”6”4’-0” ELEVATION PLAN VIEW MATERIALS ELEVATION PLAN VIEW MATERIALS 1 1 1 13 3 2 2 2 PERFORATED MESH FROSTED GLASS POWDER COATED STEEL CORTEN STEELSTAINLESS STEEL 2 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 118San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 SIDEWALK SIGNAGE Echoing the gateway signage, the smaller-scale sidewalk signage provides clear direction while creating a sense of place. The sidewalk signage indicates locations in the immediate vicinity as well as directs vehicles to the nearest available parking. Opportunity exists to include wayfinding maps or electronic signage displaying event or community announcements. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 119San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 7’-6”18”4’-0”1’-0”CITY LOGO WITH BACKLIGHTING VOLUMETRIC SIGN BASE FLOATING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ELEVATION PLAN VIEW MATERIALS ELEVATION PLAN VIEW MATERIALS ARCHED SIGN TOP CITY LOGO WITH BACKLIGHTING ELECTRONIC SIGN (NON-BLINKING OR SCROLLING) FLOATING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OR LOCATION MAP EXPANDED SIGN BASE PERFORATED MESH STAINLESS STEEL POWDER COATED STEEL BOARD FORM CONCRETE NATURAL HARDWOODFROSTED GLASS 1 1 1 13 3 3 322 2 2 DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 120San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK SIGNAGE These smaller sidewalk signs are scaled for pedestrians and can include directions to nearby amenities, retail spaces, and restaurants in addition to City landmarks and parking. With the high level of interaction these signs have with passersby, they are built to be durable and provide separation between pedestrians and vehicles. DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 121San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 ELEVATION MATERIAL OPTIONS CITY LOGOWAYFINDING MAPWAYFINDING MAP FLAT SIGN WITH CUTOUT LETTERINGDIRECTIONAL SIGNAGESIGN BASE SIGN BASESIGN BASE 5’-6”3’-6”2’-9”1’-0”3’-9”2’-0”2’-0”2’-9” 2’-3” PLAN VIEW PERFORATED MESH STAINLESS STEEL POWDER COATED STEEL CORTEN STEELBOARD FORM CONCRETE NATURAL HARDWOODFROSTED GLASS DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 122San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 8B. Variable Message Signs (VMS) VMS are electronic signs used to provide detailed information to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Since they are electronic, the messages they display can be changed. VMS can be used to display a variety of messages, such as parking availability and pricing, congestion and incident warnings, variable speed limits, or other special information. The fact that messages on the display are changeable allows VMS to display real-time information. Some signs also have the capability to display other messages such as information regarding upcoming events and details about parking occupancy. For example, if, parking occupancy increases too close to capacity, the VMS signs can play a major role in preventing unnecessary circulation of vehicles on the Downtown street network looking for a parking space. A parking guidance system uses VMS in communication with parking facilities to guide motorists to parking garages with open spaces. As part of the wayfinding portion of this study, the City was interested in exploring the option of implementing VMS in the Downtown area. This section discusses the elements of a VMS system that need to be considered when examining the feasibility of such a system. In the context of Downtown San Rafael, VMS can provide an opportunity to simultaneously guide visitors to parking facilities, while also providing detailed parking and event information. Changeable messages enable signs to indicate whether a facility is open or full, or indicate the exact number of spaces that are available at a specific facility. VMS can either be full-matrix signs (where the entire sign is changeable), or mix–both static and changeable elements (for example, the static portion of the sign would indicate the name and direction of a specific parking facility, and the variable portion would display the number of available spaces). VMS signs require supporting infrastructure to function; communication and power lines must be connected to the sign. If access to wired communication lines is not feasible for some signs, wireless communication is an available option. In order to display the number of available parking spaces, there must be a way to count these spaces at the relevant parking garages. This information is then communicated to the VMS via a server housed in a City facility. If the revenue control equipment does not provide accurate occupancy information, detection equipment would need to be installed at garages. Detection can be done using loop detectors or overhead microwave detectors. Loop detectors are more expensive to install, but are more accurate and require less maintenance. Overhead microwave detectors are cheaper to install, but are slightly less accurate than loop detectors and are higher maintenance. In considering full-matrix VMS vs. partially static VMS, there are various advantages and disadvantages. Full-matrix signs are more expensive, but provide greater flexibility; if desired, they could also display information on special events, accidents, or detours. With full-matrix signs, community concerns may arise over the visual impact of the sign’s brightness at night. Partially static signs are cheaper, but the dynamic portions of the sign are constrained to displaying specific information. Additional features on any dynamic signage, such as coloring or scrolling, increase cost. A signage system is recommended for consideration with five proposed VMS locations: two located at the off-ramps from Highway 101, and three located on 3rd Street in advance of the 3rd & Lootens structure, the A Street Garage, and the C Street Garage. Three of these are proposed to be full-sized, partially dynamic signs (example shown in Figure 60) that indicate the number of parking spaces available in the 3rd & Lootens structure, the A Street Garage, and the C Street Garage, and include a panel providing special event information. The remaining two VMS would indicate only the number of parking spaces available in the A and C Street garages without displaying special event information (example shown in Figure 61). Figure 60: 8-ft x 4-ft VMS with special event information Figure 61: 4-ft x 6-ft VMS displaying parking information only DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 123San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 To provide accurate parking count information, loop detectors would be required at all entry and exit points of the parking structures to count vehicles entering and exiting. These detectors would communicate with a centrally located server, which would relay the information to the VMS. It is understood that loop detectors are already provided at the public parking structures. Software and hardware integration may be required for communication between the systems. Table 22 below indicates a recommended “minimum” design for VMS signs as well as lists the major elements needed for this signage program, potential signage locations, and provides estimated cost ranges for these elements. The system can also be expanded to include the smaller 4-ft x 6-ft VMS for eastbound traffic into Downtown and these signs would be installed on 4th Street and 2nd Street to indicate parking availability. Technology is also available to develop a website and smart phone application for access to real time parking information. However, these highly advanced technological systems are expensive to acquire, and have high annual operation and maintenance costs. The cost to implement a ”minimum” system with five VMS (two signs off the freeway and three smaller signs on 3rd Street for westbound traffic only) and vehicle detection at three parking facilities could range from $375,000 to $700,000. Item Description Proposed Locations Estimated Cost 8-ft x 4-ft sign with special event informationn • Single sided roadway sign indicating space availability and special events • Approximate panel dimensions: 8-ft x 4-ft • 10-ft Clearance post • 2nd Street & Irwin Street • Mission Avenue & Hetherton Street • 3rd Street & Lootens Street $50,000-$100,000 per sign Table 22: Potential VMS Signage System DOWNTOWN PARKING/ WAYFINDING STUDY FINAL REPORT 124San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Final Report - July 2017 Item Description Proposed Locations Estimated Cost 4-ft x 6-ft sign with parking information only • Single sided roadway sign indicating space availability • Approximate panel dimensions: 6-ft x 4-ft • 8-ft Clearance post • 3rd Street & A Street • 3rd Street & C Street $25,000-$45,000 per sign Vehicle detection at garage entrances • Vehicle counts can be collected via loop detectors or overhead microwave detection • 3rd & Lootens Structure, A Street Garage, C Street Garage $75,000-$150,000 Other Infrastructure Costs • Furnishing and installation of server and workstation hardware • Design, remote project management, and system commissioning • Connecting vehicle detection systems to communications lines • Centrally Located City Facility $100,000-$150,000 Total $350,000-$700,000 Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study Summary of Staff Recommendations & Community Working Group Input - October 2017 1. Introduction Key objectives of the Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study (DP/WS) are to identify existing and future parking needs of the Downtown San Rafael area in response to the opening of SMART, to provide options for a new Downtown wayfinding program, and to develop future parking management/operational strategies to maximize the future supply and use of Downtown parking. 