HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: 7-16-2018
Disposition: Resolution 14546 & 14547
Agenda Item No: 5.a
Meeting Date: July 16, 2018
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Bill Guerin,
Director of Public Works
City Manager Approval: ___________
File No.: 18.10.09
TOPIC: San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SAN
RAFAEL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 2018 UPDATE; RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE SAN RAFAEL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN 2018 UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update.
2. Adopt a resolution adopting the San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 2018
Update.
BACKGROUND:
In 1998, the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was established
with the specific purpose of creating a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP). BPAC,
along with City staff, initiated preparation of the BPMP in January 1999. On February 4, 2002,
the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11009 and Resolution No. 11010, adopting the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan and a corresponding negative declaration of environmental impact
(Negative Declaration) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In 2006, the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) began a countywide effort to update the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans of all towns, cities, and unincorporated areas of Marin
County. Alta Planning + Design (Alta) was retained by TAM to perform this task. For over a
year, Alta worked closely with City staff and the BPAC to update the City’s Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan. On September 15, 2008, the City Council held a public hearing to
adopt an update to the Plan and the corresponding Negative Declaration. At this same meeting,
the City Council requested that staff revise the Plan, and on April 4, 2011, the City Council
approved the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2011 Update.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
Updating the BPMP ensures that projects and priorities listed in the previous versions still reflect
current needs and desires of the community while also meeting new design guidelines set forth
by the state and federal government. New projects identified in the time since the last update
can be added, which is important because most grants require projects to be listed in an
approved BPMP. BPMPs typically are considered current and grant-eligible for 5 years. To
ensure projects continue to be eligible for available grant funding, on November 21, 2016, the
City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with
Alta to assist with the update of the BPMP.
At the beginning of the process, Staff determined that adoption of the updated BPMP is a
project subject to review under CEQA. Therefore, as required by CEQA, staff prepared an
Initial Study (attachment 3) to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the
environment requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Based upon the Initial
Study, staff concluded that there was no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that
the project may have a significant effect on the environment. A draft Negative Declaration was
prepared as authorized by CEQA.
In early 2017, online and in-person surveys were conducted to gather public input. A public
workshop was held in June of 2017 and in December BPAC reviewed the BPMP draft. Staff
received and incorporated public comments for the BPMP and the draft Negative Declaration
during a 20-day public comment period, which started on May 9, 2018. Additionally, a
community meeting was held on May 22, 2018.
ANALYSIS:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requires 17 sections that must be
included in a BPMP in order to be eligible for Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding. ATP
consists of both state and federal funds and represents one of the largest opportunities to fund
bicycle and pedestrian projects. The current cycle has roughly $440 million available for these
projects. The current BPMP update ensures that all 17 sections are included, making the
projects listed eligible for ATP and other grant funds.
Plan Overview
The San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update (attachment 4) looks to build and
expand upon the 2011 update. The 2011 update proposed 28.7 miles of new bikeway
throughout the City. Since then, roughly 7.4 miles of bicycle lanes and paths have been
constructed representing 26% of all proposed bikeways in the BPMP. Projects constructed
during that time include the Puerto Suello Hill Pathway and the North San Rafael Promen ade –
Merrydale Road Connector.
Figure 1: Miles of Bikeways Built Since 2011
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
The 2018 update consists of 109 proposed projects including improvements to sidewalks (2.9
miles), intersections/undercrossings (33), and bikeways (13.1 miles). The BPMP includes four
important aspects essential in evaluating and planning the City’s future bicycle and pedestrian
network: Existing Conditions, Safety, Priorities, and Proposed Projects and Programs. Key
findings and recommendations for each aspect are listed below.
Existing Conditions
Understanding the existing conditions of the City’s current bicycle and pedestrian network and
infrastructure is important when identifying new opportunities and programs. Alta and the City
received feedback from residents that helped pinpoint areas of concerns or gaps in the network.
Bicycle
Over the past 7 years since the last update the City has expanded the amount of multi-use
paths in the City and now features more miles (8.06) than any other city in the County. Bicycle
parking downtown has also expanded and now consists of 76 bike racks and 4 lockers totaling
278 spaces. In addition to collected data, residents submitted over 100 comments regarding
existing bikeways in the City. Gaps in the bicycle pathway network were identified by the public,
including areas around Downtown and connections to the Transit Center, while common areas
of concern were undercrossings at Highway 101.
Figure 2: Downtown Bike Parking
Pedestrian
San Rafael’s network of sidewalks and walkways is considered well developed. Most areas in
the City have sidewalks on at least one side of the street and most commercial areas have
sidewalks on both sides. While much of the City has walkways, there is still room for
improvements. Over 75 residents provided comments on the City’s walkways. Residents noted
areas of the City that had difficult crossing or pedestrian network gaps. Areas near the Transit
Center and along Point San Pedro Rd. were commonly listed. In 2016, walking commutes
consisted of 4.1% of all commutes in the City. This was higher than the County of Marin
average of 3.2%.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
Safety
Alta conducted a comprehensive review of all reported pedestrian- and bicycle-involved
collisions between 2009 and 2016. The focus of the review was to identify specific locations that
had higher incidents of collision as well as to look and identify factors and patterns that may
have contributed to the collisions. One in ten automobile collisions in the City involved a
bicyclist. The leading factors for these types of collisions were bicyclists entering a motorist’s
right of way followed by bicyclists riding in the wrong direction. Pedestrian collisions also
occurred in about one out of every ten automobile collisions. The most frequent causes of
pedestrian-involved collisions were motorists entering the pedestrian’s right of way followed by
pedestrians crossing in areas that are unsafe to do so. Of the 36 pedestrian-involved collisions
over a six-year period, 65% occurred in the Downtown area. Page 26 of the BPMP 2018 Update
illustrates designs that can be implemented in areas of concern or areas that have higher rates
of collisions.
Priorities
With limited funding and a long list of potential projects, prioritizing projects and areas within the
City will help staff evaluate and identify which projects to complete. With the help of BPAC, Alta
created ten criteria that were each given a different weight to help prioritize areas in the City.
The criteria were selected based on the BPMP’s goals, available data, and BPAC input. Criteria
included but were not limited to: collisions, proximity to school and transit, population, number of
public comments, and whether the proposed project was connecting two existing facilities. Each
roadway was then analyzed with these criteria and assigned a priority score from 0-100. The
scores are summarized in the map with red being a high priority score and green being a low
priority score. Note that many of the high scores are along SMART and Highway 101.
Figure 3: Priority Areas
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
Proposed Projects and Funding
Using public and staff comments, the goals of the BPMP, and collected data, Alta identified
projects in the City that would best benefit pedestrians and cyclists. Major city and countywide
routes were identified including a North/South Greenway following SMART right of way, a Cross
Marin Bikeway that would run through downtown out to Peacock Gap, a Commercial Connector
from the Transit Center through Downtown, and a Bridge Connector that would connect East
San Rafael to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. The City was furthermore divided into seven
areas, and each area was individually assessed to identify needs and ranked based on the
beforementioned criteria. Projects in these areas were as small as a .05-mile bike path along
Las Gallinas Ave. to as large as adding 6-foot sidewalks to a mile of Manuel T. Freitas Parkway
between Montecillo Road and Del Presidio Blvd.
Figure 5: Existing and Proposed Major Routes
Much of the funding for the projects in the BPMP will come from local, state, and federal grants
and programs. The report lists a number of funding opportunities that can be utilized in
conjunction with the projects listed in the BPMP. Staff will apply for these grants when
appropriate and will use the standards and projects set forth as guidelines for future projects
involving bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation.
Environmental Impact:
As noted above, after preparing the Initial Study on the update to the BPMP, Staff determined
that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment, and in such a case, CEQA authorizes the City
Council to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project. Adoption of the Negative Declaration
must occur prior to approval of the BPMP 2018 Update.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
Community outreach and engagement was a critical aspect in preparing this BPMP 2018
Update. From February to April of 2017 the City posted an online survey (attachment 4,
appendix A) requesting responses to 20 questions. The City received 471 online responses. In
addition, the City administered in-person surveys on March 9, 2017 at the Bettini Transit Center
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
and Pickleweed Park. These in-person surveys yielded 44 responses in English, and 22 in
Spanish. A total of 537 responses were collected; the summary of the results can be viewed in
attachment 4, appendix B. Key findings from the surveys revealed that 50% of respondents
indicated a desire to create more bicycle facilities, while walking was the primary mode of
transportation for trips under 1 mile.
In addition to the survey an online mapping tool was utilized, which allowed residents, visitors,
and workers to geographically identify areas of concern or gaps in the network. The comments
from this tool are listed in attachment 4, appendix C. Over 100 comments were created for the
bicycle network and 75 comments about the pedestrian network. These mapped public
comments were used in the criteria portion and given a 17% weight in determining the
importance of the project.
Throughout the process, the City of San Rafael’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
was involved in reviewing and commenting on the report. Additional comments were received at
the community meeting held on May 22, 2018. Comments from this meeting can be found in
attachment 4, appendix O.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A fee of $2,280.75 is required to file the Initial Study/Negative Declaration with the Marin County
Clerk/Assessor’s Office upon adoption by City Council. These funds are budgeted and available
in the Public Works General Fund.
A large majority of the improvements described in the San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master
Plan 2018 Update would be funded by grants and completion will depend on grant availability.
OPTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update; and adopt a resolution adopting the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update.
2. Do not adopt the resolutions and ask staff to return with additional information or
revisions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Adopt a resolution adopting a negative declaration for the San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update.
2. Adopt a resolution adopting the San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 2018
Update.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution adopting Negative Declaration
2. Resolution adopting Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update
3. Initial Study/Negative Declaration
4. San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update
RESOLUTION 14546
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE SAN RAFAEL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER
PLAN 2018 UPDATE
WHEREAS, in October of 1998 the City Council appointed a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Committee to develop a San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; and
WHEREAS, in January of 1999, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee along with
city staff initiated preparation of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the of the City of San Rafael Environmental
Assessment Procedures Manual and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared finding that the proposed San
Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update would not result in a significant
environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, San Rafael Municipal Code Section 2.40.010 “Environmental Matters”, requires a
public hearing for the Negative Declaration be held by the Planning Commission and/or the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, a notice regarding the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for this project
was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area and mailed to special interest
groups and individuals; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration were made available for a 20-day
review period by pertinent agencies and interested members of the public, commencing on May
9, 2018 and ending on May 29, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update is a policy document that
includes a lengthy list of measures and improvements that will be implemented over time. Prior
to implementation, all projects and actions proposed in the plan will require separate City
approval and/or allocation of funds, as well as CEQA review and clearance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 16, 2018 in which any and all
comments were received by interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration based on the findings that the Public Works
Department exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the Negative Declaration and the
Negative Declaration has been considered in conjunction with comments received during the
public review period. Based on this review, the Public Works Department has determined, and
the City Council hereby finds, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant impact on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration for the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan 2018 Update.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of
said City on the 16th day of July, 2018 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gamblin
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
RESOLUTION 14547
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING THE SAN RAFAEL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
MASTER PLAN 2018 UPDATE
WHEREAS, in October of 1998 the City Council appointed a Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee to
develop a San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; and
WHEREAS, in January of 1999, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee along with city
staff initiated preparation of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted in 2002 and
provided eligibility for Active Transportation Program grants; and
WHEREAS, the San Rafael General Plan Policy C-4 calls for safety and convenience for bicyclists
in the design of roadways, and more specifically Policy C-4b supports establishing design criteria for
alternative modes of travel; and
WHEREAS, an update to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan must be adopted every five years in
order to remain eligible for Active Transportation Program grants; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Update to the City of San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan was
developed in accordance with all applicable California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update was
presented to and considered by the City Council at a public hearing held on July 16, 2018 at which
the Council accepted public testimony regarding the proposed update; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the recommendation of the Public Works Department, on July 16, 2018 the
City Council approved a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
and
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael has been a leading agency in the implementation and
construction of bicycle and pedestrian projects in Marin County, and;
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has issued a complete Streets Directive to initiate and
incorporate in all projects a multi-modal approach that ensures inclusion in the scope of all relevant,
appropriate, necessary and mandated facilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael does
hereby adopt the draft San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on the
16th day of July, 2018 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gamblin
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
SAN RAFAEL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN
City of San Rafael
San Rafael, CA
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Lead Agency:
City of San Rafael
Department of Public Works
111 Morphew Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Contact: Lauren Davini
Traffic Engineer
May 4, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .......................................................................................................................4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................................................7
DETERMINATION .................................................................................................................................................7
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..........................................................................................8
I. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................................8
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................................. 10
III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................. 12
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 14
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 17
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................. 18
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS ......................................................................................... 21
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................... 22
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................. 25
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................................................ 30
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 31
XII. NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 32
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................. 34
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................................................... 36
XV. RECREATION ............................................................................................................................. 37
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................. 38
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 41
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................. 43
SOURCE REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 45
DETERMINATION FOR PROJECT .................................................................................................................. 46
Notice of Intent 3 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
DATE: May 4, 2018
TO: Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Parties
FROM: Bill Guerin, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the “Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970” as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department
of Public Works of the City of San Rafael has prepared an Initial Study on the following project:
Project Name:
San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update
Location:
Various locations within the City of San Rafael, Marin County, California
Project Description:
In 2002, the City of San Rafael adopted a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in accordance with the
requirements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act (BTA). In order to remain eligible for grants, the
Plan must be updated every five years. The San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update is a
policy document that would allow the City of San Rafael to continue to meet the requirements of the
California Bicycle Transportation Act as described in Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highway Code. All
projects and actions proposed in the plan would require separate approval and/or allocation of funds by the San
Rafael City Council before implementation. The plan contains goals, objectives and policy actions to guide
the City in the construction, upgrades and maintenance of the Citywide bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
system.
Environmental Issues:
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan 2011 Update did not
identify any environmental issues and therefore, would not result in a significant effect on the environment.
Adoption of a Negative Declaration is recommended.
A twenty-day (20-day) public review period shall commence on Wednesday May 9, 2018. Written
comments must be sent to the City of San Rafael, Department of Public Works, 111 Morphew Street, San
Rafael CA 94901 by May 29, 2018. The City of San Rafael Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and project merits on Monday, June 18, 2018, 7:00 PM in the San
Rafael City Council Chambers at City Hall (1400 Fifth Avenue, City Hall Council Chambers, San Rafael,
California 94901). Correspondence and comments can be delivered to Lauren Davini, Traffic Engineer,
phone: (415) 485-3361, email: lauren.davini@cityofsanrafael.org.
Environmental Checklist Form 4 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update
2. Lead Agency Name & Address City of San Rafael
Department of Public Works
111 Morphew Street
San Rafael, California 94901
3. Contact Person & Phone Number Lauren Davini, P.E., Traffic Engineer
(415) 485-3361
Email: lauren.davini@cityofsanrafael.org
4. Project Location Various proposed project sites and locations throughout the City
of San Rafael, Marin County, California
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address
Project Sponsor
City of San Rafael
Department of Public Works
111 Morphew Street
San Rafael, California 94901
Sponsor’s Representative
Bill Guerin, Public Works Director
111 Morphew Street
San Rafael, California 94901
6. General Plan Designation City-wide. Projects could be located anywhere within the City of
San Rafael that are consistent with this Master Plan and the San
Rafael General Plan 2020.
7. Zoning Not applicable
8. Description of Project
In 2011, the City of San Rafael adopted a Negative Declaration and adopted the San Rafael Bicycle/Pedestrian
Master Plan in accordance with the requirements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act (BTA). In order to
remain eligible for grants, the plan must be updated every five years. The City of San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update is a policy document that would allow the City of San Rafael to continue to
meet the requirements of the California Bicycle Transportation Act as described in Section 891.2 of the Streets
and Highway Code. All projects and actions proposed in the plan would require separate approval(s) and/or when
allocation of funds by the San Rafael City Council before implementation.
The San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update contains goals, objectives and policy actions to
guide the City in the construction, upgrade and maintenance of the citywide bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
system. The goals set the long-term vision and serve as the foundation of the plan. The goals include:
Environmental Checklist Form 5 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
Goal 1: Coordination
Build on existing and ongoing planning efforts to identify changing needs at the local and regional levels,
including Complete Street, environmental, and transit projects.
Goal 2: Connectivity
Develop bicycle and pedestrian networks that connect residents and visitors to major activity and shopping
centers, existing and planned transit, and schools. Work to close gaps between existing facilities.
Goal 3: Safety
Identify and prioritize bicycle- and pedestrian-related safety improvements.
Goal 4: Universal Design
Promote design standards and support facilities that encourage bicycling and walking among people of all ages
and abilities, including children, seniors, families, and people with limited mobility. Work to match project
designs to the residents they are intended to serve.
Goal 5: Programs
Support bicycling and walking by providing educational and encouragement programs.
The Plan’s strategies identify specific subject areas where effort is required. In summary, the strategies are:
A. Conduct regular progress reports and updates of the plan
B. Implement the proposed bicycle and pathway network, as well as proposed crossing, lighting, and traffic
calming
C. Actively identify locations with potential safety concerns based on roadway geometry and identify proven
safety countermeasures to address concerns
D. Maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities
E. Support Safe Routes to Schools programming and task forces
The Plan’s proposed objectives would help with the review of the Plan implementation and guide day to day
decision making in order to reach the Goals set forth in the updated plan. Objectives are identified for each
strategy; they are not site specific, nor do they involve identified construction activities. Examples of objectives
include:
A. Develop and complete progress report of bike and pedestrian master plan on a bi-annual basis
B. Complete feasibility study of bicycle parking at SMART stations, create a citywide inventory of bicycle
parking facilities, and implement 25% of the proposed short-turn bicycle parking downtown
C. Adopt “Vision Zero” policy of eliminating all bicycle- and pedestrian-involved severe injuries and
fatalities
D. Develop bicycle use satisfaction survey instrument; collect baseline survey responses
E. Maintain or increase school participation; increase average SR2S “report card” score of participating
schools to 70 out of 100
The proposed projects begin on page 33. The proposed bicycle facilities were based on the following established
routes: North/South Greenway, Northern Bikeway, Cross Marin Bikeway Plus, Commercial Connector, and
Bridge Connector. The North/South Greenway generally follows the SMART right of way, the Northern Bikeway
is a network of on-street bikeways splitting off from the North/South Greenway, the Cross Marin Bikeway Plus is
an east-west bikeway that would connect San Rafael to places west, the Commercial Connector is a detour from
the Cross Marin Bikeway Plus that would go through Downtown San Rafael, and the Bridge Connector aims to
connect bicyclists and pedestrians Downtown to the Richmond Bridge. The proposed projects were divided into
seven geographic groups to help simplify the list for prioritization. The groups are as follows: Civic Center, North
Safe Routes to School, West End, Central San Rafael, Point San Pedro Road, Canal, and San Quentin.
Environmental Checklist Form 6 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
In addition to these bicycle infrastructure projects, the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan,
2018 Update includes countywide gap closure and safety projects which are consistent with San Rafael
community priorities. Some of these projects will require partnering with other agencies to implement and all
will require moderate to extensive planning, design work and public comment and input. These projects include:
A. Interchange and Intersection Improvements Projects
B. Multi-use Pathway
C. Regional Connection Projects
a. Bicycle Access across the Richmond Bridge
b. San Francisco Bay Trail
D. Signals, Lighting Improvements and Upgrades
9. Surrounding land uses and setting
City-wide. Projects could be located anywhere within the City of San Rafael and in any General Plan land use or
setting.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required
[e.g. permits, financial approval, or participation agreements]
Bay Area Metro
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Congestion Management Agency (CMA)
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
County of Marin
Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM)
Environmental Checklist Form 7 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Finding of
Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
_____________________________________ __________________________
Lauren Davini Date
Traffic Engineer
Environmental Checklist Form 8 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Evaluation of the Project environmental impacts is prepared as follows:
A brief explanation is provided for all answers except for “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources cited in the parantheses following each question below. Answers
take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative, project-level, direct
and indirect, construction and operational impacts. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported by
referenced information sources that show the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone; the project involves a minor zoning text
amendments that would not lead to or allow new construction, grading or other physical alterations to
the environment). A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factor as well
as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project
specific screening analysis).
A “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate where there is substantial evidence that an effect may
be significant. A final determination of one or more Potentially Significant Impacts shall require
preparation of an EIR.
A Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the project if it results in a less
than significant impact determination based on the analysis, discussion, source reference materials
and/or mitigation measures identified herein (to minimize impacts or reduce impacts from a “Potentially
Significant” level). Any mitigation measures shall be described and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
Mitigation measures or discussion from earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program
EIR or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental
document. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, the Initial Study below includes a brief discussion of the
earlier analysis used, impacts that were previously addressed, and mitigation measures that were
incorporated or refined. Supporting information sources are attached and cited in the discussion below.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which by definition are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on scenic vistas.
The projects that are Class II, Class III, or Class IV bicycle facilities are proposed for existing streets that already
contain traffic signals, signs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. Possible
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 9 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
intrusions into scenic vistas would consist of signs, signposts and traffic signals. Signs, such as those used to alert
drivers of pedestrian crossings, would generally be mounted on a seven foot high, 2.5” diameter pipe or 4” by 4”
wooden post. Traffic signals, if installed, would typically be standard Caltrans approved three or four lens
fixtures and would include standard “walk” and “flashing don’t walk” lighted fixtures. Vehicle signal heads are
mounted at a minimum height of fifteen feet and a maximum height of twenty-six feet and pedestrian signal heads
are mounted at a minimum height of seven feet and a maximum height of ten feet. Although the signs, posts and
signal heads would be visible, they are small and not large enough to obstruct a scenic vista.
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if
and when site specific proposals are developed and would have no adverse effects on a scenic vista at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 9)
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Discussion:
As noted above, a significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018
Update relates to policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on scenic
resources.
Installation of any of the proposed system improvements in the near future would consist of minor excavations to
install signs, traffic signals, curb, gutter, sidewalk and curb ramps. All work would be confined to existing rights-
of-way which have been previously excavated to build the existing roadway system. For this reason, there would
be no scenic resources within the areas of actual construction and there would be no impact to trees, rock
outcroppings or historic buildings.
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature. These projects would be subject to future environmental review
if and when site specific proposals are developed and have no impact on scenic resources at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2)
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Discussion:
The proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update would have no impact on the existing
visual character of the surrounding areas as a significant portion relates to policy guidelines which are not site
specific and therefore would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding areas.
The physical changes to the environment that would result from any of the improvements completed in the near
future would be minor, consisting primarily of the installation of signs, striping, markings and sidewalk in order
to designate bicycle lanes and crosswalks and other bicycle and pedestrian circulation enhancements. These
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 10 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
changes are consistent with similar improvements to the existing street environment of San Rafael. Therefore, the
system improvements would not substantially change the existing visual character of the area.
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature. These projects would be subject to future environmental review
if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on the visual character of
potential project sites at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2)
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion:
The San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update does not propose improvements that would
create new sources of light or glare. Therefore no impact on day or nighttime views would result from its
adoption.
The projects that may be built in the near future are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic
signals, signs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. The proposed projects
include the addition of pedestrian signal heads to existing traffic signals which would be a new, however,
insignificant source of light. The lenses of these signals are designed to minimize or completely eliminate glare
and the signal light is focused on the roadway, thus avoiding adverse impacts. Relocation of existing traffic
signal heads may be required, however, no new installations are proposed.
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if
and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not create light or glare at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2)
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Would the project: {In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland.} In determining whether impacts
to a forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
assessment Project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 11 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource
Board.
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion:
There are no agricultural resources in the proposed project area.
(Sources: 1, 3)
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Discussion:
There are no agricultural resources in the proposed project area.
(Sources: 1, 3)
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 511104(g))
Discussion:
There is no forest land in the proposed project area.
(Sources: 1, 3)
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion:
There is no forest land in the proposed project area.
(Sources: 1, 3)
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 12 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion:
There are no agricultural resources or forest lands in the proposed project area.
(Sources: 1, 3)
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on air quality.
The proposed projects described in the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update would
promote the use of bicycling and walking which would potentially reduce the reliance on vehicles and the number
of vehicle miles traveled within the City. This in turn would tend to reduce the amount of air pollution caused by
internal combustion engine emissions. Minor amounts of air pollution would be generated during the
construction of the various proposed improvements, but would not result in a significant environmental impact
(see discussion in section III.b of this document). Furthermore, the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan, 2018 Update does not propose any projects that would directly or indirectly generate any pollution after
construction.
(Sources: 1, 2, 5)
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on air quality. The plan is
consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, which is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Air Plan (Bay
Area Air Quality Management District).
The projects that could be built in the near future are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic
signals, signs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. Implementation of the
proposed projects would result in minor pollution due to construction activities such as excavating holes for the
installation of signposts, curb, gutter, and sidewalk and painting stripes for bicycle lanes. These activities would
be insignificant due to the small scale and short duration of construction and because of the prevailing weather
patterns that tend to disperse pollutants.
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature and would be subject to future environmental review if and when
site specific proposals are developed. Therefore, there would be no impact on air quality at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 13 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non – attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on air quality. The plan is
consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, which is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Air Plan (Bay
Area Air Quality Management District).
The projects that could be built in the near future would not obstruct implementation of any air quality plan nor
would they substantially contribute to existing or projected air quality violations. For the five years between 2013
and 2017 there have been three days where the California PM10 standard was exceeded at the San Rafael Air
Quality Monitoring Station. There were no ozone, nitrogen dioxide or carbon monoxide recorded during this time
period in excess of the California Standard and the proposed projects do not involve the exclusive and focused
production of any criteria pollutant over a sustained period of time. When implemented, the proposed projects are
designed to reduce reliance upon motor vehicles. To the extent such reduction is achieved, the projects would
potentially reduce air pollution emissions.
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if
and when site specific proposals are developed and do not result in any increase in air pollution at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 5, 11)
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on air quality.
The projects that could be built in the near future are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic
signals, signs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. The most sensitive receptors
in the area are likely to be very young or elderly individuals. The construction phase of the proposed projects
would be of limited duration and would not produce concentrated or sustained emissions that would follow
pathways of direct exposure to these populations. With the natural ventilations prevalent in the area, odors would
not affect people associated with the business and residential land uses around the proposed project locations.
Once construction is complete, no odors or other pollution would be generated.
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if
and when site specific proposals are developed and do not result in any additional air pollution at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 14 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion:
The proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update would not create objectionable odors
because a significant portion of the plan relates to policy guidelines which are not site specific.
In the unlikely event that objectionable odors are produced during the construction phase of the proposed projects,
the natural ventilation prevalent in the area would reduce the number of people affected and the associated long
term effects. These impacts will be reviewed on a project by project basis. Once construction is complete, no
odors or other pollution would be generated.
(Sources: 1, 2, 5)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on candidate, sensitive or special
status species.
The San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update’s projects would not result in any construction
or other human activities in habitat areas. All construction would be within the developed areas of existing rights-
of-way, which do not contain habitat for special status species.
(Sources: 1, 2)
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 15 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community.
The proposed projects would not result in any construction or other human activity within habitat areas. All
construction would be within the developed areas of existing rights-of-way, which do not contain riparian habitat.
(Sources: 1, 2)
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which by definition are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on federally
protected wetlands.
The proposed projects described in the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update
would not result in any construction or other human activity in federally protected wetlands. All construction
would be within developed areas of existing rights-of-way assuring that there is no hydrological interruption.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact any fish or wildlife species.
The projects that could be built in the near future are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic
signals, signs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. These projects would not
result in the alteration of any wildlife corridors or affect the movement of any fish or wildlife species. All
construction would be located within developed areas of existing rights-of-way assuring that there is no
interruption to fish or wildlife species, which, with the possible exception of quadrupeds such as deer, skunks,
raccoons, etc., tend not to use the developed, urban rights-of-way for movement. The anticipated increase in
bicycle and pedestrian activity in the rights-of-way, after installation of the proposed projects, are unlikely to
affect these species, which are already acclimated to human activity.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 16 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature. As such, they would be subject to future environmental review if
and when site specific proposals are developed. Therefore, these projects would not interfere substantially with
the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not conflict with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. Further, development within the existing urban rights-of-way would not impact
existing tree resources.
The projects that would be built in the near future are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic
signals, signs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk traffic markings, curb markings, etc.
Addition of signing and striping to delineate bicycle and pedestrian routes would not result in any physical
changes that would conflict with local environmental protection policies and/or ordinances.
Specific improvements for the remaining projects have not been designed and therefore it is not possible to fully
evaluate whether the projects would conflict with local environmental protection ordinances. However, each of
these ordinances, consisting chiefly of Section 11.12 of the San Rafael Municipal Code and various provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance would include public review procedures to assure compliance.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 10)
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and would not conflict with any adopted conservation plans.
The projects that could be built in the near future are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic
signals, signs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. Signing and striping to
designated bicycle and pedestrian routes therefore would not result in any physical changes that would conflict
with any conservation plans.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature and would be subject to future environmental review if and
when site specific proposals are developed. Therefore, these projects would have no impact on any adopted
conservation plan at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 17 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of any historical resources.
The proposed improvements that could be completed in the near future would occur within existing, developed
rights-of-way. There are no known historic resources, as defined in §15064.5, within any of the rights-of-way
that may be improved as part of the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature and would be subject to future environmental review if and
when site specific proposals are developed. Therefore, these projects have no impact on any historical resource at
this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 16)
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact any archaeological resources.
The system improvements that could be completed in the near future would occur within existing rights-of-way
and no improvements would require additional large scale excavation. Furthermore, the areas within the rights-
of-way have already been disturbed as a result of the original construction of the roads and other improvements.
The previous construction activity would likely have reduced or eliminated the significance of archaeological
resources if they were encountered. The City of San Rafael implements specific adopted archeological resource
measures in the event resources are encountered during grading.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. These projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 16)
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 18 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact a unique paleontological resource,
site or unique geologic feature.
There are no known paleontological resources in the proposed project areas. The proposed projects are
conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if and when site specific
proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on any paleontological resource, site, or unique
geologic feature at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 16)
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not disturb any human remains.
The system improvements that could be completed in the near future would occur within existing rights-of-way
and not require additional excavation. Furthermore, the areas within the rights-of-way have already been
disturbed as a result of the original construction of the roads and other improvements. This construction activity
would likely have reduced or eliminated the significance of human remains, most likely to be associated with
Native American archeological resources, if they were encountered.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not disturb any human remains at
this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 16)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 19 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not expose people or structures to potential
adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault.
None of the projects that could be built in the near future are located within an Alquist-Priolo zone. Although the
general area is subject to ground shaking due to the close proximity of the San Andreas Fault, the various projects
would not significantly increase the exposure of people to ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction or
landslides. The proposed projects would not directly increase risk in that such improvements as painted bicycle
lanes, traffic signs, curb, gutter, sidewalk and bicycle racks are not hazardous to people in an earthquake or other
geologic event. There could be increased exposure of people to the risk of injury from an earthquake or other
geologic event in that the planned improvements may bring additional people into the area; however, this indirect
impact is determined to be less than significant as the system improvements will occur within the existing rights-
of-way that are currently subject to moderate to heavy use by the public. The increased usage that may result
from improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian circulation system would be a minor percentage increase and is
therefore deemed not significant.
The remaining projects are conceptual in nature and would be subject to future environmental review if and when
site specific proposals are developed. Therefore, these projects would have no geologic impact at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 6)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion:
See response to Section VI.a.i above.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 6)
iii) Seismic related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Discussion:
See response to Section VI.a.i above.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 6)
iv) Landslides?
Discussion:
See response to Section VI.a.i above.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 6)
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 20 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
of topsoil?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil.
The amount of excavation required for the projects that could be built in the near term would be minimal. Any
potential impact would be fully mitigated by application of all applicable regulations including the Uniform
Building Code and Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) regulations.
The remainder of the proposed projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no soil related
impact at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 7, 12)
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on, or off, site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on soil stability.
The proposed system improvements that could be built in the near future would be located within existing rights-
of-way. These areas have already been improved to accommodate streets and other public facilities, including
mitigation for unstable solids conditions. For this reason, the proposed system improvements would not be
subject to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on soil stability at
this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on expansive soil.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 21 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
The proposed system improvements that could be built in the near future would be located within existing
developed rights-of-way. These areas have been improved to accommodate streets and other public facilities,
including mitigation for expansive soil conditions. For this reason, the proposed system improvements will not be
subject to risks associated with expansive soils.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. These projects have the potential to be located at locations
where settlement of the soils may occur. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if and
when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on expansive soil at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 13)
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on septic tanks or wastewater
disposal systems.
The proposed system improvements that could be built in the near future would not involve the use of alternative
wastewater disposal systems. The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be
subject to future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore,
have no impact on septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not generate greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed improvements will not generate greenhouse gas emissions following installation. Furthermore,
after construction, it is anticipated that the proposed projects will create a mode shift from vehicle trips to
pedestrian and bicycle trips, thereby reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated in the City as a
whole. The implementation of the plan would ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emission impacts, which would
be consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP).
Minor amounts of greenhouse gas emissions could be generated by the vehicles during construction; however, by
applying standard construction practices, the amount generated will be minimized and this impact is considered to
be minimal.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 22 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 15)
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not generate greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed improvements are anticipated to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use and reduce the dependency
on vehicles. This mode shift is in direct affiliation with all applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The implementation of the plan would ultimately
reduce greenhouse gas emission impacts, which would be consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Change
Action Plan (CCAP).
Minor amounts of greenhouse gas emissions could be generated by the vehicles during construction; however, by
applying standard construction practices, the amount generated will be minimized and this impact is considered to
be minimal.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 15)
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routing transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.
Minor amounts of hazardous materials, such as yellow thermoplastic and paint, could be removed or installed
during the construction phase of the proposed improvements. Following routine construction practices and Cal-
OSHA regulations would reduce the risk of exposure to a less-than-significant level. The City requires these
regulations to be followed on all construction projects located with the public right-of-way. No hazardous
materials would be involved during the operational phases of any of the proposed improvement projects.
Projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if and when site
specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 14)
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 23 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment.
The bicycle and pedestrian projects will not involve hazardous materials in their operational phases. As indicated
in section VIII.a of this document, minor amounts of hazardous materials could be involved during construction,
but their use would be effectively mitigated through the application of standard construction practices and Cal-
OSHA regulations.
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not involve the use
of hazardous materials at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 14)
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in the exposure of an existing or
proposed school to hazardous materials.
The proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects will not generate hazardous emissions. Minor amounts of
hazardous materials could be involved during construction, but their use would be effectively mitigated through
the application of standard construction practices and Cal-OSHA regulations; to be determined on a location by
location basis.
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not involve the use
of hazardous materials or emit hazardous emissions at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 14)
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 24 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites.
The majority of the projects are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic signals, signs, lane
striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. None of the proposed project sites are located
on a known hazardous materials site and would, therefore, not create a significant hazard to the public or
environment.
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would pose no safety hazard for people residing within
two miles of a public/public use airport.
The proposed projects are not located within an airport land use plan and are conceptual in nature. Such projects
would be subject to future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would,
therefore, have no impact on people residing or working within two miles of a public/public use airport at this
time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would pose no safety hazard for people residing or
working within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
None of the proposed near term projects are located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 25 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on
people residing or working within two miles of a public/public use airport at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The majority of the proposed projects would consist primarily of signing and striping improvements to delineate
bicycle lanes and pedestrian street crossings. These improvements are proposed for existing rights-of-way and
would not create any physical barriers to the movement of emergency vehicles or other interference with the
emergency response plans of the City of San Rafael or the County of Marin.
The remainder of the projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to
future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no
impact on an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not expose people or structures to risks
associated with wildland fires.
The majority of the proposed improvements would be constructed within existing rights-of-way and would not
increase the exposure of people or structures to the risk of wildland fires.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not expose people or structures to
risks associated with wildland fires at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 26 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements.
None of the proposed bicycle or pedestrian circulation improvements would involve the discharge of wastewater.
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on groundwater supplies or
interfere with groundwater recharge.
The majority of the proposed projects are proposed for existing developed rights-of-way. None of the projects
would significantly increase the amount of impermeable surfaces nor would they draw from existing groundwater
supplies.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on groundwater
supplies or groundwater recharge at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 27 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
site?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not alter existing drainage pattern.
The majority of the proposed improvements would be confined to developed areas of existing rights-of-way
which are currently paved and therefore would not alter existing drainage patterns. During construction, which
could include minor excavation, standard erosion control techniques such as siltation fences and hay bales would
be used to prevent erosion and siltation. Projects would conform to Marin County Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) regulations.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on existing
drainage patters at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 12)
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off- site?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not alter existing drainage patterns.
The proposed improvements do not require alterations to any stream or river. Drainage patterns will not be
altered as explained in section IX.c above. None of the proposed improvement projects would significantly
increase the amount of impermeable surface area or alter topography in such a way as to increase the rate or
amount of runoff.
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on
existing drainage patterns at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
e. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 28 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems.
The projects that could be built in the near future would not increase the amount of runoff as they would not
significantly increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the project areas (see sections IX.c and IX.d above).
It follows that demand on the stormwater drainage system will not change. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
would not generate pollution and therefore would not result in an increase in polluted runoff.
The remainder of the projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to
future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no
impact on runoff water at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact water quality.
Minor amounts of debris and water runoff may be created during the construction of the projects. Any potential
impacts to the surrounding water quality would be fully mitigated by application of all applicable regulations
including the Uniform Building Code and Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP)
regulations.
The proposed projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if
and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on water quality at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 12)
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact on housing.
None of the proposed projects involve the construction of housing.
(Sources: 1, 2)
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 29 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
flood flows?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would have no impact on flood flows.
The improvements that could be completed in the near future will consist of bicycle lanes, crosswalks, signs and
other small structures that by their nature are not physical barriers to flood flows.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on flood flows at
this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
i. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would pose no risk of flooding.
Portions of the proposed bicycle facilities and pedestrian circulation routes are in flood areas. In many cases,
pedestrians and cyclists are already using these routes. The increased usage that may result from these projects is
not considered high enough to raise the impact to a significant level. Also, the risks are avoidable in that alternate
routes are available, and flooded areas are marked and blocked by safety personnel during emergencies to reduce
risk of injury. There are no dams or levees within the vicinity of the project area that could pose a significant risk.
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no flood-
related impact at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would pose no risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami or
mudflow.
None of the proposed project areas are subject to tsunamis or seiches although mudflows could occur in some
areas. The potential damage to bicycle lanes and similar proposed system improvements would not be significant
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 30 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
relative to the cost of repair. Potential risk to pedestrians and bicyclists is judged to be less than significant as the
existing risk is low, the projects will not change the conditions that could cause these events, and the increase
usage factor will not be large enough to raise the risk to a significant level.
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on
potential inundation from seiche, tsunami or mudflow at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not divide an established community.
Improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation resulting from the proposed projects would reduce physical divisions
within the community.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not conflict with land use plans, policies or
regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect.
The City’s staff has reviewed the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update and
determined it is consistent with the Circulation element of the San Rafael General Plan which states that a key
recommendation is to “expand bicycle and pedestrian networks, and improve connections between the different
modes” of transportation. In particular, the proposed projects and policy recommendations would promote the
following San Rafael General Plan 2020 policies:
Policy C-4: “Design of roadways should be safe and convenient for…bicycles and pedestrians.”
Policy C-4b: “Support alternative transportation modes to better meet user needs and minimize
conflicts between competing modes.”
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 31 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
Policy C-20: “Provide convenient and safe connections and support for bus, rail, shuttle, bicycle and
pedestrian users…using transit services”.
Policy C-23: “Identify opportunities to improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between San
Rafael neighborhoods and between San Rafael and adjacent communities.”
Policy C-24: “Seek opportunities to increase connectivity between San Rafael neighborhoods and activity
Centers.”
Policy C-26: “Make bicycling and walking an integral part of daily life in San Rafael.”
Policy C-27: “Promote walking as the transportation mode of choice for short trips.”
Policy C-27e: “Consider new projects and programs to increase pedestrian safety.”
Policy C-27f: “Continue efforts to improve access for those with disabilities.”
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not conflict with an applicable habitat
conservation or natural community conservation plan.
The majority of the projects are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic signals, signs, lane
striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. The addition of signing and striping to
designate bicycle and pedestrian routes would not result in any physical changes that would conflict with an
existing habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no conflict with an existing
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 32 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in the loss of availability of any known
mineral resource.
None of the proposed projects would impact the availability of a known mineral resource.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site.
There is no delineated mineral site that would be impacted by the proposed projects as listed in the San Rafael
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
XII. NOISE
Would the project:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in the generation of noise levels in
excess of any adopted standards.
Persons using the proposed bicycle facilities and pedestrian paths would be exposed to the high ambient noise
levels caused by motor vehicles. However, these elevated noise levels are permitted within the rights-of-way and
are consistent with existing policy.
The projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future
environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on
noise levels at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 33 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in the generation of excessive
groundborne vibrations or noise levels.
The projects that could be built in the near future are proposed for existing developed rights-of-way.
Jackhammers and other equipment could generate ground borne vibration during construction of the proposed
improvements, however, this would be a one-time occurrence for each proposed project, would be short in
duration, and limited to daytime weekday hours as permitted by the City. As the projects are implemented they
will be required to comply with the City of San Rafael Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.13)
The remainder of the projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to
future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no
impact on ground borne vibrations or noise levels at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 17)
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels.
The majority of the projects are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic signals, signs, lane
striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. The noise generated by bicycle and pedestrian
traffic will be insignificant and will be less than the background noise generated by motor vehicle traffic. The
installation of audible pedestrian signals would increase to the ambient noise levels, however, these are not
considered to be “substantial” as they create minimal sound levels and will be installed at selective locations.
The remainder of the projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to
future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no
impact on ambient noise levels at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2)
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 34 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in a temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels.
The project that could be built in the near future are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic
signals, signs, lane striping, crosswalk striping, traffic markings, curb markings, etc. There could be noise
impacts during construction when signs, striping, etc. are installed. These noise levels would occur only once per
project and are therefore judged to be less than significant. As the projects are implemented they will be required
to comply with the City of San Rafael Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.13)
The remainder of the projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to
future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 17)
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not expose people within two miles of a
public/public use airport to excessive noise levels.
None of the proposed projects are located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not expose people residing or working within the
vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels.
None of the proposed projects are located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 35 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not induce substantial population growth, either
directly or indirectly.
None of the proposed projects involve or promote housing construction. The proposed San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update proposes improvements to existing infrastructure rather than the
construction of new roads. The development of nonmotorized facilities is not known to have an effect on growth.
The improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities would tend to provide congestion relief for residents and
employees and will create additional capacity within the transportation system, but is not expected to induce site
specific or cumulative growth.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in the displacement of existing
housing.
The projects that could be built in the near future do not include any proposals to displace housing as all work will
be confined within the existing rights-of-way.
The remainder of the projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to
future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not displace
any housing at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in population displacement.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 36 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
The projects that could be built in the near future do not include any proposals to displace substantial numbers of
people as all work will be performed within the existing rights-of-way.
The remainder of the projects listed in this document are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to
future environmental review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, not displace
any population at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a. Fire protection?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in any substantial adverse physical
impacts on the provision of fire protection services.
The proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update proposes improvements to the
publicly owned infrastructure, consisting mainly of bicycle lanes, crosswalks and signs, which are judged to be
beneficial. These projects would not create the need for other supporting facilities to maintain acceptable service
levels or other performance objectives.
(Sources: 1, 2)
b. Police protection?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in any substantial adverse physical
impacts to the provision of police protection services.
Also, see previous discussion in secion XIV.a of this document.
(Sources: 1, 2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 37 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
c. Schools?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in any substantial adverse physical
impacts to the provision of school services.
Also, see previous discussion in section XIV.a of this document.
(Sources: 1, 2)
d. Parks?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in any substantial adverse physical
impacts to the provision of park services.
See previous discussion in section XIV.a of this document.
(Sources: 1, 2)
e. Other public facilities?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which by definition are not site specific and therefore would not result in any substantial adverse
physical impacts to the provision of services through other public services.
See previous discussion in section XIV.a of this document.
(Sources: 1, 2)
XV. RECREATION
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 38 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in the increased use of existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational activities.
By providing additional access to, the proposed infrastructure improvements may increase park usage. This
incremental change is not expected to be significant.
(Sources: 1, 2)
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not include construction of recreational facilities
or require the construction/expansion of recreation facilities which would have an adverse environmental impact.
The proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update includes recommendations for bicycle
parking in the downtown area. Bicycle parking can be installed with minimal or no impact to the physical
environment.
(Sources: 1, 2)
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant component of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit)?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
The City’s staff has reviewed the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update and
determined it is consistent with all applicable plans, ordinance and policies including the Circulation element of
the San Rafael General Plan 2020 which states that a key recommendation is to “expand bicycle and pedestrian
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 39 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
networks, and improve connections between the different modes” of transportation. The proposed improvements
in the project will also improve connectivity to mass transit for non-motorized travel.
Also refer to the discussion in section X.b.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures , or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
the level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or
highways.
By reducing motor vehicle trips, the proposed projects would have the beneficial impact of reducing traffic
volume that could otherwise cause level of service standards to be exceeded.
(Sources: 1, 2)
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in a change in air traffic patterns.
The proposed projects do not involve any construction that would impact air traffic patterns.
(Sources: 1, 2)
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 40 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not increase hazards due to a design feature.
The proposed projects in the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update would conform with
accepted state and federal standards for the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, thereby insuring the
safety of design improvements. Infrastructure improvements will improve safety beyond the existing level
through appropriate separation of bicyclists and pedestrians from motorized traffic. The proposed projects are
intended to rehabilitate the existing facilities that are not in conformance with the current accepted standards and
to improve the safety and performance of such facilities. The San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan,
2018 Update is expected to improve the conditions for both motorized and non-motorized users by eliminating
traffic and safety hazards.
(Sources: 1, 2, 8)
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not result in inadequate emergency access.
The proposed projects are expected to reduce motor vehicle congestion, which would result in improved
emergency response time.
The proposed projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental review if
and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, have no impact on emergency access by
public safety agencies at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2)
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation.
All of the proposed projects in the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update support, rather
than conflict with, the use of alternative modes of transportation.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 41 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact local Regional Water Quality Control
Board wastewater treatment requirements.
None of the projects proposed in the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update would generate
wastewater.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
See previous discussion in section XVII.a.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c. Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
The projects proposed in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update would not increase the amount of
storm water runoff and therefore would not create the need for additional storm water facilities.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 42 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact existing water supplies or require
new water resources.
None of the projects proposed in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update would require water
supplies.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact existing wastewater treatment
capacity.
None of the projects proposed in the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update would generate
wastewater requiring treatment.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not require the disposal of solid waste.
The project area is served by the Redwood Landfill. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle circulation facilities
will not generate significant quantities of solid waste.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 43 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not impact solid waste disposal regulations.
The proposed circulation system improvements will comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes
and regulations relating to solid waste.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not have the potential to degrade environmental
quality.