2. Process A.Development of the plan: The DP/WS began with initial data collection in July 2015. B.Community Working Group (CWG): After the initial DP/WS draft report was issued by Kimley-Horn in 2016, a working group was convened in January 2017 to provide input and help refine the report recommendations. The CWG met monthly through October, 2017 for over 25 total hours. The group consists of: ●Jerry Belletto: Neighborhood Representative, BPAC ●Dirck Brinkerhoff: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing, local resident and commercial realtor ●Jeff Brusati: Downtown business owner (T & B Sports) ●Bill Carney: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing, Sustainable San Rafael ●Adam Dawson: Downtown business (Mike’s Bikes) ●Judy Ferguson: Forbes neighborhood resident ●Wick Polite: Developer, Seagate Properties ●Jackie Schmidt: Montecito Area Residents Association ●Roger Smith: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing ●Joanne Webster: San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Chris Squires, P.E of Kimley-Horn attended each meeting to present the recommendations and answer questions. City staff from Parking Services, Economic Development, Community Development, Public Works and the City Manager’s office also attended the meetings. These discussions resulted in refinements to the draft report and more ‘San Rafael customized’ recommendations that have been incorporated into Kimley-Horn’s Final Report (see Appendix A). C.Community Working Group Meeting Schedule: CWG Meeting Date Brief Description of Items Discussed 1)February 7, 2017 ●Background, basics of parking in San Rafael, Parking 101-Chris Squires, Kimley-Horn ●Parking Management/Pricing-time limits (especially 2-hr time limit), garage parking, downtown employee parking incentives, rates, policy for adjusting rates 2)February 28, 2017 ●City parking goals & Guiding Principles - customer satisfaction ●Rates policy recommendations: -“System to routinely review on and off-street rates based on performance metrics w/out City Council adoption of specific rates” -Pricing structure that adjusts prices upward or downward - rates ideally reviewed annually ●Increasing Saturday limit to 3 hours, meter start time of 8am ●SMART: “Monitor long-term SMART parking demand to assess future needs in the parking supply” 3)March 22, 2017 ●Marketing: Danielle O’Leary shared experience/ideas from City of Santa Rosa; include multi-modal marketing; marketing relative to Downtown merchants ●SMART outreach for Day #1 of full-schedule operation ●Garage pricing, dynamic/variable pricing, co-benefits of making Downtown more inviting - e.g. parklets, bike parking in on-street spaces ●Bike Parking & Pedestrian Network; Transit Center re-design relating to bikes/peds 4)April 18, 2017 - Zoning Part 1 ●Guiding Principles - who is our priority customer?; CAC letter ●Zoning & Development Standards: -Guiding Principles & Simplify minimum parking requirements -Approved parking for developments may be made available to the public -Expansion of parking district -Minimum required parking for up to 1.0 FAR of the total square footage of the building is waived -Parking requirement for reciprocal uses with shared parking facilities -Consider revisions to parking dimension requirements within Downtown garages -Establish design standards (exterior and ground floor) for parking garages -Allow remote parking a greater distance for uses within Downtown district -Pilot program to reduce minimum parking requirements Downtown by 20% from current levels 5)May 16, 2017 - Zoning Part 2 ●Significant recap of previous meeting: parking district expansion & what needs to be considered during the process; General Plan incorporation ●Automated parking lifts ●Report sections 5.3-5.4: Off-Street Parking Req’s & Shared parking agreements ●How will Staff & CWG package recommendations to City Council? 6)June 13, 2017 ●Wayfinding report: Concepts, Style & Variable Message Signs (VMS) ●Idea of re-purposed signage-upgrade current signs for low-cost improvement 1 ●This meeting’s top priorities: Blue P signs, signage for all modes, where else can we expand wayfinding endeavors? ●Top 2 goals for parking/marketing/wayfinding: perception & awareness ●Andrew Faulkner (AF Studio) presented prototype signs, group gave overall approval for prototypes to be installed within 30-60 days; Next steps 7)August 15, 2017 - Summary of CWG Part 1 & Marketing ●Group shared suggested edits for Summary: SMART, marketing, parking rates ●Marketing handout shared, feedback received ●Free garage parking promotions: group agreed to focus on exploration of free garage parking on Saturdays 8)October 3, 2017 - Summary of CWG Part 2 ●Group shared suggested edits for Summary doc: Zoning, Bike Parking, Ped Network ●Next steps: Send presentations timeline & final Summary doc to group 3. Kimley-Horn Recommendations Kimley-Horn’s Final Report includes a variety of recommendations for improving conditions related to parking management, zoning rules, pedestrian system, bicycle parking and signage. Particular focus was made to the area most directly impacted by the the arrival of the SMART train and the future San Rafael Transit Center relocation. Appendix B is a chart that includes all of the detailed recommendations. 4. Community Working Group and City Staff Input All recommendations in the Final Report have been reviewed by City staff from Parking Services, Community Development, Public Works, Economic Development and the City Manager’s office. In most cases, Kimley-Horn, City staff and the CWG are in alignment in supporting Kimley-Horn’s recommendations. The Final Report will serve as a supporting document of the General Plan 2040 and the recommendations agreed upon by staff and City Council will be implemented accordingly. Most of the Zoning & Development strategies require amendments to the City’s Municipal Code, and this process will be folded into the plan based on the timeframes set forth. The timeframes being used for implementation are Short-Term (0-2 years), Med-Term (2-4 years) and Long-Term (4+ years). Factors such as the economy can either speed up or slow down these timeline estimates. This document breaks down Kimley-Horn’s recommendations into high-level summaries and includes City staff input, CWG input and action items/next steps. A.Summary of Recommendations related to SMART Kimley-Horn Recommendations A.1 Change the time limit of the 8, on-street metered parking spaces on Tamalpais Ave. between 4th St. and Fifth Ave. from 2 to 10 hours. A.2 Conduct public outreach (signage, hardcopy materials and online) as the new SMART station is opening to inform the public of parking locations and programs, specifically to encourage drivers to use the long-term parking at the 3rd & Lootens parking lot. 2 CWG Input A.3 Majority of CWG agrees with the group of SMART recommendations. A.4 Several noted that northbound ridership is largely unknown, so parking and station connectivity activity should be monitored closely. A.5 Some suggested coordinating with transit agencies to share parking information and provide feeder busses to reduce parking demand. A.6 One person suggested SMART marketing also tie into general promotion of our Downtown and coming to the train station by bike, via transit or "on-foot." A.7 One person said signage needs to be clear that all-day parking at 3rd/Lootens is on the upper level and can direct drivers needing to get to upper level from lower level. A.8 Some were curious about how it could be determined if the Tamalpais Ave. on-street meters were utilized by SMART riders. City Staff Recommendations A.9 Staff agrees proactive marketing of all-day parking options will help northbound riders know where to park. A.10 Additionally, time limit and pricing information should be visible to drivers and easily accessible online. Most northbound riders will likely park near the Civic Center station since this is a free parking area. Action Items / Next Steps A.11 Completed Recommendation - The time limit of 8, on-street metered parking spaces on Tamalpais Ave. between 4th St. and Fifth Ave., have been changed from 2 to 10 hours. A.12 Additionally, Parking staff will: A.12.1 August 2017 - Conduct outreach at the SMART station during the first few weeks of operation to inform northbound travelers of parking options through a handout and potentially on-board advertisements as well as advertise on City website and social media for official full-schedule opening. Include with SMART parking info that Civic Center station has free nearby parking A.12.2 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Through in person observations, Parking staff will determine if meters are being used by SMART riders. A.12.3 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - Monitor time-limited and residential areas to determine if additional signage is needed, and will monitor meter usage near the SMART station for duration of stay for any necessary adjustments. A.12.4 Long-Term (4+ yrs) - Staff anticipates having to re-visit key recommendations as SMART ridership grows and the route extends to Larkspur. B. Summary of Recommendations related to Marketing Kimley-Horn Recommendations B.1 Consider temporary marketing and promotional programs targeted at both businesses and visitors: Make more people aware of the availability of parking and the convenience of use of the Downtown garages. 3 B.2 Implement an integrated program for outreach, information and promotion. Plan on a multi-year campaign that will improve awareness over time. CWG Input B.3 Majority of CWG agrees and supports the suggestion of comprehensive outreach to our Downtown merchants, including growing the merchant validation/incentive program, to engage the Business Improvement District (BID) in this process and prioritizing an end goal of bringing more visitors Downtown to shop and dine. B.4 Majority of CWG agrees that the City should explore free parking in the A St. and C St. garages on Saturdays. B.5 One member disagrees with free garage parking on Saturdays, and suggested focusing on the Frequent Parker program (50% off hourly rate). B.6 A few expressed it should be easier for merchants to obtain validations, and one member suggested to make merchant validations more visible at the point-of-sale, on menus for example as a catching graphic/visual. B.7 Some expressed the current parking marketing message isn't consistent. B.8 One member suggested to encourage employers to offer incentives to their employees who utilize alternate commute options (such as the program that Mike’s Bikes offers), while another member recognized it’s difficult for small businesses to provide such incentives. B.9 Many group members suggested that a "good deal” should be offered to induce "2+hour" parkers to the A St./C St. garages, e.g. Downtown employees. Some said the aesthetic and cleanliness of the garages needs to be prioritized. City Staff Recommendations B.10 Staff agrees with the marketing and outreach recommendations. These are