The projects that could be built in the near future are proposed for existing streets that already contain traffic
signals and signs, striping and markings, crosswalks, curb markings, etc. Signing and striping to designate
bicycle and pedestrian routes would therefore not have any potential to degrade environmental quality.
The remainder of the projects are conceptual in nature. Such projects would be subject to future environmental
review if and when site specific proposals are developed and would, therefore, does not have any potential to
degrade environmental quality at this time.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-Than-
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Environmental Checklist Form 44 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not individually or cumulatively impact the
environment.
The proposed projects would not have individual or cumulative impact on the environment.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Discussion:
A significant portion of the proposed San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update relates to
policy guidelines which are not site specific and therefore would not have any adverse environmental effects to
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed projects would not have any adverse environmental effects to human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Environmental Checklist Form 45 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 Update
APPENDIX
SOURCE REFERENCES
The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document. Unless attached herein, copies of all
reference reports, memorandums and letters are on file with the City of San Rafael Department of Community
Development. References to Publications prepared by Federal or State agencies may be found with the agency
responsible for providing such information.
1. Staff Review
2. San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update
3. City of San Rafael General Plan 2020, adopted November 15, 2004; amended thereafter
4. City of San Rafael General Zoning Ordinance, City of San Rafael, May 1996; amended thereafter
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, revised December 1999
6. State Division of Mines and Geology; Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps
7. California Building Code, 2016 Edition
8. Caltrans Highway Design Manual
9. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
10. San Rafael Municipal Code
11. BAAQMD Bay Area Air Pollution Summaries (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)
12. Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP)
13. Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition
14. California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1
15. San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP); 2009
16. City adopted Archeological Resource Protection Procedures; 2001
17. San Rafael Muncipal Code Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.13)
Contents
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
1
7
16
21
28
32
57
CONTEXT
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Did you know? 91% of non-commute bicycle trips and 99% of non-
commute walk trips in Marin County would be replaced by a motor
vehicle trip if bicycling or walking were not an option.
(Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study,
2007)
Background
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Context | 3
Project Timeline
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Context | 4
Goals
1
2
3
4
5
.
See Page 57 for a list of policies and objectives
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Context | 5
Land Use
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Context | 6
Survey
See Appendix A for the survey instrument and Appendix B for the survey responses
EXISTING
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Did you know? The average bicycle trip distance in Marin
County is 2.2 miles. (Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot
Program Evaluation Study, 2007)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 8
See page 3 for a description of facility types, Appendix C for the full list of online public comments, and Appendix D for a list of existing facilities
Existing Bikeways
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 9
Bike Parking
Keyed bike locker near the Transit Center
Parked bicycles near Sol Food on Third Street
Parked bicycles at the Transit Center
Parked bicycle near Taj of Marin on Fourth Keyed bike lockers near the Transit Center
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 10
*Sources: Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study: Final Report (2016) and SMART Stations’ Bicycle Parking Investment Plan
(2016)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 11
Wayfinding
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 12
*Source: Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study: Final Report (2016)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 13
See Appendix C for the full list of mapped public comments
Existing Walkways
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 14
Featured
2nd Friday Art Walk on Fourth Street San Francisco Bay Trail at Pickleweed Park City Plaza at Rafael Town Center McInnis Skatepark off Smith Ranch Road
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 15
Programs
13
average number
of annual education/
encouragement
activities per school*
10
participating San
Rafael schools in the
Marin County SR2S
program
65/100
average SR2S
‘report card’ score for
participating schools
in San Rafael**
**Compared to program-wide average of 60/100
*See Appendix E for full list of activities
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Existing | 16
COORDINATION
▪
▪
▪
Did you know? 45% of transit riders in Marin County get
to their stop by bicycling or walking. (Nonmotorized
Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study, 2007)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Coordination | 17
Related Plans
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
See Appendix F for a description of these plans
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Coordination | 18
Previous Plan
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Coordination | 19
Progress
2011-2017
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
*Some bikeways were implemented as different facility types than as proposed in the 2011 plan
Following the adoption of the 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the City of San Rafael
has made progress towards its goals. The City implemented 26 percent of its proposed
bicycle projects (by miles), including 0.43 miles of Class I multi -use paths, 3.05 miles of
Class II bicycle lanes, 3.85 miles of Class III bicycle routes , and 0.15 miles of Class IV
protected bikeways. In addition, the City has completed a number of grant applications
in pursuit of project funding, maintained a dedicated webpage for bicycle - and
pedestrian-related projects, and maintained an online system for reporting roadway
hazards.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Coordination | 20
Transit Connections
SAFETY
▪
▪
▪
Did you know? The average bicycle trip in Marin County is 51
minutes and the average walk trip is 46 minutes. (Nonmotorized
Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study, 2007)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Safety | 22
Bike Collisions
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Safety | 23
*SWITRS/TIMS
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Safety | 24
Pedestrian
Collisions
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Safety | 25
*SWITRS/TIMS
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Safety | 26
Pedestrian Crossing
Safety Countermeasures
Bicycle Intersection
Safety Countermeasures
ADA-compliant Curb Ramp
Allow all users, including people with mobil ity-assist
devices (wheelchairs, canes, and walkers), strollers, and
carts, to make the transition from the street to the
sidewalk.
Curb Extension
Help minimize pedestrian exposure to motor vehicles by
shortening the street crossing distance and making
pedestrians more visible before they commit to crossing.
Median Refuge Island
Located at the mid-point of a marked crossing to allow
pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time.
Active Warning Beacon
User-activated illuminated devices that are designed to
bring attention to pedestrians crossing the street and to
increase the probability that motorists yield to
pedestrians at marked crosswalks.
Green Infrastructure
Treats and slows stormwater runoff from roadways,
sidewalks, and buildings through bioretention swales,
rain gardens, tree box filters and pervious pavements.
These strategies help reduce the risk of erosion and
flooding which can threaten local creeks and other
natural habitats.
Skip Striping
Intervals of green pavement markings to call attention to
conflict areas between motorists and bicyclists at mixing zones
during right-hand turns, through intersections, and near
driveways.
Two-stage Turn Box
Offer bicyclists a safe way to make left turns at signalized
intersections by allowing a bicyclist to proceed through the
intersection and to wait ahead of perpendicular motor vehicle
traffic before proceeding in their intended direction.
Bike Box
Designated areas at signalized intersections that allows
bicyclists to wait in front of queuing motor vehicle traffic during
a red light, helping to minimize conflicts between motorists and
bicyclists.
Protected Intersection*
Maximize bicyclist comfort and motorist yield rates at
intersections through various design elements, such as corner
safety islands, mountable aprons, two-stage turning boxes, and
marked bicycle crossings (“crossbikes”).
Protected Bicycle Signal Phase
Help reduce conflicts between bicyclists and motorists at
intersections by allowing bicyclists to enter the intersection
ahead of motorists (similar to a “pedestrian leadin g interval”)
or at completely different times.
* Protected intersections are an integral part of a comprehensive bicycle network. While specific
intersections are not identified as part of this plan, each intersection will be studied as it is due for
upgrades.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Safety | 27
Areas of Concern
See Appendix C for the full list of areas of concerns
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Safety | 28
PRIORITIES
▪
▪
▪
Did you know? On average, the typical adult in Marin County offsets 0.2
miles of driving per day by bicycling and 0.4 miles by walking.
(Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study, 2007)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Priorities | 29
Criteria
See Appendix H for more information on the prioritization process
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Priorities | 30
Weighted
Score
Example
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Priorities | 31
See Appendix H for the prioritization rankings applied to the list of proposed projects.
Priority Areas
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Priorities | 32
PROPOSED
▪
▪
▪
▪
Did you know? The average bicycle commute trip in Marin
County is 7.3 miles and the average walk commute trip is 0.8
miles. (Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program
Evaluation Study, 2007)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 33
Overview
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 34
All Projects
See page 3 for descriptions of facility types
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 35
Group A
CIVIC CENTER CONNECTIONS
See page 3 for descriptions of facility types and see Appendix H for the full list of prioritized projects.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 36
Proposed Projects, Group A – Civic Center Connections
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
A-1
Las Gallinas Avenue
[Northern Bikeway]
Cedar Hill Drive/ Santiago
Way Lucas Valley Road II 0.05 Conceptual
Miller Creek Road/ Las Gallinas Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Study: Extend existing Class II
bicycle lanes from existing Class II bicycle lanes on Lucas Valley Road to the intersection of Las
Gallinas Avenue and Cedar Hill Drive/ Santiago Way.
A-2
McInnis Parkway Sidepath
[North/South Greenway]
McInnis Parkway north
terminus North City Limit I 0.98 Designed
SMART Draft Environmental Impact Report (2005): Provide crossing of South Fork Gallinas
Creek and extend McInnis Parkway Sidepath north to North City Limit via SMART Rail right-of-
way [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
A-3
Redwood Highway/ Civic
Center Drive Marin Center Drive Professional Center
Parkway I 0.37 Conceptual Create Class I multi-use path on eastside of roadway (modified from proposed Class II bicycle
lanes in 2013 Civic Center Station Area Plan).
A-4
Redwood Highway/ Civic
Center Drive
Manuel T. Freitas
Parkway/ Highway 101 off
-ramp
N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Improve bicycle and pedestrian intersection crossing conditions.
A-5
Michael's Parking Lot
Pathway Las Gallinas Avenue Merrydale Road To be
determined N/A Funded
North San Rafael Vision Promenade Conceptual Plan (2002): Study feasibility of pathway
through Michael's parking lot to connect existing Promenade on Las Gallinas Avenue to
existing westbound Class II bicycle lanes on Merrydale Road.
A-6 Las Gallinas Avenue Merrydale Road N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Improve bicycle and pedestrian crossing conditions at the south leg of the Las Gallinas Avenue
and Merrydale Road intersection to accommodate proposed Class I multi-use path.
A-7 Merrydale Road Las Gallinas Avenue SMART Pathway I 0.35 Conceptual
SMART Draft Environmental Impact Report (2005): Develop Class I multi-use path from SMART
Pathway near Civic Center SMART Station to Promenade at Las Gallinas Avenue.
A-8
Los Ranchitos Road
[Northern Bikeway] Northgate Drive Golden Hinde Boulevard Sidewalk 0.20 Conceptual
Civic Center Station Area Plan (2013): Create continuous sidewalks on Los Ranchitos Road from
Northgate Drive to Golden Hinde Boulevard by gaps in the sidewalk network.
A-9
Walter Place Pathway
[Northern Bikeway] Los Ranchitos Road Corillo Drive I 0.06 Active SMART
Project
Civic Center Station Area Plan (2013): Pave pathway to existing SMART rail at-grade crossing.
A-10
Civic Center Station
Pathway/Puerto Suello
Hill Pathway
[North/South Greenway]
North San Pedro Road
South end of Merrydale
Road/ Puerto Suello Hill
Pathway
I 0.25 Active SMART
Project (partial)
SMART Draft Environmental Impact Report (2005): Extend SMART Pathway from Civic Center
SMART Station to existing Puerto Suello Hill Pathway under Highway 101 and along Los
Ranchitos Road/ Lincoln Avenue.
Plus, extend existing Puerto Suello Hill Path north of Lincoln Avenue to connect to Merrydale
Road and proposed SMART Pathway parallel to Los Ranchitos Road.
A-11
Civic Center Station
Pathway
[North/South Greenway]
West of Civic Center
SMART Station N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Civic Center Station Area Plan (2013): Study at-grade crossing west Highway 101 near Civic
Center SMART Station [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
A-12
Civic Center SMART
Station N/A N/A Bicycle Parking N/A Conceptual SMART Station Bicycle Parking Investment Plan (2016): Install 20 inverted u-racks and eight e-
lockers at the Civic Center SMART Station.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 37
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
A-13
McInnis Parkway Sidepath
[North/South Greenway] Civic Center Drive Bridgewater Drive I 0.46 Conceptual
Maintenance: Repave existing McInnis Parkway Sidepath from Civic Center Drive to proposed
SMART Pathway extension at Bridgewater Drive [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
A-14 Madison Avenue Civic Center Drive
Roosevelt Avenue/
existing Madison Avenue
pathway
I 0.20 Conceptual
Create Class I multi-use path on northside of roadway connecting Civic Center Drive, Field of
Dogs dog park, and Venetia Valley School.
A-15 Merrydale Road SMART Pathway Puerto Suello Hill Pathway III 0.74 Conceptual Civic Center Station Area Plan (2013): Designate Merrydale Road as Class III bicycle route
(pavement markings and signage).
A-16
Civic Center Drive
Peter Behr Drive North San Pedro Road I 0.45
Partially
completed by
County
Pave Class I multi-use path in northbound direction [part of SF Bay Trail alignment] or continue
existing two-way Class IV protected bikeway from Peter Behr Drive to North San Pedro Road
A-17 North San Pedro Road Los Ranchitos Road Civic Center Drive/ San
Pablo Avenue I 0.49 Conceptual
Pave Class I multi-use path on southside of North San Pedro Road (modified from original Class
II bicycle lanes and sidewalks proposed in the 2013 Civic Center Station Area Plan) and study
safety improvements to reduce conflicts at Highway 101 off-ramp onto eastbound North San
Pedro Road [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
A-18 North San Pedro Road Highway 101 N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
San Rafael Safe Routes to School Task Force and Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan: Improve
undercrossing conditions (public art and lighting) [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
A-19 North San Pedro Road Los Ranchitos Road Civic Center Drive/ San
Pablo Avenue IV 0.45 Conceptual
Study feasibility of a westbound Class IV protected bikeway on North San Pedro Road between
Los Ranchitos Road and Civic Center Drive/ San Pablo Avenue.
A-20 North San Pedro Road Highway 101 on-ramp N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual San Rafael Safe Routes to School Task Force: Improve bicycle and pedestrian crossing
conditions [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
A-21 North San Pedro Road Civic Center Drive/ San
Pablo Avenue N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual San Rafael Safe Routes to School Task Force: Improve bicycle and pedestrian crossing
conditions (consider protected intersection) [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
A-22
Lucas Valley Road/Smith
Ranch Road Los Gamos Drive Silveira Parkway II N/A Conceptual Create Class II on-street buffered bicycle lanes connecting existing Lucas Valley Road bicycle
lanes and McInnis County Park.
A-23
Northgate Drive
[Northern Bikeway]
Las Gallinas Avenue
(north)
270 feet south of Las
Gallinas Avenue (north) II 0.05 Conceptual Close gap in Class II on-street bicycle lanes near northern intersection of Northgate Drive and
Las Gallinas Avenue.
A-24 Merrydale Road Las Gallinas Avenue Willow Avenue Sidewalk 0.17 Conceptual
Close gaps in sidewalk: Merrydale Road (west side) between El Prado Avenue and Willow
Avenue; Merrydale Road (east side) from 170 feet north of El Prado Avenue to 60 feet south of
El Prado Avenue; angled parking with sidewalk on Merrydale Road (west side) between Las
Gallinas Avenue and El Prado Avenue.
A-25
Las Gallinas Avenue
[Northern Bikeway] Manuel T. Freitas Parkway Northgate Drive IV 0.29 Conceptual Replace existing Class II on-street bicycle lanes and Class III bicycle route with Class IV
protected bikeway on Las Gallinas Avenue to close gap in Northern Bikeway.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 38
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
A-26 North San Pedro Road Merrydale Road N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Study bicycle and pedestrian improvements at the intersection of North San Pedro Road and
Merrydale Road.
A-27
Redwood Highway access
road Smith Ranch Road Professional Center
Parkway II 0.92 Conceptual Replace existing Class III bicycle route on the Redwood Highway access road with Class II on-
street bicycle lanes from Smith Ranch Road to Professional Center Parkway.
A-28
Las Gallinas Avenue
[Northern Bikeway] Northgate Drive (north) Golden Hinde Boulevard II 0.74 Conceptual Stripe Class II on-street bicycle lanes on Las Gallinas Avenue between Northgate Drive (north)
and Golden Hinde Boulevard to serve as a parallel facility to the existing Class I multi-use path.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 39
Group B
NORTH SAN RAFAEL SAFE ROUTES
TO SCHOOLS CONNECTIONS
See page 3 for descriptions of facility types and see Appendix H for full list of prioritized projects.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 40
Proposed Projects, Group B – North Safe Routes to School Connections
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
B-1 Manuel T. Freitas Parkway Mission Pass Path Del Ganado Road II 0.68 Conceptual
Narrow travel lanes and stripe buffered bicycle lanes (modified from Class II on-street bicycle
lanes in 2002 North San Rafael Vision Promenade Conceptual Plan).
B-2 Montecillo Road Freitas Parkway Trellis Drive To be
determined 0.45 Conceptual Safe Routes to School Task Force: Study potential Class III bicycle boulevard on Montecillo Road
from Freitas Parkway to Trellis Drive.
B-3 Montecillo Road Trellis Drive Nova Albion Way To be
determined 0.35 Conceptual
Safe Routes to School Task Force: Study potential Class I multi-use path on Montecillo Road
from Trellis Drive to Nova Albion Way.
B-4 Trellis Drive Esmeyer Drive N/A To be
determined N/A Conceptual Safe Routes to School Task Force: Study potential safety improvements for pedestrians crossing
Trellis Drive at Esmeyer Drive (and other intersections in Terra Linda neighborhood).
B-5 Devon Drive Esmeyer Drive Golden Hinde Boulevard To be
determined 0.73 Conceptual
Safe Routes to School Task Force: Study potential traffic calming on Devon Drive from Esmeyer
Drive to Golden Hinde Boulevard.
B-6 Manuel T. Freitas Parkway Montecillo Road Del Presidio Boulevard I 1.08 Conceptual Pave a Class I multi-use path on both sides of Manuel T. Freitas Parkway and/or create
continuous bi-directional 6-foot-wide sidewalks.
B-7 Manuel T. Freitas Parkway Las Gallinas Avenue Northgate Drive II 0.22 Conceptual Extend existing Class II on-street bicycle lanes on Manuel T. Freitas Parkway from Las Gallinas
Avenue to Northgate Drive.
B-8 Nova Albion Way Las Gallinas Avenue 155 feet south of Arias
Street IV 0.09 Conceptual Create a Class IV protected bikeway on Nova Albion Way between Las Gallinas Avenue and the
Vallecito Elementary School parking lot.
B-9 Nova Albion Way 155 feet south of Arias
Street Montecillo Road I 0.24 Conceptual Create a Class I multi-use path on Nova Albion Way between the Vallecito Elementary School
parking lot and Montecillo Road.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 41
Group C
WEST END CONNECTIONS
See page 3 for descriptions of facility types and see Appendix H for full list of prioritized projects.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 42
Proposed Projects, Group C – West End Connections
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
C-1 Greenfield Avenue
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
West City Limit (near Ross
Valley Drive) West End Avenue III+ 0.34 Conceptual Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Change existing Class III bicycle
route to Class III bicycle boulevard.
C-2 Greenfield Avenue
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] West End Avenue N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Add median to channelize traffic.
C-3 Fourth Street [Cross
Marin Bikeway+]
Second Street/ Marquard
Avenue N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Study the feasibility of realigning
the Fourth Street/ Second Street/ Marquard Avenue intersection to improve pedestrian,
bicycle, and motor vehicle access.
C-4 West End Avenue
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Greenfield Avenue Marquard Avenue III+ 0.15 Conceptual
Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Change existing Class III bicycle
route to Class III bicycle boulevard. In interim, move eastbound bicycle pavement markings
outside of door zone.
C-5 West End Avenue [Cross
Marin Bikeway+] Marquard Avenue N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Add raised crosswalk and potential
curb extension to southwest corner.
C-6 Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
Fourth Street/ Marquard
Avenue Miramar Avenue I 0.29 Conceptual
Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Create a Class I multi-use on
Second Street between Fourth Street/Marquard Avenue and Miramar Avenue. Build retaining
wall on south side of Second Street between Ida Street or G Street to Miramar Avenue to
expand existing sidewalk width to accommodate a Class I multi-use path. Alternatively, remove
westbound on-street motor vehicle parking on Second Street between Ida Street or G Street to
Miramar Avenue, move and re-stripe median, and create a bi-directional Class IV separated
bikeway.
C-7 Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] West Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Add raised crosswalk.
C-8 Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] East Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Add raised crosswalk.
C-9 Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Miramar Avenue N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Add raised crosswalk and
transition to Mahon Creek Pathway.
C-10 Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] G Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Study intersection alterations to facilitate transition from proposed Class III bicycle boulevard
on G Street (or Ida Street) to proposed “Cross Marin Bikeway+” on Second Street.
C-11 G Street Fourth Street/ Marquard
Avenue Second Street III+ 0.08 Conceptual Create Class III bicycle boulevard connection on G Street (or Ida Street) to proposed “Cross
Marin Bikeway+” on Second Street.
C-12 D Street/ C Street Fourth Street San Rafael Avenue To be
determined 0.21 Conceptual
Study the feasibility of a Class IV protected bikeway couplets or a Class III+ bicycle boulevard
with wayfinding signage and traffic calming elements on D Street and C Street between
Downtown and Gerstle Park (modified from route on D Street within Fairfax to San Rafael
Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study).
C-13
Miramar Avenue/ First
Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
Second Street E Street III+ 0.20 Conceptual Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Change existing Class III bicycle
route to Class III bicycle boulevard.
C-14 First Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] E Street D Street II 0.07 Conceptual
Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Reverse street from westbound
one-way to eastbound one-way and add contraflow bicycle lane. Alternatively, study feasibility
of maintaining the current westbound one-way and adding advisory bicycle lanes.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 43
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
C-15
Fourth Street/
Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
West City Limit (near Ross
Valley Drive) Second Street To be
determined 0.58 Conceptual
Study the feasibility of a Class I multi-use path on Fourth Street between the West City Limit
and Second Street as a long-term alternative to proposed Class III bicycle boulevard on
Greenfield Avenue/West End Avenue.
C-16 Fifth Avenue River Oaks Road N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Sun Valley Elementary Travel Plan: Create traffic circle at T-intersection.
C-17 Fifth Avenue River Oaks Road Racquet Club Drive Sidewalk 0.20 Conceptual
Sun Valley Elementary Travel Plan: Upgrade sidewalk on River Oaks Road between Fifth
Avenue and Racquet Club Drive.
C-18 Fifth Avenue Happy Lane N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Sun Valley Elementary Travel Plan: Add curb extensions to northwest, northeast, and
southwest corners; add high-visibility crosswalk across Happy Lane; and upgrade sidewalk on
Fifth Avenue from Happy Lane to 150 feet west of Happy Lane.
C-19 River Oaks Road Racquet Club Drive N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Sun Valley Elementary Travel Plan: Add high-visibility crosswalk at intersection of River Oaks
Drive and Racquet Club Drive.
C-20 Fifth Avenue Racquet Club Drive N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Sun Valley Elementary Travel Plan: Bicycle and pedestrian intersection improvements.
C-21 Fifth Avenue River Oaks Road H Street To be
determined 1.04 Conceptual
Study parking occupancy rates and potential for bikeway connecting Sun Valley Elementary
and downtown.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 44
Group D
CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL CONNECTIONS
See page 3 for descriptions of facility types and see Appendix H for full list of prioritized projects.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 45
Proposed Projects, Group D – Central San Rafael Connections
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
D-1
Downtown East-West
Connection
[Commercial Connector]
Fourth Street/ Second
Street Union Street To be
determined 1.36 Conceptual
Study the feasibility of an east-west bikeway through downtown San Rafael that can
comfortably accommodate people of all ages and bicycling ability. If compatible with the
preferred alternative resulting from the feasibility study, consider incorporating lighting
improvements and a public art component to reinforce the area's recent Cultural District
designation [part of SF Bay Trail alignment and Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan].
D-2
West Tamalpais Avenue
[North/South Greenway] Second Street Mission Avenue IV 0.25 Conceptual
Tamalpais Avenue Feasibility Study (ongoing): Convert West Tamalpais Avenue into a one-way
street in the southbound direction; create a Class IV protected bikeway between West
Tamalpais and SMART right-of-way; create improved bicycle and pedestrian crossings at
intersections and connection to existing Class I multi-use path parallel to Hetherton Street.
Alternatively, consider a Class I multi-use path [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
D-3 Davidson Middle School
Path (Lindaro Street/
Jordan Street/ Lovell
Avenue)
Mahon Creek Path/
Andersen Drive Woodland Avenue I 0.49 Conceptual
Study the feasibility of a Class I multi-use path from the current southern terminus of the
Mahon Creek Path to James B. Davidson Middle School along Lindaro Street, Jordan Street, and
Lovell Avenue.
D-4 Fourth Street Union Street San Rafael High School
playing field
To be
determined N/A Conceptual
Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan (2009): Study feasibility of east-west and north-south Class I
multi-use paths running through San Rafael High School playing fields and connecting Mission
Avenue, Union Street, and Third Street. (Note: Ongoing discussions with San Rafael School
District, Safe Routes to Schools, City, and interested members of the public; see San Rafael
High School Facilities Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report for more information).
D-5 Third Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
Grand Avenue East City Limit (near
Embarcadero Way) I 0.44 Conceptual Create Class I multi-use path along Third Street [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
D-6 First Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
D Street B Street III+ 0.14 Conceptual Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Upgrade existing Class III bicycle
route to Class III bicycle boulevard.
D-7 Safeway Path
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
First Street Albert Park Path I 0.07 Conceptual
Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Create Class I multi-use path along
the south side of the Safeway parking lot connecting to the existing Albert Park Path with a
transition to the existing Class II bicycle lanes on Andersen Drive.
D-8 Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
Highway 101
undercrossing N/A Undercrossing N/A Conceptual Study potential pedestrian improvements for Highway 101 undercrossing on Second Street,
including walkway, lighting, and public art.
D-9
Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+,
North/South Greenway]
Highway 101 on-ramp N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Study pedestrian crossing improvements on Second Street at the Highway 101 on-ramp [part
of SF Bay Trail alignment].
D-10 Second Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
Highway 101 off-ramp N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Study pedestrian crossing improvements on Second Street at the Highway 101 off-ramp [part
of SF Bay Trail alignment].
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 46
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
D-11
First Street
[Cross Marin Bikeway+]
B Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Study bicycle and pedestrian intersection treatments to improve transition from proposed
Class III bicycle boulevard on First Street to proposed Class I multi-use path through Safeway
parking lot (Safeway Path).
D-12
Andersen Drive Albert Park Path Mahon Creek Connector I 0.15 Conceptual
Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Extend Class I multi-use path along
Andersen Drive from Albert Park Path to Mahon Creek Connector. May require the removal of
on-street motor vehicle parking on the south side of Andersen Drive, the relocation of trees
and/or utility poles, and the relocation of existing center median and turn lanes.
D-13 Andersen Drive Lindaro Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study: Create diagonal path through
intersection to connect the Mahon Creek Connector to the Albert Park Path; create bicycle-
and pedestrian-specific traffic signal phasing; improve transition between path and roadway.
D-14 Lindaro Street Jordan Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Davidson Middle School Travel Plan: Add high-visibility crosswalks.
D-15 Lindaro Street Woodland Avenue N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Davidson Middle School Travel Plan: Add curb extensions and consider removing crosswalk
across north leg of intersection.
D-16 Woodland Avenue Seibel Street N/A To be
determined N/A Conceptual Safe Routes to School Task Force: Study potential advanced warning/ flashing beacons on
Woodland Avenue at Seibel Street.
D-17
Southern Heights
Boulevard
150 feet north of Meyers
Road N/A Walkway 0.03 Funded Replace existing Southern Heights Bridge and add 4-foot sidewalk.
D-18 Francisco Boulevard West Second Street Andersen Drive I 1.03 Partially funded SMART Draft Environmental Impact Report (2005): Extend SMART Pathway from Downtown
San Rafael SMART Station to existing Cal Park Hill Pathway [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
D-19
Andersen Drive
[North/South Greenway] Francisco Boulevard West N/A Intersection N/A Active SMART
Project
SMART Final Environmental Impact Report (2006): Realign Andersen Drive for at-grade rail
crossing [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
D-20
Highway 101
undercrossings N/A To be
determined N/A Conceptual
Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan (2009): Study potential lighting and public art at Highway
101 undercrossings at Third Street, Fourth Street, Fifth Avenue, Mission Avenue, and Linden
Lane.
D-21
Puerto Suello Hill Pathway
[North/South Greenway] Pacheco Street Merrydale Road Walkway N/A Conceptual Implement lighting improvements along the Puerto Suello Hill Pathway.
D-22
Fourth Street
[North/South Greenway,
Commercial Connector]
Hetherton Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Study bicycle and pedestrian intersection treatments to improve crossing.
D-23 Mission Avenue Union Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Stripe high-visibility crosswalks at intersection of Mission Avenue and Union Street.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 47
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
D-24
Lovell Avenue Woodland Avenue (west) Irwin Street Walkway 0.15 Conceptual
Construct sidewalk and curb ramps on north side of Lovell Avenue between Woodland Avenue
and Anova Center for Education; refresh double yellow center line on Lovell Avenue between
Woodland Avenue (west) and Jordan Street; update school warning "Assembly D" signage;
extend red curb on Jordan Street in northbound and southbound directions to 22 feet north of
Lovell Avenue.
D-25 Lovell Avenue Jordan Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Reconfigure intersection to shorten crossing distance and improve sight lines.
D-26 Lovell Avenue Irwin Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Install crosswalk, curb ramps, and school warning "Assembly D" signage.
D-27 Mission Avenue Belle Avenue Embarcadero Way Sidewalk 0.25 Conceptual
Construct new sidewalk near San Rafael High School on Mission Avenue between Belle Avenue
and Embarcadero Way.
D-28 Mission Avenue Hetherton Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Study bicycle and pedestrian intersection treatments to improve crossing.
D-29 Third Street Hetherton Street N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Third Street and Hetherton Street Traffic Study (2018): Eliminate the left-tun pocket from Third
Street onto Hetherton Street and add a leading pedestrian interval; funding available to
implement changes.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 48
Group E
POINT SAN PEDRO IMPROVEMENTS
See page 3 for descriptions of facility types and see Appendix H for full list of prioritized projects.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 49
Proposed Projects, Group E – Point San Pedro Improvements
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
E-1 Point San Pedro Road
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Marina Boulevard Montecito Road
To be
determined 0.25 Conceptual
The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Study feasibility of Class IV
grade-separated bikeway in eastbound and westbound directions [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment].
E-2 Point San Pedro Road
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Sea Way Balboa Avenue/ Bay Way
To be
determined 0.14 Conceptual
The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Study feasibility of Class IV
grade-separated bikeway in eastbound and westbound directions [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment].
E-3 Point San Pedro Road
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Balboa Avenue/ Bay Way San Pedro Cove
To be
determined 0.45 Conceptual
The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Study feasibility of eastbound
Class IV grade-separated bikeway and northbound Class I multi-use path [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment].
E-4
Point San Pedro Road
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Manderly Road N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual San Rafael Safe Routes to School Task Force: Improve bicycle and pedestrian crossing
conditions [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
E-5 Point San Pedro Road
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] San Pedro Cove Bayview Drive To be
determined 0.30 Conceptual The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Study feasibility of Class I
multi-use path in eastbound and westbound directions [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
E-6 Point San Pedro Road
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Knight Drive N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual
Glenwood Elementary School Travel Plan: Improve bicycle and pedestrian crossing conditions
with pedestrian-activated flashing beacon; potential turning radii reduction and/or bulbouts
to reduce pedestrian crossing distance; and potential median refuge island [part of SF Bay
Trail alignment].
E-7 Point San Pedro Road
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Main Drive Riviera Drive To be
determined 0.65 Conceptual
The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Study feasibility of Class IV
grade-separated bikeway in eastbound and westbound directions [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment].
E-8 Point San Pedro Road
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Riviera Drive Cantera Way To be
determined 0.65 Conceptual
The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Study feasibility of eastbound
Class I multi-use path and westbound Class IV grade-separated bikeway [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment].
E-9 Cantera Way
[Cross Marin Bikeway+] Point San Pedro Road North San Pedro Road To be
determined 0.61 Conceptual
The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Study feasibility of Class I
multi-use path along Cantera Way and through McNears Beach County Park [part of SF Bay
Trail alignment].
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 50
Group F
CANAL CONNECTIONS
See page 3 for descriptions of facility types and see Appendix H for full list of prioritized projects.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 51
Proposed Project, Group F – Canal Connections
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
F-1 Grand Avenue
[Bridge Connector] Francisco Boulevard East Second Street I 0.13 Funded
Grand Avenue Improvement Project: Bicycle and pedestrian bridge crossing San Rafael Canal (150 feet
by 12 feet) and Class I path connecting Second Street to Francisco Boulevard East [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment].
F-2 Grand Avenue
[Bridge Connector] Fourth Street Second Street IV 0.11 Conceptual
Study feasibility of Class IV two-way protection northbound bikeway connecting proposed Grand
Avenue Bridge and proposed East-West downtown bikeway, plus bicycle intersection treatments (i.e.
bike boxes) [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
F-3 Second Street
[Bridge Connector] Grand Avenue N/A Intersection N/A Funded Grand Avenue Improvement Project: Land acquisition, intersection and driveway reconfiguration, and
sidewalk improvements, including curbs [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
F-4 Montecito Plaza
Waterfront Trail Grand Avenue Third Street Walkway 0.28 Funded
Montecito Plaza Waterfront Trail Improvements: Pedestrian pathway and landscaping improvements
to Montecito Plaza Waterfront Trail south of Montecito Plaza Shopping Center (also called Canal Paseo
in Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan) [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
F-5 Canal Crossing Mouth of Yacht Club
harbor Third Street To be
determined 0.06 Conceptual Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan (2009): Study potential bicycle and pedestrian bridge over San
Rafael Canal [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
F-6 Yacht Club Drive Francisco Boulevard East Yacht Club Drive north
terminus/ Beach Park III 0.10 Conceptual
Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan (2009): Study improved bicycle access from Canal neighborhood to
Beach Park via Class III bicycle route and addition of short-term bicycle parking at Beach Park;
alternative route: Class I multi-use path from Grand Avenue to north terminus of Yacht Club Drive.
F-7 Harbor Street
[Bridge Connector] Francisco Boulevard East Canal Street III+ 0.18 Conceptual
San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2011): Create Class III bicycle boulevard on Harbor Street,
incorporating bicycle pavement markings, wayfinding signage, and traffic calming elements [part of SF
Bay Trail].
F-8 Francisco Boulevard East
[Bridge Connector] Grand Avenue Vivian Street Walkway 0.69 Designed Francisco Boulevard East Sidewalk Widening Project: 8-foot-wide sidewalk, lighting, landscaping, and
drainage improvements [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
F-9 Canal Street
[Bridge Connector] Harbor Street Pickleweed Community
Center entrance
To be
determined 0.80 Conceptual
Study upgrade of existing Class III bicycle route to Class III bicycle boulevard, Class II bicycle lanes (as
noted in the Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan), or advisory bicycle lanes [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment].
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 52
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
F-10
Canal Street
Sorrento Way Schoen Park (east end) I 0.37 Conceptual
The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Part 1 - Close gap between Class III
bicycle route on Canal Street at Sorrento Way and existing Class I multi-use path at entrance to
Pickleweed Park (Note: Project has environmental considerations). Part 2 - Pave existing unpaved
segments of Class I multi-use Path in Pickleweed Park from northwest corner of playing field to
northeast corner of playing field. Part 3 - Close gap between existing Class I multi-use path in SE corner
of playing field of Pickleweed Park and the existing Class I multi-use path terminus on east end of
Schoen Park [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
F-11
Bahia Place Creek
Pathway
[Bridge Connector]
Canal Street
3230 Kerner Boulevard
(Marin County Mental
Health Services)
To be
determined 0.56 Conceptual
Study feasibility of paving creek pathway parallel to Bahia Place as alternative to Kerner Boulevard
bicycle and pedestrian improvements proposed in the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program
Recommendations and Process Report (2007).
F-12
Bellam
Boulevard/Baypoint
Village Drive
Andersen Drive Baypoint Drive To be
determined 0.78 Conceptual
Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan (2009): Study feasibility of Class IV protected bicycle facilities on
Bellam Boulevard and Baypoint Village Drive corridor connecting to the San Francisco Bay Trail.
Between Andersen Drive and Francisco Boulevard East, study potential for northside bikeway and
widened sidewalk in conjunction with potential redevelopment Marin Square [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment and Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan]. Project is consistent with the proposed Highway 101 – I-
580 flyover improvements in development by Caltrans and funded through Regional Measure 3.
F-13 Bellam Boulevard
[Bridge Connector] Kerner Boulevard N/A Intersection N/A Conceptual Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan (2009): Improve pedestrian conditions [part of SF Bay Trail
alignment].
F-14 Kerner Boulevard
[Bridge Connector] Bellam Boulevard
Kerner Boulevard south
terminus (south of Irene
Street)
To be
determined 0.60 Conceptual
Study feasibility of Class IV parking-protected bikeway, Class II bicycle lanes (as proposed in the 2011
San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan) or Class III bicycle route on southern segment of Kerner
Boulevard as alternative to Francisco Boulevard East Class II bicycle lanes.
F-15
Kerner Boulevard
Pathway
[Bridge Connector]
Kerner Boulevard
southern terminus (south
of Irene Street)
Kerner Boulevard north
terminus (north of
Shoreline Parkway)
To be
determined 0.20 Conceptual Study feasibility of Class I multi-use path closing gap between segments of Kerner Boulevard as
alternative to Francisco Boulevard East Class II bicycle lanes.
F-16 Kerner Boulevard
[Bridge Connector]
270 feet north of
Shoreline Parkway Grange Avenue IV 0.52 Conceptual
Study feasibility of Class IV protected bikeway on Kerner Boulevard from terminus of roadway in north
(270 feet north of Shoreline Parkway) to Grange Avenue as alternative route to Francisco Boulevard
East; alternative: study feasibility of Class II buffered bicycle lanes.
F-17 San Francisco Bay Trail
San Francisco Bay Trail
south terminus (south of
Baypoint Drive)
San Francisco Bay Trail
north terminus (north of
Target)
I 0.30 Conceptual The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Close gap in existing Class I multi-use
pathway [part of SF Bay Trail alignment.
F-18 Francisco Boulevard West Canal Neighborhood N/A Pedestrian
Overcrossing N/A Conceptual Study the feasibility of a pedestrian overcrossing over Highway 101 to connect the Canal
neighborhood with Francisco Boulevard West.
F-19 Canal Neighborhood N/A N/A Bicycle Parking N/A Conceptual
Install bicycle parking in the Canal neighborhood (potential locations: Country Bowl, near apartment
complexes, Mi Pueblo, Pickleweed Park, Medway Road, Marin County Health Services, and along
Baypoint Village Drive).
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 53
Group G
EAST BAY CONNECTIONS
See page 3 for descriptions of facility types and see Appendix H for full list of prioritized projects.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 54
Proposed Project, Group G – East Bay Connections
ID CORRIDOR/PRIMARY BEGIN/AT END CLASS/TYPE MILES STATUS NOTES
G-1
Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard
[Bridge Connector]
Andersen Drive N/A Intersection N/A Preliminary
Design
San Quentin Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Study (2011): Bicycle and pedestrian intersection
improvements.
G-2 I-580 Connector
[Bridge Connector] I-580 on-ramp Francisco Boulevard East I 0.01 Active Caltrans
Project
San Quentin Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Study (2011): Pave informal pathway and create
transition between existing Class II bicycle lanes on the I-580 on-ramp and Francisco
Boulevard East.
G-3 Grange Avenue
[Bridge Connector] Francisco Boulevard East Kerner Boulevard To be
determined 0.09 Conceptual
Study feasibility of Class IV protected bikeway or Class II buffered bicycle lanes between
proposed Bay Trail connection and proposed Kerner Boulevard bikeway; previous
proposed project from San Quentin Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Study (2011) included
designating Grange Avenue as Class III bicycle route (pavement markings and signage).
G-4 Grange Avenue
[Bridge Connector] Francisco Boulevard East 230 feet from Piombo
Place Walkway 0.04 Conceptual San Quentin Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Study (2011): Close westbound sidewalk gap.
G-5 San Francisco Bay Trail
San Francisco Bay Trail
south terminus (east of
Piombo Place)
San Francisco Bay Trail
north terminus (north of
EAH Housing parking lot)
I 0.02 Conceptual The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Close gap in existing Class I
multi-use pathway [part of the SF Bay Trail Alignment].
G-6 Francisco Boulevard East
[Bridge Connector]
South City Limit/
Richmond-San Rafael
Bridge
Grange Avenue I 0.50 Active Caltrans
Project
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Access Improvements: Connect funded bi-directional bicycle
and pedestrian path on upper deck of Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to San Francisco Bay
Trail segments in San Rafael [part of SF Bay Trail alignment].
G-7 San Quentin Terrace
[Bridge Connector]
West City Limit/ Main
Street Francisco Boulevard East III 0.01 Active Caltrans
Project
San Quentin Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Study (2011): Designate Main Street as Class III
bicycle route.
G-8 Sir Francis Drake Flyover
Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard/ Andersen
Drive
Shoreline Park IV 0.56 Active Caltrans
Project
Install a concrete barrier between the travel lane and existing Class II on-street bicycle
lane.
G-9 San Francisco Bay Trail Marin Rod & Gun Club Shoreline Park I 0.09 Conceptual The San Francisco Bay Trail Project: Gap Analysis Study (2005): Close gap in existing Class I
multi-use pathway [part of the SF Bay Trail Alignment].
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 55
See Appendix I for more information; *Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study (2016)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Proposed | 56
*Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study (2016)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Proposed | 57
NEXT STEPS
▪
▪
Did you know? 13% of Marin County residents said they were
somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the opportunities for
bicycling in their community. (Nonmotorized Transportation
Pilot Program Evaluation Study, 2007)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Next Steps | 58
Funding Sources
*Bicycling and Walking in the U.S. – Benchmarking Project (2016) **Ibid; American Community Survey (5-year estimates)
Funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California is competitive. The state receives the most federal
funding out of any state in the country (approximately $4 billion per year between 2009 and 2014) but
ranks 48th out of all 50 states in per capita bicycle and pedestrian federal funding. The majority of federal
funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs in California comes from the Congestion
Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (38 percent) and the Transportation Alternatives Program
(36 percent).
A sizable portion of state and regional funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs come
from the Active Transportation Program (ATP). To date, ATP has completed three funding cycles (2014,
2015, 2017) and a fourth cycle is anticipated in 2018. The City of San Rafael’s Grand Avenue Bicycle and
Pedestrian Bridge Project is funded partially through ATP.
For a list of available federal, state, regional, and local funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects,
see Appendix I.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Next Steps | 59
Pilot Projects
To test the feasibility of new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, cities around the country
have implemented pilot projects. These short-term projects allow for a city to introduce new
concepts to the public, test multiple design alternatives at a single location to see which would
works best, and to adjust the design on the fly to respond to feedback from the public and
emergency services. Pilot projects can come in many forms, but the underlying similarities are
a focus on low-cost, reversible design and materials, volunteer help and wide public
engagement, and data collection on the project’s effectiveness.
Stages of a Pilot Project*
• 1 day – 1 month
• Can be led by anyone
• Low-cost and
borrowed materials
• High flexibility and
easily removable
• 1 month – 1 year
• City leadership
needed
• Low-cost but semi-
durable materials
• Adjustable and
ultimately removable
• Data collection
needed
• 1 year – 5 years
• City leadership
needed
• Moderate cost,
durable materials
• Adjustable but feels
permanent
• Data collection
needed
• 5+ years
• City leadership
needed
• Higher cost,
permanent materials
• Permanent and not
easily adjustable
• Long-term
performance tracking
preferred
*Based on PeopleForBikes’ “Quick Builds for Better Streets” and The Street Plans Collaborative “Iterative Project Delivery”
Pilot Mid-block Crossing
Coalinga, CA
Greenway for a Day
Palo Alto, CA
Project Examples
Pop-up Cycletrack
Morgan Hill, CA
Temporary
Protected Intersection
Minneapolis, MN
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Next Steps | 60
Goal Strategies Status Milestones
2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Safety – Identify,
prioritize, and
implement
bicycle- and
pedestrian-
related safety
improvements.
1) Reduce bicycle- and pedestrian-involved
collisions and eliminate all bicycle- and
pedestrian-involved severe injuries and
fatalities
Adopt “Vision Zero” policy of
eliminating all bicycle- and
pedestrian-involved severe injuries
and fatalities; establish historic
baseline for comparison
Reduce overall bicycle- and
pedestrian-involved collisions by
10% from baseline; reduce
bicycle- and pedestrian-involved
severe injuries and fatalities by
20% from baseline
Reduce overall bicycle- and
pedestrian-involved collisions by
20% from baseline; reduce
bicycle- and pedestrian-involved
severe injuries and fatalities by
40% from baseline
Reduce overall bicycle- and
pedestrian-involved collisions
by 30% baseline; reduce
bicycle- and pedestrian-
involved severe injuries and
fatalities by 60% from
baseline
Reduce overall bicycle- and
pedestrian-involved
collisions by 40% from
baseline; reduce bicycle-
and pedestrian-involved
severe injuries and fatalities
by 80% from baseline
2) Actively identify locations with potential
safety concerns based on roadway geometry
and implement proven safety
countermeasures to address concerns
Review and integrate findings from Marin County’s systemic safety study
3) Update citywide e-bike/electronic-assist
bicycle policy
Review existing citywide e-bike/electronic-assist bicycle policy; review national best practices; recommend
changes to citywide parking policy
N/A N/A
4) Develop citywide curbside management
policy
N/A Review existing curbside management policy; review national best practices; recommend changes to
citywide curbside management policy
N/A
5) Update citywide bicycle and pedestrian
safety policies
Review citywide distracted driving
policy; review national best
practices; recommend changes to
citywide policy
Review citywide sidewalk
bicycling policy; review national
best practices; recommend
changes to citywide policy
Review citywide ‘Idaho
stop/dead red’ policy; review
national best practices;
recommend changes to citywide
policy
N/A N/A
Tracking Progress
Tracking progress towards the plan’s goals is crucial to the overall plan’s success. While goals
define broad desired outcomes, tactics and objectives help define a preferred approach and
the measurable steps needed to achieve them. The bi -annual format listed below is intended
to coincide with bi-annual progress reports detailing the status of each strategy over the next
ten years. See Appendix J for a list of the objectives in the previous plan update.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Next Steps | 61
Goal Strategies Status Milestones
2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Connectivity –
Develop bicycle
and pedestrian
networks that
connect
residents and
visitors to major
activity and
shopping
centers, existing
and planned
transit, and
schools. Work to
close gaps
between existing
facilities.
1) Implement the proposed bicycle and
pathway network
Complete 5% of proposed “major
routes”, including interim
connections to Richmond-San Rafael
Bridge
Complete 15% of proposed
“major routes”; complete 5% of
proposed secondary projects
Complete 25% of proposed
“major routes”; complete 10%
of proposed secondary projects
Complete 35% of proposed
“major routes”; complete 15%
of proposed secondary projects
Complete 45% of proposed
“major routes”; complete
20% of proposed
secondary projects
2) Implement proposed crossing, lighting,
traffic calming, and pedestrian projects
Review and adjust downtown
pedestrian signal timing; implement
2 pedestrian safety projects
Implement 2 additional
pedestrian safety projects;
implement interim Highway 101
undercrossing measures
Implement 2 additional
pedestrian safety projects
Implement 2 additional
pedestrian safety projects
Implement 2 additional
pedestrian safety projects
3) Conduct project feasibility studies for
potential project implementation
Begin feasibility study of downtown
“Commercial Connector”; complete
study of uncontrolled crosswalks
(ongoing)
Complete feasibility study of
downtown “Commercial
Connector”; Begin feasibility
study of Bellam Boulevard
Complete feasibility study of
Bellam Boulevard; begin
feasibility study of Kerner
Boulevard/Bahia Place Creek
Pathway
Complete feasibility study of
Kerner Boulevard/Bahia Place
Creek Pathway; begin feasibility
study of Montecillo Road
Complete feasibility study
of Montecillo Road; begin
feasibility study of Pt. San
Pedro Road
4) Implement demonstration and pilot
projects
Complete demonstration project of
Class IV protected bikeway; begin
pilot project of Richmond-San Rafael
bridge connection, including kick-off
event
Begin pilot project of Class IV
protected bikeway; complete
pilot project of Richmond-San
Rafael bridge; complete
demonstration project of
protected intersection
Complete pilot project of Class
IV protected bikeway; begin
pilot project of protected
intersection
Complete pilot project of
protected intersection;
complete demonstration
project of protected bicycle
signal phasing
Begin pilot project of
protected bicycle signal
phasing
5) Implement proposed bicycle parking Complete feasibility study of bicycle
parking at SMART stations, including
review of utilization at Transit
Center; create citywide inventory of
bicycle parking facilities; implement
25% of proposed short-term bicycle
parking in downtown; establish
online bicycle parking request
system
Implement interim long-term
bicycle parking strategies at
SMART stations; implement 50%
of proposed short-term bicycle
parking in downtown; update
citywide inventory of bicycle
parking facilities
Evaluate effectiveness of
interim long-term bicycle
parking at SMART stations;
implement 75% of proposed
short-term bicycle parking in
downtown; update citywide
inventory of bicycle parking
facilities
Implement permanent long-
term bicycle parking strategy at
SMART stations; implement
100% of proposed short-term
bicycle parking in downtown;
update citywide inventory of
bicycle parking facilities
Conduct downtown bicycle
parking utilization study;
review online bicycle
parking requests and
integrate into plan update
6) Update citywide parking policy Review existing citywide motor vehicle and bicycle parking policy; review national best practices;
recommend changes to citywide parking policy
N/A N/A
7) Implement and maintain bicycle and
pedestrian wayfinding
Implement proposed pedestrian-
level signage (12 signs)
Implement proposed monument
signage (9 signs); inventory
bicycle wayfinding signage
Implement proposed sidewalk
signage (17 signs)
Implement downtown gateway
signage (3 signs)
Update inventory of bicycle
wayfinding signage
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Next Steps | 62
Goal Strategies Status Milestones
2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Coordination –
Work with other
jurisdictions,
transit agencies,
and stakeholders
to implement
projects that
reflect changing
needs at the local
and regional
levels, including
Complete Street,
environmental,
and transit
projects.
1) Conduct regular progress reports and
updates of plan
Develop progress report format;
complete 2-year progress report
documenting status of all plan
objectives; present report to City
Council
Complete 4-year progress report
documenting status of all plan
objectives; present report to City
Council
Complete 6-year progress report
documenting status of all plan
objectives; present report to City
Council
Complete 8-year progress
report documenting status of
all plan objectives; present
report to City Council
Complete full update of plan;
update plan goals, strategies,
and objectives
2) Support the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (BPAC)
Dedicate staff time to attending all BPAC meetings; provide meeting space for the BPAC; solicit feedback from the BPAC on planned and proposed bicycle and pedestrian
projects, programs, and policies in a timely manner ahead of implementation; and maintain database of BPAC meeting agendas and notes on the City’s website
3) Maintain bicycle- and pedestrian-
related webpages on the City’s website
Continue to document all ongoing bicycle- and pedestrian-related projects on the City website, including the posting bi-annual progress reports and collecting a database of
reported bicycle- and pedestrian-related issues through the online “Report an Issue” feature for inclusion within the bi-annual progress reports
4) Support the Transportation Authority
of Marin (TAM) in implementation of a
bikeshare program
Adopt policy to require data
sharing from all bikeshare
providers; support
implementation of bikeshare
program’s Phase 1 (Bellam,
Downtown, and Transit Center)
Evaluate bikeshare program
effectiveness; support
implementation of bikeshare
program’s Phase 2 (Pickleweed
Park, Fourth Street, Dominican
University, Civic Center, Civic
Center SMART Station, Northgate
Shopping Center)
Complete bi-annual evaluations of bikeshare program’s effectiveness; support implementation of
bikeshare program’s Phase 3 (Kaiser campus, Redwood Highway Business Park, Marinwood
Community)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Next Steps | 63
Goal Strategies Status Milestones
2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Universal Design
– Design and
construct
facilities that
encourage
bicycling and
walking among
people of all ages
and abilities,
including
children, seniors,
families, and
people with
limited mobility.
Work to match
project designs
with the
residents they
are intended to
serve.
1) Maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities Undertake routine maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as sweeping and restriping bikeways, trimming vegetation, and resurfacing pathways and
sidewalks
2) Track residents’ and visitors’ perceptions
of the existing bicycle network
N/A Develop bicycle user
satisfaction survey instrument;
collect baseline survey
responses
N/A Collect second round of bicycle
user satisfaction survey
responses
N/A
3) Use the latest best practices and design
guidelines and seek to make improvements
to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities
with improved bicycle detection at signalized
intersections and enhanced treatments at
street crossings.
Continue to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities according to the most up-to-date local, state, and national best practices and design guidelines
Goal Strategies Status Milestones
2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Programs –
Support bicycling
and walking for
all ages and
abilities by
providing
educational and
encouragement
programs.
1) Create and maintain database of bicycle
and pedestrian counts
Develop citywide bicycle and
pedestrian data collection plan
(including temporary and
permanent counters); coordinate
with regional data collection efforts
by TAM and MTC; establish baseline
counts; make count data publicly
accessible
Continue to conduct bicycle and
pedestrian counts; increase
usage 5% over baseline counts;
increase commute bicycle and
pedestrian mode share by 0.25%
over baseline
Continue to conduct bicycle
and pedestrian counts;
increase usage 10% over
baseline counts; increase
commute bicycle and
pedestrian mode share by
0.50% over baseline
Continue to conduct bicycle
and pedestrian counts;
increase usage 15% over
baseline counts; increase
commute bicycle and
pedestrian mode share by
0.75% over baseline
Continue to conduct bicycle
and pedestrian counts;
increase usage 20% over
baseline counts; increase
commute bicycle and
pedestrian mode share by
1.00% over baseline
2) Support Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S)
programming and task forces
Maintain or increase school
participation; increase average SR2S
“report card” score of participating
schools to 70 out of 100
Maintain or increase school
participation; increase average
SR2S “report card” score of
participating schools to 75 out of
100
Maintain or increase school
participation; increase
average SR2S “report card”
score of participating schools
to 80 out of 100
Maintain or increase school
participation; increase average
SR2S “report card” score of
participating schools to 82 out
of 100
Maintain or increase school
participation; increase
average SR2S “report card”
score of participating schools
to 84 out of 100
3) Pursue regional, state, and federal funding
for bicycle and pedestrian projects, programs,
and policy support
Track funding dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian projects, bicycle and pedestrian-related project components, and staff dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian projects and
related coordination
4) Conduct targeted enforcement to
encourage compliance with traffic safety laws
Complete quarterly multimodal enforcement and encouragement at
collision hot spots
Complete monthly multimodal enforcement and
encouragement at collision hot spots
Complete bi-weekly
multimodal enforcement and
encouragement at collision
hot spots
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Next Steps | 64
Photo Credits:
▪ Page 10 (left): Wikipedia
▪ Page 10 (center bottom): PBS
▪ Page 10 (center top): Walk Bike Marin
Appendices:
▪ Appendix A: Survey Instrument
▪ Appendix B: Survey Responses
▪ Appendix C: Mapped Public Comments
▪ Appendix D: Existing Facilities
▪ Appendix E: Available Count Data
▪ Appendix F: Related Plans
▪ Appendix G: End-of-Trip Facilities
▪ Appendix H: Prioritization Rankings
▪ Appendix I: Funding Opportunities
▪ Appendix J: Previous Objectives
▪ Appendix K: Maintenance
▪ Appendix L: Trip Estimates
▪ Appendix M: ATP-compliance Checklist
▪ Appendix N: Complete Street Policy
▪ Appendix O: Plan Comments
▪ Appendix P: City Council Resolution
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix A | 65
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
This appendix contains the survey instrument use for online and in-person data collection on resident opinion and perceptions. The online
questionnaire was accompanied by an online mapping tool for people to proposed location-specific comments.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix A | 66
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix A | 67
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix A | 68
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix A | 69
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 70
Appendix B: Survey Responses
This appendix contains the responses provided by San Rafael residents, visitors, and workers to the online and in-person survey instrument (See
Appendix A), including the unedited responses to open-ended questions.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 71
1. How are you connected to the City of San Rafael? [check all that apply]
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Live 29 374 403 76%
Work 13 176 189 36%
School 15 37 52 10%
Recreate 3 286 289 55%
Travel through 18 212 230 43%
Shop/dine 7 303 310 58%
No response 3 4 7 1%
Other: 3 27 30 6%
Total 91 1419 1510 -
Total (excluding no response) 88 1415 1510 -
Total responding (may not total to 100%) 63 467 530 -
2. How do you rate overall conditions for walking in San Rafael?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Poor 4 94 98 18%
Fair 20 198 218 41%
Good 31 159 190 35%
Excellent 11 20 31 6%
I don't walk 0 0 0 0%
No response 0 0 0 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response) 66 471 537 100%
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 72
3. When you walk, what are your typical destinations? [check all that apply]
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Work 17 74 91 18%
School 14 56 70 14%
Transit 27 111 138 27%
Stores/restaurants 31 372 403 78%
Vist family, neighbors, friends 15 182 197 38%
I don't walk 1 19 20 -
Parks/trails 15 325 340 66%
No response 2 0 2 -
Other: 2 35 37 7%
Total 124 1174 1298 -
Total (excluding no response) 122 1174 1296 -
Total responding (may not total to 100%) 63 452 515 -
4. Top 3 obstacles preventing you from walking more frequently?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
I do walk frequently - no concerns here! 39 146 185 35%
Lack of walking facilities (i.e., sidewalks, paths, curb ramps,
etc.) 6 104 110 21%
Existing walking facilities do not connect to my destinations 6 93 99 19%
Poor maintenance or inadequate existing walking facilities 5 144 149 28%
It is difficult or unsafe to cross streets 16 178 194 36%
I do not feel safe walking 4 51 55 10%
No response 2 0 2 -
Other: 5 70 75 14%
Total 83 786 869 -
Total (excluding no response) 81 786 867 -
Total responding (may not total to 100%) 64 471 535 -
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 73
5. Do you or a member of household participate in a Safe Routes to Schools program?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Yes 5 74 79 16%
No 45 370 415 84%
Decline to state 2 27 29 -
No response 14 0 14 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response, decline to state) 50 444 494 100%
6. How do you rate overall conditions for bicycling in San Rafael?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Poor 4 149 153 37%
Fair 9 155 164 39%
Good 10 73 83 20%
Excellent 7 12 19 5%
I don't bike 32 82 114 -
No response 4 0 4 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response, I don't bike) 30 389 419 100%
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 74
7. When you bike, what are your typical destinations? [check all that apply]
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Work 5 125 130 34%
School 3 49 52 14%
Transit 8 85 93 24%
Stores/restuarants 11 173 184 48%
Visit family, neighbors, friends 9 119 128 33%
I don't bike 12 124 136 -
Parks/trails 10 263 273 71%
No response 29 0 29 -
Other: 1 42 43 11%
Total 88 980 1068 -
Total (excluding no response, I don't bike) 47 856 903 -
Total responding (may not total to 100%) 37 347 384 -
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 75
8. Top 3 obstacles preventing you from biking more frequently?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
I do bike frequently - no concerns here! 9 50 59 12%
Lack of bicycling facilities (i.e., bike lanes, bike routes, paths,
etc.) 10 231 241 50%
Existing bicycle facilities do not connect to my destinations 6 107 113 24%
Poor maintenance or inadequate existing biking facilities 2 96 98 20%
Lack of bike parking, showers, or changing rooms 6 44 50 10%
It is difficult or unsafe to cross streets 6 173 179 37%
I do not feel safe biking 1 102 103 22%
No response 37 21 58 -
Other: 6 74 80 17%
Total 83 898 981 -
Total (excluding no response) 46 877 923 -
Total responding (may not total to 100%) 29 450 479 -
9. How many functioning bicycles does your household own?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
0 4 59 63 12%
1 9 47 56 11%
2 10 106 116 23%
3 8 76 84 17%
4 3 68 71 14%
5 0 63 63 12%
6+ 2 52 54 11%
No response 25 0 25 -
Total 61 471 532 -
Total (excluding no response) 36 471 507 100%
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 76
10. What is your primary mode(s) of transportation? [check all that apply]
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Walk 22 205 227 42%
Bike 12 195 207 39%
Transit 50 102 152 28%
Drive alone 13 372 385 72%
Carpool 4 84 88 16%
Bike to transit 2 37 39 7%
No response 0 0 0 -
Other: 3 22 25 5%
Total 106 1017 1123 -
Total (excluding no response) 106 1017 1123 -
Total responding (may not total to 100%) 66 471 537 -
11. When you make trips less than one mile, what is your primary mode of transportation?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Walk 49 244 293 55%
Bike 6 77 83 15%
Transit 8 6 14 3%
Drive alone 4 127 131 24%
Carpool 4 8 12 2%
Bike to transit 0 0 0 0%
No response 1 0 1 -
Other: 0 9 9 2%
Total 72 471 543 -
Total (excluding no response) 71 471 542 -
Total responding (may not total to 100%) 65 471 536 -
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 77
12. How do your transportation choices change when travelling with your kids? [skip if not applica ble, open-ended]
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Answer 8 120 128
No Response 58 12 70
Total 66 132 198
Total (excluding no response) 8 120 128
13. How much do you exercise during a typical week?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
I do not exercise regularly 10 20 30 6%
Less than 150 minutes (2.5 hours) per week 22 86 108 20%
150 - 300 minutes (2.5 hours to 5 hours) per week 20 181 201 38%
301 - 420 minutes (5 to 7 hours) per week 10 119 129 24%
Greater than 420 minutes (7 hours) per week 3 65 68 13%
No response 1 0 1 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response) 65 471 536 100%
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 78
14. How much of your exercise comes from walking or jogging?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
I do not exercise regularly 5 15 20 4%
None of my exercise comes from walking or jogging 4 21 25 5%
1 - 10% 5 55 60 11%
11 - 20% 4 68 72 14%
21 - 30% 4 56 60 11%
31 - 40% 1 33 34 6%
41 - 50% 5 53 58 11%
Greater than 50% 34 170 204 38%
No response 4 0 4 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response) 62 471 533 100%
15. How much of your exercise comes from bicycling?
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
I do not exercise regularly 4 10 14 3%
None of my exercise comes from bicycling 25 132 157 30%
1 - 10% 3 73 76 15%
11 - 20% 5 62 67 13%
21 - 30% 5 39 44 8%
31 - 40% 1 21 22 4%
41 - 50% 3 42 45 9%
Greater than 50% 5 92 97 19%
No response 15 0 15 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response) 51 471 522 100%
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 79
16. Do you have any additional comments, including what works well and challenges to bicycling and walking in San Rafael? [open-
ended]
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Answer 8 233 241
No Response 58 14 72
Total 66 247 313
Total (excluding no response) 8 233 241
17. Age
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Under 18 years old 9 9 18 3%
18 - 35 years old 29 47 76 15%
36 - 54 years old 15 209 224 43%
55 - 70 years old 9 164 173 33%
Over 70 years old 1 32 33 6%
Decline to state 0 10 10 -
No response 3 0 3 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response, decline to state) 63 461 524 100%
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 80
18. Gender
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Male 29 212 241 47%
Female 32 238 270 53%
Transgender 0 1 1 0%
I do not identify as male, female, or transgender 0 0 0 0%
Decline to state 0 20 20 -
No response 5 0 5 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response, decline to state) 61 451 512 100%
19. Annual household income
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
Less than $25,000 19 17 36 8%
$25,000 - $49,999 13 24 37 9%
$50,000 - $74,999 7 35 42 10%
$75,000 - $99,999 0 46 46 11%
$100,000 - $149,999 1 108 109 25%
Greater than $150,000 1 164 165 38%
Decline to state 15 77 92 -
No response 10 0 10 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response, decline to state) 41 394 435 100%
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 81
20. Household size
Response
Count
(physical)
Count
(in-person)
Count
(total)
Percent
(excluding no response)
1 person 9 65 74 14%
2 people 10 190 200 39%
3 people 7 77 84 16%
4 people 9 98 107 21%
5 people 12 0 12 2%
5 or more people 11 29 40 8%
Decline to state 1 12 13 -
No response 7 0 7 -
Total 66 471 537 -
Total (excluding no response, decline to state) 58 459 517 100%
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 82
Question 1 (Other)
• Walk
• Kids attend schools in San Rafael
• Home owner and Parent of SR schools kids
• Civic meetings in evenings by bike
• I have children in San Rafael schools
• I bike in San Rafael
• My parents live in San Rafael and my children attend school in San Rafael
• I have one son at Davidson Middle school, one son at San Rafael High school and I teach at Glenwood Elementary. My sons also
attended Coleman Elementary, so we've spent many years trying to safely bike, carpool and walk through San Rafael, which is not easy,
and usually not safe! and the traffic congestion and car-centric nature of our roads, combined with increased homeless, who often bike
and flaunt all laws, has gotten so much worse in the past few years!
• My kids attend school in San Rafael
• I walk a lot in San Rafael
• Principal at Coleman Elementary
• I take my children biking around town
• Kids go to school
• I commute on Marin Airporter from Anderson Dr.
• I do volunteer work in San Rafael
• Visit family
• I have a business in SR
• I cycle in San Rafael
• I own a business in San Rafael
• Travel to San Rafael for business
• I live in Santa Venetia
• Walk
• I ride my bike in San Rafael
• Care for grandkids living in SR
• Sidewalks on Nova Albion may need to be corrected. Reported SR DPW Director
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 83
Question 3 (Other)
• Hospital
• Walking my dog
• Exercise
• Fitness
• Walk the dogs
• Neighborhood, walking my dog
• I walk through town for exercise
• Walk around our neighborhood for exercise
• Evening walk for health
• I am visually impaired have a guide. I do not drive walk to everything.
• Recreation walking around the neighborhood
• I walk my dog around different places in SR
• Errands downtown
• Exercise
• I run with my dog for exercise
• I walk in our neighborhood
• Childcare
• Neighborhood walking
• I ride a bike
• Home
• Neighborhood walking for exercise
• Neighborhood walks
• Too challenging to walk from one side of SR to the other
• Meetings
• Health facilities
• Medical visits
• Walk my dog
• Banking, business
• Neighborhood stroll
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 84
• Businesses
• My mobility is electric wheelchair
Question 4 (Other)
• One-way streets
• Cars do not respect stop signs
• Not big enough
• My feet
• Live far away from school
• Crazy motorist swerved to hit me at Civic Center on purpose
• There is too much garbage in the gutters and on the sidewalks.
• I do walk frequently, but walk defensively as drivers do not consider pedestrians when rolling through red lights (while turning right) and
rolling through stop signs
• Prefer to bicycle
• Homeless blocking paths/walkways and intimidating people.
• I ride my bike much more than walking
• Walking to from any stores with a large parking lot.
• Our sidewalk intersections comply with the ADA, but once on the walks they are almost impassible and often dangerous
• More time in a day
• Red light and stop sign runners are out of control
• no safe shoulder to walk on in my neighborhood
• homeless sleeping across sidewalks
• Inadequate lighting in neighborhoods at night streets like Golden Hinde or Devon (near us) have a higher rate of traffic and people
driving over the speed limit
• Poor condition of sidewalks
• Some walking areas feel unsafe to bring my kids because of transient and drug addict population
• Sidewalks are too narrow
• Very poor lighting for walking at night
• Sidewalks are in disrepair near in downtown neighborhoods (Forbes area)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 85
• in San Rafael due to bikers biking on the sidewalk, people with there cell phone not looking were they are going, and crossing the streets
people going to fast on cell phone not watching were they are going. I go out because I have to get around to feel independent. I have
almost been hate several time. We need more talking cross signals.
• Lazy
• hazardous sidewalks along Freitas Parkway
• tree roots affecting sidewalks makes it difficult to push strollers
• One way streets create fast traffic.
• I live in the hills of Picnic Valley. Alberts Park area, the (what could be a wonderful) path behind Biomed to the transit station, the lite
industrial area that leads to Sprouts, have such a high presence of people that are transient and/or homeless (I don't know correct term
or situation) and all the trash, drug and alcohol debris littering everywhere. While I walk, I feel more and more like I'm walking through
the shopping cart people's territory.
• Broken sidewalks.
• Bicycles on the sidewalks
• people loitering in front of business that are clearly mentally unstable
• Parking covering sidewalks.
• rain this winter
• nothing stops me from walking
• I ride a bike
• There is an open storm drain at the corner of Tamal Vista and Santa Margarita (grate pops every storm) that I am shocked has not yet
resulted in a broken leg or worse. (No sidewalk at this spot.)
• I do walk frequently, but am concerned about the safety along the bay path from Pickleweed Park to the Rod & Gun Club
• lack of sidewalks
• It is unsafe to walk from our neighborhood to the Transit center because of the homeless and drug dealer presence!
• I do walk frequently, but trying to avoid getting run over in crosswalks is scary
• Sidewalks are adequate downtown. I live on Lincoln hill which is too narrow for safe walking
• I bike
• I have to go to unpaved areas due to hips.
• walking near traffic is unpleasant
• There are not many restaurants in Terra Linda that are easiliy accesible via walking
• too slow
• disability
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 86
• Inattentive drivers
• Pedestrian designated areas to have comfortable seating and rest areas while walking, and shopping.
• Distance - I live in Larkspur
• steep hillside to and from home
• Sidewalks are narrow
• fearful of being hit by cars crossing streets hoodlums
• beware of skunks at dusk!
• Kids at Terra Linda High are not safe drivers we live down the street and close enough to walk our kids to school but Terra Linda High
kids zoom down the road, sometimes without stopping, sometimes "drag racing" each other (where one car is facing in the opposite
direction of traffic)--the list goes on. Neighbors have brought their concerns to TLH Administration but to no avail I don't know what can
be done. Safety courses for those high school kids? Consequences? TLH and Vallecito Elem are on the same block and there are many
elem. school-aged kids who would be able to walk to school but often parents don't feel comfortable allowing them due to the TL High
kids, how fast drivers are going (those who are dropping off/picking up their kids to the elem school in the morning/afternoons), and in
general how fast drivers in general go down that street. The city has put up kiosks that read speeds (that I've seen, once), but they put it
up right past the stop sign, where drivers naturally slow down, not where they speed up. Come on now, how is that going to help the
homeowners/parents/kids on that street? I pay a lot in property taxes and feel that there is nothing done about the traffic and safety
along Nova Albion Way and Golden Hinde close to Terra Linda High and Vallecito Elem.
• Again - is this SR? I live in MV now (but have lived in SR most of life) ... sidewalks are great in SR compared to MV but often in SR it feels
like you're walking next to the freeway
• I don't walk that much
• Lots of seedy areas. Of San Rafael to walk past. I have been approached by pan handlers more than once. The bus stop on 4th Street is a
prime spot for being approached. I avoid walking there.
• Live in Glenwood and its to far out to do anything but walk for recreation
• most destinations are too far away for walking.
• distance to downtown SR
• Cars pay no attention
• I live in Peacock Gap, too far to walk to my destinations
• mobility electeric wheelchair TO Kaiser TL Sidewalks need to be completely remodeled
• the Station Area is dangerous and ugly for pedestrians, shopping, work.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 87
Question 7 (Other)
• Exercise
• Pick son up at daycare
• store in sun valley neighbor
• attend civic meetings evenings
• not safe enough in some places
• Lucas Valley, Hamilton, Ignacio Valley, or China Camp loops
• I bicycle for exercise
• Aerobic workout
• For fun. We ride all around our beautiful city
• recreation around the neighborhood
• loop routes (China Camp, Nicasio/Fairfax/San Rafael, sometimes to Pt. Reyes Station
• too dangerous to bike in San Rafael
• I bike for exercise and don't have a specific destination
• Many streets are really unsafe for school children riding to school.
• Don't bike
• Street riding for exercise
• I regularly start my recreational rides from my home. I use the Lincoln Hill Pathway and Cal Park Tunnel which are both amazing
investments that the city/county has invested in and deliver value. However, leaving San Rafael westbound on 4th Street and crossing
over the islands to get to Greenfield Ave. is really bad and dangerous, I hope a solution can be found. (note, I left a comment on the
map, and accidentally wrote "riding westbound on 2nd, when I meant 4th. I cold not find a way to edit the comment)
• I road bike so use trails and roads
• I ride to the library & my gym
• I am a road cyclist and my workouts don't necessarily lead to a particular destination. However, there seems to be a general
misunderstanding on the part of automobile drivers (I'm one of those too) regarding bicycle laws, rights to the road and also the 3-foot
rules put in place two years ago.
• I only reluctantly let my older son bike alone through the CalTrans tunnel (which we love the option of and use often to get to Larkspur)
because of the homeless population and presence along the route, which makes it unsafe!
• Ride along nearby city streets for exercise
• I don't bike.
• To dangerous
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 88
• Meetings
• I bike my small childrent to parks often.
• Road bike for exercise
• If I bike in a loop, there is no destination
• Road biking
• Recreation
• meetings, banking
• We only do so on weekends when traffic/crazy drivers/careless drivers/careless TL High drivers are less on the main street.
• Recreation
• Scooter & motor bikes are safer and should be given equal consideration and funding of safe paths as bicycles.
• I don't have a bike.
• I bike on roadways for recreation and exercise.
• Transiting on the north-south greenway
• Using main streets to travel through
• Mobility electric wheelchair to Kaiser TL
• I want to bicycle but it is too dangerous in San Rafael
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 89
Question 8 (Other)
• Laziness
• Lack of sensors, jaywalkers
• Cars
• Laziness
• Cars speeding
• I don't enjoy bicycling
• I do not bicycle.
• Drivers are not paying attention, using their phones and driving too fast.
• Lack of safe biking in and out of the Canal
• I prefer to walk
• Bad knees prevent me from biking
• I don't bike
• I don't bicycle.
• Bike paths and lanes end/do not connect to others.
• I do not bicycle frequently
• Don't bicycle
• poorly designed bike lanes/routes
• I don't own a bicycle, lol.
• Need to enforce traffic laws. Bicycles run stops. I'm opposed to bicycles.
• Time
• I do not own a bicycle.
• I'm not in the habit of bicycling anymore
• Do not bike
• no bike
• I arrive from outside the city via very steep roadways.
• don't bike
• I do not bicycle regularly
• don't bike
• lack of motivation
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 90
• more bike lanes please
• I used to cycle frequently between Spinnaker Pt and downtown. Cycling either north or south on East Francisco is treacherous. Cycling
on Anderson instead requires use of the 580 underpass and Bellam. It should be a safe intersection, but it's not. I sustained an injury
while cycling there as a result of "misunderstanding" with a motorist, or just a driver's bad judgment.
• Do not bicycle around town
• Prevent bike theft please, better place to leave bike when I'm shopping or while hiking
• I don't want to bicycle more. This survey seems to be biased. Why not simply ask people if they want to bicycle more?
• I don't feel super safe biking with our 6 year old beyond our neighborhood as getting over Red Hill Blvd to Greenfield Ave to connect to
San Anselmo & the bike path is hard
• I don't bicycle
• Connections between bike paths and trails are not continuous or clear
• I am not a confident cyclist
• Don't have a bicycle.
• I can't bike, i need a bus
• ongoing negative interactions between cyclists and drivers.
• I don't bicycle
• Hills
• educating drivers for safe driving around cyclists
• I don't bike as often as I would like to because the vehicle traffic and drivers blind to bikers makes me feel dangerously at risk for being
hit
• I don't bike.
• Trails and bikes lanes have improved, but only some are safe with children
• not due to road conditions
• Not pleasant for biking, trash, cars, little nature or nice paths
• dogs off leash
• Francisco Blvd is a pot hole disaster and unsafe for bicyclists
• prefer to walk
• Terrain is too hilly for my biking long distance.
• I don't bike.
• I do not own a bicycle
• I do not choose to bicycle
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 91
• steep hillside to and from home
• I do not bicycle anymore. I am a senior citizen. Bicyclists mostly create a danger to my walking. I do not understand such em phasis on
bicycling. Why is this?
• Bike lock cut and bike stolen
• I bicycle frequently, but do not feel safe.
• bicycle theft
• I am a skilled cyclist, but even I feel nervous about cycling in San Rafael
• Bicycles are a hobby. Bicycles are not effective for grocery shopping or commuiting with a breifcase and days end "homey-do" list.time
• I don't have a bike.
• i do not bicycle
• i do not bicycle
• i feel very unsafe on the bike path between San Rafael and Terra Linda. If it is dark I revert to riding up Lincoln and down Los Ranchitos.
At night i do the reverse and really look out for car doors. I also worry along the Pt. San Pedro Road...too many car doors opening. I
wish the bike path extended to connect with the path that goes into Larkspur. Getting from Lincoln to that path is tricky.
• I could only select three, but all apply. SR Bike sit. Is pathetic.
• Don't bike
• don't cylce in SR
• Hard to safely navigate through the congested areas and hard to avoid them!!
• distance to downtown SR
• Dont bicycle
• Sidewalk Nova Albion way in need of Reove and Replace along with all the driveway aprons lack of ADA and Title 24 regulations.
• D St (one-way near PO) is an obstacle the barrier to bike trail at Mission/101 requires getting off bike, that corner is very dangerous. I
suggest making Mission Ave one-way Westbound
• No public transit from East San Rafael with bike racks
• I was told by park ranger it is illegal to ride my pedal assist bike on paved mission pass because there is a "motor" on it. This is my
primary vehicle to commute to work. It is low carbon footprint. This needs to be amended
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 92
Question 10 (Other)
• Rollerblades
• Friends/family
• Drive with family
• I work from home and try to walk for my errands as much as possible, but I do drive maybe once a week
• Drive with my wife
• drive my husband/ drive our grandchildren
• boyfriend drives me
• Drive with children
• Adult push scooter
• Ferry
• drive with partner or friends
• I am a salesperson and cannot rely on public transportation to visit customer in the bay area.
• Drive
• Motorcycle
• I work in SF and I bike, boat, and ferry. Much better than my Silicon Valley lifestyle.
• Run
• Drive with family members
• Motor scooter
• Rollerblading
• friends/family
• bus
• Electeric Wheelchair
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 93
Question 12 (open-ended)
• Drove
• Car
• Walk as well
• Carpool
• Uber
• Bus too
• Likely to drive through downtown San Rafael as it is unsafe for bicycles.
• I usually drive my kids as I feel unsafe biking with them through the city of San Rafael.
• Bike and walk more with kids to school and less when along dangerous paths.
• More likely to drive than bicycle
• Deterred from biking because traffic and congestion coupled with a lack of bike lanes makes
me too uneasy to let them ride to most places we would go
• Car
• Need safer bike lanes and street crossings in Scotty's market area
• Most of San Rafael is good and fun, but the Cal is basically isolated and inaccessible because
of the dangerous biking options
• I switch to driving
• Bike riding is not safe for children in/near Downtown San Rafael.
• Car
• safety
• We ride bikes with our two children when going downtown to Fourth Street.
• Drive
• I walk while my son rides his bike, or I use a trailer for him on my bike.
• my kids are unable to ride bikes in our neighborhood because the streets are unsafe: cars
drive too fast and streets are too narrow.
• Walk or car
• More inclined to drive as busy, unsafe streets tend to deter us from walking
• No difference
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 94
• Only take protected Class 4 and Class 1 pathways and super cautious at crosswalks as I am
always
• We drive distances greater than a mile but walk whenever we go downtown or to the
neighborhood park
• We walk if close, drive if far.
• I drive more because there are few safe routes on bikes. I would love dedicated bike/walking
paths (not just bike lanes).
• I drive
• They do not
• I drive them for safety reasons. Worried about getting hit by cars if we cycle.
• I rarely bike with my kids downtown. To dangerous.
• Almost always driving them
• Same. Walk if under 1 mile
• I push a double stroller around a lot for my twins, and walk my 1st grader to school daily. We
drive as well.
• We often choose to drive because pushing a child in a stroller, particularly in the Bret Harte
neighborhood, means you have to walk in traffic
• I drive
• walk to neighborhood park and gym
• I would ride my bike much more if i didn't have kids with me
• Shift to the car because I do not trust SR drivers around kids bicycling
• we usually drive, walk or ride scooters
• We drive, but sometimes we ride together.
• I drive more
• Depends how far we need to walk
• I always drive.
• more driving too unsafe for kids to walk/ride to most schools
• We always use the car.
• It doesn't.
• I would love for my son to ride his bike to school but coming from Bret Harte and crossing San
Rafael near the transportation hub is dangerous. There needs to be a better and safer
connection between Bret Harte and the Lincoln bike path.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 95
• I drive them because it is not safe for them to bike ride.
• It does not
• I tend to use the car.
• Living in the Cal, we do not feel it is safe to bike with a kid bike trailer out of the Cal into
downtown, so we are forced to drive.
• Drive
• Often we use a bike rack to bike as a family in Ross as we don't feel the pedestrian crossing
options across Red Hill Ave are good for children
• Drive (5 month old)
• if within 2 miles, we often bike. often carpool
• We ride bikes to sun valley school every day and to the park. Would ride more places if there
were more bike lanes.
• We drive
• Take car
• By myself, I ride a bike; with others, we drive
• When the weather is nice we put the kids in bike seats.
• Retired and no close by kids. Grandson lives in Georgia.
• We drive or carpool. I almost never walk with them in San Rafael anymore. Used to all the
time, though. We always walked the route through Albert Park, behind Safeway. Not
anymore.
• It is the same
• I discuss safest options, and often ask them to bike on the sidewalks. safety is our first
concern! I ask my kids to text me when they arrive at their destination. we carpool as often
as possible.
• safety concerns! carpool is first choice...when often too unsafe for kids to bike/walk.
• drive more often
• Lack of safe routes affects me taking my kids on bike rides through downtown
• We sometimes walk with kids to local placea
• I would love to bike with my kids but don't feel the roads near my house are safe enough and
would need dedicated paths to feel safe enough to bike. I walk often with my kids - usually to
the civic center from Merrydale but north San Pedro is incredibly unsafe with its narrow
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 96
sidewalks ad freeway exit crossings and I feel nervous for myself and my community
members. I'd walk to the Noethgate mall but no sidewalks or paths exist.
• I am more likely to drive on weekdays and more likely to walk or bike on weekends.
• sometimes I have to drive because of kids. They can not walk as far as I can.
• Walk and bike more
• kids cannot bicycle safely from Bret Harte to downtown with out dangerous conditions
crossing 2nd/3rd & 4th. same for heading to High School for events or Montecito Plaza. ok
bicycling through tunnel to Larkspur but too often there are too many undesirables loitering.
• I end up driving them
• Use car.
• I avoid certain areas with inadequate stop signs
• Car with the kids
• Yes. As I have mentioned above, some streets are safe with children and some are not. My
own street is very dangerous, but through an alley we have safe streets.
• I'm less likely to bike w kids.
• weather is the primary choicemaker
• Driving
• Depends on the destination but prefer to walk or bike with the kids.
• Choices do not change when travelling with kids. I will not let my kids bicycle because cars on
San Pedro Road travel too fast, and it is unsafe to bicycle.
• We need to drive most places with our kids, but are teaching them to bike, so it is important
for our future
• I won't go into downtown SR by bike with my kids due to poor bike infrastructure.
• More likely to drive
• must use car
• Bus
• I only bike with kids on bike paths.
• My teen walks to school. Otherwise we drive everywhere
• Travel by car with children. Walk with childrlen holding hands. Bikes on sidewalks make
walking unsafe with or without children. Also, those cyclists who do not stop at intersections.
• We tend to drive when we are together. Since my sons bike was stolen, he doesn't ride his
bike to school anymore.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 97
• Use a car when travelling more than an exit away.
• I am more likely to drive with my child
• Drive as most of time we are carrying gear or I'm dropping off to go to work or dropping off
for a class while I go grocery shopping etc
• Safety considered above all else
• See all of my answers above!
• we normally drive if we have the whole family, unless bicycling is an activity in itself
• drive
• car
• walk as wed
• carpool
• I still drive
• The choice has not changed in my entire life...a Station Wagon is the best solution for family
outings.
• Will not bike with my child unless on a separate facility, like a path.
• Try to bike but a lot harder given lack of dedicated paths for my kids. Constantly riding
defense to keep them safe.
• Kids command car
• Drive more
• Cars present the greatest danger to us all, and without safe routes we need to ensure
protection of those most vulnerable.
• I drive to keep them safe.
• Walk, bike or carpool instead of driving alone
• I try to bike when we kid, but is an unsafe bike environment for kids.
• usually drive
• I only walk or bike with kids on MUPs.
• Need separate bike routes to increase the number of trips
• Must take longer or residential routes due to inadequate infrastructure.
• We take a car because of unsafe conditions for bicycling
• Take car, bike is not safe
• Again, I would chose biking as my preferred choice, with my child, if it were a safe option in
San Rafael.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 98
• I still try to bicycle
• Depends on purpose
• we drive over 1 mile, walk under 1 mile
• I do not feel safe having my child bicycle!
Question 16 (open-ended)
• Lack of bike parking; unable to bring bike on bus when full
• Walking and biking can be safe but some times it can't because there are a lot of people
driving crazy and they don't really care.
• Crosswalks are not timed well
• Sidewalks have cracks or bumps
• Some motorists resent bicyclists at E. Francisco
• Streets near Cal are not well maintained
• Streets need more regular cleaning
• Street cleaning near Mi Tierra and Mi Rancho)
• We need desinagted bike lanes east/west along Mission and N/S along Lincoln and/or A St.
This would likely mean sacrificing some onstreet parking spots.
• We need a safe biking route from the Cal to downtown and NorthSouth and EastWest
through our city and across the 101 Freeway. The lack of these facilities mean that almost all
of our public middle school and high school students are driven to school rather than having
the option of biking, which traditionally is a much more common form of transportation for
kids of these ages.
• Crossing Pt San Pedro is dangerous except at light by Andy's market. Need sigls and flashing
lights for cross walks. Need more cross walks along Pt. San Pedro road. Need designated bike
lanes where cars don't park. Need nike lanes and cross walks downtown San Rafael,
especially leading to Lindaro for Davidson students and to San Rafael High.
• designated bike lanes east/west along Mission and N/S along Lincoln and/or A St. "Green
Lane" are needed throughout the downtown area and in the vicinity of schools
• Would like more dedicated safe bike routes through downtown/101 area.
• The cycling lanes are generally good but the street maintennace for them is sorely lacking.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 99
• It would be nice to have a walking trail map that showed the access points for trails. We have
not been able to find such a resource with that level of detail since we moved to Marin in July,
2016.
• Slow down the drivers. Make drivers stop at stop signs (especially in the residential areas).
• The bike path through the train tunnel is awesome it would be nice if there were more
bicycle dedicated paths throughout the county that do NOT "share" the road with cars! The
whole idea of "share" the road is a joke and UNSAFE no matter what it is just a matter of a
false move before someone is hurt or killed. Marin County ought to be ashamed of itself with
its wealth and LACK of alternative transportation such as dedicated bike/walk paths, trains,
and other creative solutions. Really??? This is 2017 and nothing has changed since I was being
raised in the 1950's!!!!
• poor road conditions and incomplete bike lanes
• more bike paths and bike lanes
• I'm excited about the improvements!
• The bike/walking path from NSP road to downtown SR is awful. It feels very unsafe because it
is so closed in. This really needs to be changed. People do not utilize it because it feels very
unsafe. The bus pads along 101 in SR are nearly impossible to get to from NSP road.
• I appreciate the work done and how accessible San Rafael is overall, especially connecting to
other parts of Marin. Living in the Cal makes it very frustrating to not be connected to all of
this without riding on unsafe routes on Bellam or Francisco. I basically cannot ride with my
son due to safety concerns.
• Hills are a challenge for both
• Another reason I don't bike as much as I used to is that I am concerned that my bike will be
stolen with the increase in bicycle thefts. I regularly hear about bikes being stolen and see
guys walking around town with multiple bikes in tow.
• My husband commutes by bicycle to Larkspur ferry daily.
• I live in Spinnaker Point and bike frequently. I appreciate the bicycle lanes in the area but I'm
frustrated that there are gaps I feel unsafe connecting those lanes with downtown.
• The sidewalks are in bad condition
• heatherton st (connection from northbike path to anderson) feels unsafe as a pedestrian and
cyclist.
• Bikers talk too loud in early a.m.'s on Las Gallinas during races,etc. Some ride side by side in
bike path oftentimes overlapping into street and won't move when a car wants to pass. Also,
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 100
parking lots are a hazard because there are few to no pedestrian crossings in the lots. There
should be at least one leading to front entrance of all grocery stores. Cars don't stop for
elderly or slow pokes.
• Would be nice to have painted bike lines on a street other than Fourth that is safe or
separated from car traffic. We often ride on 5th Street, but with the parking lane, the street
is too narrow for bicycles and cars to safely coexist.
• As an observer of bicyclist, I think it's crazy to provide bike lanes that allow vehicle parking
where the bicyclist has to weave in and out of traffic
• Single biggest concern for walking: sidewalk widths. Single biggest concern for cycling: road
surface conditions.
• Downtown corridors seem to be seeing the vast majority of funding and high profile repairs
while streets and sidewalks in the neighborhoods are in horrible condition.
Many improvements are being made to allow bicycles to move faster, with little concern for
their safety, the safety of pedestrians or the general flow of traffic.
• As San Rafael High School moves forward with their EIR for planned expansion I would like to
see improvements considered for the south side of Mission Street, to accommodate
pedestrians, between the High School and the intersection of Mission, East Mission,
Embarcadero and Sea View. This could be a mitigation measure for some the additional trips
that are anticipated. A portion of the street lacks curbing allowing cars to park in what would
otherwise be a pedestrian path. Continuous sidewalks are lacking in this segment. Typically
there are about 5 cars parked across from a residence that appears to be used as a boarding
house. Some may not have been moved for an extended period. No parking signs and some
physical improvement such as grading and placement of compacted road base would allow
this segment to meet the functional needs of most pedestrians and get walkers out of the
traveled way.
Additionally it may be advisable for the School to consider widening Mission Street toward
the school and elevating the sidewalk and a portion of the plaza area near the gymsium for
storm water management and allow passenger loading (currently occurring regardless of the
red curb) without blocking the single east bound travel lane.
• I walk A LOT in all areas of San Rafael.The new paths and lanes are a good start. But many city
sidewalks outside downtown area are hazardous and unmaintained and have poor drainage
so they are slippery. Bike routes are chopped up not contiguous, and streets very potholed. I
am too scared to ride my bike for actual transportation even though I have tried.
• I never bike downtown, it's too dangerous.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 101
• Getting to SR High from the west side of the freeway is unsafe on bicycle and often walking.
My son was almost hit by a car at least once a week when walking home from school. We
didn't allow him to ride his bike because there wasn't a safe enough option.
• Previously stated. Speeding, red light running, stop sign running. I don't see a lot of
enforcement going on. As for biking, I would never do it through town. Way too unsafe for
me.
• The sidewalks in our area, especially along Freitas Parkway, are absolutely deplorable!! I am
an able bodied person and I have tripped repeatedly on the uneven sidewalk. The area from
Las Pavadas to Las Gallis on the South side is especially bad and it is the path that the seniors
from St Isabella's use in their wheelchairs.
• Keep building more designated multiuse paths for peds and bikes. Provide bikespecific traffic
lights where necessary. Bike lanes between street parking and sidewalk is ideal not between
street parking and traffic. Stronger enforcement of no bike riding on sidewalks, especially
downtown. The town has a great fabric for walking and biking but is still too autocentrist.
Close more streets to cars and open streets to peds and bikes. Reduce visual clutter of poorly
designed signage and commercial signage. Make the visual appearance of SR more cohesive
and consistent.
• Pot holes. No bike lanes to protect me from cars. Broken asphalt.
• More signs for bike routes are needed
• As indicated, some residential streets like Golden Hinde, Devon and Nova Albion are highly
trafficked as they are main arteries to the high school. But this also increases risk as close to
the majority of drivers fail to comply with speed limits (2530mph), thus deterring my family to
feel safe by walking.
• I do not support additional bicycle paths until police enforce the laws and bicycle riders take
responsibility for following them. Greenfield from the west end to the San Anselmo line is one
of the most dangerous streets as 90 percent plus of all bicyclists run stop signs at speeds in
excess of 5 mph. No California stops, they blast through. Hazardous. Until this stops, I am anti
bike rider and you, the City of San Rafael are enabling risky behavior.
• San Rafael is great
• In the mixed trails, such as Santa Venetia Open Space and Chi Camp, I have been afraid of
being hit by cyclists who do not give fair warning as they approach and are speeding
• The biggest obstacle I face daily is people driving recklessly. There is virtually no enforcement
on aggressive driving in San Rafael. When the state passed the law that requires motorists to
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 102
give 3 feet and/or slow down when passing bikes I just laughed. I get passed with < 1.5 feet
every day and they never slow down. In fact they usually gun it.
• Need eastwest barrier protected, and low stress route from Greenfield along 1st under 101 to
Montecito and Cal on Grand. Also need barrier protected low stress pathway from
Tamalpais/2nd/Majon Parth north south up Tamalpais to Puerto Suello Hill pathway,
connecting Cal Park MUP to Civic Center and Northgate
• There are some maintennace issues regarding sidewalks, and, now that it's raining quite a bit,
drainage and flooding difficulties, wherein there are parts of some roads/paths, even in the
hills, that are impassible when it rains for any length of time.
• We live close to downtown yet we see a fair amount of homeless people that frankly scare us
to walk after dark. I work off of Kerner Blvd and there is no safe way to bike on E. Francisco
yet many people use sidewalks. There needs to be a safe bike path along the East side of 101.
• Unsafe drivers deter me from getting a bike with my family or to run errands. I would love
longer and more dedicated bike trails in Terra Linda area.
• More mixed use paths would be great for walking, running, biking stroller running!!
• To put in to context how much exercise I get from cycling. I get my cycling exercise on a
stationary bike because I'm afraid of cycling in traffic due to fear of cars, and it's not
conducive to a good, hard workout because of traffic stops, and again, fear of cars.