essential to create awareness for Downtown visitors and business owners of the locations, prices and availability of parking. City staff will work toward developing incentives to aid in the marketing efforts. Staff recommends an exploration of free parking on Saturdays in the A St. & C St. garages. Action Items / Next Steps B.11 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff is collaborating together on strategies to increase knowledge of parking facilities through advertising and other media outlets, like social media and media ads. B.12 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - A primary component of this is a campaign to raise awareness of the locations of City garages and specifically direct more parkers to use the A St. & C St. garages, where there is significant capacity all day long. B.13 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - This campaign involves an exploration of new incentives for merchants Downtown and our target parking customer, and will include a multi-year implementation plan. C. Summary of Recommendations related to Rates 4 Kimley-Horn Recommendations C.1 Establish a formal system within City code that provides a basis for on-street and off-street rates to be reviewed routinely and adjusted based on a specified set of performance metrics without having City Council adopt the specific rates. C.2 Consider a pricing structure within this framework in which prices are adjusted upward or downward based on the following target metrics for the Downtown area: adjustments to reflect changes in the true cost of parking, managing the overall Downtown area to a typical peak period occupancy for public parking, of 75% to 85%, and managing individual facilities to a maximum occupancy of 95%. CWG Input C.3 Majority of CWG agrees and supports the concept of City staff, in conjunction with the City Manager, having the authority to approve rate adjustments, within specific parameters. C.4 The group made the suggestion to provide proper, advance notice to the public before making any changes. C.5 For most group members, the preferred approach seemed to be having pre-determined performance metrics/criteria to guide the process. No more than one (1) adjustment per year is reasonable to most. C.6 Some group members were in favor of looking at increasing on-street meter rates permanently, not only as part of a variable pricing structure, while some supported looking at variable pricing, e.g. on 4th St. only, during the peak period. C.7 Most members support the idea of having Parking staff manage parking time limits on a block-by-block basis. C.8 One member was concerned that ‘parkers’ would need to understand where the higher rates would be in-place and why, and then know where to park in that moment at a cheaper hourly rate. It was suggested to have mobile responsive parking rate info accessible if implementing periodic rate adjustments. City Staff Recommendations C.9 Staff agrees with establishing a formal system for rates to be reviewed routinely. Having the authority to adjust parking rates, through pre-approved metrics, will streamline the process. C.10 As a future pilot project, variable rates could be used to manage the parking supply by modifying behavior and encouraging patrons who desire to pay less, to park slightly further from their destination. Action Items / Next Steps C.11 City staff will: C.11.1 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Draft proposed code revisions in a policy that defines the criteria and authority for how rates are set, in coordination with an annual parking review. The routine review could be more frequent for on-street parking and less frequent for off-street parking. C.11.2 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff will include a public noticing process. This is supplemental to the currently required print notifications, and include posting online and social media platforms, e.g. NextDoor. 5 C.11.3 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Model supply and demand with Park+ (a parking supply/demand modeling tool), in Spring 2018. Based on the outcome of the updated demand statistics, staff will re-evaluate implementation of a variable pricing structure as a pilot project. Staff will then determine whether such a program should be implemented throughout Downtown or on certain blocks/areas. C.11.4 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Establish a monitoring schedule of Downtown conditions that establishes how the City will measure/track parking usage on an annual basis. D. Summary of Recommendations related to Time Limits Kimley-Horn Recommendations D.1 Maintain the existing 2-hour time limit for metered parking on weekdays. D.2 Monitor the free, time-limited on-street parking east of Highway 101 and on Lincoln Ave. north of Fifth Ave., as well as the unrestricted on-street parking in Montecito, Lincoln/San Rafael Hill, and Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhoods. D.3 Consider stricter enforcement of time limits, and initiate dialogue with neighborhoods about a residential permit parking program, if it is observed that vehicles use these areas for SMART parking. CWG Input D.4 The majority of the group agrees with the existing 2-hour time limit, however, a few members said some businesses believe 2 hours isn’t long enough and that customers are being cited because of this. D.5 Majority supported a conversion of eleven (11) 2-hour meters to 20-minute meters to help free-up strategic parking spaces for quick stops. D.6 The group asked to keep records of date and rationale for the meter conversion so that when a business turns over, the information is available should the parking need change. D.7 The majority of the group agrees that the City's current residential permit parking program has difficult milestones and sizeable costs and needs to be revisited. City Staff Recommendations D.8 Staff agrees with the existing 2-hour time limit. In the online user survey, most respondents said that two hours is right for our Downtown. D.9 Staff agrees that monitoring parking in neighborhoods will help determine whether residential parking permits are needed to ensure parking spaces are available for local uses, as intended; however, the implementation of a new residential parking permit program will require additional analysis and community input. Action Items / Next Steps D.10 Completed Recommendation - In Spring 2017, Parking staff and two members of the CWG identified and converted eleven (11) meters from a 2-hour to 20-minute time limit. D.11 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - In response to the discussion of meter feeding on Saturdays, each Spring, Parking staff will monitor occupancy data and perform an annual review. This will include creation of an annual work 6 plan for execution on any applicable recommendations. The next review will be in February 2018. D.12 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - In response to the discussions of monitoring demand for SMART parking, Parking staff will: D.12.1 Through observation and traffic counts, determine if identified neighborhoods are affected by SMART riders parking all-day. D.12.2 Review City’s Residential Permit Policy to determine applicability under current conditions. D.12.3 Meet with affected neighborhood groups to identify solutions, if all-day parking in neighborhoods increases due to SMART. E. Summary of Recommendations related to Enforcement Kimley-Horn Recommendations E.1 Seek enforcement of parking regulations at Caltrans Park & Ride lots. CWG Input E.2 The majority agree that if some portions of these lots are leased to private entities (e.g. French Quarter), then SMART and/or the City should consider asking for potential lease options as well. There are concerns that moving parkers out of these lots (that may not be true of Park & Ride parkers) may cause overflow into neighborhoods. City Staff Recommendations E.3 Staff does not agree with the City enforcing the parking regulations at the Park & Ride lots, however the City will explore the possibility of leasing spaces from Caltrans to provide additional parking for SMART riders/transit riders. Action Items / Next Steps E.4 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - After monitoring SMART parking demand, if necessary, City staff will develop a plan to explore leasing options in the Park & Ride lots. F. Summary of Recommendations related to Parking Supply Kimley-Horn Recommendations F.1 Develop a shared parking arrangement with owners of private parking facilities to enter into a shared parking program that is offered to the public. This includes the need to amend City code 14.18.040 to add language stating that approved parking for developments may be made available to the public and/or used to satisfy parking requirements for other developments. F.2 Initiate dialogue with operators and managers of privately held parking facilities in an effort to create shared parking opportunities in the future, such as the use of parking at San Rafael Corporate Center for SMART/SRTC parking. 7 CWG Input F.3 Majority agrees the shared parking arrangement recommendation is worthy of consideration and that the City should initiate such agreements. F.4 A few members expressed an opinion that this will not be successful here in San Rafael, while another member is concerned about situations where businesses agrees to supply public parking, and then what happens if that business is sold/closed? F.5 The Chamber of Commerce and the BID is willing to work on shared parking as a possible endeavor with City staff. City Staff Recommendations F.6 Staff agrees; a shared parking program could increase the supply of available parking and allow for future growth. This is a valuable concept to pursue, however it will be a very detailed, multi-faceted, longer-term effort in order to find feasible partnerships. A similar initiative is being undertaken for the East San Rafael Parking Study. Action Items / Next Steps F.7 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - City staff will: F.7.1 Research shared parking successes in similar-sized municipalities as well as the logistical and liability issues faced. Then, create a list of potential facilities, reach out to property owners to gauge interest, and develop agreements for shared-parking with interested parties. F.7.2 Explore ways to incentivize property owners to “open up” spaces. F.7.3 Monitor effectiveness from the East San Rafael Study. G. Summary of Recommendations related to the Pedestrian Network: Crosswalks & Sidewalks/Paths Kimley-Horn Recommendations G.1 Re-stripe limit lines separately from crosswalk striping at these intersections: 2nd/Lincoln, 2nd/Lindaro, 3rd/Lincoln, 3rd/Lindaro, 3rd/Hetherton, 3rd/Tamalpais for increased pedestrian visibility. G.2 Install warning signs or barriers in the vicinity of 3rd St. and Lindaro St to encourage crossing of 3rd St. only in the marked crosswalk. G.3 Install curb bulb-outs where feasible to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. G.4 Widen and repair sidewalks along West Tamalpais Ave between 3rd St. and 4th St. G.5 Improve pedestrian access between Caltrans Park & Ride lots and the Bettini Transit Center. G.6 Provide a pedestrian path east of Lincoln Ave. San Rafael Corporate Center parking garage that connects Lincoln Ave. to 2nd St. CWG Input G.7 The majority agree and support all pedestrian recommendations. G.8 All members are concerned about pedestrian safety and most suggested the City prioritize pedestrian safety over e.g. wayfinding or new signs. Most group members support idea of a complete assessment of Tamalpais Ave., emphasizing pedestrian safety. 