• Hire sober traffic engineers and redesign most of your intersections to make them safer.
• Condition of sidewalks and quality of street lights in central San Rafael is very bad.
• Getting from downtown to the Cal is VERY dangerous. Anderson along Bellam to Kerner has a
lot of traffic and lane changing. East Francisco is just plain dangerous with narrow roads and
potholes.
• It is really scary biking through downtown San Rafael. It would be great if there was a
dedicated pedestrian/bike path.
• Bicyclists can be speeding, often indifferent to people or pets. Scary
• In my locale of Terra Linda, the most threatening bicycling are the streets surrounding
Northgate One and The Mall at Northgate. The worst intersection by far is Freitas Parkway
and Las Gallinas, where there is insufficient width for making left turns from Las Gallinas onto
Freitas, and the shoulder on eastbound Frietas dwindles to nothing as you make a right turn
onto Las Gallinas.
• Speed of traffic out San Pedro Road in East San Rafael
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 103
• I love walking in San Rafael this has been my home since 1970 I have seen it grow. The traffic
got real busy and dangerous. I want to know is it illegal for bikers to bike on the sidewalks?
• Someting must be done to easy the hostility btwn cars/trucks and bikes in Marin. It is VERY
dangerous out there...and both sides are at fault.
• Gridlock on 3rd St @ grand routinely makes it impossible to cross between CVS and United
market.
We are happy walkers & go all over Montecito and Dominican and downtown. Appreciate the
upgrades to curb cuts at 2nd and Irwin. Standing water at Mission/Irwin NE corner after even
a small rain is tough for walkers.
• Lack of Safe bike lanes and routes is my main deterrent from cycling!
• We need safe bike lanes and crossing areas.
• In Bret Harte the sidewalks are terrible. They aren't maintained, cars park blocking the
sidewalk and parking enforcement refuses to do anything about it. Often you have to walk in
the road as cars speed down the street.
• Bicyclists using the downtown sidewalks are a safety issue. The regulations regarding cycling
& skateboarding on the sidewalks are not enforced.
• don't forget Terra Linda when repairing sidewalks
• Any time you need to cross near the freeways, drivers dangerous driving habits near entrance
/ exit ramps, significant caution must be taken. Too many drivers are turning from non turning
lanes causing significant dangerous conditions.
• I find that much improvements have been made for bicycling and NONE for walking. And I
wish I would have been invited to the sidewalk repair & maintenance survey.
• side walks are dangerous in our neighborhood, (Bret Harte) so people with dogs, elderly and
mothers with strollers have to walk in the street
• Some sidewalks need maintenance and clearing of unsafe bushes and weeds impedeing the
sidwalks. Some are private residences' boarders that need to be cut back and others are in
front of land not occupied by a home and unsafe to walk on due to weeds making it difficult
to pass over and now moss making it VERY slippery
• There are no bike lanes for kids getting to Favidson and San Rafael High. A friend's daughter
was hit by a car as she rode her bike.
• San Francisco has green bike lanes, very effective. Dividers help. THANK YOU
• San Rafael is a scary place to bike ride. Even Anderson with the bike lane is scary. Getting
downtown from Brete Harte, or even to Laruel Dell School is treacherous. My studio is over
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 104
on Kerner, and it's nerve wracking going down Bellam day or night. Getting downtown is
okay, but I don't let my kids do it. Getting San Anselmo is horrible. Going to Larkspur is
probably the best and most pleasant route.
• I do not feel safe in the bicycle tunnel between San Rafael and Larkspur/Greenbrae
• Well, I'm 72 and have gotten over my anxiety while biking in traffic. Other than creating bike
lanes EVRYWHERE, not much the City can do. Drivers in Marin are pretty much aware of
bikes. I have bike lights (front and rear) on all the time and dress with bright colors for
visibility. I find Marin drivers pretty considerate, but it's up to me to be aware of my
surroundings. I can navigate in San Rafael pretty easily. Classes on how to ride in traffic are
needed for some bicyclists because they seem to be clueless with regard to the dangers
inherent in biking in traffic. Notwithstanding the MCBC'S stance, police should cite bikers
who can't stop at stop signs or otherwise obey traffic rules.
• Within downtown, cycling and walking works well. Getting to downtown is a big challenge.
• Fixing cracked and uneven sidewalks and street potholes is primary
• Many sidewalks in the Cal are not very wide and have telephone poles that prevent easy
access.
• The biggest problem is how fast people drive.
• The bicycle routes on 2nd street going West should be made safer and easier
• I would like to see a path from Pt San Pedro to the tunnel on Anderson going to Larkspur. I do
not feel safe going from my home through downtown to Anderson Dr.
• more people would ride if conditions were safer, mostly rom cars
• homeless encampments make me nervous to ride by myself much less have my kids ride. as
well as busy 2nd, 3rd and 4th street crossings. SUPER worried about bikes being stolen. Mine
was stolen a few years ago at Toys R Us, locked with my kids bikes! does not make you feel
safe, instead stranded, angry and assaulted ;( Hard to encourage kids to ride when things like
this happen
• Bike path along freeway feels unsafe and lot's of homelessleep, drinking & Drugs. Most direct
route but feels unsafe. Traffic and distracted drivers also make it feel unsafe on bike and
walking.
• Safer areas to lock bike and prevent thieves from cutting the locks off bikes
• With all the homeless in downtown, I DO NOT FEEL SAFE. 40+ year resident and I do not
frequent downtown any longer. No wonder there are so many empty storefronts.
• I would ride my bike more if I felt there were safe lines to ride in
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 105
• I have become increasingly homebound by fear of traffic (which is probably 70 times greater
than what it was when we moved here) and lack of safe places to walk. I have been hit by
cars (and sent to the emergency room with a head trauma) and attacked by drunken loiterers.
At this point, I will only travel by car. I won't even take public transit.
• I'd like more bike paths from Novato to San Rafael. I live in Novato and work in SR. More
paths next to the freeway!
• Drivers do not respect pedestrians or bicyclists.
• Bike lanes around schools are essential and, in Gerstle Park, Sun Valley and around Davidson,
they are nonexistent!
• More trash cans on the bike paths (Lincoln Ave, Andersen Drive specifically) may help to
alleviate all the trash. Emptying the trash cans that are there too. Have the Downtown Street
Team clean these areas as well as the sidewalks surrounding, not just in the downtown area.
The bike access from the Lincoln Ave path and to and including the Linden Lane under
crossing are filthy and unsafe, the Linden Lane under crossing should be lit. There is debris on
the sidewalk and you can't see it. In addition it's dark enough that you can't see other
pedestrians. The sidewalk on Woodland between Trinity Church and Davidson Middle School
always has trash on it as well as debris from the hill which makes the sidewalk narrow and
dangerous. The same goes for the sidewalk on the south side 2nd street between First and
East streets. Dangerous for pedestrians and impossible if you have a stroller or are in a wheel
chair. The same sidewalk completely stops east of Hayes street. No paved sidewalk between
the transit center and Rice Drive along West Francisco Blvd. Pedestrians can either walk on
the side of the road with cars speeding by or walk in the gravel and dirt next to the train
tracks. Both options have been flooded more often then not lately.
• The newest bike paths are great but there needs to be better connections through downtown
San Rafael; especially crossing the transportation hub, Heatherton and Irwin. Also a safer and
better route from the West of San Rafael to the Cal (Bellam Blvd.) i.e. all East/West Travel...
• Streets need designated bike lanes. That's safest, AND studies show that increases bike use
exponentially.
• The bike lane on Las Gallinas is great.
• I would be surprised if the majority of people in San Rafael want more bicycle paths. The bike
path near our house is predominately used by people on weekends, in groups, and likely not
San Rafael residents.
• Need safer connection east west under freeway
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 106
• Many drivers don't watch for pedestrians or bikes. Roads are too narrow to accommodate
both cars and bikes safely.
• Dealing with getting in and out of the Cal via Francisco Blvd is essential to connecting the
neighborhood with the rest of San Rafael. With parking as tough as it is in the Cal, getting
more people walking and biking safely should be a high priority. Instead, pedestrian and bike
paths/lanes do not fully connect. It is extremely frustrating to be firsttime homeowners in San
Rafael, moving from Gerstle Park to the Cal in order to buy a home, and now be unable to
walk and bike as much as we did in Gerstle Park.
• Biking through the G & 5th Ave 4way stop is rather scary on a bike, as so many cars regularly
make a turn lane out of the breakdown lane. I usually avoid biking through this intersection
though 5th Ave has a bike lane marked from G through Sun Valley.
• I bike from TR to the Ferry. Most of the ride is great. The 101 bike path is awesome. Crossing
through downtown SR can be a chore and feels a bit risky at times. I do see people loitering
on the 101 bike path such that I can see some people feeling uncomfortable using that path.
Especially in the evening.
• Drivers are not looking for kids. Son was hit last year. routes to schools are not even safe,
though I still have them bike, am always worried
• We ride bikes to sun valley school every day and to the park. Would ride more places if there
were more bike lanes.
• Enforcement of the 3 foot passing law
• Walking works pretty well with the exception of a few missing connections or awkward street
crossing. Bicycling the same but the missing connections feel more dangerous as you have to
find the safest route to connect.
• Need safe, attractive path between Baypoint Lagoons and Montecito/downtown
• Interaction with cars, trucks and buses are biggest dangers/deterrents to cycling
• second street near jack in the box is horrible for bikes
• There are good northsouth bikeways in SR. Anderson, and the bike path by 101. What we
need is one good one running eastwest.
• Difficulty getting thru downtown area without walk your bike
• Need better bike routes and paths to San Anselmo/Fairfax, and between Cal Park Hill Tunnel
from Larkspur Landing and Lincoln Hill Multiuse path to Terra Linda.
• I need bus service in East San Rafael as i am disabled
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 107
• Biggest problem in my neighborhood (in and around Santa Margarita Dr.) is speeding cars on
streets (with few to no sidewalks) clearly posted between 1525 mph. I walk my dog frequently
and have been passed many times (with little clearance) by cars traveling 4050 mph. This is
especially a problem with service, trade and delivery drivers during the day and late evening
drivers who think that speed limits somehow only apply when the sun is up. Speed law
enforcement (I have never seen any in my neighborhood) or speed attenuation devices speed
bumps or even more clearly visible speed limit signs would be a start. More sidewalks would
be great too!
• We voted on Measure Q to support a multiuse pathway with SMART. We have been duped,
politicians are not forcing the issue with SMART to ensure that the decisions made today for
the train infrastructure do not inhibit placement of the multiuse pathway alongside SMART
when construction of that can start. The issue of not having a continuous pathway from
downtown to the CalPark tunnel is huge and nobody is standing in the way of SMART making
decisions that will force a long and circuitous diversion to get to the CalPArk tunnel. The
community is watching.
• Bicycle riding and jogging are scary through and around downtown. Pt. San Pedro is very risky
along with 2nd and 3rd to access bike paths
• Cycling through Northgate northsouth is difficult.
• Bicyclists can be a safety concern especially when the walking path is crowded with people
walking. There is no courtesy from bicyclists in this situation or when they ride by you. It can
be a risk to be physically injured should you have a bicyclist pass you and you're not aware
they are near you. I have been startled many times by a bicyclist passing me, and fortunately,
I didn't walk in front of them.
• It's challenging to bike thru San Rafael because of the traffic, traffic lights, and lack of bike
lanes. More bike/pedestrian paths would be good.
• I mentioned this before, but riding a bike east or west from SR, from101 toward San Anselmo,
is very difficult and dangerous. There just isn't a safe route (even marked lanes) for biking
E/W. While biking I've had at least 3 nearmisses with cars or trucks, just in the past year.
There are several ways south of Sir Francis Drake to go E/W, but nothing north of Sir F D, to
Novato to get you west of 101 safely.
• I am concerned that the new (post SMART) transit center will be worse for bike & ped access.
• I strongly support the Idaho rules for bicycles. It is safer than trying to make bikes follow
automobile rules. If I am at an intersection, and there is no cross traffic (pedestrian or
vehicular), I will proceed....although I sometimes worry that I'll be ticketed.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 108
• The bike paths that were added a few years ago as part of the safe schools are unusable for
children since they are IN THE STREET and often crossed or encroached by auto traffic.
Walking would be more attractive if the downtown were cleaner and safer (B Street, 4th
Street, really?). I grew up in SR and still spend most of my day in the city, but it is a shame to
see how it has deteriorated. Please put a traffic light at the 4way stop at Mission and Grand.
• There is no way to get across San Rafael safely from west to east, on a bike.
• Buses can only take 2 bikes. Little safe storage for bikes.
• We need more bike paths and trails!!!!!!!!!
• Bottlenecks created by SMART trains at bus transit hub
• Signage about the 3ft law for drivers to give cyclists. Accountability for injuring cyclists, it's
usually just a slap on the wrist. More education about respect and driving with and around
cyclists and educating kids/parents on riding bikes safely and lawfully. Even with the bike
lanes, drivers continuously drive in them and skim my while I'm riding my bike. In Fairfax,
they've added to some of the bike lanes driver acknowledgement they are going into the bike
lane. Not sure what it's called. And yes, there are cyclists and bicycle riders who do not
following the law, so they need accountable, as well.
• I use the Starkweather path around our neighborhood. Mostly it's fine, though sometimes
one sees an inebriated person 'sleeping it off' on one of the benches which is kind of scary,
and occasionally groups of men drinking and throwing empties + trash in the bushes along the
path. I know the City tries to maintain, but some folks just don't know or care about
litter/enviroment/esthetics. Very disappointing as children learn from seeing others do it and
will perpetuate the careless treatment of our public spaces.
• I'm not aware of any significant effort to create bicycle lanes or bicyclesafe areas. Most of the
current "bike lanes" are really a bit of a joke. Nothing more than a symbol painted in the road,
but no dedicated areas (well very few dedicated areas).
• Sidewalks are cracked and cars are parked on sidewalks.
• We need class 4 bike paths running east/west and north/south as well as protected
intersections along 101 corridor in downtown San Rafael please!
we love the improved bike paths N. of Mission and the Anderson/CalTrans tunnel to Larkspur:
thanks for those! But we need multiuse path connectors to those paths all through the SR
City center! we are excited for the train's arrival and hope it expands safe and affordable
travel options for all of us.
• we need a safe way for kids to get to Northgate Mall: connecting with existing multiuse
pathways and connections from Smart train stop at civic Center!
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 109
• I just find downtown, basically, to be a scary mess. Other than that, it's great! :)
• I quit riding my bicycle because riding in San Rafael feels very unsafe. Drivers are very
aggressive, road condition is very poor.
• The Iron Horse Trail in the East Bay is such a great model of how biking/walking can become a
safe and primary route for destination transportation or recreation/exercise. I often am
frustrated by the lack of bike trails in San Rafael to allow for long loop bike rides or
connections between neighborhoods to allow kids to be more active and engaging with
friends who live outside their neighborhood.
• I would love to see bike lanes and walking paths separated more from traffic, like they are in
Amsterdam. Also some sort of campaign to make drivers more aware, maybe come up with
some ways to slow them down. Where there are walking paths (like the path that runs by the
creek between Anderson/Lincoln/Francisco Blvd W) they don't always feel safe due to the
amounts of homeless people loitering. In addition to this, the street that I live on (Bungalow
Ave) is so poorly maintained that it's impossible for my elderly parents to go on a nice
neighborhood walk for fear of tripping on the broken pavement.
• I would adore a safe way to bicycle to the farmers market in the civic center (from spinnaker
point)
• The new pavement out San Pedro road is wonderful, and I love the designated bike lane(s).
The city needs more designated bike lanes and routes/signage.
• Please put some kind of bike lane or shoulder on the frontage roads: Francisco East and West.
Too many bikers on the narrow sidewalk, too dangerous to ride in the road
• I wish there were more bike lanes, especially in downtown.
• Getting thru downtown, either east to west or north to south is horrible. No continuous bike
lanes or paths. Second, third and fourth streets are the worst.
• I would absolutely use my bicycle more instead of my car especially for commuting from and
to work from Fairfax to San Rafael if it would be safer and there would be better bike paths.
I am originally from Germany and used my bicycle 90% of the time, because they have a great
infrastructure for bikes.
Sadly not here and I miss using my bike regularly greatly!
• I really enjoy the CalPark tunnel and the path along 101 for commuting to work but getting
through downtown SR connecting the two can be challenging and less fun.
• Marin county's numbered bike routes are nice and seeing more support of them from the city
of San Rafael would be appreciated. Coming into San Rafael from San Anselmo has a section
that requires bicyclists to rejoin traffic on Red Hill Road; this part feels more dangerous than
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 110
any area or intersection around the city and could use more support or space dedicated to
keeping bicyclists on the designated route.
• The city puts way too much money into paths for biking when sidewalks on my street are
literally impassable for a disabled person. Our funds should be used to first cover the basics
sidewalk maintennace. So few people bike, but the biking community has a loud voice so
they tend to get way more attention than they warrant.
• designated bike lanes east/west along Mission and N/S along Lincoln and/or A St.
• Crossings in heavy traffic areas of San Rafael need safety improvements for peds and bicycles
asap. San Rafael is walkable downtown, fairly good bicycle access to transit, could improve
lockups, transit storage options.
• Please create safe routes for all kids! right now it is very dangerous for them to bicycle
around town because of traffic issues and poor or zero bicycle lanes in some parts of town.
please add sufficient bicycle parking at Albert Park when remodeled, and create a safe path
from High School to Middle School (path under the Freeway). Please look at adjusting
stoplight timing to handle increased traffic flow. Poor timing creates impatient drivers that
then run lights, turn rapidly etc.
• The City needs to replace and PAY FOR 50plus yr.old sidewalks that are unsafe.
• I live in the Forbes neighborhood and to ride my bike to the bike path along 101 means I am
on the roadway. No designated bike lane. I don't feel safe.
• I would use a bicycle for errands a lot more if there were safe bike lanes and bike racks,
especially in and around downtown San Rafael and going under the freeway. I don't even
think about bringing my kids that direction on a bike, but I would certainly like to.
• I sometimes sense hostility from cars while biking. I know some bicyclists don't follow traffic
rules which negatively impacts us all. Continued awareness on both sides should be
encouraged. Whenever possible, having paths or streets that separate bikes from cars is the
safest set up. I'd also love to see more businesses put out bike racks for parking we often
end up using a parking meter or other fixed object out of necessity, which may inconvenience
others.
• We need a stop sign at the corner of Arias & Las Pavadas.
• Find the spaces with no sidewalks or bike lanes and add them as necessary to make
biking/walking safer and more reachable.
• Roads are in too poor conditions to have safe bicycle rides.
• Things are going in the right direction. I love to bike thought the tunnel to the Larkspur ferry
and I see new separate bike lanes near city hall and the farmers market. I would like to see
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 111
more dedicated bike lanes and separated bike lanes for additional safety and so my children
can bike safely.
• San Rafael is pretty good for biking and walking. The biggest problem is the traffic in between
Mission and Hetherton.
• I live in Spinnaker Point and it is nice to bike along the park, but it dead ends at the Target
area. Would like to see a connection to Larkspur Landing without having to bike down Bellam
which is full of traffic, noise, litter and not a bit of natural beauty to be seen, no nice path, to
trees, not even a bush or two. San Rafael cares more about cars and car dealerships, than
they do about beauty.
• Please add more bike paths to schools
• I would be willing to cycle more often if I felt it was safe to do so. The city needs to use
"Green Lanes" at intersections to alert drivers and guide cyclist alike.
• Lack of sidewalks when walking kids to school
• Bicycle lanes from Cal area are nonexistent; roads are dangerous and pot holed.
• I live off Point San Pedro Road and find that using that road for walking and/or bicycling is
NOT safe. Cars travel too quickly and do not even stop for you at a MARKED pedestrian
crossing!!!! I tried bicycling to work at E Street but almost got hit every single time I rode my
bike to/from work. I cannot let my children bicycle along that roadway or on the streets of
San Rafael.
• Wish sidewalks were even many are uplifted by tree roots in the neighborhood. Sidewalks
need to be redone badly on Las Colindas
• I'd like to see more education for drivers about cycling and what's expected of drivers and
what's legal for cyclists. My husband bikes to work and I worry about drivers not being safe.
• It's sad my children are not safe walking to school by themselves and they are not safe riding
bikes anywhere. No sidewalks and cars out if control downtown on walk to school. Not even
mentioning the homeless situation.
• Need better bike lanes and racks downtown.
• San Rafael needs more bike lanes (especially on Lincoln Ave) and the painting of existing bike
lanes needs to be refreshed. In some areas such as Anderson Ave it's hard to tell a bike lane
even exists.
• more safe bicycle storage, close 4th street to cars weekends
• Car drivers need to be more educated on how to share the road safety.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 112
• My biggest complaint is the lack of a safe eastwest route from the Montecito Shopping Center
west through San Rafael and on to San Anselmo.
• Sidewalks are VERY uneven. Some people cannot walk on uneven surfaces. Some places along
2nd or 3rd St. suddenly have no sidewalks or you are stranded in the median. It's scary to
walk near the bus station and freeway from downtown to Montecito due to unsafe crossings.
• Create a class 1 bikeway along Frietas Parkway
• Lots of improvements. Cal Park Tunnel was huge, thank you. 101 Bike Path to Civic Center
was also a big improvement. The big challenge in SR is the connection for bikes through
downtown San Rafael to Ross Valley. I worked at Dominican University for years and did the
bike commute through San Rafael well over 1500 times. There just isn't a safe corridor for
bikes traveling through SR to make the crossing to Greenfield. Fifth Street is the best option,
but still has a ton of potential to get doored by tight streets and closely parked cars. Crossing
from 4th Street to Greenfield remains problematic as well. A dedicated bike route with better
clearance for bikes from car doors would be great. Fifth is probably the place to do it. Also, I
just discovered the connector from the short SMART train bike path to skip the Merrydale
overcrossing. Needs better signage and some improvements. MUCH better way to get from
the civic center to Northgate. I've had some close calls making the turn onto Merrydale
overcrossing. Getting started on a hill is tough. The SMART path connection needs to be
signed and improved. So much better.
Overall I think there have been significant improvements to SR bike routes. The corridor
though downtown SR and the corridor from Greenfield to Gerstle Park (and vice versa) both
remain problematic. I would put these as the biggest priority for bike/ped routes in SR.
Thanks!
• The CalPark tunnel is great and Andersen has a nice wide bike lane. The stoplight at Irwin and
Andersen often did not detect my bike when commuting and I had to email San Rafael traffic
engineers multiple times on this. It is difficult to get from Andersen to the Lincoln Hill MUP.
The SMART construction adds to safety issues (e.g. trucks pulling in and out of bike lanes,
more debris on the road, detours that are not very safe for bikes, etc.).
• I would love to see alto tunnel opened so we can have a safer route through the south bay to
the north bay.
• Unlike many other bay area cities/towns, SR has no accessible bike parking/locking in the
downtown. There is no safe easy way to cross under the freeway at Mission, 5th, 4th, 3rd etc.
The new path that goes through the tunnel to Larkspur is awesome, but as a single female, I
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 113
don't feel like it is entirely safe especially since the area on the SR side can be dicey. Having a
bike station like one in Berkeley seems like a good idea for San Rafael.
• The biggest challenge you need to work on is a good eastwest route linking San Rafael with
San Anselmo/Fairfax.
• When I cross the street, I watch the countdown timers. Most turn yellow when the number
gets to "0." Now some lights stay green after the countdown timer stops counting. I almost
got driven over the other day walking across Irwin because I expected a few more seconds to
cross like I get crossing Heatherton. Your countdown timers need to work the same so we
don't get hit by cars.
• San Rafael needs a dedicated, offroad, East/West MultiUse Pathway from the Cal Area to San
Anselmo.
• Overall, I think the walking and cycling infratstructure in San Rafael is good.
• In my opinion bicyclist are most often causing traffic problems. They can be very arrogant and
inconsiderate (almost challenging) to automobiles, especially when they ride side by side.
• No public transportation in East San Rafael or I would walk/bike to it despite living on a hill.
• Bicycles are a danger to walking seniors. Cyclists need a warning bell.. They need to be
licensed to better identify offenders.
• I continue to be amazed by the lack of bike parking in downtown San Rafael.
• Biking from 4th st. San Rafael to the where the ferry path picks up is not ideal. Have to cross 3
major intersections with no safety measures for bikes.
Downtown San Rafael does not have a many designated bike racks.
• THe lack of designated bike lanes makes biking seem less safe, especially for kids riding to
Davidson.
As a jogger, cars not stopping at stop lights until they have rolled through the crosswalk is
frightening and dangerous. I have slammed my hand on several car hoods of drivers who
have not seen me in the crosswalk. I would whole heartedly support cameras to give drivers
tickets for not stopping behind the sop line at intersections. It's ridiculous and unsafe.
• Need a dedicated bike path on Gallinas behind Safeway. Need a crossing close to the Civic
Center SMART station... ridiculous that people will take the train to get their car off the road,
then need to walk a mile or more around to the other crossing to get to the other side of the
tracks. I know of at least 20 people myself NOT COUNTING RESIDENTS of the Merrydale Road
area over by McDonalds who might use mass transit if there was a foot crossing there, and I
would use it daily for my bike commute from Terra Linda.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 114
• one of the main obstacles still to this day is drivers with animosity towards bikes. another is
lack of education on the subject of DMV rules in Re: to bicycle riding. more people need to
know that bikes are actual "vehicles" that must follow the same rules any other vehicle using
the roadways.
• More designated bike lanes would be great! Thanks!
• Transit center is critical, must be made safe and easy to use for bike/peds.
• I love the existing bike trails, but there needs to be improvement in bike paths on major
thoroughfares.
• Check out Petaluma crossings; there's a button to push and lights blink on the streets. I do not
feel safe crossing streets in San Rafael.
• 1. drivers do not stop at crosswalks 2. drivers are distracted, I've had some near misses
when walking 3. difficult to find cross walks along EW streets (e.g. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,
mission) that take you across Hetherton, under freeway and across Irwin
• Cars speeding, bicycle lanes need to be better defined, traffic guards for areas where traffic is
congested
• Please help with the traffic/careless driversspeeders/careless high school driversspeeders
along Nova Albion Way and Golden Hinde near Terra Linda High and Vallecito Elem. The
homeowners, kids, and parents deserve to feel comfortable biking or walking a couple blocks
to schoolbut unfortunately do not. I have had many conversations and agreements with other
parents of young families to this regard, as well as the homeowners within several blocks of
us.
• San Rafael is not very safe for bikers
• I would be very excited to learn of more safe bicycling routes for my family as we would take
more advantage of this if we felt more safe. There should be safe bicycle routes to Davidson
and San Rafael High (including all elementary schools) from all major neighborhood arteries.
• Francisco Blvd E needs a bike lane and better surface. Starkweather Park pathway needs to
be fully paved.
• More bike paths would be great. They have been doing some nice work in San Francisco
separating the bike lane from the car traffic.
• Lack of bike parking. Uble to bring on bus when full.
• Walking and bicycling can be safe but sometimes it can't because there a lot of people driving
crazy and they don't really care.
• no, all good
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 115
• crosswalks are not timed well
• no
• sidewalks have cracks or bumps
• I would love to have a connection from Novato to San Rafael
Or know of one if one exists
• some motorists resent bicyclists at E. Francisco.
• As a long term resident and taxpayer all fund expenses for bicyclists should be borne by
residents who wish to bicycle. The Marin Bicycle Coalition and its PAC seems like a source of
funds for the city along with new legislation licensing bicycles just as scooters and motorbikes
are licensed.
• Need safe, protected bike routes through downtown (northsouth and eastwest)!
• no
• Entering and exiting the S.R. city limits from the East and West are the most hazardous areas
for bicyclists. More signage and training is needed to raise the awareness of motorists to
share the road with bicyclists.
• Crossing multilane one way street and freeway on/off ramps. Not a single bike lane
downtown! Connection from Cal Park Hill Tunnel to Lincoln path is incomplete. Even when
space exists for bike lanes they are not installed. Traffic signal timing through downtown
encourage drivers to speed in order to make green lights, instead of being timed for the 25
mph speed limit.
• The area around 101 is a train wreck for all parties. Dropping the bike path into the road
around 5th street is setting everyone up for failure. We also come from Sleepy Hollow into
Terra Linda and that is okay but only because it is a short distance.
• There is no safe way to get from the bike path beside Lincoln to the tunnel to Larkspur on
Anderson
• overall marin is a great place to walk and ride
• I ride a lot and am confident navigating traffic through downtown, but I can see where many,
many other more casual riders would not be.
• Improve southern bypass (from Greenfield to Irwin at Andersen) around dangerous 4th
Street.
• The large trucks on Point San Pedro road are not an inducement to ride, yet it is the way I
need to go to get to any other place, as well as take many of my recreational rides
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 116
• Just having more bicyclists out there has helped...drivers are more aware. I wish there were
police on bikes on the bike paths every now and then. And could there please be lights? The
tunnel that goes under to Dominican feels unsafe in the dark. Thank You
• Bike infrastructure is in dark ages. Needs long range vision. Paths, lanes, signage, paint, etc.
• It is difficult to bicycle on busy streets. There is a need for separate protected Bike lanes.
• Walking and cars do not mix around transit center
• Cyclists lack courtesy to both walkers and drivers and do not follow the rules of the road
• It is difficult to get from Andersen to the Lincoln Hill MUP on a bike. Lots of short blocks and
intersections. I usually walk my bike across the street in a crosswalk. West Francisco
between Tamalpais and Irwin is in bad shape and needs repaving and/or potholes fixed.
There is often road debris there that can be dangerous for cyclists. The stoplight at Irwin and
Anderson often did not detect my bike in the past. Sometimes people are walking in the bike
lane on Los Ranchitos and I think this is dangerous because bikes can go quite fast down the
hill there. I like the Cal Park tunnel and Lincoln Hill MUPs, they are nice and wide and they
have a line painted in the middle, unlike many other MUPs in Marin. It may help to
occasionally have local police patrol the MUPs. I sometimes see homeless people who may
be mentally ill and/or high on drugs around the MUPs. One guy was always smoking pot and
urinating when I rode past him in the mornings on the Lincoln Hill MUP. I also encountered a
lady walking 3 chihuahua dogs on the Lincoln Hill MUP after work about two years ago. All
three dogs were off leash and all three of them chased me and jumped in the air trying to bite
my feet while I rode home. The owner would be talking to other people and ignored the
dogs. This went on for about three months and then I stopped seeing them.
• I bike to work from Fairfax to the county health and wellness center at Kerner and Bellam. The
most treacherous stretch is from West End Street to Anderson Blvd. along Second Street. I
know there is a bike route on First St., but that is a huge hassle with a lot of stops and adds
time to my commute.
Biking home is even worse, riding west on Anderson in the west bound lane is really
dangerous with the narrow bike lane, fast moving cars and bushes sticking out. I usually ride
the wrong way on the Anderson sidewalk. Also, there is no good, safe bike route from
Anderson to West End. Third street is too busy and crowded during the afternoon commute
so I take the little protected sidewalk going the wrong way on Second St. from First St to West
End.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 117
One more thing; there should be a designated bike path through the Cal Neighborhood from
Bellam to the Montecito Shopping Plaza ( and thus to San Rafael High and the Transit Center).
Biking North on East Francisco from Bellam to Second St is really dangerous and many cyclists
use the narrow and well used by pedestrians sidewalk.
• Limit the tendency to increase room for car traffic. It compromises what you can do for all
other transportation choices and ultimately leads to more traffic.
• Please no more bike paths on the sides of freeways. They are unpleasant to use.
• San Rafael needs more bike racks if it wants a more vibrant downtown.
• There MUST be a safe connection through San Rafael for the NorthSouth Greenway
• The corridor from the transit center to the bike paths is difficult to navigate on a bicycle , and
will get worse with SMART train.
• Need buses to get me from home (Peacock Gap) into downtown before I could walk
anywhere
• Please consider making the shopping area at Whole Foods, United Markets, TJs into a
beautiful roundabout. So much gas is wasted trying to maneuver that poorly designed and
dangerous area. This would free up corners and straight paths for pedestrians and cyclists,
plus it's more aesthetic. Mentioned before, please consider getting rid of the oneway part of
D St in front of the PO. Again, so much circling of cars to get there. Dangerous and wasteful.
Also, if Mission Ave were made oneway Eastbound, the dangerous pileup of cars on 101
offramp near RR xing would end.
• Countdown timers are different at all intersections. Too many don't coordinate with the
lights. This is too dangerous.
• The biggest challenges in SR are lack of protected bike lanes (not safe) and no connectivity for
bike routes to schools, shopping, etc. particularly through downtown. Bike routes are NOT a
safe option on our busy streets.
• Pedestrian safety is my prime concern
• Mission pass is referring to foot/bicycle path connection between sleepy hollow (fawn dr) and
terra linda (Manual T Freitas Pkwy)
Both parents taking their children to school and commuters with pedal assist electric bikes
travel this path on a regular basis. To prohibit the thorough fare of these people on ebikes
puts a block to those making a conscious effort to improve personal health not to mention
reduction of automobile road congestion during peak times and pollution.
Please help keep bike paths open to electric assist bicycles as they make the difficult hills and
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix B | 118
long distances achievable to more of the population.
Thank you
• My daughter is now in college so is not in safe routes to schools. Street access unsafe for her
to bike ride from cal area to central SR so we carpooled.
• Lack of adequate bicycle facilities prevents people from feeling safe on their bike. All major
roads used by bikes (Anderson) should have designated bike lanes that are painted and well
marked. The multiuse paths need to have limited obstructions.
• City staff only cares about input from the wealthy, old dinosaurs who will die and leave
behind a worthless infrastructure for the future.
• Drivers are distracted.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 119
Appendix C: Mapped Public Comments
This appendix contains the unedited location-based comments provided by San Rafael residents, visitors, and workers through the online
mapping tool. Respondents categorized their comments into one of six categories:
▪ Intersection crossing issue
▪ Gap in bicycle network
▪ Gap in pedestrian network
▪ Danger/conflict area
▪ Traffic signalization issue
▪ Other
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 120
Comment Type Comment
Intersection crossing issue -
Danger/conflict area Drainage grates parallel to direction of travel. Wheel hazard.
Other Bike lane isolated and often scary.
Gap in bicycle network DuBoise is a superior bicycle street to Anderson. Less auto traffic.
Danger/conflict area Auto carriers park and unload on sidewalk here at entrance to tunnel path.
Other Bike path is isolated and can be scary.
Danger/conflict area Morning traffic intense on Las Pavadas. Unsafe passing, drivers in a hurry to Kaiser, Vallecito Elementary and
Mark Day School. Traffic calming measures. Very unsafe for bicycle route to Vallecito.
Intersection crossing issue Northeast corner of Mission/Irwin intersection floods when it rains and a large deep puddle forms right in front of
the pedestrian crossing.
Other My kid needs a better designed way to get to SRHS on bike and through DT. I have to drive him every morning bc
it seems too dangerous but he is a perfectly willing to bike.
Gap in bicycle network the sharrows don't seem like a reasonable to creating bikeways. Please give us some kind of protected bikeway
through downtown (bike lane?)
Gap in bicycle network this is an unreasonable intersection to expect anyone but an expert cyclist to navigate. Please reconfigure with
safer and more easily manageable crossings
Danger/conflict area This portion of 3rd street is so dangerous- it is practically deadly. With drivers hitting 40+ miles per hour out of
intersection, the road climbing uphill causing cyclists to slow down, and the cars parked and opening doors, it is
seriously shocking that no one has died yet. They need to turn the parking area into a bike lane from 4:30-6:30
pm. They said it would get in the way of SMART train parking, which is illogical because San Rafael is a
destination-the ferry is faster to get to by car.
Danger/conflict area People speed through this curve ignoring the crosswalk. There is also a preschool here and many people picking
up and dropping off kids each day. Maybe a traffic light, stop sign, or some other traffic calming could be added?
Gap in bicycle network There needs to be curb cuts to allow bicycles to transition from Andersen onto the Mahon Creek Path.
Gap in bicycle network A designated multi-directional bike way would allow for better connectivity.
Gap in bicycle network
Gap in bicycle network Need to close the gap between the bike lanes (County to south, city to north).
Intersection crossing issue This intersection needs improved bike lane delineation, as the weaving and merging with the high-speed right
turn lanes creates a hazardous conflict area. Good candidate for green paint.
Gap in bicycle network From this point eastward to McInnis Park bike lanes need to be installed. Definite issues with narrow underpass
but the rest of it, particularly east of the freeway, has enough room for bike lanes..
Gap in bicycle network Add bike lanes on this key bike route. Parking already prohibited on one side for most of it anyway so there's
room to shift traffic lanes over to fit bike lanes in. This is a relatively flat connector between Lucas Valley and
Freitas and is far better than the freeway frontage road. If Oakview on the north side of Lucas Valley ever
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 121
Comment Type Comment
happens this will be even more of a direct connection from the Pacheco Hill bike path with the proposed bike
path from the end of Marinwood Ave to Lucas Valley.
Gap in bicycle network The connection between Puerto Suello Path and the path along Mission needs improvement for cyclists.
Gap in bicycle network There is a gap in the bike network from the Bay Trail near Spinnaker Point and Grand Avenue
Gap in bicycle network This section of 4th Street (east of 101) is a great candidate for a bike path. Streets look wide enough without
losing any parking. Could be a great way to get kids to SRHS.
Gap in bicycle network The Grand Ave. bridge needs renovation to accommodate bikes and pedestrians
Gap in pedestrian network A public sidewalk is needed along Mission Street.
Gap in bicycle network Very unclear bicycle lane marks nags heading west on N San Pedro through freeway on ramp / off ramp.
Gap in bicycle network SR needs SAFE N/S and E/W connections through downtown to our schools and to shopping!!!
Gap in bicycle network This is a common route for kids on the way to Davidson on bikes.
Gap in bicycle network 5th street needs a protected bike lane or bike path for school access.
Danger/conflict area This is a very dangerous bike route, prone to car doors opening on bicyclists. Not a good location for a bike route.
Gap in bicycle network This could be a prime street for a protect bike land, providing much needed safe access across the downtown
area (for shopping, school access, etc.).
Gap in pedestrian network Missing a sidewalk in front of Falkirk and Boyd Park.
Danger/conflict area Too many countdown timers do not coincide with the lights. Some do, and some don't. This is too dangerous.
Other I wish there was bike parking at Johnny's. So many people bike there on the weekends and the bikes are just piled
up outside. Would be great to get a few racks or a corral.
Gap in bicycle network I would feel more inclined to shop downtown if it were easier and safer to bike there. The streets feel too
congested and without a dedicated bike lane somewhere through downtown, i feel like I am competing with cars
for limited space on the roadway. There also is nowhere to lock my bike along 4th street.
Gap in bicycle network Biking downtown is scary. I would bike more to shop and eat if it was more welcoming and safe.
Other Test
Other Adult bikers need to exercise riding bikes up onto sidewalk Los Gamos rd and exercise stopping at arterial and
signal streets. Terra Linda
Danger/conflict area The intersection of 5th ave and Grand ave is a dangerous spot for everyone. My husband and I have witnessed
collisions, injured pedestrians, and so many near-misses we couldn't count. Traffic on Grand Ave going between
4th street and Mission ave often speeds well over the limit, making the turn at 5th ave dangerous. It is a prime
spot either for speed bumps, or additional stop signs and crosswalks, making it a 3 -way stop.
Gap in bicycle network There is no safe connection through San Rafael for the North South Greenway. The unsafe conditions severely
reduces bicycle use.
Gap in bicycle network Bike path ends! No where to go and no bicycle safe lanes from this point.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 122
Comment Type Comment
Danger/conflict area This whole underpass area is filled with trash and often human waste. It's dimly lit, filthy and not pleasant to pass
through.
Other Many more bike racks are needed downtown. The new short parking meters are not suitable for this purpose.
Racks would increase patronage of downtown businesses, food, and nightlife.
Gap in bicycle network Convert to a roundabout to improve flow and safety at intersection.
Gap in bicycle network Consider roundabout to eliminate the stack up of cars at the four way stop. Will also provide safe crossing for
cyclists and elderly pedestrians.
Gap in bicycle network 4 lanes of traffic are unnecessary. Please prioritize the redesign of Freitas Parkway to reduce traffic lanes and add
a separate bike/ped path. Path needs to be separate so kids can have a safe way of getting from home to the
malls and elsewhere.
Gap in bicycle network Please provide a Class 1 bikeway along Freitas Pkwy.
Intersection crossing issue Clear and efficient crossing solution needed from bike path to Andersen
Gap in bicycle network The Montessito shopping center and surrounding area is a place that many people might like to bike too,
especially since car parking can be tough - especially at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. But, I never bike to that
area since it feels very unsafe.
Other It would be great if this path were paved for the entire length. Safety improvements would be helpful too - there
have been incidents of women being threatened/raped.
Danger/conflict area Dangerous intersection for bikes and it is an access point connecting east San Rafael to the Cal Park tunnel.
Danger/conflict area This area often has broken glass and debris and feels quite unsafe. I sometimes parked there in a car and walked
over to the health and wellness center for work-related meetings.
Traffic signalization issue This stoplight failed to detect my bike numerous times over a period over the last five years (when traveling south
on Irwin and turning left onto Andersen). It was scary to try and get out of the turn lane on my bike and use the
crosswalk instead.
Gap in bicycle network We really need the SMART MUP path in San Rafael. I read that Marin Audubon challenged the path and
advocated to make it narrow. PLEASE ensure that MUPs are as wide as possible. Narrow MUPs are unsafe,
increase collision risk, lead to bike-ped conflict and complaints about "speeding" bikes. Wider MUPs with a line in
the middle help reduce this significantly. Human safety needs to be prioritized over minor impacts to bird
habitat. If needed, maybe the city can get a CEQA exemption.
Danger/conflict area Dangerous intersection and there is no way I would ride my bike here, the way it is currently configured. San
Pedro exit area and Freitas exit area are both quite dangerous for bikes and they are also the main access points
for getting to the county civic center.
Danger/conflict area This freeway off-ramp intersection is dangerous, for cars and bikes. Some people have a stop sign and some
don't and I found it confusing until I had driven it a few times. I have been biking for over 20 years and there is no
way I would bike through that intersection. When I had medical appointments near there, I drove.
Danger/conflict area I sometimes encountered pedestrians walking in the bike lane on Los Ranchitos when I was riding downhill. Bikes
can go pretty fast downhill and this seems dangerous.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 123
Comment Type Comment
Danger/conflict area Crossing from Los Ranchitos to MUP can be dangerous since it is right after a blind curve.
Gap in bicycle network Bike riding east or west along 2nd/3rd Streets in this West End location is treacherous but easily resolved. A
retaining wall can be built on the city-owned property on the south side of 2nd where a too narrow sidewalk with
constant debris and soil slump prevents passage of two people. Make this a multiuse path and add a bike lane to
west-bound 3rd St in this area.
Intersection crossing issue Unmarked Pedestrian Crossing difficult
Gap in pedestrian network Shared Roadway Dangerous for Bicycles
Intersection crossing issue Grand at third - dangerous for pedestrians because of traffic lights. Need to stop left turns from northbound
Grand onto Third for pets to cross safely. People have been killed here.
Intersection crossing issue Grand at third - dangerous for pedestrians because of traffic lights. Need to stop left turns from northbound
Grand onto Third for pets to cross safely. People have been killed here.
Intersection crossing issue Grand at third - dangerous for pedestrians because of traffic lights. Need to stop left turns from northbound
Grand onto Third for pets to cross safely. People have been killed here.
Gap in bicycle network The bike path on Pt San Pedro Rd is not continuous and therefore not reliable as a safe route to school bike path.
Can the designated Bike Path's be continuous from 6AM to 9AM and from 2PM to 6PM. This would also allow
commuters the assurance that parked cars would not impact their riding. Thanks
Danger/conflict area the lack of a bike lane, and even a white line denoting the edge of traffic lane causes unnecessary confusion
between drivers and cyclists. I have measured streets, and know there is not currently enough room, however
getting a lane line for cars would keep them tight in their lane.
Intersection crossing issue hard to cross this as a walker and as a driver. a light here would be great
Gap in bicycle network Add bike path along south side of Andersen between SR Rec Center and Irwin Street.
This is Segment 4 of improved east/west route from Greenfield to Andersen at Irwin.
With these four segments in place it will make traveling through San Rafael much safer. From this southern
bypass cyclists can continue on the Mahon Creek Path to the SR Transit Center (and North-South Greenway) and
to CalPark Tunnel.
Gap in bicycle network Add bike path between SR Rec Center and Safeway parking lot.
This is Segment 3 of improved east/west route from Greenfield to Andersen at Irwin.
Gap in bicycle network Add contra-flow bike lanes between E Street and D Street.
This is Segment 2 of improved east/west route from Greenfield to Andersen at Irwin.
Gap in bicycle network Add contra-flow bike lanes between E Street and D Street.
This is Segment 2 of improved east/west route from Greenfield to Andersen at Irwin.
Gap in bicycle network Need a safer way to bike from Greenfield to 1st along south side of 2nd. Separated Class 1.
This is Segment 1 of improved east/west route from Greenfield to Andersen at Irwin.
Danger/conflict area Illegal Mtn Bike trail that comes out of China Camp ...speeding Mtn Bikers causing dangerous conditions to elderly
resident .
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 124
Comment Type Comment
Danger/conflict area Bike and pedestrian patch near the Glass and Sash is very dangerous with people doing drugs and harassing kids
directly on the bike patch. This area needs to be cleaned up and patrolled. Currently not safe for kids walking to
school.
Danger/conflict area Bike and pedestrian patch near the Glass and Sash is very dangerous with people doing drugs and harassing kids
directly on the bike patch. This area needs to be cleaned up and patrolled. Currently not safe for kids walking to
school.
Danger/conflict area This is a dangerous area for cyclists. Cars are allowed to park on the side of the road and the shoulder stripe is
not clearly marked. Cars and trucks are speeding up in this area and there is not enough room for vehicles to give
cyclists three feet of clearance. I always feel nervous when traveling east on 3rd street in this area.
Gap in bicycle network there doesn't seem to be any way to easily ride your through through sr east to west or vice versa once you get
off san pedro road
Danger/conflict area Cyclists can use sidewalk but it is very unsafe.
Danger/conflict area Cyclists can use sidewalk but it is very unsafe.
Danger/conflict area This is a very dangerous intersection for cyclists.
Danger/conflict area This is a very dangerous intersection for cyclists.
Danger/conflict area This is a very dangerous intersection for cyclists.
Intersection crossing issue How are you meant to safely get to the bike route here?
Danger/conflict area This intersection, and from las colindas to las paved as is a SPEEDWAY during commute and other times... Cars
rarely stop turning here, they speed down las colindas, there is no safe place to cross to get to ball field..could
there be a speed bump where useless cross walk is on las colindas!! Very dangerous For walkers and bikes, who
also don't stop at intersectionIn the evening I have almost been rear ended numerous times turning IN TO MY
DRIVEWAY by cars who have not stopped at intersection.