8 G.9 The consultant reiterated that this wasn’t a transportation study, nor was it a safety study. The experience of pedestrians from when/where they park their cars and to their destinations is what's primarily being considered for making these recommendations. Group members understood this. Group members encouraged staff to place their suggestions and concerns in the appropriate context. G.10 Additionally, the group asked to incorporate recommendations from the future 3rd & Heatherton safety study as well as to be familiarized with the content of the 2012 SMART Station Area Plan. City Staff Recommendations G.11 Staff agrees that restriping crosswalks would improve visibility, pedestrian safety and experience. The City Traffic Engineer recommends an upgrade from the current basic transverse crosswalks to higher-visibility staggered continental crosswalks that require less maintenance. G.12 Staff recommends additional warning devices that are in compliance with MUTCD standards to discourage jaywalking across the unmarked crosswalks at 2nd and 3rd Streets. The City Traffic Engineer recommends the installation of “No Pedestrian Crossing Use Crosswalk” signs on pedestrian crossing barricades at these locations. G.13 Staff recommends shortening crosswalk lengths in areas that do not exacerbate other access issues for vehicles (emergency vehicles or other modes of travel). Bulb-outs and other improvements are being considered. G.14 Staff recommends working closely with all interested parties during design and development of the new Transit Center to incorporate wider sidewalks into the design of any improvements to enhance pedestrian safety. Action Items / Next Steps G.15 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Currently, Parking staff is working with DPW on prioritization of all pedestrian network recommendations of the DP/WS. DPW is: doing an analysis of the recommendations for safety, cost and feasibility, BPAC review, and will determine an implementation plan in conjunction with MUTCD standards. DPW and Community Development will identify opportunities for wider pedestrian areas in compliance with the City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan currently being developed. G.16 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Parking staff will participate in the development of the City’s Bicycle Pedestrian Master plan currently being developed through DPW to ensure that recommendations are aligned. G.17 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Community Development and DPW staff will confirm conditions of approval w/ BioMarin for pedestrian pathway between Lincoln Avenue and 2nd St. G.18 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Staff to coordinate with SMART to prioritize safety at intersection crossings, for bicyclists and for pedestrians as part of the transit center relocation. H. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development Standards: Parking District 9 Kimley-Horn Recommendations H.1 Modify the Downtown Parking Assessment section of the Municipal Code 14.18.060A. Consider expanding Downtown Parking district boundaries. H.2 Clarify the Downtown Parking Assessment District section of the Municipal Code 14.18.060A. Waiver of first 1.0 of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) does not imply that City facilities are intended to accommodate the waived demand. H.3 Amend Municipal Code section 14.18.040 - Add language stating that approved parking for developments may be made available to the public (and not just users of the subject land use) to encourage that all parking approved under that section be made available to the public. H.4 Revise the On-site and remote parking section of the Municipal Code 14.18.220 B - On-site and remote parking: Allow remote parking to be a greater distance for uses within the Downtown parking district CWG Input H.5 Majority of CWG agrees these are good concepts to explore and study, yet to explore with caution. H.6 Some members are concerned about the perception that surplus parking exists in the district. CWG members want it to be highlighted that the surplus primarily exists in the garages and certain private lots. Many members are concerned with the consultant’s position that there is surplus parking downtown. Many expressed that the data from this study is not sufficient to argue in favor of a surplus. H.7 One member reminded the group that the City discussed the Downtown parking district in the vision document of 2012-the Downtown Station Area Plan, and that the recommendation here aligns with that vision and should be looked at in the shorter-term. The zoning of the station area should be prioritized. H.8 Some were intrigued by an idea of a STATION AREA DISTRICT, with its own unique criteria specific to a transit center dynamic. Some agreed that land uses need to be looked at in the modeling process. H.9 Majority agrees with the suggestion to add language to the code that says approved parking for developments may be made available to the public. One group member expressed concern of potential liability that could be incurred by private lot owners, and another suggested that incentives be considered for private lot owners. H.10 Regarding on-site and remote parking, majority of CWG agrees and supports considering an even greater distance for employee parking. H.11 Some CWG members think that the City should consider pursuing a location for a parking garage in the station area as a long-term recommendation. These members asked if there is enough parking in this area to accommodate and invite future development. City Staff Recommendations H.12 Staff agrees conceptually to consider expanding the Parking District boundaries, if the City were to be able to realize the benefits that an expansion should provide. H.13 Specifically, staff agrees that we should explore the possibility of a new parking district east of Lincoln Ave. to Hetherton (contingent upon adequate parking supply becoming available, and the types of land-use we are interested in pursuing) as suggested in the Station Area Plan. This will 10 include consideration of what an expansion to the east and west of the current parking district would look like and the potential of creating mini districts. Staff agrees with CWG input that modeling of any new district will take into account unique features for that specific area and include supply & demand analysis of each area. H.14 For the short-term, Staff agrees with amending code to include language stating that approved parking may be made available to all public rather than limited to users of the specific land This will increase the supply available to the public by providing incentives to private parking facility owners. This is not to imply that the City will require this, rather may encourage it as an option. H.15 For the short-term, Staff agrees with the recommendation to allow remote parking to be a greater distance. This could be beneficial in the future if the City pursues shared “district” parking facilities, and would emphasize the importance of transit, bike, and walk linkages that could extend beyond 500 feet up to within 1300 feet of the specified use. Action Items / Next Steps H.16 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - City staff will develop and study a model, using Park+ software, of a potential new district, with distinct areas or sub-districts, (including a West-end, Middle and East-end) each having different criteria. The model will utilize current data to understand impacts of SMART at the station area, and the parking lot closure at Fifth/D St. This will also consider what an expansion to the east and west of the current parking district would look like, and include an analysis of supply & demand data of the areas of interest. After proposed district changes and criteria are established, staff will reconvene with this CWG to discuss and evaluate. H.17 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff will take steps to initiate Code language change of 14.18.060A and section 14.18.040: Develop draft code amendments, conduct outreach & bring forward for City Council consideration. H.18 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff will reach out to other cities to research similar practices to determine proper distances for all parking types. Once appropriate remote parking distances are established, City staff will take steps to initiate Code language change of 14.18.220B: Develop draft code amendments, conduct outreach & bring forward for City Council consideration. H.19 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Incorporate these parking district endeavors into the General Plan update of 2040, and map out the timeline. I. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development Standards: Parking Requirements Kimley-Horn Recommendations I.1 Clarify Municipal Code 14.18.080 – Parking requirement for reciprocal uses with shared parking facilities. I.2 Initiate a pilot program to reduce minimum parking requirements Downtown by 20% from current levels. 11 CWG Input I.3 Regarding the recommendation to “clarify parking requirement for reciprocal uses with shared parking facilities”, the CWG majority does not agree with the level of permit review recommended for this change. Some who disagreed are concerned that this would be burdensome for the permit review process and would require a consultant be hired every time a shared use reduction is on the table. Others stated that this change could be helpful in the case of disputes. I.4 Regarding a pilot program to reduce minimum parking requirements by 20%, the majority of the group agrees. The few reluctant to support the recommendation fully, were concerned about applying the standards to the entire study area and want consideration of micro areas for this recommendation (Lincoln Ave. to C St., A St. to C St. and D St. to Miracle Mile). Some members suggested that the City bypass a pilot program, and instead draft a resolution to allow projects to be submitted with 20% reductions in parking requirements. An exception would be if some developments are too large. City Staff Recommendations I.5 Staff agrees; A revision to the current language will clean up our code as it exists and encourage developers to pursue more shared use parking applications, in turn, maximizing the use of parking spaces. I.6 Staff agrees with the CWG recommendation to bypass a pilot a program to reduce minimum parking requirements by 20%, and instead align with the General plan, a resolution to allow for projects to be submitted with the 20% reduction in parking requirements with a monitoring provision. On a case-by-case basis, with multi-tenant developments, a contingency should be implemented. This provision will allow new developments in Downtown to construct less parking than previously, if that is desired, and this will help prevent the excess capacity that currently exists. Action Items / Next Steps I.7 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff will develop draft code amendments once the final Downtown Parking and Wayfinding Study is accepted by the City Council and will then bring forward the code to the Planning Commission and City Council. I.8 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - To look at a reduction of minimum parking requirements Downtown by 20%, City staff will need to identify micro areas, conduct outreach, present to City council for approval. Staff will draft a resolution allowing projects to be submitted with a 20% reduction in parking requirements with a monitoring provision. J. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development Standards: Miscellaneous Zoning Kimley-Horn Recommendations J.1 Adopt clear and strategic Guiding Principles as formal policies for the operation and management of public parking, as stated in City code chapter 14.18.010. 12 J.2 Simplify minimum parking requirements for the Downtown area, as now provided in Chapter 14.18.040. It is recommended that parking requirements for the Downtown area be reduced from the current fifty (50) designations to five (5) use types for the Downtown area. J.3 Revise 14.18.120 to add an additional exemption to tandem parking to allow for implementation of automated parking or other mechanical parking devices. J.4 Establish design standards (exterior and ground floor) for parking garages. CWG Input J.5 The CWG discussed this group of recommendations and the majority agrees. The group wants to see what specific Guiding Principles might be developed and made suggestions about what to consider: 1) to identify the City's target parking customer 2) to prioritize the integration of parking with other modes of transportation downtown. J.6 A few members were reluctant to agree with reducing the use types for the Downtown area due to concern that staff time may be required for significant data collection and analysis. J.7 Regarding the exemption to tandem parking, some members questioned costs, functionality and convenience. J.8 Only some members had opinions about establishing parking garage design standards. One group member thinks the language has value, while another group member thinks it could get in the way and/or slow down certain projects if all are subject to these design standards. City Staff Recommendations J.9 Staff agrees that adopting strategic Guiding Principles will help the City achieve its parking goals in a consistent manner and should be the first of the Zoning recommendations to implement. J.10 Staff agrees that reducing the use types for the Downtown area will simplify the application and understanding of parking rates as well as provide parking standards based on actual peak parking demand. J.11 Staff agrees that allowing for automated/mechanical parking devices will make way for innovative parking solutions that will maximize on valuable public parking space. J.12 Staff agrees conceptually with design standards for parking garages, however they should be subject to the Design review board process. This strategy would be most feasible for the Downtown if it were applied to certain streets only. For example, 3rd Street projects could benefit from ground floor retail, whereas along major commercial corridors and the areas toward parking district boundaries, this would not be beneficial. Current design guidelines do already address this topic. Future garage projects should involve a design review process with emphasis on the pedestrian experience. Action Items / Next Steps J.13 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Parking staff will work with Economic Development and Community Development to begin creation of Guiding Principles. J.14 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Consider research of past developments, and analyze how a five (5) use type/standard may have affected (for better or worse) the project process and/or the current situations. 13 J.15 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Develop draft code amendments, conduct outreach, bring forward for City Council consideration and complete municipal code amendments. J.16 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - City staff will meet to discuss this recommendation, including the alternative option (recommended by K-H), to look at current design guidelines and to identify areas lacking . Identify streets, if any, where guidelines would be advantageous, draft guidelines, conduct outreach, present to City Council for consideration. K. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development Standards: Bicycle Parking Requirements Kimley-Horn Recommendations K.1 Encourage bicycle parking for new, multi-unit residential developments. CWG Input K.2 Majority agreed that this should be discussed further. The CWG was split with their support of this recommendation. Those in favor asked about incentivizing developers as an option & maybe moreso with affordable housing developments. A few who were reluctant to support the recommendation fully were concerned with the concept of replacing car parking with bicycle parking. City Staff Recommendations K.3 Staff agrees that bike parking should be factored into multi-unit residential developments. One concern is about a higher density credit in exchange for bike parking. Thus, further analysis should occur before making a decision on this recommendation. Action Items / Next Steps K.4 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - City Staff will meet to discuss this recommendation, including the alternatives, and any potential next steps. Staff will conduct research of other cities and results of programs, survey property owners and conduct further discussions with developers. L. Summary of Recommendations related to Wayfinding Kimley-Horn Recommendations L.1 Implement the proposed signage improvements in the Downtown. L.2 Consider implementing end-user technologies, such as a mobile-responsive website or text-message maps to enhance wayfinding in the Downtown, if cost-effective. CWG Input L.3 Majority agreement was not met on any specific signage option as presented in the consultant report, however the majority supports the recommendation for updated wayfinding Downtown. 14 L.4 Majority supports pursuing the interim endeavor to refresh a group of current parking signs, and mostly agreed with the preliminary designs presented on 6/13/17 by AF Studio, a local graphic design firm that designed the newer City of San Rafael logo. L.5 Some members like the gateway concept in the K-H report, some do not. One member was very vocal that if large (gateway) signs are installed, they should not be modern. L.6 A few members agree that signs should have parking direction only – more than one “thing” on a sign becomes too busy – especially those in the high mph areas. L.7 A few members believe that our true wayfinding needs right now are limited; that people know where the transit center is and where parking is generally and believe that we should not clog up our sidewalks with signs but frequent signage directing to parking is worthwhile to pursue. L.8 A few members support the suggestion of ped-scale signs at garage entries/exits. A few members said maps on signs aren’t necessary with exception of the Transit Center signs. One member thinks that maps at the garages would be helpful. L.9 The majority of CWG members supports the recommendation to consider implementing end-user technologies, if cost-effective. Some have concerns about how safe it is to encourage drivers to use mobile devices to get around Downtown. City Staff Recommendations L.10 Staff agrees that the Downtown needs an updated wayfinding program. Staff recommends some modifications to the proposal, including additional signage. Staff has identified gaps where additional signage must be incorporated so that visitors are directed to the proper areas. In addition, staff recommends incorporating updated universal blue “P” parking signs at entrances to all parking lots and existing traffic signal-level signage. Replacements made generically on current poles/fixtures are easier to install vs. creating custom signs, per DPW. L.11 Staff agrees that technologies could improve how well visitors to Downtown know where available, convenient parking is and what the costs are to park. Improved technology will be dependent on available funding. Action Items / Next Steps L.12 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff will determine what interactive technologies are available, their cost-effectiveness and feasibility. L.13 Long-Term (4+ yrs) - Modify current plan to include new signage locations in the West