Danger/conflict area Cars don't stop for pedestrians in crosswalk.
Danger/conflict area Cars picking up/dropping off students stop on a red curb, on a curve, completely blocking the eastbound lane.
Not safe!
Intersection crossing issue There are many children from this neighborhood walking to Coleman Elementary that cross this intersection. We
have almost been hit several times by cars either not seeing us, or trying to rush ahead of us. Not safe!
Gap in pedestrian network There are many children from this neighborhood walking to Coleman Elementary on this route. There are no
sidewalks on either side of street.
Gap in bicycle network It is very unsafe to cycle to the canal through this route
Gap in bicycle network It is very unsafe to maneuver through downtown SR esp to connect to Andersen drive
Gap in bicycle network I would love to cycle to drop off my car on Francisco but this is so dangerous, no safe way for a bike
Gap in bicycle network It is very unsafe to maneuver through downtown SR esp to connect to Andersen drive
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 125
Comment Type Comment
Danger/conflict area this is a common route for elementary school kids to bike or walk to school. High school car traffic is heavy in the
morning and afternoon: speeding cars and distracted drivers (both adults and high school kids) make it seem
chaotic and dangerous along nova albion. Golden Hinde needs more cross walks with adequate signage - there is
a lot of speeding on this street.
Gap in pedestrian network
Gap in pedestrian network There is no sidewalk here. Dangerous!
Other Major sidewalk cement issues along this street.
Gap in pedestrian network Multiple gaps. I find it immoral that pedestrians who live in the Canal Area should have to risk injury/death to
reach the transit center.
Gap in pedestrian network A pedestrian trying to cross Las Gamos to reach the walkway that heads towards oleander park is in danger from
cars moving very fast as they turn north from west bound freitas. A crosswalk would help.
Gap in bicycle network A bicycle traveling southbound on lost Los Gamos cannot turn left onto Freitas Parkway. The bicyclist must travel
on a sidewalk which is already very narrow because of the shrubbery and fence along the ditch .
Other This is a wonderful path that is now difficult to maneuver on a bike because of the large rippling of the path.
Gap in bicycle network This intersection is very dangerous because of the design as well as the number of cars that speed. There is no
safe place to cross Las Povadas from the south side of las colindas rd. Cars usually drive 40 more in the 25 mph
zone. A three way stop sign should be installed to keep las colindas freeing used as a frrway.
Intersection crossing issue I walk this route everyday with my kids. 2 issues have arisen. First, the crossing is extremely busy in the mornings
and in the afternoons when both Vallecito and TLHS students are arriving and leaving, as well as Kaiser
employees/patients arriving and leaving. One of the HS children has been struck by a car here. Second, the
northwest corner sidewalk is narrow and right next to the turning lane for Kaiser. Kids are only feet away from
moving cars. Sidewalk widening or barrier needed. Thanks
Gap in bicycle network Bike lane ignored regularly by motorists crossing to make a right turn onto Nova Albion. I have regularly been cut
off by vehicles rushing to get across the bike lane ahead of me, and almost clipped from behind as they cross too
rapidly and closely behind me.
Intersection crossing issue Bike lane ignored regularly by motorists crossing to make a right turn onto Nova Albion. I have regularly been cut
off by vehicles rushing to get across the bike lane ahead of me, and almost clipped from behind as they cross too
rapidly and closely behind me.
Intersection crossing issue My son rides his bike from Sun Valley area to Davidson, crossing 4th at G. In the mornings drivers often do not
stop for pedestrians and bikers crossing in the crosswalk, possibly due to sun in their eyes.
Other Upgrade Class III route to Class I through downtown SR on 4th. Currently there is no safe way to get through the
city by bike and that is just ridiculous. There is so much improvement needed everywhere. It seems logical to
make a big improvement in the center and then work out to connect and improve routes to other destinations.
Traffic signalization issue Google directions recommend Dubois to Anderson for biking to and from the ferry. This is a difficult and busy left
turn through the intersection and the green light doesn't seem to be triggered by cyclists.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 126
Comment Type Comment
Other There's a kind of nasty bump/transition from path to bridge when traveling north bound.
Gap in pedestrian network There are no sidewalks on either side of the street here
Gap in bicycle network Why aren't there any bike parking facilities in downtown San Rafael?
Danger/conflict area It's crazy that Wolfe Grade is a designated bike route - there is virtually no shoulder for bikes. Although I realize
there are very few route options to travel from San Rafael to Kentfield via bike, this is a very busy road and
currently not an option I would ever recommend to a cyclist.
Other Drivers routinely ignore the "no left turn" signs at Frances and 1st street during the evening commute.
Intersection crossing issue This intersection is very dangerous for everyone: cyclist, pedestrian and car. The light for the Northgate Dr. is
short unless a pedestrian has hit the walk button, and is strangely configured leaving drivers confused about how
to turn left onto Freitas. As a cyclist and as a pedestrian I've nearly been hit several times.
Intersection crossing issue This intersection is a hot mess. I've been nearly run over here several times when trying to turn left onto Freitas
Pkwy, both when on my bike riding with the traffic and as a pedestrian in the crosswalk. I can't even completely
blame the cars - the way the intersection is set up is very confusing for people turning left onto Freitas and unless
a pedestrian has hit the cross button, the light is very short and the wait time for the cycle to repeat is long.
Danger/conflict area Homeless people are constantly leaving carts on the bike path, can be pretty dangerous.
Gap in bicycle network Even for a fast road cyclist, getting through this underpass section is pretty hairy. No real shoulder or bike lane
going eastbound and it's challenging to navigate and on ramp and off ramp going westbound and no bike lane.
Other I know it's not San Rafael, but this tight "pedestrian only" bridge crossing is the worst part of all 22 miles of my
bike commute. I'm sure a lot of other San Rafael citizens feel the same way - would hugely appreciate it if this
could be communicated to Cal Trans, SMART, Larkspur, or whoever oversees it.
Gap in bicycle network Would love to see alto tunnel opened just like the one to san rafael from larkspur. Need safer routes for cycling
and pedestrian travel.
Gap in pedestrian network If you're walking from downtown, you suddenly get stranded in the median of a busy street where cars are
whipping around a corner...you have no choice but to run across and hope you don't die.
Danger/conflict area People coming out of parking garage do not stop as they go flying through crosswalk, looking left for car traffic
but ignoring pedestrians/wheelchairs coming from the right. Needs stop sign.
Other Almost impossible to avoid breathing cigarette smoke anywhere near downtown, despite its being illegal.
Without enforcement, people w/ asthma stuck breathing it.
Intersection crossing issue Need bike lanes to cross Highway 101 !
Danger/conflict area Road is too narrow for car traffic + bikes + on-street parking. Replace the on-street parking with a bike lane from
Mission to 2nd or 3rd Street.
Other Difficult to transition from the bike path to westbound Mission Ave, and vice-versa.
Intersection crossing issue
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 127
Comment Type Comment
Gap in bicycle network The bike lane on the overpass is unprotected (no curb or safety wall) with vehicles travelling at highway speeds
within 1 meter of the lane. In addition, copious debris is in the bike lane CONSTANTLY: glass, metal fragments,
etc.
Gap in bicycle network Bicycles are unable to trigger a green light when heading eastbound on East Francisco over Bellam.
Gap in bicycle network The stretch of East Francisco from Grand to Bellam has no shoulder or fog line and has a poor pavement surface
with frequent debris. Shortly after sunrise, cyclists' safety is at a high risk due to blinding light conditions making a
rider nearly invisible to vehicles driving eastbound. Westbound cyclist must deal with the same lack of shoulder or
fog line issue and also suffer from parked vehicles (including delivery trucks in the center turn lane that narrow
the road) and side street merges.
Gap in bicycle network Kids need a MUP on Merrydale to get from SMART to Northgate mall safely walking an bicycling. So do all
workers.
Gap in bicycle network Terrifying biking on Frontage road to Employment center, YWCA, businesses, work. Widen, repave, install
protected bikeways bothways.
Intersection crossing issue South side of N San Pedro Rd. needs a ramp and raised table crossing off 101 N east bound ramp to a MUP on
sidewalk.
Danger/conflict area Bushes intrude into shoulder and path under 101 got torn up. Needs a MUP on south side of N San Pedro from
Merrydale where NS Greenway comes down. Connect south side to Civic Center Dr lights.
Intersection crossing issue Crossing Heatherton on south side of 3rd to transit is a priority for pedestrians and should be protected with a
split signal that stops peds while cars turn south and then STOPS turning cars and lets peds and straight thru cars
go. Needs dedicated turning lanes to do this.
Gap in bicycle network Anderson bike lanes are unsafe for most ages: really need the MUP on the SMART ROW here from Cal Park
pathway to 2nd/Tamalpais/Majon Creek pathway for a low-stress connection for everybody to feel good using.
Danger/conflict area Visibility for turning and crossing at intersection of Union and 4th seems bad, making for many close calls here.
Can you reconfigure the geometry? How can I get from 4th both right and left on Union?
Danger/conflict area Really looking forward to new ped/bike bridge across creek east of Grand! Yay!
Please continue MUP up to 5th to connect with new crossings under 101 to Tamalpais and the new
SMART+Transit stations.
Gap in bicycle network 5th from Tamalpais to Irwin is pretty decent route under 101, quieter than Mission, 2nd and 3rd, which have
drivers in "freeway mind" not clearly seeing pedestrians and bicyclists. 5th and 4th should be developed and
signed for bicycle use with protected signal phases and protected bikeways.
Gap in bicycle network Please place a barrier protected bikeway north south on Tamalpais from 2nd to Mission Pathway for thru NS
Greenway bike traffic and SMART station access. Please additionally be sure signals work for bicycles at each
signal north-south.
Other Chain across entry driveway to Community Center and Albert Park prevents turning left onto pathways from
Anderson westbound bike lanes, blocking low-stress entry.
Gap in bicycle network 1st street low-stress route coming east just deadends here. Cant get safely to Anderson.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 128
Comment Type Comment
Gap in bicycle network Coming west on Anderson Please mark the left turn onto alley of 1st Street "Except Bicycles" or "Bicycles OK".
There is no way to get west on 1st, the relatively low-stress route.
Coming east on 1st deadends into Safeway and Albert Park. Needs a low-stress connection through to Anderson
and to the Majon Creek Pathway. If you go thru Albert Park you emerge onto a very dangerous mid -block crossing
of Lindaro-not acceptible. If you go against traffic on alley of 1st street to Anderson you are illeg
Danger/conflict area Dangerous to travel on Bellam from NS Greenway-Cal Park Tunnel to Canal, Kerner Wellness Center and to Home
Depot. Needs protected bike infrastructure going north east.
Gap in bicycle network Must build safe low stress east-west route for bicycling from Greenfield through downtown, perhaps on 1st
street, connecting to Canal and Montecito!!!
Gap in bicycle network "Need entry to the bikepath." We need to keep pressure (as a city via our planning and coordination) for
fullfulling the promises made by SMART. We need to make it clear that we expect bicycle path that was part of
the SMART proposal that we all voted for. I think the the train is a good idea, but it's the bike path the sold me. I
feel betrayed.
Gap in bicycle network "Need entry to the bikepath." We need to keep pressure (as a city via our planning and coordination) for
fullfulling the promises made by SMART. We need to make it clear that we expect bicycle path that was part of
the SMART proposal that we all voted for. I think the the train is a good idea, but it's the bike path the sold me. I
feel betrayed.
Gap in bicycle network "Need entry to the bikepath." We need to keep pressure (as a city via our planning and coordination) for
fullfulling the promises made by SMART. We need to make it clear that we expect bicycle path that was part of
the SMART proposal that we all voted for. I think the the train is a good idea, but it's the bike path the sold me. I
feel betrayed.
Danger/conflict area Disruptive alcoholics everywhere. Fear of being followed when alone
Gap in bicycle network There is no safe or reasonable way to cycle along east Francisco, yet it is the only way to move between major
parts of the city.
Gap in bicycle network the sidewalk here is too narrow and with no parking or bike lane, vehicle traffic runs very close to pedestrians.
Gap in bicycle network the bike lanes going both directions on north San Pedro road have to cross freeway off ramp traffic. It's incredibly
scary to cross 50mph traffic on a bike.
Gap in bicycle network It seems great that a new bike and Ped bridge is planned for grand avenue over the canal, but how is a cyclist
expected to get between the bridge and downtown or the transit center?
Gap in bicycle network
Danger/conflict area The pedestrian crossing on crossing Point San Pedro at Summit Avenue needs flashing lights. Even thought there
are signs and stripes, cars will NOT stop for a pedestrian trying to cross the road.
Danger/conflict area Cars driving on Point San Pedro Road are traveling too quickly around the corner between Sea Way & Bay Way.
They cut into the bike lane, and since the plants are grown onto the sidewalk, you have to walk in the bike lane,
and cars are constantly driving around the corner in the bike lane. Any chance of putting up road barriers
between road & bike lane?
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 129
Comment Type Comment
Danger/conflict area For children wishing to bike to Vallecito Elementary, there are no safe bike lanes. Kids on bikes and students
walking to both Vallecito and Terra Linda High must share the same narrow sidewalk.
Intersection crossing issue Very busy and dangerous crossing Francisco Blvd on Bellam to Anderson Dr. A bike lane/pedestrian tunnel to
either Marin Square/Gary Pl or to Simms St would be wonderful.
Danger/conflict area Francisco Blvd is part of a recommended bike route. But this area is unsafe as motorist are not aware of cyclist
traffic. Children from the Bret Harte neighborhood can not safely cross traverse the area in and around the
transit center. Recommend adding Flashing Pedestrian crossing signs and the use of "green lanes" to alert drivers
and guide cyclist alike. Restricting parking along Tamalpais or Lincoln during school commute times should be
studied.
Danger/conflict area This is often used for bikes and is not clearly marked. Strongly recommend the u se of "green lanes" to alert
drivers and guide cyclist alike.
Gap in bicycle network There should be signage to keep cyclists off both 2nd and 3rd streets and instead take appropriate bike routes.
Both 2nd and 3rd are not appropriate for cyclists, and I am one. yet I see too many cyclists who are not skilled
enough to navigate those dangerous (for cyclists) thoroughfares.
Gap in pedestrian network This area south side of second street has a side walk that needs a bit of help. Many cyclists use it as it's the only
way from 1st street to greenfield west end. Better sidewalk or signage to show the appropriate route would help.
Gap in bicycle network Getting from 1st street to Greenfield is sketchy. Better than it used to be years ago. But better signage woul d
help. Many people ride on the side walk south side of second street (where the white iron fence separating 2nd
street traffic and the sidewalk is) because they know of no other way. That sidewalk is too narrow. It could be
widened a bit I suppose. I don't have a solution, the problem is simply moving westward from Gerstle Park, to
West End Greenfield. Thanks!
Danger/conflict area Unpaved trail is hazardous for cyclists
Danger/conflict area Lost of pot holes make riding on E Francisco Blvd dangrous
Danger/conflict area There is a section path between the lagoons and Target that is not paved. It's a hazard for cyclists and the
puddles will erode the bank.
Danger/conflict area There is a section path between the lagoons and Target that is not paved. It's a hazard for cyclists and the
puddles will erode the bank.
Gap in pedestrian network there are no sidewalks on one side of the street and vehicles zip around this turn too fast. It's scary to push a
stroller through here because I have to walk in the street
Gap in pedestrian network there is a crosswalk and curb cuts here but they don't lead to a sidewalk on one side of the street.
Danger/conflict area would be nice to have a stop sign here. Nobody respects the uncontrolled crossing
Danger/conflict area This should be the safe route to school for kids on bikes but vehicle traffic is too fast
Danger/conflict area This sidewalk is too narrow for all the student traffic. People spill over into the street when people pass each
other. The sidewalk should be widened or maybe the SRUSD could push the fence at their maintenance years
back a couple feet
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 130
Comment Type Comment
Other Could this path be graded and paved? It's very irregular with puddle, muddy areas and stones sticking out of the
ground making the path hazardous for bikes.
Gap in bicycle network I ride from the Bret Harte neighborhood in San Rafael to Red Hill in San Anselmo for work. While there are some
bike routes, getting from the west end of downtown or Gerstle Park to Greenfield is tough. If I take 4th s treet,
there are buses and trucks and not much room for bikes. I also have to cross several lanes of traffic including 2
traffic lights to get across 4th to Greenfield. If I go through Gerstle Park, I have to ride on the sidewalk on 3rd as
traffic on 3rd is fast and scary.
Danger/conflict area riding a bike down 2nd street and under the freeway is dangerous...would be nice to have marked bike lanes
Gap in bicycle network roads through San Rafael are not designated bike lanes so we are competing with cars, buses and commercial
traffic.
Gap in bicycle network I often see many people biking on narrow sidewalks because it is unsafe to bike in street. Pedestrians and bikers
then have to share narrow sidewalk which are poorly kept and maintained
Danger/conflict area children from Bret Harte neighborhood cannot bicycle safely to Coleman Elementary or San Rafael High School as
motorists are in too much of a hurry to get onto the freeway to look out for children bicycling to school.
Intersection crossing issue with over 100 kids using this path to middle school 5days a week, the city could provide better signage, & a
blinking/ lighted crosswalk path
Gap in pedestrian network with over 100 kids using this path to middle school 5days a week, the city should provide a safe sidewalk for them
to use. Currently no safe route to Davidson Middle School
Danger/conflict area No curb cut outs, fast turning.
Gap in bicycle network The numbered bike route from San Anselmo requires riders to come back onto 4th and then 2 nd streets in two
lanes of tight traffic. This is a dangerous area for riders and is much more stressful than riding through the CBD.
Danger/conflict area Miracle Mile is a huge problem if you are coming from Fairfax/San Anselm or going towards it - it is really scary
and unsafe to get in or out of San Rafael via this route and prevents me from taking my bike to work instead of
my car.
Gap in bicycle network It's difficult to navigate the curb cut here. So, we cyclists leave the multi -use path, southbound, at Pacheco or
Paloma instead. That works fine, but it would be nice to bike to Mission then easily make a right/westbound turn
off the path onto Mission.
Gap in pedestrian network There's no sidewalk on Lincoln between N. San Pedro and the Northgate Mall. My family would walk and bike
there but it's not safe without a sidewalk or bike path.
Intersection crossing issue Cars exiting the hey Weestbound don't stop at the crosswalk - the sidewalk ends into a crumbling path and isn't
wide enough between merrydale and Civic Center Dr. in most places for two strollers to pass each other or a
stroller and a wheelchair. There's also no bike lane and bikers are faced with merging with the super fast cars
exiting the highway. Total disaster.
Danger/conflict area Very hard to get under the bridge and out past Montecito shopping center. There is no bike lane.
Danger/conflict area This is a terrible area to walk. Unfortunately, my route to work takes me this way. I sometimes will walk 4 blocks
out of my way just to avoid this intersection, as well as Irwin and 2nd. Cars are in too much of a hurry to get onto
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 131
Comment Type Comment
the freeway and often blow through the red light. They don't slow down or see pedestrians. Maybe a red light
camera?
Danger/conflict area I saw a cop giving a cyclist a ticket here for riding on the sidewalk, and according to the municipal code, it's not
even illegal here. There is NO safe way for a cyclist to get to United Markets, from any direction.
Danger/conflict area Drivers don't seem to respect "sharrows," or that cyclists don't have to ride in the door zone.
Gap in bicycle network It'd be so nice if this path could get all the way to 4th or San Pedro Road somehow.
Gap in pedestrian network There is no safe side walking around the this busy parking spot
Danger/conflict area There are "sharrows" along a row of parked cars. What drivers don't realize is that cyclists are not legally required
to ride in the "door zone." So it's very dangerous here, because the road is narrow, and drivers still try to pass.
Education seems the most crucial here (and throughout downtown). Perhaps better signage? And I don't mean
"Share the Road," but something closer to "Bicycles are allowed the use of the full width of the road."
Gap in pedestrian network The hillside on the South side of 2nd in this area scares me enough so that I won't walk there anymore. It looks
like a big rock slide could happen at anytime there, and is not safe to have a sidewalk there. I see the railings have
been reinforced but I consider it to be unsafe to walk or bike on.
Gap in bicycle network I'm just agreeing with other commenters that solid bike racks, like what's becoming popular in towns like Albany
in the East Bay, would be a really nice improvement to downtown.
Danger/conflict area Never mind the cyclists that run the red light here. Drivers do this on a regular basis. There's no real cross-
intersection, so apparently they feel stopping is optional?
Danger/conflict area Drivers seem oblivious to "sharrows" and that cyclists are allowed to actually ride on the road here.
Other No Parking signs should be added to the fire road gates on Spring Grove, Clorinda, and anywhere else needed in
town. I see people parked in front of the Spring Grove gate all the time. When there is our next brush fi re, I want
to know that SRFD can have instant access to those roads. There are trees down on those fire roads too.
Danger/conflict area It's just plain not safe here for cyclists. There's no clear path and "sharrows" are meaningless. Cars speed and pass
much too close.
Danger/conflict area This area is just plain cruel for pedestrians and cyclists.
Danger/conflict area Sometimes there are people camping under the freeway. I haven't had a problem, but I've seen pit bulls off leash.
Traffic signalization issue Sometimes I can't even get the pedestrian signal to work. I often just continue down the sidewalk to the next
street, or take back streets.
Gap in pedestrian network I rode my bike through here "once." I consider myself a skilled cyclist, this is my number one form of
transportation, and I will never ride through here again. There are zero markings for bikes. So dangerous!
Danger/conflict area San Rafael used to do crosswalk stings when I first moved here, and drivers had learned to watch out for and
defer to peds. We stopped having those, and now it is much more dangerous to walk and cross streets. I wish
you would bring it back, focusing near the freeway and on 4th street. Also people driving while holding their
phones need to be getting expensive tickets. I see drivers texting constantly too.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 132
Comment Type Comment
Gap in pedestrian network The "sharrows" here put you right in the zone where parallel parked cars open their doors. This could actually be
deadly!
Gap in bicycle network You just cannot get from here towards the Montecito Shopping Center safely. You can proceed down Tamalpais
to 4th, but doing that is a) not obvious and then b) dangerous in its own right.
Danger/conflict area Peds should not be allowed to cross Irwin and 2d on the north side of the street, and also should not be allowed
to cross Hetherton at 3d on the south side of the street. People are very vulnerable here, drivers aren't looking
and are in a hurry. People will continue to be killed in these crosswalks.
Traffic signalization issue Bikes don't trigger the traffic light here.
Danger/conflict area Drivers turning East on 2nd don't look for peds, and in trying to speed to the freeway have often hit or almost hit
peds in the crosswalk. Very dangerous morning, noon, and night during the week.
Gap in pedestrian network I'm surprised that the new handicapped curb cuts along H Street (and elsewhere) are really of an "approved"
design. They seem like a serious trip hazard, and because of the extra curbing, I'd be surprised if they are really
useful to someone in a wheelchair or someone with sight limitations. Sloping sides would be much more
pedestrian-friendly. I hope this isn't the new plan for elsewhere.
Gap in pedestrian network Need a crosswalk or light, too many cars and people trying to cross lucas valley rd, to Mt. Lassen from old lucas
valley rd
Gap in bicycle network Hard to cross under freeway safely, particularly on mission. No clear bike lane, scary with kids
Gap in pedestrian network Dangerous and difficult to bike or walk through here. A multi-use path could work, or simply a wide sidewalk like
is being built on East Francisco Blvd.
Other This road does not exist. It's a good idea though!
Gap in bicycle network Need Class 2 here.
Gap in pedestrian network SMART has made no provision for access between the southern segment of Merrydale and Civic Center Dr. for
either bikes or Pedestrians. There is only a rough muddy space between the fence and the freeway support posts.
This problem also makes it difficult or impossible to pass from one segment of Merrydale to the other. The
SMART fencing closed the social path between the two segments.
We were told that there would be a passage on both sides of the station for access by neighbors.
Gap in bicycle network Eastbound Class 2 pinches out here. Need a short path to get off the street here, or widen the street here.
Gap in bicycle network This section needs to be Class 2.
Else a Class 2 on Freitas in FRONT of Safeway.
Else a Southbound Class 2 on Las Gallinas and a Northbound on Class 2 Freitas.
Gap in pedestrian network Pedestrian entrance to / from this shopping area is very tricky, the sidewalk ends at the car entrance and drivers
do not see pedestrians due to the hedges. There is no other curbed (for strollers/wheelchairs etc) entrance to the
shopping area from this road for pedestrians only.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 133
Comment Type Comment
Gap in bicycle network
Gap in bicycle network I live in Spinnaker Point and would love to bike around town, rather than using my car, but it is very dangerous to
get out of my neighborhood--either on Francisco Blvd. E or Bellam Blvd.
to Anderson. Bike lanes or other safety measures would be very helpful..
Other The hillside by the electrical transformer, even though it is shored up, seems to have a small crevasse that
indicates some unstable ground at the southern edge of the path.
Gap in bicycle network There is no safe place to ride a bike on Francisco Blvd E. I ride on the street, but it is very dangerous. Many
bicyclists ride on the sidewalk. It's a difficult situation as there is not really enough room for a bike lane.....but it
is very dangerous.
Gap in bicycle network There is no safe place to ride a bike on Francisco Blvd E. I ride on the street, but it is very dangerous. Many
bicyclists ride on the sidewalk. It's a difficult situation as there is not really enough room for a bike lane.....but it
is very dangerous.
Danger/conflict area Knowing that this bridge is due for replacement, it's still extraordinarily slippery to walk/ride on when it rains.
Gap in bicycle network there is a gap for cyclists coming North/south between 2nd and mission. Congestion and traffic is high and there
is no preferred or safe route through here.
Gap in bicycle network Would be nice to have bike paths on this segment of Union. Seems like there is space. The sidewalk is also narrow
on the east side and kids walking to school are always spilling over into the street. Would be nice to have
something to buffer the sidewalk pedestrians from vehicle traffic.
Gap in bicycle network We need a safe route from east San Rafael to downtown. Also need a Safe way to cross 4th st and miracle mile
where 4th st ends.
Gap in bicycle network There isn't a safe route going E/W thru or near San Rafael. It's very dangerous trying to negotiate thru town on a
bike...so I avoid it...or go south to the bike/walking paths in Corde Madera.
Intersection crossing issue Heavy traffic in this area makes it challenging to bike or walk from one side of freeway to other side.
Other It's nice that there is a gape through the center divide for bike, my only wish that it was curved rather than
straight so that turning through it could be a smooth turn instead of having to adjust twice to make sure I don't
hit the island. But is this is very minor - maybe just something to think about in future cut throughs.
Danger/conflict area the intersection of 3rd and Heatherton is dangerous for pedestrians and a traffic nightmare. There shouldn't be a
crosswalk on the south side of the intersection where cars are turning left to get on the freeway. Pedestrians
should cross on the north side where cars are only turning right or going straight from Heatherton or build an
overhead crossing. I don't understand why the left lane isn't a left turn only so there are 2 lanes turning on
Heatherton to reduce the congestion of onramp traffic
Danger/conflict area the intersection of 3rd and Heatherton is dangerous for pedestrians and a traffic nightmare. There shouldn't be a
crosswalk on the south side of the intersection where cars are turning left to get on the freeway. Pedestrians
should cross on the north side where cars are only turning right or going straight from Heatherton or build an
overhead crossing.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 134
Comment Type Comment
Danger/conflict area Very few dog owners have their animals on a leash on the path from Pickleweed Park to the rod and gun club.
I've been bitten several times, and others on the path are concerned about being at risk when a dog approaches
them. There have also been reports of assaults and robberies on the path near the Target store .
Gap in pedestrian network No sidewalk
Danger/conflict area Dangerous sidewalk upheaval
Gap in pedestrian network No sidewalk
Gap in bicycle network Poor crossing for cyclists from Las Gallinas onto MTF Parkway. Unsafe due to cars turning and lack of safe bike
lanes.
Gap in bicycle network Lack of secure items to lock bicycles to all along 4th Avenue. Makes it very difficult to visit local businesses.
Gap in bicycle network No way to safely cross under the freeway from 2nd to 3rd streets heading east .
Gap in pedestrian network Sidewalks in very poor shape. Narrow access due to utility poles that does not allow access for baby strollers.
Gap in pedestrian network Sidewalks in very poor shape with commercial vehicles regularly blocking pedestrian access.
Gap in pedestrian network Parked cars routinely block sidewalk access on both sides of Bret forcing pedestrians into the street. This happens
every day.
Danger/conflict area When traveling west on 4th and trying to cross 2nd to access West End Ave the signals are not synchronized or
easily accessible to bikes. cyclists get stuck in no mans land on the traffic island. This is not a safe spot.
Traffic signalization issue When traveling north on Lindaro and turning left onto Andersen the turn signal is only activated by cars. Bicycles
turning never get a green light.
Gap in pedestrian network Lack of a sidewalk or accessible shoulder requires that you walk on the roadway. Clearing vegetation and
creating a walking path would allow pedestrians a safer alternative. Many kids use this road to get to Marinwood
Community Center as well as Miller Creek Middle School.
This section is also a designated bikeway, but the roadway is too narrow for a separate bike lanes. When
pedestrians, bikes and cars all meet up at the same time it is a dangerous situation.
Gap in bicycle network This area is very daunting on a bike
Other There is a beautiful walking/hiking area in San Rafael Park at the top of Skyview Ter, however, it has become over
run with dogs off leash. Yesterday there were close to 20 dogs running off leash. And if you happen to catch a
time when it is dog free you better keep your eyes open for what they have left behind. I no longer take my kids
up that hill.
Other
Gap in bicycle network No way for bikes to safely get from Andersen - Cal Park to Canal. In fact all of the bike network in Canal area is
terrible.
Danger/conflict area Mission and Nye is a very dangerous intersection for peds. Cars just fly through the crosswalk.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 135
Comment Type Comment
Gap in bicycle network This gap is the single biggest reason I don't ride my bike to San Rafael any more. The perfectly lovely bike lane
over Porto Suello just...ends. and you have to go right across treacherous traintracks and narrow trafficky streets
and somehow make your way without getting killed. Not worth it.
Gap in pedestrian network No sidewalk on North side of Mission at Elks. And huge chunk of concrete sidewalk disappears into tree roots.
Danger/conflict area Dangerous intersection on a bike - and enormous potholes. Also - pedestrians sometimes cross on east side
where there is no crosswalk.
Gap in pedestrian network No sidewalk - this may be county or RR?
Gap in pedestrian network No sidewalk between Thorndale and Nova Albion
Gap in pedestrian network The Case of the Disappearing Sidewalk.
Danger/conflict area Trails in Barbier Park hazardous and neglected. Mtn bikers speed and seem to think the single track trails are for
their exclusive use.
Danger/conflict area Sidewalk on North side of Freitas between Las Raposas and Del Ganado is so bad it is actually crumbling into the
street.
Danger/conflict area Las Colindas - County schools property drains onto sidewalk for about 50 yards between Las Gallinas and softball
field. Very slimy and slippery.
Danger/conflict area As I walk down 3rd, 2nd, A, B, C, Irwin and Heatherton your countdown signals are inconsistent. It used to be that
when they got to "0" the traffic light would turn yellow, then red.
Nader saw to it that all lights followed this rule as does all of San Francisco. Now some turn yellow when the
countdown goes to "0" and some stay green. SOMEONE WILL GET KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS INCONSISTENCY..
Danger/conflict area As I walk down 3rd, 2nd, A, B, C, Irwin and Heatherton your countdown signals are inconsistent. It used to be that
when they got to "0" the traffic light would turn yellow, then red.
Nader saw to it that all lights followed this rule as does all of San Francisco. Now some turn yellow when the
countdown goes to "0" and some stay green. SOMEONE WILL GET KILLED BECAUSE OF THIS INCONSISTENCY..
Danger/conflict area I wish that on 5th Ave, the block between California and J streets were widened to 6 foot sidewalks like the
section between California and Sun Valley School. There are so many regular pedestrians trying to use the small
sidewalk and I have to pull over to the edge of driveways with other joggers, walkers, and particularly young kids
biking.
Danger/conflict area I live along this block and am always disappointed at the regular speeding vehicles apparently speeding in excess
of 40 mph. I take my son to Sun Valley and am terrified crossing K and California cross streets due to speeders.
Danger/conflict area I avoid biking through this intersection. Drivers always make the break down lanes into right turn lanes, making it
difficult to safely bike. Can yellow lines be painted here indicating there's only one lane each direction?
Danger/conflict area This is a hard place to cross Red Hill Ave as a biker or pedestrian. People drive so fast East bound and it's hard to
take my young son biking here.
Gap in bicycle network Getting from downtown to the Canal neighborhood with a bike and kids' bike trailer is unsafe. The road is not
marked with bike lanes, and the sidewalk is not wide enough. For a neighborhood that houses 25% of the
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 136
Comment Type Comment
population of San Rafael and has major traffic/parking problems, offering effective, connected biking routes is
essential.
Danger/conflict area People barely stop at the stop sign here. They zoom around the corner at high speeds -- it seems like it is people
passing through who do not live in the neighborhood. This is dangerous as many young children live around here.
Danger/conflict area Lack of a left turn lane from westbound LVR into Canyon Oak Dr creates a hazardous condition. Cars heading
west on LVR will often drive at full speed in the bike lane to get around left turning vehicles and make a pass on
the right.
Danger/conflict area I think there are some homeless people living in the open space. It can be pretty creepy up there. As a result, I
have tended to shy away from using it, especially alone.
Gap in pedestrian network Would be nice to have sidewalks along Los Ranchitos Road (or a walking path).
Danger/conflict area During the morning drop off time the high school area is really difficult to navigate through on bike. There are
parent in cars entering from both directions while cars and trying to leave the drop off area. Biking through this is
nerve wracking. Too many cars in a very tight space and none are looking out for bikes.
Danger/conflict area The biking and walking trail that runs beside 101 sometimes feels dangerous. I've seen a group of three people
that looked like they were waiting for somebody to rob, and there are often rough-looking homeless individuals
on the trail. I would like to be able to run/bike there before work, but I don't feel that it's safe.
Danger/conflict area Going toward downtown San Rafael, coming off the bike path tunnel at Andersen and Bellam Blvd. there is a
tendency to ride on the west side of the Andersen sidewalk and eventually try to cross over Andersen to the east
side of Andersen rather than wait for the light at Bellam.
Intersection crossing issue Difficult to see pedestrians in car; difficult to see cars as pedestrian
Intersection crossing issue I ride bikes to Dixie Elementary with my kids on Old Lucas Valey Road Trail. It ends at Mt. Lassen, whereupon we
must cross Lucas Valley Road. It's terrifying with cars at rush hour and the 45 mph speed limit.
Intersection crossing issue There needs to be safer East West crossing in San Rafael...Transportation Hub, crossing from downtown to the
East side...Heatherton, Irwin...Anderson to Bellam Blvd to the Canal. There is too much car congestion in these
areas for me to feel safe on my bike while crossing from the West to East side and back again. We would ride
from Bret Harte to the Dominican or the Canal if it were safer on bikes.
Danger/conflict area Many people park on the east side of D St and cross without a crosswalk to the large apartment building across
from our house 524 D and it's very unsafe. Need a crosswalk and flashing sign or "your speed" sign.
Danger/conflict area Cars traveling south and turning left onto Taylor St. often don't see pedestrians crossing. Very dangerous.
Intersection crossing issue Cars making a right turn on red do not yield to cars crossing 3rd St. to access Montecito Center. They're hard to
see until you almost have a collision. This is a good place for a "no turn on red" sign.
Intersection crossing issue Pedestrian crossing Los Gamos at Lucas Valley Rd. is very dangerous and needs safety improvements. Los Gamos
is very wide at intersection. Drivers very often DO NOT yield to, let alone see pedestrians in crosswalk.
Eastbound LV drivers turning Southbound onto Los Gamos don't slow down because of curve road design.
Drivers exiting Los Gamos to Eastbound LV and often then southbound Hwy. 101 don't yield. This is bad with
YMCA and SHeriff's office traffic; will get worse with Kaiser traffic.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 137
Comment Type Comment
Intersection crossing issue It's a blind intersection, and cars tend to race down Grand heading south. the frequently run the stop sign or
take the right of way from both cyclists and cars entering from Belle. Cars coming down Grand act as though they
have the right of way, even when the don't.
Danger/conflict area downtown is dangerous for anyone to ride their bicycles especially children to any of their schools from
elementary to high school, any thing that cna be added for safety wou ld be seriously appreciated
Gap in pedestrian network Telephone pole interferes with sidewalk
Gap in bicycle network A bicycle / pedestrian bridge between across the Canal here would eliminate hazardous walking and cycling.
Danger/conflict area I have nearly been run over here multiple times when crossing the road. motorists exiting of the south bound 101
don't obey the giveaway sign to pedestrians.
Gap in bicycle network Where do bikes go from here?
Danger/conflict area Bike lane just randomly ends here. Considering how many people use Bellam to walk and bike, I think it's the
worst pedestrian/bike route in San Rafael.
Intersection crossing issue There should be a crosswalk here. There is a school bus stop on the corner of Holly and Las Pavadas and
kids/parents frequently cross Las Pavadas around 8 a.m. when there is a lot of traffic on Las Pavadas. It's very
dangerous. Also cars often don't stop for the bus when it's loading up the kids in the morning.
Gap in pedestrian network A bicycle / pedestrian bridge between across the Canal here would eliminate hazardous walking and cycling.
Danger/conflict area People drive VERY quickly down this road.
Gap in pedestrian network Dangerous getting strollers, young children, bikes, pedestrian s around corner where stop sign is. Sidewalks
unpaved on Grand Ave are unusable by strollers and hard to Ride bikes on for kids going to school.
Danger/conflict area It seems that the traffic lanes for the car and bikes is VERY confusing and not intuitive. This is a hazard area and
needs to be re-looked at the most recent changes where the drivers going straight through the intersection must
merge right and go through the bicycle lane. The lane should not intersect for cars going straight and the car lane
on the left should have cars going straight and turnig right. The bike lane should ONLY be crossed by those
turning right for the Marinwood Market/gas.
Gap in pedestrian network no sidewalk between Bust Stop and Shamrock Shopping Center, bad sidewalks in Bret Harte neighborhood along
Irwin
Gap in bicycle network This is practically a deathtrap for cyclists. The bike lane is eliminated at a key space, meaning that for the turn,
bikes and cars must share the road. The road bottlenecks, so there is no where for the cycli st or cars to move.
Gap in pedestrian network The sidewalks are terrible throughout Bret Harte but particularly on the West side of Irwin. It is completely
unusable for wheelchair users or people pushing strollers
Gap in pedestrian network The sidewalk runs out here forcing you to walk on the old train tracks.
Danger/conflict area Cars parked on sidewalk force pedestrians to walk in the street. Cars regularly speed on Bret Ave, using it as a
shortcut
Intersection crossing issue This intersection/freeway off ramp needs a roundabout. Drivers get off the highway and do not slow down
enough. I've seen cyclist get hit bay cars here.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 138
Comment Type Comment
Gap in bicycle network You can get here fairly safely from Spinnake/Baypoitn along the water, expcept for a short section of traffic
before the bridge (which is pretty hazardous) but can't get past St. Quentin to continue to Larkspur. Dead End.
Other the sidewalks along Freitas Parkway are very hazardous because of buckling from tree roots and tar patching over
many years. Especially area 3 on your map.
Gap in bicycle network From Baypoint Lagoons / Spinnaker to connect with the tunnel to Larkspur it is a hazardous ride with Bellam
traffic.
Other the sidewalks along Freitas Parkway are very hazardous because of buckling from tree roots and tar patching over
many years. Especially area 3 on your map.
Gap in bicycle network From Baypoint Lagoons / Spinnaker to connect with the tunnel to Larkspur it is a hazardous ride with Bellam
traffic.
Danger/conflict area This intersection is insufficiently wide. Bicyclists making left turns from NB Las Gallinas onto WB Freitas are
exposed to oncoming traffic while waiting to turn left.
Danger/conflict area The bicycle lane dwindles to nothing here on eastbound Freitas parkway, putting bicyclists at risk with the high
speed traffic and vehicles making right turns
Intersection crossing issue Very dangerous crossing for bicycles southbound on Los Ranchitos crossing to the southbound bike path. On the
top of a hill at a curve where cars just don't stop.
Gap in bicycle network China Camp is a popular riding area.. Crossing under the freeway from east to west is very difficult because the
bike lane ends and there isn't any easy way to proceed through the area.
Gap in bicycle network A bike lane alone 5th avenue to Sun Valley would be a helpful safety feature for student riding their bikes to
school. The traffic is too fast and there are too many cars parked along 5th to ensure the safety of young students
riding.
Other This new short section of separated bike lane is EXCELLENT. Wonderful that you are doing this (its just that its
only a couple of hundred yards. We need this approach all over)
Gap in bicycle network This section in front of Montecito (and beyond) is very dangerous for bicycles. Despite "Share the Road"
markings, drivers are entering and exiting parking, and do not understand what "Share the Road" means. Dutra
trucks make this corridor treacherous.
Danger/conflict area Poorly designed intersection.
Traffic signalization issue Eliminate the left turn lane and make it a through and left turn lane.
Danger/conflict area Poorly designed intersection.
Other Potholes and rough sections here are VERY dangerous for cyclists because its downhill
Other Recent roadwork here has created very bumpy sections
Other 2 Potholes (more like holes over some kind of access point) here are very bad, particularly dangerous in the dark
Other Potholes here are very bad, particularly dangerous in the dark when commuting.
Other Patches to road surface in bicycle edge are raised.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 139
Comment Type Comment
Gap in pedestrian network We need sidewalks, or an MUP to connect Los Ranchitos Road to the Hwy 101 frontage MUP and sidewalks on
Lincoln Ave, to connect north SR with central SR.; Also need sidewalks or the SMART MUP on portion of Los
Ranchitos where no sidewalks exist. (between bus stop near N. San Pedro and Walter Place.
Danger/conflict area Completely dark at night on the sidewalk here, right over the Canal crossing, there is no street light.
Danger/conflict area Cars often go much too quickly around this corner, from B onto Woodland, and have caused a number of
accidents, crashing through fences.
Other Water pools and can be difficult to traverse in rainy season at this end of the path.
Other Water pools around here to make it impassable on foot.
Danger/conflict area path needs better lighting.
Gap in bicycle network Unsafe to get by bike from Post Office to Kerner Wellness Center under 580. Need bikeway on Bellam on same
side as both so I don't have to recross Bellam unsafely twice to use nice new sidewalk under 580. Unsafe to get to
Home Depot and Shoreline neighborhoods too.
Intersection crossing issue Crossing Pt San Pedro at Marina is dangerous because of curve and speed.
Gap in bicycle network Difficult to get between bike path where it ends on Anderson through downtown to any other destination such as
my neighborhood in montecito. Dangerous to ride or walk anywhere around the transit center.
Gap in pedestrian network East francisco has a narrow damaged sidewalk and no bike lanes despite being one of the most heavily used
conduits for pedestrians and bicyclists
Gap in pedestrian network The stretch of Jewel Street between Union and Highland has no sidewalk. There is barely enough space for two
cars to use the road at the same time. Many families walk this stretch enroute to Coleman Elementary. Very
dangerous. There isn't even a space to get out of the way of the cars.
Danger/conflict area There's a home there that REALLY needs to cut their bushes. I always scratch my arm as I run past, and there's no
WAY a stroller or wheelchair could squeeze by on the sidewalk with those overgrown bushes in the way. That
same house always puts their trashcans smack in the middle of the walkway as well. Not ADA compliant!
Danger/conflict area Poor road surface conditions are dangerous to cyclists.
Danger/conflict area Poor road surface conditions are dangerous to cyclists.
Danger/conflict area Poor road surface conditions are dangerous to cyclists.
Danger/conflict area Poor road surface conditions are dangerous to cyclists.
Danger/conflict area Strange intersection means that cyclists turning left onto Belvedere must essentially stop in the leftmost lane, and
hope to be spotted by vehicles intended to continue to the left-turn onto Kerner.
Intersection crossing issue Pretty much every car coming off First Sreet at E runs the stop sign. I've lived here for 21 years and nothing has
changed.
Danger/conflict area The exit ramp for NB 101 creates a new lane to the right of a cyclist traveling west on San Pedro. Cars seeking to
change lanes to continue straight or turn left must avoid cyclists, and cyclists seeking to change lanes to turn right
must avoid cars. Challenging.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 140
Comment Type Comment
Danger/conflict area The introduction of the on-ramp creates a dangerous situation from cyclists who need to transition from the
rightmost lane to riding the line along the left side of the on-ramp. Vehicles are trying to merge onto the on-
ramp, while other are trying to continue through the intersection. There is no safe place for cyclists.
Danger/conflict area In multiple sections along Pt San Pedro road, the bicycle lane is mixed use with parked cars. As the cyclist travels
down the road, they must constantly leave and enter the flow of traffic to avoid the parked cars. This is
challenging for both cyclists and drivers.
Danger/conflict area Poor road conditions at intersection are a challenge for turning bicycles.
Danger/conflict area Poor visibility for westbound cars rounding the corner, while bicycles may be occupying the lane.
Intersection crossing issue It is extremely common that cars do not fully stop or check for pedestrians/bikes at this intersection.
Other trails and roads are in horrible condition. Trails are actively (and illegally?) being built though the park.
Danger/conflict area Narrow lanes & poor road surface conditions
Other LOVE the changes and improvements along LVR!!
Gap in pedestrian network no side walk on the north side of the street.
Danger/conflict area Tough place to cross with 4 streets and freeway onramp, whether walking or biking.
Danger/conflict area Cars drive to fast down this hill and the road turns, and it creates a danger for my children biking on the street. A
speed bump should be installed
Gap in pedestrian network Need ped route from Terra Linda/Northgate to SMART station.
Danger/conflict area the asphalt on the sidewalk is generally in very poor condition along the north side of Freitas with many trees and
old fences blocking the path.
Danger/conflict area the asphalt on the sidewalk is generally in very poor condition along NSP with many trees and old fences blocking
the path.
Danger/conflict area the asphalt on the sidewalk is generally in very poor condition along NSP with many trees and old fences blocking
the path.
Danger/conflict area For people who want to walk/bike down E. Francisco to Bellam and nearby streets, there is no safe/easy way.
Francisco needs to be widened for pedestrians/bikes. Or the bridge from the canal that has been proposed for
years needs to actually be funded and built.
Other to many people ride bikes and skateboards on fourth street. Parents let their kids ride scooters and bikes on the
sidewalk with no regard for pedestrians
Traffic signalization issue the left turn arrow is badly positioned. It points towards the street rather than the drivers who use it
Danger/conflict area Riding between bike path on Mission and headed south through downtown SR is dangerous. No bike paths on
Lincoln in that stretch and many double=parkers, untimed lights, etc.
Gap in pedestrian network There are no lighted/flashing/safe crosswalks on 5th Ave between Eye St and the end of 5th Ave. Kids walk to
Sun Valley School along this route. Stop signs would cause traffic, so flashing pedestrian crossing signs are
needed.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 141
Comment Type Comment
Intersection crossing issue The train has caused this to a dangerous intersection for walkers. People speed up and run red lights a lot. The
back up the train causes has altered my daily schedule and the times of day I will drive or walk to downtown.