End and other designated areas in compliance with DPW and MUTCD standards. AF Studio is currently developing customized signage options for an interim signage program as a cost-effective solution that will be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to implementation. L.14 Long-Term (4+ yrs) - After implementation of the interim parking signage designed by AF Studio, City staff to draft proposed Phase 2 for signage updates. This phase should incorporate group input as well as the multi-modal considerations. L.15 Long-Term (4+ yrs) - Conduct observations/analysis of static wayfinding signs (Phase 1) for effectiveness before VMS signs consideration. Explore 15 the feasibility of implementing a VMS-based parking guidance system Downtown M. Summary of Recommendations related to Bicycle Parking Kimley-Horn Recommendations M.1 Along 4th Street, install single inverted U-shaped bike racks in feasible locations where they are not currently available. New bicycle parking should not block the pedestrian movement on the sidewalks. M.2 Install a bicycle corral on 4th Street adjacent to City Plaza. M.3 Install bicycle rooms/cages near SMART/SRTC and major employment centers. M.4 Evaluate proposed bike share station locations as part of Bay Area Bike Share via TAM. Station locations are proposed at San Rafael Transit Center, City Plaza and the West End. CWG Input M.5 The majority of CWG members support the recommendation of bike racks since they would be installed on sidewalks (vs. removing car parking spaces for on-street corrals) and may be spread out along 4th St. The majority agree that bicyclists want to park near their destinations (due to lack of security) and bike racks would meet this desire. M.6 CWG members disagree with the recommendation to install a bike corral on 4th St. if it would be installed on-street. A few were in favor of on-street corrals as being appealing if they had a creative "look and feel" and if the design was a good fit for our City. Most members were concerned about using on-street parking spaces for corrals. These members don’t think they will be used since bicyclists want to park where they can see their bikes. Those in support of a corral agreed that the plaza should be the primary location (off-street) to consider since there are usually many people gathered there and could deter theft; bikes would be less vulnerable. Security is a major concern for members. Some suggested placement of additional bike parking at Lauren Place, which is also off-street. M.7 The majority of CWG members supports installing bicycle rooms/cages near SMART/SRTC and major employment centers and to consider installation at A St. or C St. garage, if financially feasible. The group also agrees with K-H’s alternative option to consider bike lockers at the relocated Transit Center, since they are highly secure, if it can be determined that they are cost-effective and would be utilized. M.8 One group member believes we should consider a policy to require developers to provide bike infrastructure near their new developments. M.9 The majority of CWG members agree with the recommendation to evaluate a Bike Share program, and that Bike Share wayfinding is important to establish for safety. 16 City Staff Recommendations M.10 Staff agrees the Downtown is in need of more bike racks placed strategically that allow for bicyclists to park as close to their destinations as possible. M.11 Staff supports the installation of a bicycle corral system pending examination of the details associated with the infrastructure installed. However a bike corral should be considered secondary to adding more bike parking options along 4th St. It’s more desirable to install smaller parking options in more distributed locations so cyclists can park as close to their destination as possible. M.12 Staff supports the installation of a secure bicycle parking area, especially for commuters. This recommendation can be further analyzed in the new Transit Center planning efforts. M.13 Staff recommends evaluating the concept of a bike share program. Bike share could improve non-automobile movement throughout the City. Action Items / Next Steps M.14 In order to plan out and implement the Bike Parking recommendations made, City staff will: M.14.1 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Research a proposal for bike racks that are secure, financially feasible and visually pleasing. M.14.2 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Work with DPW and BPAC to develop a pilot program for installation of more bike racks on 4th Street. M.14.3 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Monitor demand after additional U-shaped bike racks are installed for one-year. If demand is shown, develop cost and design options for a bicycle corral. M.14.4 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Monitor usage of bicycle racks and lockers installed by SMART; if insufficient, determine optimal locations for additional rooms/cages and develop a cost analysis. Staff to consult with BPAC on location of cages. M.14.5 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Develop a “wish list” for future Transit Center plans & design. M.14.6 Short-Term (0-2 yrs) - Meet with all interested parties including TAM to discuss Bike Share program implementation plan in anticipation of receiving grant. The grant application was submitted by TAM on 6/30/17; Plan should include Bike Share wayfinding. M.14.7 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - Work with other agencies to develop cost and design for cages in preferred location identified by the BPAC, if a bicycle cage system is deemed viable. APPENDIX C: Recommendations made that staff proposes not be implemented: Wayfinding KH recommendation Staff rationale for not implementing Group rationale for not implementing 17 Explore the feasibility of implementing a VMS-based parking guidance system in the Downtown. Staff is concerned that costs to purchase, install and maintain such a system will outweigh benefits. Staff recommends that static signs be installed during phase one and then analyzed to determine effectiveness before proceeding with VMS signs. Majority of CWG members were mostly concerned about the cost-effectiveness of these types of signs for the Downtown. Zoning & Development KH recommendation Staff rationale for not implementing Group rationale for not implementing Consider revisions to parking dimension requirements within Downtown garages Staff does not agree. Dimensions are too limiting and flexibility is already built into our code as there is an allowance for reduced dimensions. CWG members agree with staff that these dimensions are not right for San Rafael. Provide reductions in parking requirements for developers who provide bicycle parking. Staff does not agree at this time. Further study should occur before making a decision on this recommendation. Next Step: Staff will study current code and implications to modifying vs. leaving as-is. Ask ourselves-could this be coordinated with other actions to have fewer vehicles Downtown?; Incorporate into General Plan if moving forward ●A few group members were concerned with the concept of replacing car parking with bicycle parking. ●One group member urged Staff to look at current code requirements and conduct a thorough study of implications of providing reductions vs. leaving the code as-is. ●One group member believes less vehicles Downtown is a good thing (encourage more bike/ped activity) Time Limits KH recommendation Staff rationale for not implementing Group rationale for not implementing 18 On Saturday allow for meter-feeding to extend stays for an additional hour (from 2 hours to 3 hours) with the extra hour being charged at a premium rate. An appropriate premium rate may be twice the standard hourly rate. Staff does not agree. Different hourly rates for Saturdays-only will be confusing. Increasing the time limits on street will tempt employees to utilize those spaces to the detriment of visitors. It is better to develop marketing strategies to push the long term parker to the 2 garages. Majority does not agree. Some group members are concerned about confusing the public with inconsistent time limits. 19 D wnlt CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PARKING SERVICES DIVISION 1033 C STREET. SAN RAFAEL. CA 94901 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PARKING SERVICES DIVISION Shifting perceptions and bringing awareness to parking options in downtown San Rafael CREATE COLLATERAL I $8000 Develop marketing collateral with San Rafael Chamber. BID and merchants • Digital materials for online ad campaign (professionally crafted Downtown map) • Postcard handout-parking programs highlights. garage parking benefits • Garage entrance/exit signage w/ Free Weekend Parking message • Facebook ads • Small scale art for meters/lots/garages GARAGE PARKING PROMO 1$42000 Jan-2018: 6-month pilot free parking on Saturdays to bring more visitors Downtown and to utilize available pa rki ng space inA St/C St Ga rages GET SOCIAL I $1000 • Create social media presence on Instagram and Facebook • Network with businesses and create seasonal promotions to highlight parking options throughout downtown PUBLIC OUTREACH I $2500 Hire seasonal parking ambassador to connect with merchants and shoppers and promote parking programs 11/7/2016 000 Citizens Advisory Committee San Rafael, CA 94901 City of San Rafael Jim Myhers Parking Services Manager 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Mr. Myhers, Thank you for meeting with the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on September 1 to review the City's draft Parking and Wayfinding Study. The CAC subsequently discussed the draft in detail at its October 6 meeting and again at its November 3 meeting. In addition to the minutes of these meetings, the CAC thought it would be useful to summarize its primary comments on this important Shldy as follows: 1. Given the central role of the Future Demand projections, some concern was raised about the methodology used, particularly in establishing the Existing Conditions parking demands from which the projections proceed. It may be advisable to do additional sampling before moving forward with any major changes to our parking policies. Another question was what the 'Park+ Model' assumes as the split among transportation modalities used by people coming downtown, now and in the future. We suggest a clearer description of the methodology, substantiating its adequacy. More information on why 85% is considered an acceptable parking occupancy ceiling would also be helpful, since this benchmark underlies several key recommendations. 