Gap in bicycle network E. Francisco Blvd. connects the canal and spinnaker point areas with downtown. it feels unsafe riding along the
road between Harbor Street and 2nd. I do see people riding on the sidewalk, but know that is technically illegal. I
know there are space constrictions, please consider what can be done. There does seem to be a fair amount of
bike traffic along this route. Thank you.
Danger/conflict area The mix of parked cars, turning cars, and tight lanes make this area between Montecito past SRHS precarious. A
bike lane or better markings would help create a safer place for bike riders.
Gap in bicycle network There should be a bike lane for those who want to go south on Villa from upper Lincoln/Los Ranchitos area.
Intersection crossing issue Awful design, busy intersection. Needs to be addressed
Intersection crossing issue Please Improving this crossing for cycling and walking and please improve bike connection from Scotty's to
Northgate malls.
Gap in pedestrian network A crosswalk or signal to safely cross the highway would help my pedestrian commute to Lucas Valley immensely.
Every time I cross this road I feel like I'm taking my life into my hands!
Intersection crossing issue Crossing Mission from north to south at this crosswalk requires that you enter it behind a couple of large trees.
Drivers can only see a pedestrian for about 2 steps before they enter the street -- not enough time to stop safely if
traveling at the speed limit.
Gap in pedestrian network *Poorly lit major non-freeway route from downtown SR to Terra Linda. Lighting and sidewalk needed on Los
Ranchitos Rd
*Infrequent/rare use of multi-million $ bike path along 101 highway. Intuitively, there would be fewer people
using a bike path across Richmond-SR bridge. Spend tax payer $ wisely and stop increasing taxes.
Intersection crossing issue The crosswalk on Mission here is very dangerous in the evening hours as drivers headed west-bound are facing
the sun. They simply cannot see a pedestrian. I've seen a number of close calls. Some additional warning
mechanism is needed.
Danger/conflict area Underpass at Linden Lane is not bike/pedestrian friendly nor does it feel safe. It is dark even during the daytime
and difficult to see obstructions or other people on the path. It is also not wide enough for both pedestrians and
cyclists.
Danger/conflict area The bike path from the ferry leads you here, but it's an awkward intersection for bikes... no clear way to cross
without jumping into the left lane
Intersection crossing issue The "no right turn" light for the first 10 seconds or so of a green light @ Mission and Hetherton is not easily seen
by motorists. However it is possible that they see and ignor. I am routinely dodging cars as I attempt to cr oss this
intersection. The volume of cars who do not stop for the temporary no right turn is huge - I watched one day and
13 out of 14 cars failed to stop.
Gap in pedestrian network Poorly lit major non-freeway route from downtown SR to Terra Linda. Lighting and sidewalk needed on Los
Ranchitos Rd
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix C | 142
Comment Type Comment
Gap in bicycle network The stretch of East Francisco between 2nd St and Bellam is very dangerous to bike and makes it nearly impossible
to bike into downtown or the east towards Peacock Gap without having to go to Anderson. Even adding painted
bike pants and repaving would make a big difference.
Gap in bicycle network There really needs to be an East-west bike path delineated somewhere under US 101. The traffic in here is very
congested with a lot of turning freeway onramp and offramp traffic. How would we expect kids to bike to SR High
School?
Danger/conflict area This intersection is terrifying on bike, especially having to navigate the narrow sidewalk islands in the center. A
novice cyclist or someone with a kid would never feel comfortable biking through here.
Intersection crossing issue The end of the Mahon Creek trail ends abruptly at a sidewalk in the middle of a block, and it is not possible to
easily transition from the path to westbound Andersen on bike. There is no way to go between east bound
Andersen and the path on bike. The Mahon Creek MUP should be extended along the sidewalk to the intersection
of Andersen/Lindaro and biking between Andersen and Mahon Creek Path made easier.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix D | 143
Appendix D: Existing Facilities
This appendix contains a list of bikeways by classification as of publication of this plan. The classifications of bikeways are:
▪ Class I – Multi-use paths: Off-street facilities dedicated exclusively to use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized travel such
as roller skating and skateboarding
▪ Class II – Bicycle lanes: Dedicated on-street facilities delineated by a simple stripe or with a striped buffer between motor vehicles and
the bicycle lane
▪ Class III – Bicycle route: Travel lanes shared between people bicycling and driving that are usually low speed and have little traffic. Can
become a bicycle boulevard (Class III+) if paired with traffic calming infrastructure such as curb extensions, chicanes, and speed humps.
▪ Class IV – Separated bikeways: A new class of bikeway that are typically on-street and physically-separated from motor vehicle traffic by
a vertical barrier such as a curb, on-street motor vehicle parking, bollards, planters, or stormwater infrastructure. They can provide one-
way or two-way travel for bicyclists.
In addition, a visual inventory of sidewalks and mid-block crossings is illustrated within the “Existing Walkways” section. Because no existing
geolocated sidewalk data was available and because the City of San Rafael is not responsible for all sidewalk maintenance, this visual survey is
not intended to be comprehensive. It is only intended to provide a general understanding of existing sidewalk locations and potential gaps in the
network.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix D | 144
ID Corridor Start End Class Status Miles
1 San Francisco Bay Trail Jean & John Starkweather
Shoreline Park
EAH Housing parking lot I Existing 0.18
2 San Francisco Bay Trail Piombo Place Access road behind CVS Pharmacy/Target I Existing 0.74
3 San Francisco Bay Trail Pelican Way San Rafael Bay I Existing 0.12
4 San Francisco Bay Trail Shoreline Parkway Access road behind CVS Pharmacy/Target I Existing 0.28
5 San Francisco Bay Trail Baypoint Village Drive Spinmaker Point Drive I Existing 0.94
6 San Francisco Bay Trail Pickleweed Children's Center End of playing field I Existing 0.08
7 San Francisco Bay Trail Pickleweed playground End of playing field I Existing 0.09
8 Mahon Creek Pathway Andersen Drive Francisco Boulevard (west) I Existing 0.24
9 Puerto Suello Hill Path 4th Street Merrydale Hill Pathway/Lincoln Avenue I Existing 1.36
10 Merrydale Hill Pathway Lincoln Avenue/ Puerto Suello
Hill Pathway
Merrydale Road I Existing 0.14
11 McInnis Parkway Sidepath Civic Center Drive Waterside Circle/ Autodesk parking lot I Existing 1.30
12 Gallinas Creek Pathway Redwood Highway access road Gallinas Creek crossing (east of Sailmaker
Court)
I Existing 0.58
13 North San Rafael Promenade Northgate Drive Northgate Mall parking lot I Existing 0.51
14 Old Lucas Valley Road Pathway Lucas Valley Road Canyon Oak Drive I Existing 0.62
15 Cal-Park Hill Pathway City Limit/Cal-Park Hill Tunnel Andersen Drive I Existing 0.62
16 San Rafael Community Center
access pathway
Albert Park Lane Andersen Drive I Existing 0.12
17 Glenwood Elementary School Main Drive W. Castlewood Drive I Existing 0.11
18 Bahia Vista Pathway Bellam Boulevard Spinnaker Point Drive I Existing 0.38
19 SMART Path North San Pedro Road Civic Center SMART Station I Existing 0.86
TOTAL 9.27
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix D | 145
ID Corridor Start End Class Status Miles
20 Kerner Boulevard/
Piombo Place
Grange Avenue/ San Francisco Bay
Trail
Shoreline Parkway II Existing 0.49
21 Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard
Andersen Drive Francisco Boulevard (east) II Existing 0.26
22 Andersen Drive Sir Francis Drake Boulevard San Rafael Community Center access pathway II Existing 2.60
23 Baypoint Village Drive Windward Way Baypoint Drive II Existing 0.18
24 Kerner Boulevard Bellam Bouelvard 77' north of Bellam Boulevard II Existing 0.01
25 Point San Pedro Road Marina Boulevard (west) Montecito Road/ Marina Boulevard (east) II Existing 0.24
26 Point San Pedro Road Montecito Road/ Marina Boulevard
(east)
920' west of Summitt Avenue II Existing 0.15
27 Point San Pedro Road Montecito Road/ Marina Boulevard
(east)
Summit Avenue II Existing 0.32
28 Point San Pedro Road Sea Way Balboa Avenue/ Bay Way II Existing 0.14
29 Point San Pedro Road Balboa Avenue/ Bay Way Lochinvar Road/ Loch Lomond Drive II Existing 0.55
30 Point San Pedro Road Main Drive/ City Limit San Marina Drive/ San Marino Court II Existing 1.48
31 Lincoln Avenue Hammondale Court/ US-101 access
ramp
Los Ranchitos Road/ Red Rock Way II Existing 0.25
32 Los Ranchitos Road Golden Hinde Boulevard Lincoln Road/ Red Rock Way II Existing 1.00
33 Northgate Drive Las Gallinas Avenue/ Los Ranchitos
Road
320' south of Las Gallinas Avenue II Existing 0.53
34 Merrydale Road Las Gallinas Avenue Civic Center Drive II Existing 0.17
35 Civic Center Drive Manuel T. Fretias Parkway/ Redwood
Highway access road
330' north of McInnis Parkway II Existing 0.19
36 Redwood Highway access
road
Professional Center Parkway Marin Center Drive II Existing 0.08
37 Las Gallinas Avenue Nova Albion Way Miller Creek Road II Existing 1.80
38 Lucas Valley Road City Limit/ Mt. Muir Court Los Gamos Drive II Existing 2.12
39 Manuel T. Freitas
Parkway
Montecillo Road Las Gallinas Avenue II Existing 1.01
TOTAL 13.05
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix D | 146
ID Corridor Start End Class Status Miles
40 Canyon Oak Drive Old Lucas Valley Road Lucas Valley Road III Existing 0.36
41 Los Gamos Drive Lucas Valley Road Manuel T. Freitas Parkway III Existing 1.08
42 Lucas Valley Road/ Smith Ranch
Road
Los Gamos Drive Redwood Highway access road III Existing 0.41
43 Redwood Highway access road Smith Ranch Road Professional Center Parkway III Existing 0.93
44 Del Ganado Road Del Granado Fire Road Manuel T. Freitas Parkway III Existing 1.00
45 Manuel T. Freitas Parkway Mission Pass Path/ City Limit Del Ganado Road III Existing 0.69
46 Las Gallinas Avenue Nova Albion Way Northgate Drive III Existing 0.22
47 Nova Albion Way Las Gallinas Avenue Northgate Drive III Existing 1.12
48 Golden Hinde Boulevard Nova Albion Way Los Ranchitos Road III Existing 0.49
49 Redwood Highway access road Marin Center Drive Manuel T. Freitas Parkway/ Civic
Center Drive
III Existing 0.16
50 Civic Center Drive McInnis Parkway N. San Pedro Road III Existing 0.62
51 Villa Avenue/ Grand Avenue Lillian Lane Linden Lane III Existing 0.48
52 Lincoln Avenue Hammondale Court/ US-101 access
ramp
Linden Lane III Existing 0.55
53 Grand Avenue Belle Avenue 4th Street III Existing 0.78
54 Grand Avenue 3rd Street 2nd Street III Existing 0.04
55 3rd Street/ Point San Pedro Road Union Street Marina Boulevard (west) III Existing 0.61
56 Point San Pedro Road Marina Boulevard (west) Aqua Vista Drive III Existing 0.10
57 Point San Pedro Road 920' west of Summit Avenue Balboa Avenue/ Bay Way III Existing 0.46
58 Point San Pedro Road Summit Avenue Sea Way III Existing 0.13
59 Point San Pedro Road Lochinvar Road/ Loch Lomond Drive 100' west of Bayview Drive/ City Limit III Existing 0.19
60 Knight Drive Point San Pedro Road Castlewood Drive III Existing 0.33
61 W. Castlewood Drive Glenwood Elementary School path Knight Drive III Existing 0.12
62 Point San Pedro Road San Marino Drive City Limit/ 500' east of Biscayne Drive III Existing 0.27
63 Canal Street Harbor Street Sorrento Way III Existing 0.76
64 Medway Road Francisco Boulevard East Canal Street III Existing 0.19
65 Bellam Boulevard Francisco Boulevard East Kerner Boulevard III Existing 0.17
66 Bellam Boulevard Kerner Boulevard Playa Del Rey/ Windward Way III Existing 0.18
67 I-580 access ramp Sir Francis Drake Boulevard I-580 III Existing 0.26
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix D | 147
ID Corridor Start End Class Status Miles
68 Woodland Avenue City Limit/ 500' west of Auburn Street Lindaro Street III Existing 0.91
69 Bayview Street Marin Street Woodland Avenue III Existing 0.28
70 Marin Street Bayview Street Clayton Street III Existing 0.16
71 D Street Antonette Avenue 2nd Street III Existing 0.54
72 D Street 2nd Street 4th Street III Existing 0.12
73 1st Street 2nd Street B Street III Existing 0.41
74 4th Street 2nd Street Tamalpais Avenue III Existing 1.01
75 4th Street Irwin Street Union Street III Existing 0.25
76 Francisco Boulevard West 2nd Street Irwin Street III Existing 0.18
77 Irwin Street Francisco Boulevard West Baywood Terrace III Existing 0.81
78 Racquet Club Drive Longwood Drive Fifth Avenue III Existing 0.15
79 5th Avenue Racquet Club Drive H Street III Existing 0.83
80 Greenfield Avenue Ross Valley Drive 4th Street III Existing 0.35
81 West End Avenue Greenfield Avenue 4th Street/ Marquard Avenue III Existing 0.17
82 Las Gallinas Avenue Corillo Drive Merrydale Road III Existing 0.18
TOTAL 18.05
ID Corridor Start End Class Status Miles
83 Grand Avenue Linden Lane Belle Avenue IV Existing 0.18
84 Civic Center Drive McInnis Parkway Peter Behr Drive IV Existing 0.19
TOTAL 0.37
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 148
Appendix E: Available Count Data
This appendix contains bicycle and pedestrian count data collected through the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Project. Among the 22
locations at which data was collected, the following locations are within the City of San Rafael’s jurisdiction:
▪ Fourth Street at B Street
▪ Medway Road at Belvedere Street
▪ Los Ranchitos Road at Puerto Suello Summit
▪ Bellam Boulevard at Andersen Drive (east side and west side)
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 149
Weekday Peak-Hour Bicycle Counts and Percent Change, 1999-2013 (Marin County NTPP Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts, 2013 Update)
ID Streets
Bicycle Counts (Percent Change Between Previous Counts and 2013/2014)***
1999 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014**
3 Fourth St. at B St., San Rafael *
(N/A)
31
(0%)
19
(63.2%)
35
(-11.4%)
43
(-27.9%)
33
(-6.1%)
21
(47.6%)
31
(N/A)
*
14 Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San Rafael *
(N/A)
44
(-18.2%)
80
(-55%)
51
(-29.4%)
49
(-26.5%)
41
(-12.2%)
40
(-10%)
36
(N/A)
*
17 Ranchitos Rd. at Puerto Suello Summit,
San Rafael
16
(43.8%)
22
(4.5%)
11
(109.1%)
15
(53.3%)
65
(-64.6%)
101
(-77.2%)
29
(-20.7%)
17
(35.3%)
23
20 Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael *
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
60
(-66.7%)
33
(-39.4%)
40
(-50%)
20
22 Bellam Blvd. at Andersen Dr. (West Side),
San Rafael
*
(N/A)
37
(-54.1%)
39
(-56.4%)
35
(-51.4%)
30
(-43.3%)
60
(-71.7%)
66
(-74.2%)
24
(-29.2%)
17
22x Bellam Blvd. at Andersen Dr. (East Side),
San Rafael
16
(N/A)
21
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
25
(N/A)
26
(N/A)
29
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
Average Count per Location (Average Percent
Change)
31
(432.3%)
*
(N/A)
64
(-29.7%)
54
(-16.7%)
84
(-46.4%)
40
(12.5%)
76
(-40.8%)
53
(-15.1%)
67
*Data unavailable
**Source: 2014 Transportation System Monitoring Report, Transportation Authority of Marin, https://www.tam.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2014-TAM-Monitoring-Report_FINAL.pdf
***Percent change between count year and 2014. If 2014 count data is not available, then the percent change between count year and 2013.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 150
Weekend Peak-Hour Bicycle Counts and Percent Change, 1999-2013 (Marin County NTPP Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts, 2013 Update)
ID Streets
Bicycle Counts (Percent Change Between Previous Counts and 2013/2014)***
1999 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014**
3 Fourth St. at B St., San Rafael 32
(-21.9%)
27
(-7.4%)
46
(-45.7%)
23
(8.7%)
20
(25%)
41
(-39%)
40
(-37.5%)
25
(N/A) *
14 Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San
Rafael
*
(N/A)
32
(-12.5%)
57
(-50.9%)
92
(-69.6%)
87
(-67.8%)
82
(-65.9%)
7
(300%)
28
(N/A) *
17 Ranchitos Rd. at Puerto Suello
Summit, San Rafael
*
(N/A)
67
(-29.9%)
4
(1,075%)
11
(327.3%)
11
(327.3%)
38
(23.7%)
59
(-20.3%)
17
(176.5%) 47
20 Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael *
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
68
(-57.4%)
47
(-38.3%)
57
(-49.1%) 29
22 Bellam Blvd. at Anderson Dr. (West
Side), San Rafael
*
(N/A)
23
(-52.2%)
23
(-52.2%)
14
(-21.4%)
95
(-88.4%)
79
(-86.1%)
30
(-63.3%)
10
(10%) 11
22x Bellam Blvd. at Anderson Dr. (East
Side), San Rafael
*
(N/A)
8
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
16
(N/A)
22
(N/A)
49
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A) *
Average Count per Location
(Average Percent Change)
71
(102.8%)
66
(118.2%)
104
(38.5%)
105
(37.1%)
122
(18%)
126
(14.3%)
112
(28.6%)
105
(37.1%)
144
*Data Unavailable
**Source: 2014 Transportation System Monitoring Report, Transportation Authority of Marin, <https://www.tam.ca.gov/wp -content/uploads/2017/03/2014-
TAM-Monitoring-Report_FINAL.pdf>
***Percent change between count year and 2014. If 2014 count data is not available, then the percent change between count year and 2013.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 151
Weekday Peak-Hour Pedestrian Counts and Percent Change, 1999-2013 (Marin County NTPP Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts, 2013 Update)
ID Streets
Bicycle Counts (Percent Change Between Previous Counts and 2013/2014)***
1999 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014**
3 Fourth St. at B St., San Rafael *
(N/A)
669
(-54.9%)
147
(105.4%)
390
(-22.6%)
258
(17.1%)
317
(-4.7%)
312
(-3.2%)
302
(N/A) *
14 Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San
Rafael
*
(N/A)
244
(-6.6%)
319
(-28.5%)
324
(-29.6%)
377
(-39.5%)
322
(-29.2%)
214
(6.5%)
228
(0%) *
17 Ranchitos Rd. at Puerto Suello Summit,
San Rafael
2
(350%)
14
(-35.7%)
1
(800%)
4
(125%)
11
(-18.2%)
78
(-88.5%)
8
(12.5%)
6
(50%) 9
20 Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael *
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
0
(N/A)
10
(-90%)
10
(-90%) 1
22 Bellam Blvd. at Anderson Dr. (West
Side), San Rafael
*
(N/A)
11
(0%)
19
(-42.1%)
31
(-64.5%)
26
(-57.7%)
43
(-74.4%)
54
(-79.6%)
11
(N/A) 11
22x Bellam Blvd. at Anderson Dr. (East
Side), San Rafael
42
(N/A)
39
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
9
(N/A)
14
(N/A)
30
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A) *
Average Count per Location (Average
Percent Change)
71
(-9.9%)
109
(-41.3%)
107
(-40.2%)
116
(-44.8%)
121
(-47.1%)
144
(-55.6%)
141
(-54.6%)
114
(-43.9%) 64
*Data unavailable
**Source: 2014 Transportation System Monitoring Report, Transportation Authority of Marin, <https://www.tam.ca.gov/wp -content/uploads/2017/03/2014-
TAM-Monitoring-Report_FINAL.pdf>
***Percent change between count year and 2014. If 2014 count data is not available, then the percent change between count year and 2013.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 152
Weekend Peak-Hour Pedestrian Counts and Percent Change, 1999-2013 (Marin County NTPP Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts, 2013 Update)
ID Streets
Bicycle Counts (Percent Change Between Previous Counts and 2013/2014)***
1999 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014**
3 Fourth St. at B St., San Rafael
510
(-40.6%)
770
(-60.6%)
762
(-60.2%)
385
(-21.3%)
448
(-32.4%)
501
(-39.5%)
44
(588.6%)
303
(N/A)
*
14 Medway Rd. at Belvedere St., San Rafael
*
(N/A)
198
(-1.5%)
279
(-30.1%)
258
(-24.4%)
247
(-21.1%)
256
(-23.8%)
257
(-24.1%)
195
(0%)
*
17 Ranchitos Rd. at Puerto Suello Summit, San
Rafael
*
(N/A)
20
(-70%)
1
(500%)
4
(50%)
5
(20%)
11
(-45.5%)
0
(N/A)
13
(-53.8%)
6
20 Cal Park Tunnel Path, San Rafael *
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
17
(-88.2%)
3
(-33.3%)
5
(-60%)
2
22 Bellam Blvd. at Anderson Dr. (West Side), San
Rafael
*
(N/A)
21
(-47.6%)
24
(-54.2%)
10
(10%)
71
(-84.5%)
37
(-70.3%)
30
(-63.3%)
5
(120%)
11
22x Bellam Blvd. at Anderson Dr. (East Side), San
Rafael
*
(N/A)
20
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
34
(N/A)
31
(N/A)
31
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
(N/A)
*
Average Count per Location
(Average Percent Change)
277
(-85.2%)
277
(-40.4%)
136
(21.3%)
190
(-13.2%)
177
(-6.8%)
182
(-9.3%)
188
(-12.2%)
144
(14.6%)
147
*Data unavailable
**Source: 2014 Transportation System Monitoring Report, Transportation Authority of Marin, <https://www.tam.ca.gov/wp -content/uploads/2017/03/2014-
TAM-Monitoring-Report_FINAL.pdf>
***Percent change between count year and 2014. If 2014 count data is not available, then the percent change between count year and 2013.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 153
Downtown Pedestrian Counts (Source: Task 2B PASS 2017/18 City of San Rafael, Existing Conditions Report)
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
1 Mission
Avenue
Lincoln Avenue AM 7 17 21 16 61
MID 13 15 36 37 101
PM 5 19 25 26 75
SAT MID 10 13 44 64 131
SAT PM 7 15 28 36 86
2 Mission
Avenue
Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 11 15 1 11 38
MID 13 8 0 17 38
PM 21 10 1 24 56
SAT MID 11 4 0 11 26
SAT PM 11 9 2 8 30
3 Mission
Avenue
Hetherton Street AM 9 11 1 22 43
MID 5 12 0 9 26
PM 6 4 1 18 29
SAT MID 2 7 1 21 31
SAT PM 6 11 0 14 31
4 Mission
Avenue
Irwin Street AM 0 18 13 0 31
MID 1 10 5 1 17
PM 0 7 8 3 18
SAT MID 0 14 7 0 21
SAT PM 0 15 6 6 27
5 5th Avenue E Street AM 7 6 4 4 21
MID 30 38 31 11 110
PM 25 19 30 16 90
SAT MID 21 25 30 20 96
SAT PM 14 12 15 6 47
6 5th Avenue C Street AM 9 20 2 12 43
MID 34 52 17 9 112
PM 16 34 12 19 81
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 154
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
SAT MID 19 36 21 22 98
SAT PM 11 20 15 14 60
7 5th Avenue B Street AM 5 10 8 17 40
MID 33 55 31 28 147
PM 24 22 21 10 77
SAT MID 35 32 20 25 112
SAT PM 14 33 37 29 113
8 5th Avenue A Street AM 8 9 9 6 32
MID 33 59 14 32 138
PM 33 20 24 21 98
SAT MID 48 43 75 147 313
SAT PM 14 10 26 44 94
9 5th Avenue Court Street AM 32 11 14 6 63
MID 28 77 40 48 193
PM 22 19 24 19 84
SAT MID 45 38 32 72 187
SAT PM 31 20 29 23 103
10 5th Avenue Lincoln Avenue AM 8 17 18 32 75
MID 14 25 43 24 106
PM 11 21 24 32 88
SAT MID 8 40 53 66 167
SAT PM 11 17 31 45 104
11 5th Avenue Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 10 9 2 20 41
MID 13 18 5 28 64
PM 7 9 6 23 45
SAT MID 12 24 1 11 48
SAT PM 3 30 2 21 56
12 5th Avenue Hetherton Street AM 22 11 5 26 64
MID 15 12 0 11 38
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 155
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
PM 8 16 2 20 46
SAT MID 19 10 3 17 49
SAT PM 7 14 3 11 35
13 5th Avenue Irwin Street AM 6 5 6 4 21
MID 3 15 6 8 32
PM 11 10 11 10 42
SAT MID 5 8 5 0 18
SAT PM 1 7 5 2 15
14 4th Street 2nd Street AM 2 8 13 14 37
MID 6 6 9 5 26
PM 2 7 16 17 42
SAT MID 4 6 27 29 66
SAT PM 3 9 11 10 33
15 4th Street H Street AM 14 6 8 5 33
MID 15 20 10 20 65
PM 11 17 11 13 52
SAT MID 19 27 17 16 79
SAT PM 8 15 5 4 32
16 4th Street E Street AM 22 21 10 11 64
MID 54 63 33 24 174
PM 48 63 34 12 157
SAT MID 293 357 229 67 946
SAT PM 39 35 9 14 97
17 4th Street D Street AM 31 11 4 3 49
MID 84 86 44 29 243
PM 61 93 29 19 202
SAT MID 179 175 128 51 533
SAT PM 60 84 27 18 189
18 4th Street C Street AM 39 26 11 9 85
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 156
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
MID 119 134 76 35 364
PM 87 127 38 39 291
SAT MID 170 143 62 44 419
SAT PM 132 127 46 67 372
19 4th Street B Street AM 60 64 58 33 215
MID 171 227 138 57 593
PM 149 185 84 79 497
SAT MID 478 474 219 119 1290
SAT PM 191 179 141 58 569
20 4th Street A Street AM 18 94 60 12 184
MID 144 198 113 63 518
PM 109 157 85 68 419
SAT MID 394 541 136 118 1189
SAT PM 106 202 173 43 524
21 4th Street Court Street AM 30 31 29 23 113
MID 52 166 83 52 353
PM 57 152 50 48 307
SAT MID 171 393 147 121 832
SAT PM 62 144 38 39 283
22 4th Street Lootens Place AM 20 31 7 16 74
MID 148 227 44 80 499
PM 101 154 35 24 314
SAT MID 151 202 31 44 428
SAT PM 151 133 27 46 357
23 4th Street Cijos Street AM 0 32 6 8 46
MID 0 225 56 45 326
PM 0 178 45 37 260
SAT MID 0 567 91 97 755
SAT PM 0 124 27 35 186
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 157
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
24 4th Street Lincoln Avenue AM 44 43 31 65 183
MID 93 125 84 168 470
PM 97 100 67 114 378
SAT MID 182 285 79 488 1034
SAT PM 52 91 40 117 300
25 4th Street Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 24 31 44 1 100
MID 43 83 41 14 181
PM 45 82 40 12 179
SAT MID 98 118 57 14 287
SAT PM 31 69 37 12 149
26 4th Street Hetherton Street AM 25 22 17 32 96
MID 16 53 8 11 88
PM 47 79 15 30 171
SAT MID 43 75 6 25 149
SAT PM 24 47 6 16 93
27 4th Street Irwin Street AM 10 11 10 0 31
MID 19 56 26 12 113
PM 25 43 11 11 90
SAT MID 43 66 20 17 146
SAT PM 22 26 6 6 60
28 4th Street Grand Avenue AM 23 14 19 17 73
MID 18 41 16 11 86
PM 20 48 19 30 117
SAT MID 34 44 27 23 128
SAT PM 12 24 9 9 54
29 3rd Street Shaver Street AM 3 1 2 12 18
MID 4 3 9 1 17
PM 2 3 3 4 12
SAT MID 9 1 14 6 30
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 158
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
SAT PM 0 0 1 13 14
30 3rd Street E Street AM 7 4 5 3 19
MID 5 4 11 3 23
PM 8 4 7 2 21
SAT MID 9 5 10 10 34
SAT PM 0 4 7 3 14
31 3rd Street D Street AM 4 12 11 6 33
MID 10 17 24 18 69
PM 12 6 5 15 38
SAT MID 8 11 18 14 51
SAT PM 2 4 9 9 24
32 3rd Street C Street AM 5 11 17 8 41
MID 20 16 20 12 68
PM 17 13 17 21 68
SAT MID 12 24 35 33 104
SAT PM 11 9 17 7 44
33 3rd Street B Street AM 18 9 38 13 78
MID 38 33 93 58 222
PM 17 23 38 32 110
SAT MID 27 35 84 64 210
SAT PM 35 12 53 41 141
34 3rd Street A Street AM 40 58 48 22 168
MID 40 101 58 30 229
PM 28 60 54 70 212
SAT MID 8 31 25 10 74
SAT PM 24 18 15 15 72
35 3rd Street Lindaro Street AM 27 36 42 0 105
MID 38 63 149 0 250
PM 37 17 50 0 104
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 159
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
SAT MID 55 58 48 0 161
SAT PM 41 27 40 0 108
36 3rd Street Lincoln Avenue AM 67 40 37 41 185
MID 76 98 64 179 417
PM 85 103 43 79 310
SAT MID 110 103 63 134 410
SAT PM 74 91 36 112 313
37 3rd Street Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 35 79 65 41 220
MID 42 67 85 27 221
PM 37 81 78 24 220
SAT MID 47 139 64 27 277
SAT PM 43 77 54 29 203
38 3rd Street Hetherton Street AM 49 43 1 104 197
MID 38 42 0 43 123
PM 52 42 2 102 198
SAT MID 34 39 0 40 113
SAT PM 30 27 1 51 109
39 3rd Street Irwin Street AM 23 24 12 0 59
MID 41 35 28 0 104
PM 43 41 25 0 109
SAT MID 34 38 12 0 84
SAT PM 32 16 15 0 63
40 3rd Street Grand Avenue AM 189 21 41 21 272
MID 51 41 32 17 141
PM 33 27 32 19 111
SAT MID 32 38 53 33 156
SAT PM 28 17 33 21 99
41 3rd Street Union Street AM 23 2 18 18 61
MID 69 8 128 49 254
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 160
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
PM 12 5 12 23 52
SAT MID 7 6 8 33 54
SAT PM 7 10 7 19 43
42 2nd Street G Street AM 1 0 0 9 10
MID 4 0 0 2 6
PM 1 0 0 3 4
SAT MID 0 0 0 7 7
SAT PM 0 0 0 3 3
43 2nd Street Shaver Street AM 1 2 4 15 22
MID 2 1 13 0 16
PM 1 0 4 4 9
SAT MID 1 1 20 7 29
SAT PM 4 1 3 5 13
44 2nd Street E Street AM 15 9 9 2 35
MID 1 17 17 1 36
PM 5 28 10 6 49
SAT MID 10 12 7 12 41
SAT PM 4 14 9 10 37
45 2nd Street D Street AM 15 4 1 21 41
MID 11 8 2 22 43
PM 4 12 2 16 34
SAT MID 12 12 4 28 56
SAT PM 10 5 1 20 36
46 2nd Street C Street AM 9 5 6 10 30
MID 12 13 9 17 51
PM 9 12 10 19 50
SAT MID 10 4 10 21 45
SAT PM 9 10 16 7 42
47 2nd Street B Street AM 17 8 41 13 79
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 161
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
MID 20 28 88 32 168
PM 9 33 36 27 105
SAT MID 20 40 95 49 204
SAT PM 17 27 50 22 116
48 2nd Street A Street AM 19 25 19 22 85
MID 13 48 23 20 104
PM 17 37 16 38 108
SAT MID 9 38 23 20 90
SAT PM 6 22 11 13 52
49 2nd Street Lindaro Street AM 18 50 19 4 91
MID 11 45 146 13 215
PM 24 58 23 8 113
SAT MID 11 12 14 17 54
SAT PM 11 14 17 13 55
50 2nd Street Lincoln Avenue AM 35 35 1 30 101
MID 14 24 2 74 114
PM 27 44 0 29 100
SAT MID 19 5 0 19 43
SAT PM 11 9 0 10 30
51 2nd Street Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 132 0 0 105 237
MID 145 1 3 0 149
PM 54 2 0 60 116
SAT MID 43 0 0 2 45
SAT PM 55 0 0 3 58
52 2nd Street Hetherton Street AM 20 0 0 0 20
MID 36 0 0 0 36
PM 25 0 0 0 25
SAT MID 28 0 0 0 28
SAT PM 29 0 0 0 29
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 162
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
05
3
2nd Street Irwin Street AM 37 0 34 0 71
MID 31 1 29 1 62
PM 37 2 31 0 70
SAT MID 26 0 27 0 53
SAT PM 23 1 15 0 39
54 2nd Street Grand Avenue AM 0 0 0 0 0
MID 0 88 70 0 158
PM 0 0 0 0 0
SAT MID 0 88 70 0 158
SAT PM 0 88 70 0 158
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 163
Downtown Bicycle Counts (Source: Task 2B PASS 2017/18 City of San Rafael, Existing Conditions Report)
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
1 Mission
Avenue
Lincoln Avenue AM 4 8 2 1 15
MID 4 5 2 2 13
PM 4 5 1 5 15
SAT MID 3 9 3 8 23
SAT PM 4 3 1 2 10
2 Mission
Avenue
Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 0 1 0 1 2
MID 0 0 1 1 2
PM 1 0 4 0 5
SAT MID 0 0 1 3 4
SAT PM 0 0 2 2 4
3 Mission
Avenue
Hetherton Street AM 0 0 0 2 2
MID 0 0 1 1 2
PM 0 0 1 1 2
SAT MID 0 0 2 4 6
SAT PM 0 0 2 2 4
4 Mission
Avenue
Irwin Street AM 0 0 0 2 2
MID 0 0 1 0 1
PM 0 0 1 1 2
SAT MID 1 0 1 3 5
SAT PM 0 0 2 2 4
5 5th Avenue E Street AM 3 1 2 1 7
MID 3 0 3 1 7
PM 1 0 2 1 4
SAT MID 3 1 5 6 15
SAT PM 0 0 1 3 4
6 5th Avenue C Street AM 1 0 5 0 6
MID 1 2 4 1 8
PM 1 0 1 2 4
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 164
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
SAT MID 0 0 5 7 12
SAT PM 1 0 0 0 1
7 5th Avenue B Street AM 0 1 5 0 6
MID 0 0 2 1 3
PM 0 0 2 1 3
SAT MID 0 0 3 6 9
SAT PM 0 1 0 2 3
8 5th Avenue A Street AM 0 0 7 0 7
MID 1 0 5 1 7
PM 1 0 2 2 5
SAT MID 2 0 3 4 9
SAT PM 2 0 1 1 4
9 5th Avenue Court Street AM 1 1 5 0 7
MID 0 1 5 1 7
PM 1 2 2 1 6
SAT MID 2 2 4 1 9
SAT PM 0 1 2 0 3
1
0
5th Avenue Lincoln Avenue AM 5 8 4 1 18
MID 1 6 0 0 7
PM 3 4 2 0 9
SAT MID 8 5 4 1 18
SAT PM 2 4 1 0 7
1
1
5th Avenue Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 0 3 1 1 5
MID 0 0 2 0 2
PM 2 2 2 1 7
SAT MID 0 3 3 1 7
SAT PM 1 0 1 0 2
1
2
5th Avenue Hetherton Street AM 0 1 0 2 3
MID 0 1 0 2 3
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 165
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
PM 0 0 0 2 2
SAT MID 0 0 2 0 2
SAT PM 0 0 1 0 1
1
3
5th Avenue Irwin Street AM 0 0 0 1 1
MID 1 0 1 3 5
PM 0 0 1 2 3
SAT MID 2 0 2 2 6
SAT PM 1 0 1 0 2
1
4
4th Street 2nd Street AM 11 3 0 1 15
MID 6 1 0 0 7
PM 12 2 1 1 16
SAT MID 15 5 0 4 24
SAT PM 6 1 1 1 9
1
5
4th Street H Street AM 0 0 6 2 8
MID 3 4 5 1 13
PM 0 2 7 5 14
SAT MID 0 6 8 14 28
SAT PM 4 1 4 8 17
1
6
4th Street E Street AM 0 1 9 2 12
MID 1 0 3 3 7
PM 0 0 7 7 14
SAT MID 0 0 4 12 16
SAT PM 3 0 3 10 16
1
7
4th Street D Street AM 0 0 6 7 13
MID 0 0 5 6 11
PM 0 3 7 7 17
SAT MID 0 0 7 9 16
SAT PM 1 0 3 9 13
4th Street C Street AM 5 0 7 5 17
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 166
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
1
8
MID 1 0 4 5 10
PM 1 0 7 7 15
SAT MID 0 0 7 8 15
SAT PM 1 0 8 3 12
1
9
4th Street B Street AM 0 1 7 5 13
MID 0 2 4 3 9
PM 0 1 9 8 18
SAT MID 0 1 13 9 23
SAT PM 0 1 5 5 11
2
0
4th Street A Street AM 2 1 2 7 12
MID 2 1 3 6 12
PM 2 1 6 10 19
SAT MID 1 2 16 14 33
SAT PM 0 0 6 3 9
2
1
4th Street Court Street AM 1 0 8 5 14
MID 0 0 5 3 8
PM 0 1 8 6 15
SAT MID 0 3 8 12 23
SAT PM 0 0 1 5 6
2
2
4th Street Lootens Place AM 0 1 9 5 15
MID 0 1 4 4 9
PM 2 1 8 10 21
SAT MID 2 0 7 9 18
SAT PM 0 0 7 0 7
2
3
4th Street Cijos Street AM 0 0 10 8 18
MID 0 0 3 3 6
PM 0 0 8 7 15
SAT MID 2 0 8 12 22
SAT PM 0 0 2 6 8
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 167
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
2
4
4th Street Lincoln Avenue AM 4 11 9 4 28
MID 5 3 2 4 14
PM 3 6 8 7 24
SAT MID 8 13 9 12 42
SAT PM 1 2 1 4 8
2
5
4th Street Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 2 0 2 4 8
MID 4 2 2 4 12
PM 2 0 5 7 14
SAT MID 1 2 4 11 18
SAT PM 2 0 0 2 4
2
6
4th Street Hetherton Street AM 0 0 6 6 12
MID 0 0 1 3 4
PM 0 0 6 6 12
SAT MID 0 1 0 8 9
SAT PM 0 0 2 3 5
2
7
4th Street Irwin Street AM 0 0 1 4 5
MID 0 0 1 4 5
PM 0 0 7 5 12
SAT MID 2 0 3 10 15
SAT PM 0 0 6 4 10
2
8
4th Street Grand Avenue AM 0 2 6 4 12
MID 0 1 0 5 6
PM 1 0 5 6 12
SAT MID 2 3 1 11 17
SAT PM 2 1 5 2 10
2
9
3rd Street Shaver Street AM 0 0 0 0 0
MID 1 0 0 0 1
PM 2 0 0 0 2
SAT MID 1 0 0 1 2
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 168
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
SAT PM 3 1 0 0 4
3
0
3rd Street E Street AM 0 0 0 0 0
MID 0 0 0 0 0
PM 0 1 0 0 1
SAT MID 0 0 0 0 0
SAT PM 2 0 0 0 2
3
1
3rd Street D Street AM 0 1 0 1 2
MID 0 0 0 0 0
PM 0 1 0 0 1
SAT MID 0 1 0 2 3
SAT PM 0 0 0 0 0
3
2
3rd Street C Street AM 7 0 0 0 7
MID 1 0 0 0 1
PM 0 0 1 0 1
SAT MID 8 0 0 2 10
SAT PM 0 0 0 1 1
3
3
3rd Street B Street AM 0 1 0 1 2
MID 0 1 0 0 1
PM 0 0 0 0 0
SAT MID 0 3 0 1 4
SAT PM 0 0 0 0 0
3
4
3rd Street A Street AM 1 3 0 2 6
MID 2 0 0 2 4
PM 4 5 0 0 9
SAT MID 3 0 0 1 4
SAT PM 1 0 0 1 2
3
5
3rd Street Lindaro Street AM 0 1 0 2 3
MID 1 1 0 0 2
PM 1 1 0 1 3
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 169
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
SAT MID 1 0 0 2 3
SAT PM 0 0 0 1 1
3
6
3rd Street Lincoln Avenue AM 10 11 0 2 23
MID 5 2 0 2 9
PM 10 3 0 1 14
SAT MID 1 2 0 2 5
SAT PM 0 0 0 0 0
3
7
3rd Street Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 2 3 0 3 8
MID 1 4 0 1 6
PM 3 10 0 0 13
SAT MID 2 2 1 2 7
SAT PM 1 0 0 1 2
3
8
3rd Street Hetherton Street AM 0 0 0 3 3
MID 0 0 0 2 2
PM 0 0 0 4 4
SAT MID 0 2 0 2 4
SAT PM 0 1 0 1 2
3
9
3rd Street Irwin Street AM 0 0 0 1 1
MID 1 0 0 1 2
PM 0 0 0 1 1
SAT MID 2 0 0 7 9
SAT PM 1 0 0 1 2
4
0
3rd Street Grand Avenue AM 0 1 0 1 2
MID 1 1 0 1 3
PM 2 0 0 1 3
SAT MID 5 0 0 2 7
SAT PM 4 1 0 2 7
4
1
3rd Street Union Street AM 0 0 1 2 3
MID 1 0 0 6 7
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 170
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
PM 1 3 0 3 7
SAT MID 0 9 0 10 19
SAT PM 0 2 0 6 8
4
2
2nd Street G Street AM 0 3 3 0 6
MID 0 0 3 0 3
PM 0 0 6 0 6
SAT MID 0 0 6 2 8
SAT PM 0 0 4 1 5
4
3
2nd Street Shaver Street AM 0 0 2 0 2
MID 13 1 0 0 14
PM 2 0 2 0 4
SAT MID 0 0 2 0 2
SAT PM 3 1 2 0 6
4
4
2nd Street E Street AM 0 0 2 0 2
MID 1 0 0 0 1
PM 0 1 1 0 2
SAT MID 2 0 3 0 5
SAT PM 1 0 1 0 2
4
5
2nd Street D Street AM 0 1 2 0 3
MID 0 0 1 0 1
PM 0 1 1 0 2
SAT MID 1 2 2 0 5
SAT PM 0 0 0 0 0
4
6
2nd Street C Street AM 1 0 1 0 2
MID 1 0 0 0 1
PM 0 0 1 0 1
SAT MID 1 0 10 0 11
SAT PM 0 0 0 0 0
2nd Street B Street AM 1 3 1 0 5
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 171
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
4
7
MID 2 3 0 0 5
PM 0 4 2 0 6
SAT MID 1 1 4 0 6
SAT PM 0 0 1 0 1
4
8
2nd Street A Street AM 0 1 0 0 1
MID 1 1 2 0 4
PM 3 5 2 0 10
SAT MID 2 2 3 0 7
SAT PM 1 0 0 0 1
4
9
2nd Street Lindaro Street AM 0 0 1 0 1
MID 0 0 0 0 0
PM 1 0 1 0 2
SAT MID 2 1 4 0 7
SAT PM 2 0 1 0 3
5
0
2nd Street Lincoln Avenue AM 7 8 2 0 17
MID 3 3 0 0 6
PM 9 3 1 0 13
SAT MID 7 7 3 0 17
SAT PM 5 1 0 0 6
5
1
2nd Street Tamalpais
Avenue
AM 6 0 0 0 6
MID 3 5 4 0 12
PM 5 7 0 0 12
SAT MID 1 2 4 0 7
SAT PM 2 3 0 0 5
5
2
2nd Street Hetherton Street AM 0 0 0 0 0
MID 0 2 0 1 3
PM 0 0 2 0 2
SAT MID 0 0 2 0 2
SAT PM 0 0 2 0 2
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 172
ID Primary Secondary
Peak Period (1-hour
counts)
North
Crosswalk
South
Crosswalk
East
Crosswalk
West
Crosswalk
Tota
l
5
3
2nd Street Irwin Street AM 0 0 1 0 1
MID 0 0 0 0 0
PM 0 0 2 0 2
SAT MID 0 0 3 0 3
SAT PM 0 0 2 0 2
5
4
2nd Street Grand Avenue AM 0 0 0 0 0
MID 5 0 3 0 8
PM 0 0 0 0 0
SAT MID 5 0 3 0 8
SAT PM 5 0 3 0 8
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 173
*Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation Appendix (2016).
<http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/documents/MarinSR2SEvaluationReport-Appendix20160929.pdf>
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 174
*Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation Appendix (2016).
<http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/documents/MarinSR2SEvaluationReport-Appendix20160929.pdf>
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 175
*Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation Appendix (2016).
<http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/documents/MarinSR2SEvaluationReport-Appendix20160929.pdf>
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 176
*Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation Appendix (2016).
<http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/documents/MarinSR2SEvaluationReport-Appendix20160929.pdf>
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 177
*Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation Appendix (2016).
<http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/documents/MarinSR2SEvaluationReport-Appendix20160929.pdf>
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 178
*Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation Appendix (2016).
<http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/documents/MarinSR2SEvaluationReport-Appendix20160929.pdf>
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 179
*Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation Appendix (2016).
<http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/documents/MarinSR2SEvaluationReport-Appendix20160929.pdf>
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix E | 180
*Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation Appendix (2016).
<http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/documents/MarinSR2SEvaluationReport-Appendix20160929.pdf>
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 181
Appendix F: Related Plans
This appendix contains a list of completed planning documents and studies that are relevant to bicycling and walking in San Rafael.
Recommendations from these planning documents and studies informed the list of proposed projects.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 182
Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018)
The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan identifies infrastructure improvements that can enhance bicycle safety and mobility throughout District 4 and
remove some of the barriers to bicycling in the region. The plan was developed in cooperation with local and regional partners to ensure that the
improvements on the State highway system complement proposals for local networks. The plan considers all potential bicycle trips but prioritizes
utilitarian bicycle travel to work, school, shopping, and other similar purposes, or to connect to transit. State highways that serve as recreational
or touring routes for bicyclists are also considered in the plan to meet the safety needs of all highway users. Th e plan will help inform future
investments on the State transportation network by Caltrans and other jurisdictions.
“Top Tier” project in the plan included a Class I multi-use path connecting San Rafael to Richmond across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge,
interchange reconstruction at Highway 101 and North San Pedro Road with Class II on-street bicycle lanes near the on- and off-ramps,
reconstruction of the I-580 and Bellam Boulevard to include a Class I multi-use path, and minor interchange improvements (signage and striping)
along with a Class IV protected bikeway at I-580 and Main Street.