2. Assuming the Study's overall conclusion that future parking demand can be met with existing supply if that supply is proactively managed, the CAC supports the report's recommendations to strengthen such parking management, with the following comments: a. Regularized, data-based adjustment of parking rates to keep occupancies under 85% through all downtown areas, in particular the congested Station Area. It was noted that existing occupancies vary significantly by location (or even by floor, in the case of parking structures). Even though overall supply may be adequate in the aggregate, the needs in particular areas might be very different. For example, the eastern part of downtown may require additional steps. Citizens Advisory Committee o Q 0 b. Considering both operating costs and future capital needs when setting rates. The committee cautioned that the costs and benefits of various management techniques need to be considered. c. Considering parking costs in comparable cities and elsewhere in Marin when setting rates, so as to keep downtown San Rafael an attractive and convenient destination. d. Insuring that the public is included in the rate-setting process. 3. The CAC also supports the proposed Station Area management steps, including: a. Increased parking enforcement in the vicinity of the SMART station. b. Establishing residential parking districts in nearby neighborhoods-with the added recommendation that these be available at less expense to residents. c. Some additional long-term on-street spaces in the vicinity for SMART riders. d. Providing permit parking for SMART riders on the Lootens garage upper floor, if space there can be verified. e. Negotiation with Caltrans for permit parking in nearby park & ride lots. f. Negotiation with BioMarin, and others, to provide public parking in private garages. The committee believes this area will continue to be a management challenge, and these steps should be seen as an initial approach that may require modification in the face of future developments. 4. Accordingly, the CAC strongly supports revising the report to recommend expansion of the Downtown Parking District to Hetherton Street, which is a cornerstone of the Downtown Station Area Plan strategy for achieving economic vitality and pedestrian- oriented development. This would first require a projection of the amount of parking that would need to be accommodated tmder the rules pertaining to developments within the expanded area of the parking district. Then a strategy could be devised for meeting that demand by identifying or providing the necessary parking supply. Expansion of the Parking District to the east and west ends of 4 th Street should also be considered. 5. The report needs more focus, discussion and proposals on assuring adequate and affordable short-term parking for shoppers by reducing the need for long-term parking for employees and commuters, through means such as: a. Employee incentives for transit ridership and other alternative modes. b. Increased feeder bus service. c. Satellite commuter parking outside of downtown, in connection with feeder bus service. d. Provision of affordable workforce housing within walking and biking distance of downtown employers and/or where readily served by local transit. William Carney • 2 Citizens Advisory Committee 000 e. Managing City garages to prioritize short-term parking in the most convenient spaces (for example by putting any long-term commuter or employee parking on upper floors). 6. The Study would be strengthened by providing more examples of how other cities have implemented one of its key recommendations, the public use of private parking. While this is an intriguing approach, the CAC suggests that San Rafael build on proven and successful techniques developed elsewhere. Related code revisions need to be thoroughly evaluated by the City's planning staff, but the zoning changes proposed to achieve this objective seem a reasonable start, with some refinements: a. Section 14.18 .040 (F), "Parking approved under this section may be operated to serve the uses for which the parking was approved and/or shared with other uses ... " should not be limited to only the Downtown Parking District. b. Likewise, Section 14.18.230 related to remote parking should not be limited to the parking district, and for both this section and Section 14.18.080 related to shared parking, the discretion of the Zoning Administrator to adjust the number of spaces should not be dependent on the use of a consultant unless the ZA determines that to be necessary. c. Section 14.18.060 (A) revisions clarifying the Downtown Parking District are welcome. d. The proposed simplification of parking requirements by consolidating land use categories and calibrating required parking to actual project demand seems to be a worthy objective, but should be undertaken with careful regard for the rationale underpinning the current code, as well as for advances in the amount of transit and other alternative modes serving downtown. e. The proposed 'Guiding Principles' for parking would be an excellent addition to the code, embodying the comprehensive approach to parking that the Study proposes. The suggested definition of a 'priority customer' for public parking, integration of parking with other modes of transportation, and use of current informational systems are especially important components. f. Additional development code and parking management tools included in the Downtown Station Area Plan should also be included in this Study (or noted with an explanation of why they are omitted). These include 'unbundling' the cost of parking spaces from residential units; provision of car-share and bike-share services in public and private parking facilities; free or discounted memberships in such services for residents or employees, and/or free or discounted transit passes; the impact of ride- sharing services and self-driving cars; provisions for electric vehicle charging; setting parking maximums; and others. William Carney • 3 Citizens Advisory Committee o 0 ~ 7. The Committee welComes the proposed improvements to the downtown pedestrian network, including widened sidewalks, safer intersections and bulb-outs. Of particular note: a. Add improvements for the identified major pedestrian routes under the freeway. b. Address pedestrian safety throughout the area, and especially along Hetherton and Irwin. c. Consider other sidewalks proposed in the Station Area Plan, such as the east side of Hetherton. d. Consider special paving treatments to mark key pedestrian intersections. e. Extend the special treatment of Tamalpais West north to Mission and south to 2nd Street, with particular attention to creating a visible 'pedestrian and bicycle safe zone' crossing the heavily trafficked 3rd and 2nd Street intersections and connecting to the multiuse path along Francisco. Tamalpais as a whole, and this segment in particular, needs to be designed along the lines recommended in the Station Area Plan as a significant area amenity for bikes and pedestrians. f. Consider similar treatments at the Lindaro, A and B Street crossings of 3rd and 2nd Streets. 8. The CAC recommends careful review of the bicycle parking proposals with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Some concern was expressed with the appearance of bike storage facilities, with a definite preference for bike cages or lockers being located within garages and other buildings, including the new transit center. Cost impacts on development also need to be considered, factoring in the cost and anticipated achlal usage of both bike and car parking. 9. With respect to the signage concepts, the CAC would prefer California standard parking signs as found in other communities, so signs are easy to interpret. Identity signage at the entry to downtown should be distinctive to San Rafael. The CAC also thought that the large scale of many of the signs shown seemed out of character with San Rafael's pedestrian downtown. In summary, the CAC commends the City's efforts to address the parking, pedestrian, bicycle and wayfinding needs of our downtown, and we trust that our comments will prove useful in finalizing this important study. Respectfully, William Carney, CAC Chair William Carney • 4 January 10, 2018 San Rafael City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: Downtown Parking & Wayfinding Study Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Sustainable San Rafael has followed the development of the Parking and Wayfinding Study carefully, considering it critical to the sustainable development of the downtown area. It comes at a particularly propitious time with the opportunity of folding the results into the General Plan. The recommendations before you suggest simple zoning code changes and management guidelines that will bring our parking strategies up to date with developing realities. Significant changes are coming to our downtown and to transportation and retail in general. Our parking polices need to adapt to thes e realities. Most critical are: The need to increase options for parking in the Station Area by extending the parking district past Lincoln is a core component of the Station Area Plan. This would allow flexibility for new development and help avoid barren pedestrian street fronts caused by first floor parking in a pedestrian friendly area. As the study points out, parking in the downtown area is adequate, if not well distributed. A zoning change to encourage shared parking and public use of parking makes common sense by using existing facilities more efficiently. Likewise, our public parking structures are underutilized. Giving the Parking Department the flexibility to monitor demand and adjust rates as needed can efficiently direct parkers to better utilize these resources. The encouragement of transit options like SMART can reduce the parking needed for new development. It is therefore time to look at reducing parking requirements and helping the economic viability of desirable projects, especially in tandem with employee incentives for non-car commute options. Bicycle use is also growing and our codes need to respond to the demand. Encouraging bicycle use by