Marin County Unincorporated Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2018)
This update to the Marin County Unincorporated Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan) was created through the coordinated efforts of
the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM), the Marin County Public Works Department, the Marin County Bicycle Advisory Committee, and
citizens interested in improving the bicycling and pedestrian environment in unincorporated Marin County (County). Without the sustained efforts
of these organizations and citizens, the continuing improvements to the bicycling and pedestrian environment throughout the county would not
be realized. This Plan is one component of the continued effort towards making bicycling and walking an integral part of daily life in Marin County.
This plan was completed for the Marin County Department of Public Works between 2014 and 2018 as a part of a countywide effort to update all
local bicycle and pedestrian master plans and includes only the unincorporated areas of Marin County. While the plan serves as a coordinating
and resource document for the entire county, its focus is on specific recommendations for the unincorporated areas which must be adopted by
the Board of Supervisors. It is important to note that some of the county's unincorporated areas are adjacent to or islands surrounded by
incorporated cities and towns. Although the plan makes recommendations for many of these enclaves of unincorporated development, their size
and geographic isolation means that bicycle and pedestrian planning and project development will require coordination with the incorporated
community to avoid disjointed or discontinuous facilities. By referencing local plans being developed concurrently with this effort, this Plan
attempts to reconcile local and countywide planning efforts to create a seamless and intuitive network of facilities across jurisdictions.
Larkspur Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2017)
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies Larkspur’s existing network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and multi-use paths, lays the
framework for future facilities, and develops policies to work towards making bicycling and walking an integral part of daily life in Larkspur. The
purpose of this Plan is to coordinate and guide the provision of all bicycle- and pedestrian-related plans, programs, and projects in Larkspur. It is
intended to assist the City in the implementation of its priorities but does not mandate any particular action on its part.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 183
SMART Stations’ Bicycle Parking Investment Plan (2016)
The arrival of SMART is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve regional access, expand physical mobility, reduce vehicle trips, and facilitate
locally appropriate development across Sonoma and Marin counties. To ensure SMART becomes a primary mode of transportation, SMART
developed a bicycle parking investment strategy at each rail station. Informed by background, technical analyses, existing conditions, and project
outreach, the Bicycle Parking Investment Plan provides a framework for defining bike parking supply at the outset of rail services. All bike parking
supply recommendations are flexible and can be adjusted to meet shifts in demand once rail services are in place and operational.
The Civic Center SMART Station was considered a Tier 2 Station. Phase 1 recommendations include the addition of 20 inverted u-racks and eight
e-lockers for a total of 28 short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces.
The Downtown San Rafael SMART Station was considered a Tier 3 Station. Phase 1 recommendations include the addition of 20 inv erted u-racks
and 60 bicycle parking spaces in a high-capacity facility for a total of 80 short- and long-term bike parking spaces.
San Francisco Trail Design Guidelines and Toolkit (2016)
These guidelines offer direction for the design and development of a San Francisco Bay Trail system that is safe, connected, and continuous;
provides a positive user experience that encourages people to use the trail; and maximizes access to and use by the broadest spectrum of people
possible. The guidelines are general in scope due to the varied conditions through which the San Francisco Bay Trail passes and the variety of users
and types of uses that occur along the trail. They are applicable to all development of the San Francisco Bay Trail and are intended to complement
national, state, and local design standards and guidelines. Different segments of the San Francisco Bay Trail will likely need to address different
site opportunities and constraints.
In addition to the 2016 design guidelines, the Association of Bay Area Governments created the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan (1989). It proposes
the development of a 400-mile regional hiking and bicycling trail around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 184
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 185
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 186
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 187
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 188
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 189
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 190
Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study (2016)
Downtown San Rafael is a vibrant and sought-after destination in Marin County and the Bay Area. New development of various types is occurring
and will continue to occur in the area. The expansion of the Transit Center and the opening of SMART are anticipated to bring more visitors and
potentially increase the need for parking. The purpose of this study is to identify existing and future parking needs within Downtown San Rafael,
to recommend parking management strategies that maximize the supply and utilization of Downtown parking spaces (including those for
bicyclists), and to develop options for a vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle wayfinding program within downtown. The study also develops parking
strategies that would 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 the guidance for the City to properly plan for and manage parking in downtown to meet and mitigate future parking demands.
Multi-use Pathway Feasibility Study: Rice Drive to Second Street (2016)
A pathway along the SMART right-of-way from Rice Drive to Second Street was shown in the North-South Greenway Study (Marin County, 1994)
and several later iterations of the proposed SMART project; however, Measure Q the 2008 Sonoma and Marin County voter approve d ballot
measure to fund the SMART commuter rail and bikeway project did not include a pathway from Rice Drive to 2nd Street.
In 2014, as part of the Larkspur extension rail project, SMART explored the potential of including a pathway in the project; however, due to
concerns of adverse impacts on the adjacent drainage way, a pathway component was not included as it would require additional time and
resources that could jeopardize the federal funding for the railroad extension. The Larkspur Extension environmental documents (EA - Dec 2014,
FONSI - May 20, 2015) included the SMART/Francisco Boulevard West Realignment, rail lines and a two-lane street with shoulders that could serve
as bike lanes, but without a sidewalk.
Continued public concern, especially pressure by bicycle advocates, over the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities culminated in the decision to
conduct a study of feasibility of constructing a pathway between Andersen Drive and Second Street, which includes the Rice Drive to Second Street
segment. The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) requested the County of Marin lead an independent peer review to evaluate the feasibility
of a new multi-use pathway within existing public rights-of-way between Rice Drive and Second Street in San Rafael.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 191
San Anselmo Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2016)
The 2016 San Anselmo Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update provides for a town-wide network of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
along with active transportation-related programs and support facilities, intended to ensure bicycling and walking become a more viable
transportation option for people who live, work, and recreate in San Anselmo. Current bikeway and pedestrian network information was
gathered from Town staff and combined with information on proposed routes from the previously adopted Town of San Anselmo Bicycle Master
Plan (2008). Relevant bikeway and pedestrian information was also gathered from the Marin County Unincorporated Area Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan (2008).
The purpose of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update is to improve bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Anselmo by meeting
the requirements of the California Active Transportation Program contained in Senate Bill 99, Chapter 359 and Assembly Bill 101, Chapter 354.
Relevant projects:
▪ Existing Class III on Red Hill Avenue/Miracle Mile/Fourth Street to City boundary
▪ Planned Class I near same boundary (stops at Forbes Avenue)
▪ Planned Class III on Forbes Avenue to connect to San Rafael’s existing Class III on Racquet Club Drive.
Marin Transit 2016-2025 Short-range Transit Plan (2015)
An up-to-date Short-range Transit Plan (SRTP) guides Marin Transit’s investments in the future. It is a living document that uses current
information, financial resources, and performance targets to plan for local public transit services. The SRTP balances Marin Transit’s projected
costs and revenues over a five-year timeframe and is designed to provide a ten-year vision of the future.
Marin County voters approved a twenty-year ½ cent transportation sales tax (Measure A) in 2004 that designated 55 percent of revenues to local
transit services and established goals, objectives, and performance measures. Dedicated local funding enables the District to pay for and improve
local bus and shuttle services and targeted mobility programs for Marin County senior, disabled, and low-income residents. The District’s ability
to secure federal, state, and regional funding for public transit operations, equipment, and facilities depends on the availability of local funding
sources to serve as a match. Scheduled Marin Transit services encompass all bus routes that begin and end within Marin County, middle and high
school trippers, the community shuttle program, the West Marin Stagecoach, and the Muir Woods Shuttle. Marin Transit provides demand
response paratransit services for those eligible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and additional mobility management programs to
expand their travel options and serve seniors who no longer drive. In all cases, Marin Transit anticipates the needs of Marin County’s diverse travel
markets and delivers cost-effective, targeted service options.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 192
▪ Table A-1: Ridership Activity by Geography
o Canal
▪ On/offs: 2,808 (weekday)
▪ Bikes: 15
▪ Wheelchairs: 3
o Marinwood-Terra Linda-Santa Venetia
▪ On/offs: 1,579 (weekday)
▪ Bikes: 26
▪ Wheelchairs: 11
o San Rafael (Central)
▪ On/offs: 7,192 (weekday)
▪ Bikes: 82
▪ Wheelchairs: 22
Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Status Report (2014)
This report summarizes the progress and results of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program
(NTPP) from August 2005 through December 2013. Section 1807 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEALU) provided approximately $25 million in contract authority to four pilot communities (Columbia, Missouri; Marin County,
California; Minneapolis area, Minnesota; and Sheboygan County, Wisconsin) for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and nonmotorized programs.
In response to evaluation and reporting requirements in the legislation, the FHWA submitted two reports to Congress: an inter im report in 2007
and a final report in 2012. The Interim Report to Congress outlined an evaluation plan for NTPP and initial program progress. The Final Report to
Congress reported the results of four years of data collection on program implementation, transportation mode shift towards walking and
bicycling, and related health and environmental benefits. This report represents an update to the findings in the Final Report to Congress with
evaluation of three additional years of data, reflecting additional projects that have been completed since the 2012 report. This report also expands
the scope of analysis to further consider priority themes of access, environment, safety, and public health.
Relevant projects:
▪ San Rafael Medway Road Improvements - This project implemented pedestrian and bicycle safety and access improvements on Medway
Road which connected the Canal neighborhood and downtown San Rafael. Improvements included striped bicycle lanes, widened
sidewalks, and new transit shelters and street furniture.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 193
Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study (2013)
A bike share program provides a fleet of rentable bicycles at a network of stations located throughout a city or group of cities, offering a convenient
and flexible alternate mode of travel for short trips, transit-linked trips, and tourism. Bike sharing is a relatively inexpensive and quick-to-implement
option that can impact individual and community health and air quality.
To find out if there was demand for a bike share program in Marin County, and to determine what effort it would take to implement, TAM
completed a bike share feasibility study in January 2013. The study suggests a timeline of approximately 24-30 months to plan, fund, and
implement a bike share program.
Proposed locations:
▪ San Rafael Transit Center (Phase 1)
▪ Downtown San Rafael (Phase 1)
▪ Canal Neighborhood, Bellam (Phase 1)
▪ San Rafael – Fourth Street (west end) (Phase 2)
▪ Canal Neighborhood, Pickleweed Park (Phase 2)
▪ Dominican University (Phase 2)
▪ Marin Civic Center (Phase 2)
▪ Civic Center SMART Station (Phase 2)
▪ Northgate Shopping Center (Phase 2)
▪ Kaiser Campus (Phase 3)
▪ Redwood Highway Business Park (Phase 3)
▪ Marinwood Community (Phase 3)
San Rafael Civic Center Station Area Plan (2013)
The San Rafael Civic Center Station Area Plan is the culmination of nearly two years of work by the City of San Rafael and a citizens committee to
identify a community vision for the area around the future Civic Center SMART station in North San Rafael. The Plan builds on previous planning
efforts and sets out a conceptual framework for development and circulation improvements in the area. No environmental review has been done
as part of this conceptual planning effort. Future, detailed plans will be needed to further develop and implement the concepts in the plan and
conduct environmental analysis.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 194
Relevant projects:
▪ The Promenade
o Existing (2010): Las Gallinas Avenue
o Planned: Extend south and east underneath Highway 101 and south along Civic Center Drive to the Marin County Civic Center
o Near-term: Extend from its current terminus at Merrydale Road Overcrossing/Las Gallinas Road to the Civic Center, via the Civic
Center SMART station. The route would travel along Merrydale Road, underneath the Merrydale Road Overcrossing, to the
SMART tracks, where it would join the planned multi-use pathway. The Promenade would extend along the multi-use pathway
underneath Highway 101 to Civic Center Drive, adjacent to the SMART Station. Between the SMART Station and the Civic Center,
the Promenade would consist of improved and continuous pedestrian sidewalks and on-street bicycle lanes along Civic Center
Drive. For purposes of discussion, the Promenade has been divided into three parts: the northern section (between Las Gallinas
Road and the SMART tracks), the Civic Center Station Section (between Merrydale Road and Civic Center Drive, along the
railroad tracks underneath Highway 101), and the southern section (from the rail crossing at Civic Center Drive to the Civic
Center).
o North Section:
▪ The northern section of the Promenade will connect the Northgate area to the Civic Center Station. The North San
Rafael Vision Promenade Conceptual Plan (November 2002) calls for this section of the Promenade to feature a new
sidewalk on the west side of Merrydale Road, adjacent to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery. The sidewalk would extend on the
west side of Merrydale Road around the cemetery and connect to the southeast corner of the Las Gallinas Road/
Merrydale Overcrossing intersection. There, it would connect to the existing Promenade on the northwest corner of the
intersection. To the south, the sidewalk would continue on the west side of Merrydale Road to the SMART tracks, where
it would join with the planned multi-use pathway. This new sidewalk on Merrydale Road would serve pedestrians in
both directions. Bicyclists would travel on the existing roadway via new striped bicycle lanes.
▪ During the course of developing this Station Area Plan, this section of the Promenade became an important design
concern. Merrydale Road North may experience some traffic increases from residents dropping passengers off or picking
passengers up from the SMART station on the west side. Similarly, this section of the Promenade will provide an
important link to the station from the west, including the Northgate Shopping Center, for bicyclists and pedestrians. As a
result, instead of the more traditional sidewalk and striped bicycle lanes recommended in the Promenade Conceptual
Plan, this Station Area Plan recommends using a treatment similar to the separated facilities recently implemented
adjacent to the shopping center.
▪ Specifically, the new facility would be a shared bicycle/pedestrian path similar to portions of the Promenade already
constructed and could be built on the east side of the road, between Merrydale Road North and Highway 101. The
facility would extend underneath the Merrydale Overcrossing and would intersect the overcrossing near its intersection
with Las Gallinas Road. Placing the facility on the east side of the road would allow for potential future extension north,
through the Northgate III site (if that site were to redevelop), without an additional roadway crossing (see Section 3.2.2
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 195
– Long Term Recommendations). Additionally, this would connect to the existing Promenade at the northeast corner of
the Las Gallinas Road / Merrydale Overcrossing intersection, instead of the southwest corner, meaning that connecting
from one segment of the Promenade to the other would only require crossing one leg of the intersection, instead of
two.
▪ Although the Merrydale Road right-of-way appears adequate to accommodate this higher-quality connection, in some
portions of the roadway it may require on-street parking prohibitions to achieve the benefit associated with separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic. Further, providing this augmented type of facility on the north side
of Merrydale Road, where the proposed facility is adjacent to the Northgate III site may require acquisition of a small
amount of right of way from the Northgate III site. The amount would be small, so as not to interfere with their
operations, but this does present a challenge, nonetheless. See Figure 5 in the Plan for an illustration of the proposed
configuration.
o Civic Center Station Section
▪ Upon reaching the end of Merrydale Road at the north side of the SMART tracks, the Promenade would intersect with
the planned multi-use pathway, which would be constructed on the north side of the tracks underneath Highway 101.
To continue along the Promenade, users would travel east along the SMART tracks to Civic Center Drive, adjacent to the
train platform. Since this portion of the Promenade is planned to be constructed separately by SMART as part of the
multi-use pathway, this Plan does not make recommendations for its design or implementation other than to note its
importance as a key link between the eastern and western portions of the study area. This section of the Promenade
and multi-use pathway connecting Merrydale Road and Civic Center Drive, along with the configuration of the station
platform, as proposed by SMART, are illustrated in Figure 6 within the Plan.
o South Section
▪ The Promenade Conceptual Plan calls for construction of striped bicycle lanes and a minimum six-foot wide sidewalk
along both sides of Civic Center Drive from the railroad crossing to North San Pedro Road. A separated, multi-use
pathway is desired along Civic Center Drive between McInnis Parkway and North San Pedro Road. Completion of the
South Section of the Promenade would fill in missing sidewalk and bicycle network links, creating a continuous,
welcoming path between the Civic Center, the SMART Station, and the Northgate Shopping Center. The resulting
roadway would be consistent with a number of the “complete streets” features identified by the Advisory Committee
and described earlier in this report.
o Long-term: The improvements described above will create a high-quality multimodal facility providing access between many
major land uses in the area and the Civic Center Station. The Promenade will also greatly improve connectivity in the area, by
providing a much-needed new connection between the eastern and western portions of the study area and foster a better sense
of neighborhood identity through unifying design features, such as landscaping and unique, pedestrian-scale lighting. Further, all
of the improvements described above can be implemented in the relatively short term, depending on funding availability.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 196
However, there may be opportunities in the long term to create an even better Promenade, particularly in the northern and
southern sections.
▪ North: In the northern section, it may be possible to extend the Promenade through what is currently Northgate III, as
part of future redevelopment of that site. The Promenade could be a central bicycle and pedestrian spine of a new
mixed-use development on the site. This would eliminate the need to connect to the Merrydale Overcrossing just east of
Las Gallinas Road, which may be easier for wayfinding and would provide a section of the Promenade completely
removed from automobile traffic. There is currently no proposal to redevelop the Northgate III site, and extending the
Promenade along this section would require the cooperation of the property owner/developer. Therefore, the feasibility
of this long-term recommendation is uncertain; however, if it were possible, it would create an even better facility,
potentially enhancing development proposals at the site, if they were to be put forward. The potential configuration is
illustrated in Figure 7 of the Plan.
▪ South: The 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan calls for construction of dedicated, multi-use pathways, shared with
bicycles and pedestrians, on Civic Center Drive, from the Merrydale Overcrossing to North San Pedro Road. This would
provide an even higher-quality facility on this section of roadway and would make the southern section more similar to
the northern and Civic Center Station sections by providing dedicated facilities throughout the entire Promenade.
Ultimately, construction of these facilities may require additional right-of-way, and additional funding; therefore, these
improvements are considered long-term, but highly desirable.
▪ Note: The 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan calls for improvements to be constructed on Civic Center Drive in the
medium-term, defined as the next 1 – 10 years. However, the 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies
improvements on Civic Center Drive as either Class II bicycle lanes or a dedicated Class I facility. Therefore, this Plan
recommends that the Class II bicycle lanes be constructed in the near term and the Class I facilities, which may require
additional right of way and funding, be constructed in the long term.
▪ Other Pedestrian Improvements
o Sidewalks
▪ Civic Center Drive, at various locations on both sides of the street from the Freitas Parkway/ Highway 101 interchange to
the Civic Center
▪ North San Pedro Road, between Los Ranchitos Road and Civic Center Drive
▪ Los Ranchitos Road, at various locations on both sides of the street from the Merrydale Overcrossing to the Walter Place
crossing. Installation of sidewalks on Los Ranchitos, south of the Walter Place crossing may involve removal of several
trees. Further, pedestrians and bicyclists may use the multi-use pathway, which parallels the roadway along this section
and provides a higher-quality facility. As a result, new sidewalks are not recommended along this segment of Los
Ranchitos.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 197
o Neighborhood Connectivity
▪ Station West Side Crossing: bicycle/pedestrian crossing west of Highway 101 so that people don’t have to walk all the
way to Civic Center Drive to cross to get the multi-use pathway or platform
▪ Bicycle Improvements
o Class I
▪ North San Pedro Road from Los Ranchitos Road to Civic Center Drive
▪ Civic Center Drive from North San Pedro Road to Merrydale Road south of SMART tracks, including new at-grade
crossing on west side of SMART station
▪ Merrydale Road north of SMART tracks to Merrydale Road south of SMART tracks including new at-grade crossing on
west side of SMART station
▪ SMART Path from Northern City Limits to the Puerto Suello Hill Path at Los Ranchitos Road
▪ Walter Place Pathway from Las Gallinas Avenue to Los Ranchitos Road
o Class II
▪ Los Ranchitos Road from Northgate Drive to North San Pedro Road
▪ Merrydale Road from Las Gallinas Avenue to Puerto Suello Hill
▪ North San Pedro Road from Civic Center Drive to Golf Avenue
o Class III
▪ Las Gallinas Avenue in the Rafael Meadows neighborhood from the Walter Place crossing to Merrydale Road
▪ Merrydale Road from the Merrydale Overcrossing to the multi-use pathway
▪ Merrydale Road from the railroad tracks to Las Gallinas Avenue in Rafael Meadows
o Bicycle Parking
▪ 6 racks, 8 lockers
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 198
San Rafael Downtown Station Area Plan (2012)
California State Senate Bill 375 became law effective January 1, 2009. Under SB375, regions area tasked with creating Sustainable Communities
Strategies (SCS) that combine transportation and land-use elements to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As part of this effort, the Bay Area’s
regional transportation organization, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has provided a grant to fund, in part, this Station Area
Plan, which is focused around MTC’s Priority Development AREA (PDA) for San Rafael’s City Center, the area within ½-mile radius of the planned
Downtown San Rafael Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) station.
The coming of SMART rail service to downtown San Rafael is an opportunity to build on the work that’s been done to create a variety of
transportation and housing options, economic stability, and vibrant community gathering places in the heart of San Rafael. This Downtown Station
Area Plan sets the stage to create a more vibrant, mixed-use, livable area supported by a mix of transit opportunities, including passenger rail
service.
Relevant projects:
▪ Pedestrian, Multi-modal and Accessible Design
o Puerto Suello Hill Path-Transit Center Connector - Planned Class I multi-use path along west side of Hetherton Street between
Mission Avenue and Fourth Street, with median improvements preventing left turns at Fourth Street and Tamalpais Avenue, and
pedestrian refuge island. Bicyclists will be able to travel between the Puerto Suello Path and Tamalpais Avenue along a planned
Class III bikeway on Fourth Street.
o Second Street to Andersen Drive MUP - Multiple alternatives for multi-use path between Second Street and Andersen Drive on
or along the SMART right of way.
o East Francisco Blvd Improvements – Widen sidewalk on north side of Francisco Boulevard East from Bellam Boulevard to the
southern end of the Grand Avenue Bridge
o Grand Avenue Pathway Connector – Multi-use path across east side of the Grand Avenue Bridge from terminus of the Francisco
Boulevard East path to Second Avenue.
o Canalfront Paseo Pathway Concept – Conceptual and focused on providing bicycle and pedestrian access along the Canal
waterway from Highway 101 to areas beyond the Montecito Shopping Center. The most feasible sections of the Paseo concept
include sections behind the Shopping Center with a connection to the Grand Avenue Pathway Connector. Extending the Paseo
west of Grand Ave is challenging from an engineering perspective and will require further study. A short section along Second
Street under Highway 101 from Tamalpais Avenue to Irwin Street is discussed in this plan. A further extension along Second
Street is shown only for illustrative purposes.
▪ Tamalpais Avenue Complete Street Concepts
o From Second Street to Fourth Street, the removal of southbound travel lane and the parking spaces along the west curb will
provide additional right of way. This extra right of way could be utilized to make multimodal improvements along these two
blocks of Tamalpais Avenue.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 199
o East Tamalpais Avenue Closure – Between Third Street and Fourth Street and located on the east side of the SMART station, the
roadway is recommended to be abandoned and incorporated into the integrated San Rafael transit complex
o Open Space - From Fourth Street to Mission Avenue, the roadway is lightly traveled and with the proposed median at Fourth
Street preventing left turns to and from Tamalpais Avenue, volumes will decrease further. Converting this segment to a one-way
roadway in the southbound direction should have little effect on traffic flow. One option could be the conversion of one-way
travel to free up the right of way from the former northbound lane. This stretch of Tamalpais Avenue could become a
landscaped multi-use path. Southbound Tamalpais Avenue and northbound East Tamalpais Avenue between Fourth Street and
Mission Avenue will work as a one-way couplet.
▪ Pedestrian Access and Improvements
o Canal Paseo – Near-term option to construct new at-grade sidewalk or multi-use path along south side of Second Street from
Irwin Street to Hetherton Street, including a bridge over the Mahon Creek (under Highway 101), a new east-west crosswalk on
Second Street at the Highway 101 off-ramp, and a new north-south crosswalk on Heatherton Street at Second Street. A new
north-south crosswalk at Heatherton Street would tie into the sidewalk proposed along A Street.
Miller Creek Road/ Las Gallinas Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Study (2011)
This study of Miller Creek Road and Las Gallinas Avenue in unincorporated Marin County identifies a variety of transportation improvement
opportunities to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility while maintaining vehicular and transit operations within the study area. The study
focuses on improving non-motorized mobility to the primary land uses in the area including: the Marinwood residential neighborhood, Miller
Creek Middle School, Marinwood Shopping Center, Miller Creek Park, and future development of Oakview. The recommendations contained in
this report strive at developing a balance between the various users, as well as considering the fabric of the neighborhood and environmental
concerns.
The study area includes Miller Creek Road from Highway 101, (including the freeway bus pads and Pacheco Hill path) to the intersection of Las
Gallinas Avenue and along Las Gallinas Avenue between Miller Creek Road and Cedar Hill Drive south of Lucas Valley Road. Incl uded in the study
are the bus pads on Lucas Valley Road just east of Las Gallinas Avenue. This study contains an option that a multi-use path (MUP) is feasible to
extend the entire length of the study area. Other options include the addition of traffic calming measures including roundabouts along Miller Creek
Road at Marinwood Avenue and Las Gallinas Avenue, bulb-outs at various locations, elimination of a continuous two way left turn lane along Las
Gallinas Avenue, and the elimination of several dedicated left turn pockets to minor streets to calm traffic in the corridor and improve two-way
travel off street for bicyclists. The modification of the ramp configuration at the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp to Miller Creek Road is also a
reasonable opportunity.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 200
The study area consists of two collector streets - Las Gallinas Avenue and Miller Creek Road - that provide access to regional roadways such as
Highway 101 and Lucas Valley Road. The corridor is primarily residential except for some office uses at the intersection of Las Gallinas Avenue and
Miller Creek Road and a gas station and retail use at the intersection of Marinwood Avenue and Miller Creek Road. Miller Creek Middle School
fronts on Las Gallinas Avenue midway between Lucas Valley Road and Miller Creek Road. Miller Creek Park abuts the middle school. One purpose
of the project is to reduce the vehicle speeds on the study roadways and to improve pedestrian and bicycle access. Another go al is to improve
vehicle drop off circulation around the school.
Relevant projects (collected by Alternative 1, 2, 3, or 4):
▪ Miller Creek Road and Marinwood Avenue
o Roundabout (1, 3)
o Bulbouts with multi-use path (2)
o Existing (4)
▪ Miller Creek Road
o Multi-use path with Class II commuter bicycle lanes (1, 2, 3)
o Class II bicycle lanes, on-street parking (4)
▪ Miller Creek Road at Las Gallinas Avenue
o Bulbouts with Class I (1)
o Bulbouts (2)
o Roundabout (3)
o Existing (4)
▪ Las Gallinas Avenue
o Multi-use path, parking aisles, bicycle lanes, and sidewalk (1,3)
o Bicycle lanes, parking aisles, Class I on west side, sidewalk on east side (2)
o Existing (4)
▪ Las Gallinas Avenue at Roundtree Boulevard and Park Pathways
o MUP west, bulbouts, on-street parking
▪ Las Gallinas Avenue at Elvia Court and Miller Creek Middle School
o Bulbouts, Class II bike lanes, MUP (east) (1)
o MUP, bulbouts (2)
▪ Las Gallinas Avenue at Erin Drive (future access to Oakview Development)
o MUP, bike lanes,
o MIP Bike lanes, bulbouts
▪ Las Gallinas Avenue at Lucas Valley Road and transit stops
▪ Las Gallinas Avenue between Lucas Valley Road and Cedar Hill Drive
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 201
San Quentin Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Study (2011)
The San Quentin Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Study is one of the top priority projects in Marin County as described in the 2008 Marin County
Unincorporated Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the San Francisco Bay Trail Gap Analysis Study. The 1.5-mile long study corridor along
East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and I-580 connects the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to the east and the existing bicycle path at Remillard Park to
the west. To the east, the corridor connects with East Francisco Boulevard and the existing southern segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail at Jean
and John Starkweather Shoreline Park in San Rafael. The topography of the San Quentin peninsula and the barriers created by Interstate 580 and
Corte Madera Creek constrain alternative travel options between Larkspur Landing, San Rafael, and the small community of San Quentin Village.
The study corridor provides primary east-west transportation for bicyclists, transit vehicles, and motor vehicles. Currently bicyclists and pedestrians
use East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Interstate 580, East Francisco Boulevard and Main Street to access destinations in the area or to circulate
through the area to local and regional destinations. The intersection at East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Andersen Drive is a challenge for
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. This area is also physically bisected by Interstate 580 which runs along the northern edge of the study area.
Bicycle access is permitted on the eastbound shoulder of Interstate 580 from the East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard on-ramp to the Main Street/San
Quentin off-ramp. At this time, bicyclists are not permitted on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge but regional transit buses are equipped with bicycle
racks to allow riders to travel to the East Bay.
The San Francisco Bay Trail is improved on the northeastern and western edges of the study corridor and this study corridor is a key gap in the
continuity of this regional trail system in Marin County. San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) visitor use also generates pedestri an traffic along Main
Street.
The Study examined three potential alignments for bicycle/pedestrian access from the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Larkspur via the San Quentin
Area.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 202
Safe Routes to School San Rafael Task Force Issues List (2011, includes edits through 2018)
The Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Task Force brings together the school district staff and parent volunteers from each school with city
representatives – public works, traffic officers, and city council. Other attendees can include bicycle/pedestrian advocates, neighbors, and local
businesses. Together, they identify safety issues for each school and develop a travel plan to address those issues. This includes infrastructure and
enforcement strategies from the City and education and encouragement strategies from the school. The Task Force then continues to work
together to implement that plan and update it with new information.
Relevant projects:
▪ Sidewalk on Second Street to the Canal under Highway 101
▪ Route from Canal neighborhood and Sun Valley neighborhood to Davidson Middle School
▪ Devon Street and Monticello Road being used as cut through
▪ San Rafael High School stadium development – Phase 2 to include a path through campus that would take students off Mission Avenue
and Third Street through the field if they are relocated
▪ Issues:
o Street crossings near Laurel Dell Elementary and Davidson Middle School
o Esmeyer Drive at Trellis Drive – need for red curb and re-alignment of the crosswalk
o Downtown too dangerous for San Rafael High students to bicycle through, plus pathway to entrance of school
o Work with SMART and City to develop path connecting Civic Center SMART stop with existing multiuse path by Northgate Mall
(Terra Linda High project)
o No bicycle route from Sun Valley area to Davidson Middle School; students bicycle on sidewalk
o Second Street, Third Street, Fourth Street, Fifth Avenue, and Mission Avenue under Highway 101, plus highway on/off ramps
and Bellam Boulevard at I-580 – narrow, obstructed sidewalks, no bicycle facilities, dark and uninviting, dangerous intersections.
o North San Pedro Road, Highway 101, on/off ramps – narrow substandard path exists immediately under freeway but too short,
free right turns on freeway, no pedestrian facilities.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 203
Sun Valley Elementary School Travel Plan (2011)
The Sun Valley Elementary School Travel Plan is the blueprint for identifying and prioritizing Safe Routes to School (SR2S) programs, resources,
and capital improvements. The Travel Plan also documents program activities and impacts on school-related travel that can be used to assess
the success of the SR2S program over time and important school-specific transportation policies and operations.
The Travel Plan differs from most plans in that it is not a snapshot in time but a living document; one that is repeatedly updated and modified to
reflect school staff, community, and parent input along with technical information and lessons learned. This input is primarily captured by a SR2S
task force that meets periodically to identify and address new concerns. For more information on Safe Routes to School partnerships in Marin
County, visit www.saferoutestoschools.org
Issues:
▪ Fifth Avenue at Happy Lane (in front of school crossing) – Built out at north corner, curb extensions on southwest and southeast corners,
high-visibility crosswalks (sidewalk planned along Fifth Avenue west of Happy Lane).
▪ Happy Lane at school entrance – Complete 225 ft. of sidewalk east of the school, remove existing crosswalk on Happy Lane, install high-
visibility crosswalk and curb ramp at southeast side of crosswalk.
▪ Fifth Avenue improvements – Restrict on-street parking on the north side of Fifth Avenue during school commute hours and install 7-
foot-wide Class II bike lanes. Improvements east of Happy Lane would restrict parking and install 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on north
side of street.
▪ Fifth Avenue at River Oaks Road – Raising pavement adjacent to school to prevent parking on the crosswalk, add sidewalk extensions to
southwest and southeast corners, and high-visibility crosswalks at intersection. Potential traffic circle.
▪ River Oaks Road Improvements – Option A: 1,000 ft. of sidewalk along east side of street between Fifth Avenue and Racquet Club Drive,
curb ramps, and high-visibility crosswalk and signage at Racquet Club Drive. Option B: 300 ft. of sidewalk along west side of River Oaks
Drive between Fifth Avenue and Racquet Club Drive.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 204
Davidson [Middle] School Travel Plan (2011)
The Davidson Middle School Travel Plan is the blueprint for identifying and prioritizing Safe Routes to School (SR2S) programs, resources, and
capital improvements. The Travel Plan also documents program activities and impacts on school-related travel that can be used to assess the
success of the SR2S program over time, and important school-specific transportation policies and operations.
The Travel Plan differs from most plans in that it is not a snapshot in time but a living document; one that is repeatedly updated and modified to
reflect school staff, community, and parent input along with technical information and lessons learned. This input is primarily captured by a SR2S
task force that meets periodically to identify and address new concerns. For more information on Safe Routes to School partnerships in Marin
County, visit www.saferoutestoschools.org
Issues:
▪ Lindaro Street at Woodland Avenue - Curb extensions and parking restrictions to improve visibility at intersection
▪ Lindaro Street from Davidson Middle School to Jordan Street – Construct 350 feet sidewalk from end of sidewalk north of Davidson
Middle School to Jordan Street (8 foot adjacent to road or 5 foot sidewalk with 5 foot landscaped buffer)
▪ Lindaro Street at Jordan Street – Install fluorescent yellow-green pedestrian warning signage at crosswalk, refresh “slow school xing”
pavement markings, restricting parking adjacent to crosswalk; upgrade existing school area signage
▪ Lindaro Street from Jordan Street to Andersen Drive – Widen sidewalk on east side of Lindaro to 8 feet
▪ Construct fence on Andersen Drive drive median to discourage jaywalking
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 205
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 206
Glenwood Elementary School Travel Plan (2011)
The Glenwood Elementary School Travel Plan is the blueprint for identifying and prioritizing Safe Routes to School (SR2S) programs, resources,
and capital improvements. The Travel Plan also documents program activities and impacts on school-related travel that can be used to assess
the success of the SR2S program over time, and important school-specific transportation policies and operations.
The Travel Plan differs from most plans in that it is not a snapshot in time but a living document; one that is repeatedly updated and modified to
reflect school staff, community, and parent input along with technical information and lessons learned. This input is primarily captured by a SR2S
task force that meets periodically to identify and address new concerns. For more information on Safe Routes to School partnerships in Marin
County, visit www.saferoutestoschools.org
Issues:
▪ Bike racks needed at school entrance
▪ Possible overhead pedestrian-actuated beacon to improve crossing San Pedro Road
Venetia Valley Elementary School Travel Plan (2011)
The Venetia Valley Elementary School Travel Plan is the blueprint for identifying and prioritizing Safe Routes to School (SR2S) programs, resources,
and capital improvements. The Travel Plan also documents program activities and impacts on school-related travel that can be used to assess the
success of the SR2S program over time, and important school-specific transportation policies and operations.
The Travel Plan differs from most plans in that it is not a snapshot in time but a living document; one that is repeatedly updated and modified to
reflect school staff, community, and parent input along with technical information and lessons learned. This input is primarily captured by a SR2S
task force that meets periodically to identify and address new concerns. For more information on Safe Routes to School partnerships in Marin
County, visit www.saferoutestoschools.org
Issues:
▪ North San Pedro Road Pathway – Curb extensions at flared intersections to reduce turning radii of vehicles to slow speeds, reduce
pedestrian exposure time in roadway, and improve sightlines between motorist and pedestrians; curb ramps where missing; crosswalks
where missing, realign crosswalks that are excessively long or have poor sightlines; prioritize sidewalks in poor condition or missing
when repaving
▪ Close 250 ft. sidewalk gap across the school on North San Pedro Road
▪ Crosswalk improvements at school’s two driveways along North San Pedro Road
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 207
Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Feasibility Study (2010)
The primary purpose of this study is to identify a feasible, safe and efficient east-west bikeway alignment from the western limit of the Town of
Fairfax to downtown San Rafael and develop short- and medium-term implementation methods. This alignment will serve bicycle commuters,
school children en route to the many schools in the corridor, local utilitarian trips, as well as the many recreational bicyclists traversing the Ross
Valley. Much of the proposed corridor is already served by on-street bicycle facilities; therefore, this feasibility study focuses on closing gaps in
those facilities, improving existing facilities, and improving north-south connections to the east-west corridor. This Feasibility Study also sets forth
a safe and separate east-west bikeway through this corridor that connects Fairfax, San Anselmo, and San Rafael.
The Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin bicycle corridor has been planned by Marin County advocates and local and county agencies for many years
and is given further detail through this current study. The original vision was established in the Cross Marin Trail, of which this corridor is a part.
Furthermore, the 1974 Marin County Bike Plan describes the need for a bicycle corridor through the Ross Valley. The key implementation strategies
to achieve this unified bikeway corridor are identified in the concept level designs included in this document. The study includes recommendations
for connecting the Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway to the proposed Marin North/South Greenway at San Rafael Transit Center and
Andersen Drive, and connections to bicycle lanes on Butterfield Drive and Red Hill Shopping Center.
Figure 1-1 with in the study shows an overview of the study corridor. This feasibility study is a multi-agency project and includes the Town of
Fairfax, the Town of San Anselmo and the City of San Rafael, with the Town of Fairfax acting as the lead agency. This study d id not include
identification or analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project improvements at the programmatic or site-
specific level. This study does include identification of traffic and civil engineering issues but not at the level of detailed required for environmental
review. Many of the projects recommended in this Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway Study are consistent with projects adopted in local
bicycle plans that have received environmental clearance. Other projects recommended here require further analysis, documentation of potential
environmental impacts, and identification of appropriate mitigations.
Relevant projects:
▪ Red Hill Avenue/Greenfield Avenue/ West End Avenue (Hilldale Drive to Second Street/Fourth Street intersection) – Bicycle Boulevard
treatment and intersection treatments ($112,000) – See Fig. 6-17
o Need: The large size of the Greenfield Avenue/West End Avenue/Red Hill Avenue intersection makes it difficult for bicyclists to
navigate between Greenfield Avenue and West End Avenue. Eastbound vehicles turning from Red Hill Avenue on to West End
Avenue sometimes shorten their turning movement by driving diagonally through the intersection. Improvements proposed at
the Greenfield Avenue/West End Avenue/Red Hill Avenue intersection would provide a safer path of travel by channelizing
traffic and call attention to the shared bicycle use by adding pavement texture to the intersection.
o Short-term ($112,000)
▪ Bike Boulevard signage along Greenfield Avenue and along West End Avenue
▪ Intersection treatment such as textured concrete at the Greenfield Avenue/West End Avenue intersection
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 208
▪ Median within the Greenfield Avenue/West End Avenue intersection to channelize traffic
▪ Raised crosswalk on West End Avenue at Marquard Avenue
▪ Bulb-out on the southwest corner of the West End Avenue/Marquard Avenue intersection
o Mid-Term
▪ Bi-directional Class IV (additional study needed) via lane reduction, modifications to median and curb
▪ Second Street (Second Street/Fourth Street intersection to First Street) – Intersection treatments, sidewalk extension, Bicycle Boulevard
treatment on G Street ($116,000 + $1,338,000) – See Fig. 6-22, 24
o Need: Second Street serves as an important east-west connection for bicyclists traveling to and from the bicycle lanes on
Andersen Drive, as well as various downtown San Rafael locations. The limited right of way available for bicyclists and high traffic
speeds typically deter all except the most experienced bicyclists from using the roadway. Less experienced bicyclists often share
the narrow sidewalk on the south side of the street with pedestrians. This project addresses the need to provide a safe route for
pedestrians and experienced and less experienced bicyclists using this segment of the Fairfax to San Rafael Cross Marin Bikeway.
o Short-term for Second Street between the Second Street/ Fourth Street/ West End Avenue intersection and Miramar Avenue
▪ Tabled crosswalks on West End Avenue, Marquard Avenue, East Street, West Street, and Miramar Avenue
o Mid-term for Second Street between the Second Street/ Fourth Street/ West End Avenue intersection and Miramar Avenue
▪ Sidewalk extension and on-street parking removal from Marquard Avenue to Ida Street
▪ Sidewalk extension and new retaining wall along south side of Second Street opposite Ida Street and G Street
▪ Sidewalk extension along the south side of Second Street between G Street and Miramar Avenue
▪ High-visibility crosswalks at the Second Street/ G Street intersection
▪ Relocation of the median northward within Second Street between G Street and Miramar Avenue; restripe the
eastbound and westbound travel lanes
▪ First Street (Second Street to B Street) – Bicycle Boulevard treatment and contraflow bicycle lane ($43,000) – See Fig. 6-28
o Need: Important southern bypass for eastbound and westbound bicyclists who do not want or need to travel through downtown
San Rafael. Between E Street and D Street, First St is a narrow, one-way, westbound street parallel to San Rafael Creek. Many
bicyclists illegally use this block to ride against the flow of traffic. The City considered and rejected the idea of a striped contra-
flow bicycle lane for this one block segment in its bicycle plan.
o Short-term for Miramar Avenue between Second Street and First Street and for First Street between Miramar Avenue and B
Street
▪ Bike Boulevard on Miramar Avenue (Second Street to First Street) and First Street (Miramar Avenue to E Street)
▪ E Street to D Street - Reversal of one-way traffic direction from westbound to eastbound; separated westbound
contraflow bicycle lane on the north side of the street to minimize potential driveway conflicts
▪ D Street to B Street - Class III bicycle route treatment with sharrows
▪ First Street (B Street to Andersen Drive) – Bicycle Boulevard treatment (short-term), Class I bike path long term (2,600 + $69,000) – See
Fig. 6-30
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 209
o Need: Final connection with the bike lanes along Andersen Drive. Currently bicyclists typically travel around the Safeway Grocery
by using First Street to the north. This route lacks appropriate signage and the segment of First Street between B Street and
Andersen Drive is one-way for westbound traffic only.
o Short-term
▪ Shared-use pavement arrows, including block being and block end at appropriate intervals, along First Street and Albert
Park Lane
▪ Bicycle Boulevard signage along First Street and Albert Park Lane
o Mid-term
▪ 10-foot-wide two-way path along the Safeway Grocery/Albert Park Community Center property line from B Street and
connecting the pathway along the eastern property boundaries
▪ Parking stall restriping immediately north and south the new path
▪ Andersen Drive to Mahon (Creek Pathway) – Wayfinding ($6,600) – see Fig. 6-32
o Improvements on three road/road and road/trail intersections along route is being prepared as a separate project (Mahon Creek
Path Transit Connector)
o It is possible to widen the sidewalk on the south side of Andersen Drive and expand the existing sidewalk into the parking lane;
however, the parking is in high demand especially during sporting events
o Expand the existing sidewalk into the park, which would require utility pole relocation, tree removal, and reconfiguration of the
park maintenance and utility yard
o With either alternative, the Class I path would continue along the south side of Andersen Drive through the Andersen
Drive/Lindaro Street intersection, to connect to a crossing solution to be later identified.
o Andersen Drive/Lindaro Street intersection: diagonal bicycle lane from southwest to the northwest corner of the intersection
and a bicycle signal head and phase to allow them to cross diagonally and connect the bikeway route with the Mahon Creek trail
and with the westbound traffic from Andersen Drive.
Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan (2009)
In summer 2008, the City of San Rafael initiated the Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan project. The San Francisco Bay Trail a long the Jean and
John Starkweather Shoreline Park at the edge of San Rafael’s bay front offers some of the Bay Area’s most beautiful views of the San Francisco
Bay. However, the section of the Bay Trail that connects Starkweather Shoreline Park through the Canal neighborhood and acros s the waterway
through a busy network of streets and out east toward China Camp State Park remains to be designed and completed.
The Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan sets the stage for creating a “paseo” (“promenade” in Spanish) through one of the most dynamic
communities in the Bay Area. The Plan identifies the most appropriate way to travel through an auto-dominated area, the best ways to access the
Canal waterfront, and the most suitable crossing improvements. A companion document to the Plan is the design guidelines regarding the design
of new buildings in the plan area, and desired waterfront amenities.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 210
Relevant projects:
▪ West Canal Area
o Develop continuous walkways along the north and south sides of the Canal. The walkways could be at natural grade or
cantilevered from the top of the bank. When property is proposed for redevelopment or to be remodeled, encourage property
owners to provide easements where needed to allow a continuous walkway
o Study the possibility of a publicly accessible boat dock along the north waterfront
o Create connections from Mary Street and Union Street to the Canal. Encourage visual and pedestrian access to the Paseo. Future
development of adjacent areas should extend pedestrian corridors and alleys to the Canalfront walkway
o Redesign Yacht Club Drive as tree-lined street. Incorporate a pedestrian walkway and a bicycle path along the street
o Redesign and revitalize Beach Park and Yacht Club Drive to incorporate better access areas such as viewing terraces and picnic
areas, enhanced marine uses (i.e. a non-motorized small boat launch), beach volleyball or other recreation, and a children’s area
with a marine theme. Encourage water-related concessions in the park such as a kayak launch, a canoe school, or sailboat
rentals
o Improve the bicycle/pedestrian crossing at Grand Avenue
o Investigate the acquisition of a parcel of land at the southeast corner of the intersection of Second Street and Grand Avenue for
a public park/plaza, and entryway to the Canal waterfront.
o Incorporate detention basins, bioswales, or other sustainable water quality improvements to improve storm water treatment
o Investigate the feasibility of bicycle/pedestrian crossings at the mouth of San Rafael Yacht Harbor and at the end of Canal Street;
potential crossings should connect to the waterfront walkway.