requiring bike parking in new residential developments is a common sense sustainability measure. This study was thoroughly vetted by stakeholders and recommends items that should be part of the over-all process of designing the future of our city as we update our General Plan. In the interests of sustainability, we recommend accepting the study’s recommendations. Most importantly, we urge you to direct staff to adjust the timelines for considering all the suggested zoning and municipal code changes within the two-year General Plan process now getting underway. Sincerely, Jerry Belletto Land Use Task Force and Board Secretary cc: Cristine Alilovich , Jim Myhers, Paul Jensen, Raffi Boylan BOARD OF DIRECTORS William Carney, President Bob Spofford, Vice President Jerry Belletto, Secretary Greg Brockbank Jim Geraghty Linda Jackson Kay Karchevski Kiki La Porta Jesse Madsen Samantha Mericle Sue Spofford 415.457.7656 Esther Beirne From: Sent: To: gerald Belletto Thursday, January 11, 2018 8:47 AM Esther Beirne Subject: San Rafael City Council 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Downtown Parking Study RE: Downtown Parking & Wayfinding Study Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Sustainable San Rafael has followed the development of the Parking and Wayfinding Study carefully, considering it critical to the sustainable development of the downtown area. It comes at a particularly propitious time with the opportunity of folding the results into the General Plan. The recommendations before you suggest simple zoning code changes and management guidelines that will bring our parking strategies up to date with developing realities. Significant changes are coming to our downtown and to transportation and retail in general. Our parking polices need to adapt to these realities. Most critical are: The need to increase options for parking in the Station Area by extending the parking district past Lincoln is a core component of the Station Area Plan. This would allow flexibility for new development and help avoid barren pedestrian street fronts caused by first floor parking in a pedestrian friendly area. As the study points out, parking in the downtown area is adequate, if not well distributed. A zoning change to encourage shared parking and public use of parking makes common sense by using existing facilities more efficiently. Likewise, our public parking structures are underutilized. Giving the Parking Department the flexibility to monitor demand and adjust rates as needed can efficiently direct parkers to better utilize these resources. The encouragement of transit options like SMART can reduce the parking needed for new development. It is therefore time to look at reducing parking requirements and helping the economic viability of desirable projects, especially in tandem with employee incentives for non-car commute options. Bicycle use is also growing and our codes need to respond to the demand. Encouraging bicycle use by requiring bike parking in new residential developments is a common sense sustainability measure. This study was thoroughly vetted by stakeholders and recommends items that should be part of the over-all process of designing the future of our city as we update our General Plan. In the interests of sustainability, we recommend accepting the study's recommendations. Most importantly, we urge you to direct staff to adjust the timelines for considering all the suggested zoning and municipal code changes concurrent with the two-year General Plan process now getting underway. Sincerely, Jerry Belletto Land Use Task Force and Board Secretary cc: Cristine AIilovich, Jim Myhers, Paul Jensen, Raffi Boylan BOARD OF DIRECTORS William Carney, President Bob Spofford, Vice President Jerry Belletto, Secretary Greg Brockbank Jim Geraghty Linda Jackson Kay Karchevski Kiki La Porta 1 Jesse Madsen Samantha Mericle Sue Spofford 415.457.7656 2 STAFF REPORT APPROVAL ROUTING SLIP Staff Report Author: Jim Myhers Date of Meeting: 12/18/2017 Department: City Manager’s Office Topic: Parking & Wayfinding Study Subject: Parking & Wayfinding Informational Update and Recommendations Type: (check all that apply) ☐ Consent Calendar ☐ Public Hearing ☐ Discussion Item ☐ Resolution ☐ Ordinance ☐ Professional Services Agreement ☐ Informational Report *If PSA, City Attorney approval is required prior to start of staff report approval process Was agenda item publicly noticed? ☐ Yes ☐No Date noticed: ☐Mailed ☐Site posted ☐Marin IJ Due Date Responsibility Description Completed Date Initial / Comment DEPARTMENT REVIEW FRIDAY noon 12/1 Director Director approves staff report is ready for ACM, City Attorney & Finance review. 12/4/2017 ☒ CONTENT REVIEW MONDAY morning 12/4 Assistant City Manager City Attorney Finance ACM, City Attorney & Finance will review items, make edits using track changes and ask questions using comments. Items will be returned to the author by end of day Wednesday. Click here to enter a date. 1/4/2018 12/4/2017 ☐ ☒ LG ☒ MM DEPARTMENT REVISIONS FRIDAY noon 12/8 Author Author revises the report based on comments receives and produces a final version (all track changes and comments removed) by Friday at noon. Click here to enter a date. ☐ ACM, CITY ATTORNEY, FINANCE FINAL APPROVAL MONDAY morning 12/11 Assistant City Manager City Attorney ACM, City Attorney & Finance will check to see their comments were adequately addressed and sign-off for the City Manager to conduct the Click here to enter a date. Click here to enter a date. ☐ ☐ Finance final review. Click here to enter a date. ☐ TUES noon 12/12 City Manager Final review and approval Click here to enter a date. ☐ Lindsay Lara From: Sent: To: Subject: FYI Jim Myhers Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:50 PM Lindsay Lara FW: Response to comments at 1/16/18 City Council meeting I forwarded this to Jim and Cristine. Thanks Jim -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Harrison Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:11 PM To: Gary Phillips; Kate Colin; Andrew McCullough; Maribeth Bushey; John Gamblin Cc: Jim Myhers Subject: Response to comments at 1/16/18 City Council meeting Dear Mayor Phillips and City Council members: I just watched the video of the Jan.16 council meeting. When the issue of the East San Rafael parking situation was discussed, I was appalled when Ross Bishop stated that he is "trying to speak for all of East San Rafael, because it's going to affect everybody there ... This is just a stepping stone toward permits." First of all, not only does he not speak for all of East San Rafael, he does not even speak for all Spinnaker Pt. residents. There is a sizeable contingent of us who object to his proposals. He has repeatedly stated in our Homeowners Association meetings that his goal is to obtain no-cost parking permits for Spinnaker residents only. He has said multiple times that once we get permits, we can go back to parking in our garages and driveways and the streets will be empty like they were several years ago. He has recently grudgingly conceded that we will have to "share" the streets with others, but has said that Spinnaker residents should be allotted more permit spaces than non- Spinnaker residents. Please keep in mind that very few Spinnaker residents actually park on the streets. Most park in their garages and/or driveways, including Ross. He and his wife occasionally park on the street in front of their house far enough apart that there is room for only their two cars, when, if parked properly, there would be room for three or four. He has encouraged other Spinnaker residents to do the same. There are a few residents who always park on the street even when they have room in their garages and driveways. Others have their garages overflowing with stuff, and while some of them park in their driveways, there are some who always park on the street just so "outsiders" can't park in front of their home. On a related topic, I am concerned about the proposed 24-hour rule. The majority of drivers who park on Catalina, Spinnaker Pt. Drive, and the cui de sacs live in the inner portions of the Canal area. 1 Almost every day, I see men and women carrying tools, shopping bags, sometimes with a grocery bag in each arm plus their elementary age children tagging along beside them, having to walk two or more blocks back to their homes at the end of the work day. I spoke to a man a few months ago who had to park 3 miles from his apartment. For those going to work the next day, the 24-hour rule won't matter much, but on weekends, it would mean that on their days off, they would have to walk back to Spinnaker/Baypoint, move their vehicle (if they can find a space), and then walk back to their homes, thus taking up time that they could be spending with their family or friends. Not only will that create inconvenience for those who have to move their cars, it will create more traffic on weekends as drivers are trying to find a new parking spot. I suspect that some of the Spinnaker pro-permit contingent will then complain about the increased traffic and noise. An alternative might be to have a 24-hour rule during the week, but a 72-hour rule from Friday afternoon to Monday morning. I would also like to suggest that the cui de sacs along Catalina be striped with head-in parking spaces. Cars routinely parked head-in in the past before Ross insisted that the City enforce parallel parking. Parallel parking reduced the number of spaces available. Head-in spaces would increase parking spaces only slightly, but every little bit helps. Ross's reasoning for the change was that emergency vehicles would not have room to turn around. There have been firetrucks called to our cui de sac and to one behind us three times. In all cases, the trucks were too long to turn around in the cui de sac even if no cars had been parked there, so they backed out. There are many narrow streets in San Rafael where fire trucks would need to back down rather than turn around, so Ross's comment is invalid. I appreciate Council Member McCullough and Jim Myhers comments that there will be a trial period to monitor the success or inconvenience of this plan. I predict that the law of unintended consequences will apply. Thank you for all your efforts to resolve this complicated issue, and once again, please keep in mind that Ross Bishop does not speak for all, or even necessarily the majority, of us. Regards, Barbara Harrison Barbara Harrison 2