▪ Canal Street
o Study options to widen the sidewalk and to add a Class II bicycle lane along Canal Street
o Develop a continuous publicly accessible pedestrian walkway on the waterfront as opportunity arises
▪ Pickleweed Park
o Study the area in front of the Pickleweed Community Center to incorporate a Class II bicycle lane from the existing Starkweather
Shoreline Bay Trail
o Design a small non-motorized personal watercraft launch area at the northern end of Pickleweed Park, and evaluate the area
west of the Pickleweed Community Center for ways to transport watercraft from the parking lot to the launch area
o Provide a path accessible for maintenance vehicles and pedestrians around the perimeter of Pickleweed Park, while also
maintain the natural character of the existing trail
o Provide seating areas for wildlife observation in Pickleweed Park
o Enhance habitat along the shoreline and within the park, where possible
o Provide interpretive signage along the Bay Trail path around the waterfront edge of Pickleweed Park
▪ Overview
o Bay Trail Alignment - Request changes to the adopted Bay Trail alignment from Pickleweed Park to Third Street
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 211
o Bay Trail along Canal Street - Explore the possibility of providing a Class II bike path, a wider sidewalk, and/or mixed-use pathway
along Canal Street west of Medway Road. Survey the right of way on Canal Street to identify opportunities to widen the
sidewalks. Study parking opportunities and traffic options, such as making part of Canal Street one-way.
o Canalfront Paseo for West Canal Area - Describe public amenities, landscaping, and habitat improvements. Work with the
community to identify and understand potential issues with redevelopment. Include street, signature and other trees, plant lists,
paving design and detailing, site furniture specifications, maintenance guidelines, lighting design and specifications, maintenance
guidelines, lighting design and specifications, wayfinding design and specifications, interpretive and historic signage, and public
art. Include a Beach Park Plan to maximize public access to a revitalized recreational center. Explore opportunities to serve the
larger communities, for vendors to provide boat rentals and/or lessons, for ways to enliven the area, and reasons for people to
visit the park.
o Public Art under Highway 101 - Pursue mechanisms to install public art lighting and other improvements under Highway 101. For
example, establish a public art program for the area underneath Highway 101 that celebrates San Rafael’s cultural heritage
and/or natural environment to provide visual interest.
o Pickleweed Park - Design park improvements for the Pickleweed Park Bay Trail improvements, including the pathway around the
water’s edge, a small non-motorized boat launch and a method to help boaters transport their vessels from the parking lot to
the launch. Investigate the possibility of providing a Class II bicycle path in front of the Community Center. Work with the
Pickleweed Advisory Board to identify proposed improvements.
▪ Long-term
o Canal Street Waterfront Bay Trail Feasibility Study - Conduct an engineering survey of the waterfront area to the north of Canal
Street; study the feasibility of a Canalfront walkway; and study options for interface between walkway and private docks. The
boardwalk must be out of the required navigable waterway as defined by municipal code and allow docking and access to docks
as needed. Involve property owners in the planning of the boardwalk
o Canal Crossings Study - Explore the feasibility and design of crossings in the West Canal area.
o East/west connection under Highway 101 - Investigate potential improvements to the area west of Grand Avenue Bridge to
provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access to the Transit Center separate from the street network. Work with Caltrans to
improve the appearance of the area under Highway 101.
o Bay Street Redevelopment Feasibility Study - Study options for redevelopment of the Bay Street area. Encourage the adaptive
reuse of existing buildings where feasible to retain the eclectic character of area. Look for redevelopment opportunities to
maximize the freeway visibility of the lots facing Highway 101, and to add uses that contribute to the vitality of the waterfront
location. Develop general plan and zoning amendments to implement the recommendations.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 212
Climate Change Action Plan (2009)
The City of San Rafael will have to comply with recent and anticipated state and federal regulations on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, such as California’s landmark AB32 and SB375 legislation. At present, local governments in California are being asked to reduce GHG
emissions 15% from current levels by 2020, with an ultimate state-wide goal of 80% reductions by 2050, which scientists have determined to be
the amount necessary to arrest the effects of global warming.
San Rafael’s community-wide GHG emissions in 2005 amounted to 524,148 tons of CO2e (equivalent carbon dioxide units, including nitrous
oxides and methane). A 15% reduction from this level would actually constitute a 30% reduction by 2020, since the community’s GHG emissions
are projected to continue to grow 21% over that time period if unchecked.
Implementation of the programs recommended in this Plan, together with others already underway, would meet the state’s AB32 goal for local
government actions by achieving a 15% reduction in San Rafael’s GHG emissions. The Plan targets a total reduction of 25% by 2020, to be
achieved as actions at other levels of government, technological improvements and local educational efforts continue to spur residents and
businesses to reduce their carbon footprints. The City will have to periodically update the Plan to achieve both this 2020 goal and the ambitious
2050 goal.
Highlights:
▪ 61% of GHG emissions are from transportation (including Highway 101)
▪ Ambitious 80% reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2050
▪ Strategy 1 - Continue to encourage greater residential and commercial densities within walking distance of high frequency transit
centers and corridors as for in the General Plan. High frequency is defined as buses arriving at least every 15 minutes.
▪ Strategy 2 - Consider land use and transportation alternatives (better bicycle and pedestrian access and increased transit feeder service)
to best use the future Civic Center SMART station.
▪ Strategy 3 - Identify neighborhood areas which do not have suitable pedestrian facilities, convenience retail services, and transit stops
within walking distance. Determine if sidewalk improvements, land use changes of transit stop locations can be modified for
underserved areas.
▪ Strategy 4 - Facilitate creation of a bike share program, particularly in Downtown area.
▪ Strategy 6 - Continue to implement sidewalk and street improvements for the SRTS program. Encourage the school districts, Marin
Transit, and the Transportation Authority of Marin to increase funding for school busing programs, promote carpooling, and limit vehicle
idling.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 213
Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (2009)
The Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area is one component of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s multipronged effort
to promote bicycling and bicycle safety while reversing decades of automobile‐oriented development. Transportation 2035 – the Regional
Transportation Plan update – boosts bicycle spending fivefold over prior Regional Bicycle Plan expenditures (from $20 million to $1 billion),
increases funds to help spur compact transit‐oriented development, and a launches new Climate Action Program that will include new programs
for bicycle facilities.
Transportation 2035 is a comprehensive strategy to accommodate future growth, alleviate congestion, improve safety, reduce pollution and
ensure mobility for all residents regardless of income. As a component of the Transportation 2035 plan, the Regional Bicycle Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area (“Regional Bicycle Plan” or “Plan”) seeks to support individuals who choose to shift modes from automobile to bicycle by
making investments in the Regional Bikeway Network (RBN) and other bicycling facilities . It also focuses growth in Priority Development Areas
(PDAs), which encourage growth in existing communities and promote connections between land‐use and transportation. This plan presents data,
provides guidance and makes recommendations to help propel these efforts forward.
The original Regional Bicycle Plan, published in 2001, documented the region’s bicycling environment, identified the links in a regionwide bikeway
network and summarized corresponding funding sources. This update to the Regional Bicycle Plan seeks to: encourage, increase and promote
safer bicycling; provide an analysis of bicycle trip‐ making and collision data; summarize countywide bicycle planning efforts throughout the Bay
Area; and document advances in bicycle parking and other important technologies. While the 2001 plan provided an inventory of bicycle facilities
at transit facilities, this update further investigates the relationship between bicycling and public transportation in recognition of the importance
of bicycle‐ accessible transit and transit stations. Because safe and convenient bicycle access must include a place to securely store one’s bicycle
at destinations, bicycle parking, at public transit and elsewhere, is another focus of this plan update.
A focus of the Regional Bicycle Plan is the Regional Bikeway Network (RBN), which defines the San Francisco Bay Area’s continuous and connected
bicycling corridors of regional significance. A primary purpose of the RBN, which includes both built and unbuilt segments, is to focus regional
bicycle‐related funding on high‐priority bicycle facilities that serve regional trips. The 2001 Regional Bicycle Plan defined the original RBN. MTC
staff created a new RBN geographic information system (GIS) database for this publication, which includes updated mileage and cost information,
and county‐specific maps. Almost 50 percent of the Network’s 2,140 miles have been constructed. The cost to construct the remainder is estimated
to be $1.4 billion, including pathways on the region’s three remaining bicycle‐inaccessible toll bridges.
Relevant Projects:
▪ Unbuilt Regional Bikeway Network Links (in San Rafael):
o NWP Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Share (Marin-Sonoma) - 0.6 miles built, 15.3 miles unbuilt, from Andersen Drive/Francisco
Boulevard West to Sonoma County Line, $29.4 million
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 214
o Puerto Suello Hill Path Gap Closure Project - 1.7 miles unbuilt, from Los Ranchitos Road/ North San Pedro Road to Fourth Street/
Tamalpais Avenue, $11,760,000
o San Rafael-Larkspur Gap Closure, Project - 1.1 miles unbuilt from Larkspur Landing/Victoria Way to Andersen Drive/ West
Francisco Boulevard, $26,250,000
o San Rafael’s Miracle Mile - 2.1 miles unbuilt, from Fourth Street/ Brooks Street to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard/Center
Boulevard/Greenfield Avenue
o Marin East/West Bikeway - 4.5 miles unbuilt, from Fourth Street/Second Street/West End Avenue to Francisco Boulevard/Marin
Streeet/Richmond Bridge, $423,000
North San Rafael Promenade – Design Features (2008)
The North San Rafael Promenade is a proposal for a pedestrian and bicycle route that runs east/west through Terra Linda from Freitas Parkway at
Scotty’s Market to the Marin Civic Center lagoon. The promenade experience varies from an on-street bicycle lane and sidewalk to a landscaped
Class I bicycle trail and pedestrian path. Due to the inconsistent character of the promenade and the fact that it will need to be implemented in
pieces, it was important to develop design features that help to promote a clear and distinct landscape identity for the promenade. Features
include paving, planting, signage, and site furniture.
Proposed bike/pedestrian route that runs through Terra Linda from Freitas Parkway at Scotty’s Market to the Marin Civic Center lagoon. Varies
from on-street bicycle lane and sidewalk to a landscaped Class I multi-use path. Contains identity logo and sample signage
Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program Evaluation Study (2007)
The Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Project (NTPP), funded through federal transportation legislation in 2005 (SAFETEA-LU), allocates $25
million to each of four communities, one of which is Marin County. Locally, Pilot Program implementation was initiated in Summer 2006 and is
being managed by the Marin County Department of Public Works.
A 19-person advisory committee was formed by the Department of Public Works, consisting of public agency staff and private individuals, to
provide direction and feedback to staff and the consultant team throughout the project development and evaluation process. The primary charge
of the committee was to provide a list of infrastructure projects and educational programs to execute with Pilot funds, developed through
screening and prioritization criteria, consistent with the FHWA criteria and the goals and timeline of the pilot program. These recommendations
are submitted to the Director of Public Works who, in turn, would make funding recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 215
Survey Results:
▪ Number of surveys 272 (full), 891 (self-mailer)
▪ Table A-8: Comparison of Marin County sample and State of California BRFSS
o Days per week engaging in activity (walk, bike, moderate exercise, vigorous exercise) for at least 10 minutes at a time
o Minutes of activity per day (“”)
▪ Table A8: How many days in the past month did you walk or bike to the following destinations: bank, entertainment, grocery, gym, park,
post office, restaurant
▪ Table E.1: Estimated reduction in auto use due to bicycling (.197-.270 = 0.233 avg. miles of avoided auto use per adult resident per day)
▪ Table E.2: Estimated reduced in auto use due to walking (0.364-0.506 = 0.435 avg. miles of avoided auto use per adult resident per day)
▪ Table E.3: Share of total person trips by mode (n=891)
o Vehicle – 82%
o Rideshare – 1.4%
o Transit – 3.2%
o Walk – 11.8%
o Bicycle – 1.8%
▪ Table E.4: Total daily mileage per person by mode (based on all trips) n=891
o Vehicle – 23.6
o Transit – 1.37
o Walk – 0.40
o Bicycle – 0.22
▪ Table 4.2: Average trip length by trip type (miles)
o Average trip distance all bike trips – 2.19
o Estimated average bike commute trip distance – 2.26
o Estimated average bike other destination distance – 2.07
▪ Table 4.3: Number of trips and total daily distance by bicycle, per day per adult
o Number of trips by commuters – 2.81
o Number of trips by other destination cyclists – 2.60
o Miles per trip by commuters – 2.61
o Miles per trip by other destination cyclists – 2.39
o Total daily miles by commuters – 7.32
o Total daily miles by other destination cyclists – 6.21
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 216
▪ Table 4.4: Reported daily cycling durations on days when cycling occurs
o 10-29 min – 12.9%
o 30-59 min – 23.7%
o 1 Hour + - 63.4%
o Average minutes – 51.3
o Distance at 10mph – 8.55
▪ Table 4.5: Percent of cycling trips that are replacing auto trips
o Average (commute) – 33.8%
o Other destinations – 90.9%
▪ Table 4.6: Summary of avoided driving due to cycling
o Bike commuter % - 0.70%
o Daily total distance commuters – 7.32
o Commuter trips replacing auto – 33.8%
o Other bike destination % - 3.18%
o Daily total distance destination – 6.21 – 8.61
o Destination trips replacing auto – 90.9%
o Total daily mileage per adult – 0.197 - 0.270
▪ Table 4.8: Number of walkers per day
o % of workers who commute by walking – 2.7%
o % of adults who commute by walking – 2.0%
o % of adults who walk to other destinations – 21.4%
o Total daily transportation walk % - 23.5%
▪ Table 4.9: Number of trips and total daily distance by walking
o Number of trips by commuters – 2.23
o Number of trips by other destination walkers – 2.63
o Miles per trips by commuter – 0.80
o Miles per trip by other destination walkers – 0.63
o Total daily miles by commuters – 1.79
o Total daily miles by other destination walkers – 1.66
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 217
▪ Table 4.10: Reported daily walking durations
o 10-29 min – 18.1%
o 30-59 min – 43.9%
o 1 Hour + - 38.0%
o Average minutes – 46.2
o Distance at 3 mph – 2.31
▪ Table 4.11: Degree of auto substitution by walk trips
o Average (commute) – 39.5%
o Other destination trips – 98.5%
▪ Table 4.12: Summary of avoided driving due to walking
o Walk commuter % - 2.00%
o Daily total distance commuter – 1.79
o Total daily mileage per adult – 0.364 – 0.506 (low-high)
▪ Table 5.4: Total annual estimated reduction for bicycling (miles of avoided auto use for the program communities per year) – 14.2 mil –
19.5 mil = 16.9 mil avg.
▪ Table 5.5: Total annual estimated reduction for walking (miles of avoided auto use for the program communities per year) – 26.3 mil –
36.5 mil = 31.4 mil avg.
▪ Table 5.7: Percent reduction in auto travel
o Estimated daily driving per adult (miles) – 23.3
o Daily walking and cycling per adult (midpoint) – 0.668
o Percent reduction – 2.8%
▪ Table 5.8: How did you get to the transit stop
o Bicycle/walk – 45% (n=64)
Relevant projects/programs:
▪ Puerto Suello Hill Pathway – New Class I bike path between Mission Avenue in San Rafael, to Lincoln Avenue on-ramp near Puerto Suello
Hill
▪ San Rafael Transit Center – Implement MTC Connectivity Program recommendations. Would improve wayfinding signage, add real-time
information, and other signage
▪ Puerto Suello Transit Station Connector – Provide bike and pedestrian connection from Puerto Suello Hill via Mission Avenue to Transit
Center. Requires a new connection either via Heatherton Street or Tamalpais Avenue connecting two existing facilities
▪ Mahon Creek Path Transit Connector – Connect the current terminus of the Mahon Creek path to the Transit Center via Second Street
with improved crosswalks/ pavement markings through the intersection.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 218
▪ Northgate Gap Closure – Nonmotorized connection to fill a key gap near Northgate Shopping Center; project part of larger resurfacing
effort
▪ Los Ranchitos Road Connector – Connects Ranchitos Road from North San Pedro Road to Fairview with Class II bicycle lanes, filling a gap
in the north-south bikeway; connects with the Puerto Suello Hill Path
▪ County Health and Wellness Campus – Provides connection from Canal neighborhood directly to new County Health facility at Kerner
Boulevard and Bellam Boulevard
▪ Terra Linda at North San Rafael Improvements – Nonmotorized improvements to provide connectivity from Terra Linda neighborhood to
Northgate Mall and to Civic Center.
▪ Medway Road Improvements – Variety of improvements including traffic calming, sidewalk enhancements, and development of new
and improved bus stops.
▪ Francisco Boulevard East Improvements – Improved nonmotorized transportation along Francisco Boulevard East from Bellam Boulevard
to Grand Avenue as proposed by the Canal Transportation Plan.
▪ Programs
• Bicycle repair classes
• Street skills
• Street Smarts
• Personal Travel Planning: household surveys, individualized responses to interested individuals, provision of customized support
• Health promotion
• Bikeway map
• Riding with youth workshops
• Share the Road/Path checkpoints
• Seminars for engineers
• Booths at Events
• Safety campaign
• Community walking maps
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 219
Canal Neighborhood Community-based Transportation Plan (2006)
In 2002, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) started the Community -Based Transportation Planning Program to identify barriers
to mobility in Bay Area communities and work to overcome them. Using a grassroots approach, the Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP)
effort has created a collaborative planning process for minority and low -income Bay Area communities that involves residents, community
organizations, transit operators, city governments, county congestion management agencies and MTC.
This Plan documents the efforts and results of the community-based planning process for City of San Rafael’s Canal Neighborhood. Background of
the study is described in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 outlines the demographics and travel characteristics of the neighborhood. Transportation issues for
the Canal Neighborhood as identified in previous studies and reports are summarized in Chapter 3. The techniques used to reach out to the
community and the resulting list of transportation gaps are described in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, solutions to address the transportation gaps
identified in the previous chapter are presented and prioritized. Finally, in Chapter 6, considerations for implementation and potential funding
sources are discussed.
Relevant projects:
▪ Crosswalk and Lighting Improvements
o Kerner Boulevard at Novato Street
o Canal Street at Novato Street
o Canal Street at Larkspur Street
o Kerner Boulevard at Bellam Boulevard
o Canal Street at Medway Road
o Kerner Boulevard at Larkspur Street
o Canal Street at Fairfax Street
▪ Canal Crossing – High Priority
o Feasibility study of connection between the Canal Neighborhood and destinations north of the Canal waterway, then
engineering/design, then construction
▪ Safe Routes to School Improvements – High Priority
o Curb extensions and raised crosswalk at Bahia Vista Elementary school entrance on Bahia Way
o Curb ramps and curb extensions at Canal Street/Bahia Way intersection
▪ Safety and Streetscape Improvement Project – High Priority
o Canal neighborhood safety audit of traffic and transportation conditions (counts, collisions, speed, bike/pedestrian facilities/
sight lines, lighting, etc.)
▪ Poor bike/pedestrian access on the main arteries (Bellam Boulevard and Francisco Blvd East) leading to the
neighborhood.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 220
▪ Difficulty crossing major street (particularly along Bellam Boulevard, Canal Street, and the Canal Street/Medway Road
intersection)
▪ Safety of walking at night
▪ Narrow sidewalks and barriers to ADA access
▪ Lack of bicycle parking
▪ Speed of vehicular traffic
▪ Highway Crossing
o Phase 1: Study alternatives (General Plan suggests Harbor Street as crossing location)
o Phase 2: Engineering and design for preferred alternative
o Phase 3: Construction
▪ ‘Street Smarts’ Program
o Educational program to raise awareness of traffic safety within communities to reduce collisions and injuries
o Bi-lingual roadway signage, specifically related to parking control
o Can be coordinated with PICSO (San Rafael’s program for pedestrian crosswalk enforcement)
▪ Neighborhood Transportation Information Kiosk
o Provide info about transit, driving, bicycling, and walking, such as ‘Commuter Checks’ and other transit subsidies, transit routes,
511 rideshare program, bike routes, Trips for Kids’ after-school and earn-a-bike program
o To be placed in central location such as Pickleweed Community Center
▪ Canalfront Paseo – see Canalfront Conceptual Design Plan
o Provide bicycle/pedestrian access along the Canal waterway, in conjunction with the proposed Canal Crossing project, would
help close gap in Bay Trail between Pickleweed Park and Pt. San Pedro Road.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 221
The San Francisco Bay Trail Gap Analysis Study (2005)
The Bay Trail Project is a nonprofit organization administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that plans, promotes and
advocates for the implementation of a continuous 500- mile bicycling and hiking path around San Francisco Bay. When complete, the trail will pass
through 47 cities, all nine Bay Area counties, and cross seven toll bridges. To date, slightly more than half the length of the Bay Trail alignment has
been developed (354 miles in place, connects 47 cities, 500 miles total). In reaching this significant milestone, there is increased interest in
overcoming the remaining gaps in the trail system. This report was commissioned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (A BAG) Bay Trail
Project and the California Coastal Conservancy to answer two of the most commonly asked questions regarding the Bay Trail: “When will it be
done?” and “How much will it cost?”
▪ Planned: short-term
o Point San Pedro Road from Bayview Drive to Riviera Drive
o Point San Pedro Road between Summit Ave and Bayview Drive
o Point San Pedro Road between east end of Marina Boulevard and Summit Avenue
o Fourth Street through downtown San Rafael
o Second Street through downtown San Rafael
o Around Pickleweed Park
▪ Planned: mid-term
o Civic Center Drive between North San Pedro Road and McInnis Parkway
o Cantera Way between Point San Pedro Road and McNear’s Beach
o Third Street through downtown San Rafael
o Grand Avenue between Second Street and Third Street
o Point San Pedro Road from west Marin Boulevard to east end of Marin Boulevard
o Canal Street between Grand Avenue and Pickleweed Park
o Point San Pedro Road from Embarcadero Way to Marin Boulevard
o Shoreline Park - Canalways
o Shoreline Park – gun club segment
▪ Planned: Long-term
o Redwood Highway between McInnis Parkway and Smith Ranch Road
o Railroad corridor from end of McInnis Parkway to North Avenue
o Marina Quarry
o Beach Park between Grand Avenue and edge of park
o Beach Park between edge of park and Francisco Boulevard East
o Sir Francis Drake Boulevard approach to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
o Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 222
North San Rafael Vision Promenade Conceptual Plan (2002)
Purpose: To develop a bicycle and pedestrian Promenade that connects the east and west sides of North San Rafael and offers new recreational
opportunities and enhanced community identity.
Relevant projects:
▪ Create new pedestrian connections between the Terra Linda Recreation Center, Freitas Parkway, and Terra Linda Shopping Center.
▪ Revise parking in front of Scotty’s Market to create a new pedestrian-only plaza for seating, gathering, and expanded produce display.
▪ On Freitas Parkway, replace the existing pathway on the north and south sides of the street with a 6-foot-wide concrete pathway with
theme details and a 2-foot-wide soft surface jogging path. Eliminate parking on each side of the street and install Class II bicycle lanes in
each direction. Add park type pathway lighting along the new pathways. Add new landscaping along the shoulders to the creek and at
the unplanted areas along the walkways.
▪ At Freitas Parkway and Las Gallinas Avenue, the pedestrian element the Promenade splits into two parts, with one part heading down
Las Gallinas Avenue and the other into the Northgate One Shopping Center. Along the south side of Las Gallinas Avenue, a new 6-foot-
wide wide walkway with theme details should be installed to accommodate strollers and small children on bicycles. Work with the
Northgate One Shopping Center to accomplish the various proposals shown in this Conceptual Plan.
▪ Las Gallinas Avenue is part of the identified north/south bicycle connection between Novato and downtown San Rafael, but new
development goals at The Mall could cause four lanes of motor vehicle traffic to be constructed on Las Gallinas Avenue, eliminating
bicycle traffic. If four lanes of auto traffic should occur, the City should negotiate with The Mall to develop new bicycle routes through
this area.
▪ The community and City of San Rafael should negotiate with The Mall to include pedestrian circulation improvements in their expansion
plans.
▪ New Class II bicycle lanes should be constructed on both sides of Northgate Drive between Freitas Parkway and Los Ranchitos Road.
▪ On Las Gallinas Avenue at Northgate Three, a new vehicular entry with a new signalized intersection should be constructed.
▪ From the intersection at Las Gallinas Avenue and Merrydale Road, Class II bikes lanes and pedestrian ways should continue east of Mt.
Olivet Cemetery to the Northwestern Pacific Railroad right of way.
▪ A multi-purpose pathway with a 2-foot-wide jogging path on each should be constructed parallel to the railroad tracks under Highway
101 from Merrydale Road (east of Guide Dogs for the Blind) to Civic Center Drive.
▪ At Civic Center Drive, the proposed multi-use pathway will intersect with the existing Class II bicycle lanes on Civic Center. From this
point, new Class II bicycle lanes and minimum 6-foot-wide sidewalks (in each direction) should connect to Lagoon Park.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 223
Image courtesy of WTB-TAM
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 224
Image courtesy of WTB-TAM
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 225
Image courtesy of WTB-TAM
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 226
Image courtesy of WTB-TAM
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 227
Image courtesy of WTB-TAM
Image courtesy of WTB-TAM
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 228
Image courtesy of WTB-TAM
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix F | 229
Image courtesy of WTB-TAM
`
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix G | 230
Appendix G: End-of-Trip Facilities
This appendix contains relevant sections from the City of San Rafael’s Downtown Parking & Wayfinding Study (2016) regarding end-of-trip facilities
such as bicycle parking, showers, and changing areas.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix G | 231
Current Bicycle Parking Requirements
The San Rafael 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: 5% of the requirement for automobile parking spaces, with a minimum of 1 bicycle rack with the
capacity to hold 2 bicycles.
• Number of long-term spaces required: for nonresidential buildings with over 10 tenant-occupants, 5% of the requirement for
automobile parking spaces, with a minimum of 1 space.
• The number of short-term spaces required for public/quasi-public uses is to be determined by a parking study, or is specified by use
permit.
Zoning Regulations
Consider allowing reductions in parking requirements for developers who provide bicycle parking. 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% of required parking. Table 15 lists local
and national examples of bicycle parking reductions.
Bicycle Parking Reduction Examples
Location Allowed Parking Reduction Maximum Allowed Reduction
Portland, OR Every 5 bicycle parking spaces above requirement = 1 vehicle space 25% of vehicle parking requirement
Denver, CO Every 6 bicycle parking spaces above requirement = 1 vehicle space 5% of vehicle parking requirement
San Jose, CA Every 10 Class 2 or every 5 Class 1 spaces above requirement = 1 vehicle space 10% of vehicle parking requirement or 2
vehicle spaces, whichever is less
Santa
Monica, CA
Every 5 bicycle parking spaces above requirement = 1 vehicle space 15% of vehicle parking requirement
Oakland, CA Every 6 bicycle spaces above requirement = 1 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% of vehicle parking requirement
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix G | 232
Consider adding bicycle parking requirements for new, multi-unit residential developments. Currently, City code only has bicycle parking for non-
residential developments. The table below lists local and national examples of bicycle parking requirements for new, multi-unit residential
developments.
Residential Bicycle Parking Requirement Examples
Location Allowed Parking Reduction Maximum Allowed Reduction
San
Francisco, CA
1.0 Class 1 space for every 2 dwelling units up to 50.
1.0 Class 1 space for every 4 dwelling units over 50.
No bicycle parking required for senior citizen or disabled housing. Group
housing requires 1 Class 1 space for every 3 bedrooms.
Oakland, CA 1.0 Class 1 space for every 4 dwelling units, 1 Class 2 space for
each 20 dwelling units.
Developments with private garages for each unit. Two-family dwellings or
smaller.
Santa
Monica, CA
1.0 Class 1 space per bedroom.
Class 2 space requirement is 10% of the Class 1 requirement,
with a minimum of 2 Class 2 spaces per project.
Senior citizen housing requires 0.5 Class 1 spaces per bedroom and 25% of
Class 1 requirement for Class 2 spaces.
Portland, OR 1.5 Class 1 spaces per dwelling unit in Central City;
1.1 spaces per unit elsewhere.
1.0 Class 2 space for every 20 dwelling units, with a minimum of
2 spaces per project.
Group living facilities require 1 Class 1 space per 20 residents. Dormitories
require 1 Class 1 space per 8 residents.
Santa Cruz,
CA
1.0 Class 1 space for every dwelling unit. Duplexes exempt from bicycle parking requirements.
Consider including requirements or incentives for showers and clothes lockers in new commercial developments to encourage bicycle commuting.
The table below lists local and national examples of shower requirements and incentives written into local municipal codes.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix G | 233
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 sq. ft. None None
10,000-19,999 sq. ft. 1 2
20,000-49,999 sq. ft. 2 4
50,000+ sq. ft. 4 8
Retail, personal, eating, and
drinking services
0-24,999 sq. ft. None None
25,000-49,999 sq. ft. 1 2
50,000-99,999 sq. ft. 2 4
100,000+ sq. ft. 4 8
Oakland,
CA
Commercial uses with 150,000 sq. ft. of floor area or greater. All
other uses exempted.
Minimum if 2 showers per gender, plus 1
shower per gender for each 150,000 sq. ft.
above 150,000 sq. ft.
4 lockers required per
shower
Santa
Monica,
CA
Nonresidential development 0-10,000 sq. ft. None 1 clothes locker for 75% of
Class 1 parking spacers 10,000-24,999 sq. ft. 1
25,000-124,999 sq. ft. 2
125,000+ sq. ft. 4
San Jose,
CA
Warehouse 0-84,999 sq. ft. 0 None
85,000-425,000 sq. ft. 1
425,001-635,000 sq. ft. 2
635,000+ sq. ft. 2 showers plus 1 shower for every 425,000
sq. ft. above 635,000 sq. ft.
General Industrial 0-39,999 sq. ft. 0
40,000-200,000 sq. ft. 2
200,001-300,000 sq. ft. 3
300,000+ sq. ft. 3 showers plus 1 shower for each
additional 200,000 sq. ft. above 300,000 sq.
ft.
Office, research, and development 0-29,999 sq. ft. 0
30,000-150,000 sq. ft. 2
150,001-225,000 sq. ft. 3
225,000+ sq. ft. 3 showers plus 1 additional shower per
150,000 sq. ft. above 225,000 sq. ft.
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% of the total spaces.”
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix G | 234
Recommendations
The following improvements were recommended:
• Along Fourth Street, install 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 Fourth Street between Court Street and E Street. Currently, there are no facilities
along this stretch of Fourth Street. Although there are racks available on the south side of Fourth Street, the added inconvenience of
having to walk farther and cross a major street to reach one’s destination leads bicyclists to instead use other objects (trees, street signs,
parking meters, etc.) to park their bicycles. Other suitable locations include the north side of the Cijos Street/Fourth Street intersection,
and near short-term uses on Fourth Street east of Highway 101.
• Consider installing a bicycle corral on Fourth Street adjacent to City Plaza. An on-street corral would replace 1 on-street motor vehicle
parking space with 8 to 12 bicycle parking spaces.
• Install bicycle rooms/cages near the Downtown San Rafael Transit Center 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 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 motor vehicle parking spaces can be converted to
a bicycle cage by utilizing 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 bike lockers for their smaller footprint.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 235
Appendix H: Prioritization Rankings
This appendix shows the input data and prioritization rankings for each proposed project. The prioritization rankings are meant to provide a starting
point for considering San Rafael’s bicycling and walking priorities based on measures related to this plan’s goals. In practice, implementation of
proposed projects is subject to available funding and may not necessarily follow the rank order.
Return to list of appendices
On December 14, 2016, the BPAC discussed with the City of San Rafael and Alta Planning + Design potential changes to the list of bicycle- and
pedestrian-related goals documented in the 2011 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan.1 Comments were collected in the BPAC Meeting #1 Notes,2 and
Alta Planning + Design provided the City of San Rafael updated with draft goals to reflect the changes discussed by the BPAC. Below is a list of the
draft goals:
• Goal 1: Coordination - Build on existing and ongoing planning efforts to identify changing needs at the local and regional levels, including
Complete Street, environmental, and transit projects
• Goal 2: Connectivity - Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that connects residents and visitors to major activity centers, existing
and planned transit, and recreational facilities
• Goal 3: Safety - Identify and prioritize the mitigation of bicycle- and pedestrian-related safety issues
• Goal 4: Universal Design - Promote design standards and support facilities that encourage bicycling and walking among people of all
ages and abilities, including children, seniors, families, and people with limited mobility
• Goal 5: Programs – Support bicycling and walking by providing educational encouragement programs
These goals provide the foundation for the 2017 San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update. Specifically, they are intended to the basis for a
set of prioritization criteria to evaluate and prioritize the plan’s list of proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. By matching the
goals to the prioritization process, it will help ensure that what is proposed in the plan is meeting the needs and wants of San Rafael residents.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 236
Exercise
To better understand the BPAC’s priorities, the City of San Rafael sent an online priority weighting exercise to the BPAC on Wednesday, August
16th. Other prioritization exercises may include a simple ranking of program goals by each BPAC member. This approach, while quick and intuitive,
does not provide any insight into the degree to which BPAC members value one goal relative to another. For example, if the BPAC ranked the goals
of Coordination, Connectivity, and Safety in order as their three highest priorities, it would not be possible to tell if Coordination and Connectivity
were valued equally or if Safety was valued as a distant third.
To address this issue of unknown scale, the priority weighting exercise sent to the BPAC used pairwise comparisons. Pairwise comparisons are the
process of comparing goals in isolated pairs to judge which goal is preferred and by how much. These “head-to-head” match-ups were presented
along a sliding scale of 0 (equally important) to 5 (extremely more important) in the online exercise partially illustrated in the image below. For
the online exercise, the Programs goal was replaced with a Costs prioritization criterion because educational and encouragement programs will
be prioritized separately from the infrastructure projects and because upfront capital costs to build an infrastructure project may be an important
factor in whether or how quickly a project is constructed. BPAC members were able to select the relative level of importance between each of the
five goals in the head-to-head comparisons (i.e., Coordination v. Connectivity, Coordination v. Safety, etc.). The online priority weighting exercise
was closed Wednesday, August 22nd.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 237
Results
Alta Planning + Design received six responses to the online priority weighting exercise. The responses are shown in the table below. Points were
assigned to the sliding scale of response as follows: Equally Important (0 points), Slightly More Important (1 point), Fairly More Important (2
points), Moderately More Important (3 points), Much More Important (4 points), and Extremely More Important (5 points).
Priority Weighting Exercise Responses
Comparison
Respondent
#1
Respondent
#2
Respondent
#3
Respondent
#4
Respondent
#5
Respondent
#6 Overall Comparison
Coordination v.
Connectivity
Connectivity
(+1)
Connectivity
(+3)
Connectivity
(+2)
Connectivity
(+3)
Equally
Important
Connectivity
(+2)
Coordination
(+0)
Connectivity
(+11)
Coordination v.
Safety
Coordination
(+2)
Safety
(+3)
Coordination
(+1)
Safety
(+4)
Safety
(+4)
Safety
(+5)
Coordination
(+3)
Safety
(+16)
Coordination v.
Universal Design
Coordination
(+4)
Universal
Design (+2)
Universal
Design (+2)
Universal
Design (+4)
Equally
Important
Coordination
(+4)
Coordination
(+8)
Universal
Design (+8)
Coordination v.
Costs
Coordination
(+2)
Equally
Important
Coordination
(+2)
Coordination
(+2)
Costs (+1) Coordination
(+3)
Coordination
(+9)
Costs
(+1)
Connectivity v.
Safety
Connectivity
(+3)
Equally
Important
Connectivity
(+3)
Safety
(+4)
Safety
(+2)
Safety
(+5)
Connectivity
(+6)
Safety
(+11)
Connectivity v.
Universal Design
Connectivity
(+4)
Connectivity
(+2)
Connectivity
(+1)
Universal
Design (+2)
Equally
Important
Connectivity
(+3)
Connectivity
(+10)
Universal
Design (+2)
Connectivity v.
Costs
Connectivity
(+2)
Connectivity
(+4)
Connectivity
(+4)
Connectivity
(+3)
Costs (+1) Connectivity
(+3)
Connectivity
(+16)
Costs
(+1)
Safety v.
Universal Design
Safety
(+2)
Safety
(+2)
Universal
Design (+1)
Safety
(+4)
Safety
(+2)
Safety
(+5)
Safety
(+15)
Universal
Design (+1)
Safety
v. Costs
Safety
(+2)
Safety
(+3)
Safety
(+1)
Safety
(+4)
Equally
Important
Safety
(+5)
Safety
(+15)
Costs
(0)
Universal Design
v. Costs
Costs
(+3)
Universal
Design (+2)
Universal
Design (+1)
Universal
Design (+2)
Costs
(+2)
Costs
(+2)
Universal
Design (+5)
Costs
(+7)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 238
Conclusion
The overall number of points for each goal were aggregated to develop the total scores shown in the table below. The aggregated results from
the BPAC ranked the prioritization criteria in the following order from most important to least important: Safety (57 points), Connectivity (43
points), Coordination (20 points), Universal Design (16 points), and Costs (9 points). This means that Safety was almost three times as important
as Coordination, Connectivity was more than twice as important Coordination, there was little difference in importance between Coordination and
Universal Design, and Costs was almost half as important as Universal Design among the BPAC members that responded to the online exercise.
The relative importance among the five prioritization criteria will be applied when prioritizing the list of proposed infrastructure projects.
Total Scores and Rankings for Prioritization Criteria
Total Score Rank
20 3rd
43 2nd
57 1st
16 4th
9 5th
The following the presentation of these findings, the BPAC formed a prioritization subcommittee to help guide the prioritization proce ss. The
subcommittee recommended refining the prioritization criteria categories to: Safety, Coordination, and Connectivity. From t here, a series of
prioritization criteria were identified for each category and the weights shown in the table above were distributed among the criteria within each
category.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 239
Selected Prioritization Criteria:
• Safety
o Collisions – Number of bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions within 250 feet of the proposed project
▪ Source: 2009-2016, SWITRS/TIMS
▪ Weight: 25 points maximum
o Areas of Concern – Number of publicly-identified areas of concern within 250 feet of the project
▪ Weight: 23 points maximum
• Coordination
o Public Comments – Number of mapped comments (excluding areas of concern) received within 250 feet of the proposed project
▪ Weight: 17 points maximum
• Connectivity
o Population – Number of San Rafael residents living within 1,320 feet of the proposed project
▪ Source: 2012-2016, American Community Survey
▪ Weight: 4 points maximum
o Employment Centers – Number of part- and full-time employees working within 1,320 feet of the proposed project
▪ Source: 2015, LEHD
▪ Weight: 5 points maximum
o Civic Centers – Number of government buildings (i.e., post offices, libraries, City Hall, fire stations, police stations, etc.) within
1,320 feet of the proposed project
▪ Source: MarinMap
▪ Weight: 5 points maximum
o Medical Facilities – Number of medical facilities within 1,320 feet of the proposed project
▪ Source: MarinMap
▪ Weight: 5 points maximum
o Schools – Number of elementary, middle, high, and postsecondary schools within 1,320 feet of the proposed project
▪ Source: MarinMap
▪ Weight: 5 points maximum
o Transit – Number of transit stops within 1,320 feet of the proposed project
▪ Source: MarinMap
▪ Weight: 5 points maximum
o Gap Closure – Number of existing Class I and Class II bikeways that the proposed project would connect to
▪ Weight: 5 points maximum
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 240
The table below shows the score for each prioritization criterium for the list of proposed projects (calculated by multiplying the individual
project’s percent rank among all other proposed projects by the criterium weight) and the raw criterium value (in parenthesis). The Overall
Score is the sum of all prioritization criteria scores. The Group Rank shows how the individual projects ranks among its geographic group (A
through G). And the Overall Rank shows how the individual project ranks among the full list of proposed projects.
Prioritization Proposed Projects
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
A01
Las
Gallinas
Avenue
Cedar Hill
Drive/
Santiago
Way
Lucas Valley
Road 0 (315) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (1) 0 (15) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (21) 0 (0) 11 28 108
A02
McInnis
Parkway
Sidepath
McInnis
Parkway
north
terminus
North City
Limit 4 (3395) 0 (0) 0 (0) 13 (4) 4 (4819) 3 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 25 20 84
A03
Redwood
Highway/
Civic
Center
Drive
Marin
Center Drive
Professional
Center
Parkway 3 (2632) 9 (1) 11 (1) 9 (2) 4 (5082) 3 (3) 5 (6) 0 (0) 3 (19) 0 (0) 46 10 49
A04
Redwood
Highway/
Civic
Center
Drive
Manuel T.
Freitas
Parkway/
Highway
101 off -
ramp N/A 1 (786) 0 (0) 11 (1) 7 (1) 2 (584) 0 (0) 4 (2) 0 (0) 2 (7) 5 (7) 30 15 70
A05
Michael's
Parking Lot
Pathway
Las Gallinas
Avenue
Merrydale
Road 2 (1514) 12 (2) 11 (1) 7 (1) 3 (2208) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (15) 0 (0) 38 12 57
A06
Las
Gallinas
Avenue
Merrydale
Road N/A 2 (1134) 9 (1) 11 (1) 0 (0) 3 (2109) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (12) 5 (7) 31 13 68
A07
Merrydale
Road
Las Gallinas
Avenue
SMART
Pathway 4 (4326) 12 (2) 11 (1) 13 (4) 4 (5563) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (44) 0 (0) 50 7 42
A08
Los
Ranchitos
Road
Northgate
Drive
Golden
Hinde
Boulevard 4 (7582) 9 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (3267) 4 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (78) 0 (0) 25 19 83
A09
Walter
Place
Pathway
Los
Ranchitos
Road Corillo Drive 2 (1285) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (1) 1 (332) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (12) 0 (0) 13 26 106
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 241
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
A10
Civic
Center
Station
Pathway/P
uerto
Suello Hill
Pathway
North San
Pedro Road
South end
of
Merrydale
Road/
Puerto
Suello Hill
Pathway 3 (2446) 19 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (422) 4 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (26) 0 (0) 31 14 69
A11
Civic
Center
Station
Pathway
West of
Civic Center
SMART
Station N/A 2 (1283) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 (2) 2 (706) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (17) 5 (7) 22 21 88
A12
Civic
Center
SMART
Station N/A N/A 2 (1065) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (1) 2 (778) 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 5 (7) 19 24 94
A13
McInnis
Parkway
Sidepath
Civic Center
Drive
Bridgewater
Drive 3 (1948) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (1) 4 (3164) 4 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 18 25 96
A14
Madison
Avenue
Civic Center
Drive
Roosevelt
Avenue/
existing
Madison
Avenue
pathway 1 (625) 9 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (2187) 4 (8) 0 (0) 3 (1) 3 (13) 0 (0) 22 22 89
A15
Merrydale
Road
SMART
Pathway
Puerto
Suello Hill
Pathway 5 (10601) 17 (5) 16 (2) 7 (1) 5 (9525) 5 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (94) 0 (0) 59 5 28
A16
Civic
Center
Drive
Peter Behr
Drive
North San
Pedro Road 4 (3317) 17 (5) 0 (0) 9 (2) 4 (7386) 5 (31) 0 (0) 5 (6) 4 (56) 0 (0) 48 9 47
A17
North San
Pedro
Road
Los
Ranchitos
Road
Civic Center
Drive/ San
Pablo
Avenue 5 (12173) 22 (19) 23 (16)
16
(22) 3 (2510) 5 (34) 0 (0) 5 (6)
5
(180) 0 (0) 84 2 8
A18
North San
Pedro
Road
Highway
101 N/A 2 (1074) 12 (2) 16 (2) 9 (2) 1 (280) 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (11) 0 (0) 45 11 50
A19
North San
Pedro
Road
Los
Ranchitos
Road
Civic Center
Drive/ San
Pablo
Avenue 5 (12173) 22 (19) 23 (16)
16
(22) 3 (2510) 5 (34) 0 (0) 5 (6)
5
(180) 0 (0) 84 1 7
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 242
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
A20
North San
Pedro
Road
Highway
101 on-
ramp N/A 1 (930) 0 (0) 11 (1) 7 (1) 1 (139) 4 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (19) 0 (0) 27 18 81
A21
North San
Pedro
Road
Civic Center
Drive/ San
Pablo
Avenue N/A 1 (546) 9 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (21) 4 (5) 0 (0) 4 (3) 3 (13) 0 (0) 21 23 91
A22
Lucas
Valley
Road/Smit
h Ranch
Road
Los Gamos
Drive
Silveira
Parkway 5 (26033) 21 (12) 0 (0) 9 (2) 5 (18214) 5 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (59) 0 (0) 50 8 45
A23
Northgate
Drive
Las Gallinas
Avenue
(north)
270 feet
south of Las
Gallinas
Avenue
(north) 1 (1000) 20 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1316) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (23) 0 (0) 27 17 78
A24
Merrydale
Road
Las Gallinas
Avenue
Willow
Avenue 3 (1785) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (2568) 3 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (16) 0 (0) 12 27 107
A25
Las
Gallinas
Avenue
Manuel T.
Freitas
Parkway
Northgate
Drive 3 (2739) 21 (11) 19 (4)
15
(10) 3 (1915) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (3) 5 (82) 0 (0) 71 3 19
A26
North San
Pedro
Road
Merrydale
Road N/A 2 (1081) 9 (1) 11 (1) 0 (0) 1 (235) 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (13) 0 (0) 27 16 76
A27
Redwood
Highway
access
road
Smith Ranch
Road
Professional
Center
Parkway 4 (6768) 14 (3) 0 (0) 13 (4) 5 (10105) 4 (8) 5 (5) 0 (0) 3 (18) 4 (1) 53 6 39
A28
Las
Gallinas
Avenue
Northgate
Drive
(north)
Golden
Hinde
Boulevard 5 (17652) 23 (22) 16 (2) 0 (0) 5 (17442) 4 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0)
5
(206) 0 (0) 60 4 27
B01
Manuel T.
Freitas
Parkway
Mission Pass
Path
Del Ganado
Road 4 (9017) 16 (4) 16 (2) 11 (3) 2 (602) 4 (4) 0 (0) 4 (3) 4 (34) 0 (0) 61 3 25
B02
Montecillo
Road
Freitas
Parkway Trellis Drive 4 (4163) 14 (3) 16 (2) 0 (0) 3 (2890) 4 (4) 3 (1) 5 (8) 4 (40) 0 (0) 53 4 36
B03
Montecillo
Road Trellis Drive
Nova Albion
Way 2 (1146) 12 (2) 0 (0) 7 (1) 3 (2358) 0 (0) 3 (1) 4 (4) 2 (6) 0 (0) 33 6 65
B04
Trellis
Drive
Esmeyer
Drive N/A 1 (472) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1876) 0 (0) 3 (1) 4 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 8 111
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 243
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
B05
Devon
Drive
Esmeyer
Drive
Golden
Hinde
Boulevard 4 (5393) 9 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (6837) 0 (0) 5 (5) 5 (10) 3 (11) 0 (0) 29 7 74
B06
Manuel T.
Freitas
Parkway
Montecillo
Road
Del Presidio
Boulevard 4 (8345) 23 (24) 22 (15)
17
(27) 5 (9367) 4 (4) 4 (4) 5 (8)
5
(221) 0 (0) 89 1 5
B07
Manuel T.
Freitas
Parkway
Las Gallinas
Avenue
Northgate
Drive 3 (2465) 17 (5) 18 (3)
15
(10) 4 (3194) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (79) 0 (0) 62 2 24
B08
Nova
Albion
Way
Las Gallinas
Avenue
155 feet
south of
Arias Street 1 (829) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (215) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 4 (25) 0 (0) 9 9 112
B09
Nova
Albion
Way
155 feet
south of
Arias Street
Montecillo
Road 2 (1239) 12 (2) 11 (1) 9 (2) 3 (2436) 0 (0) 3 (1) 4 (4) 4 (28) 0 (0) 49 5 46
C01
Greenfield
Avenue
West City
Limit (near
Ross Valley
Drive)
West End
Avenue 4 (3476) 14 (3) 11 (1) 0 (0) 2 (921) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (19) 0 (0) 35 12 62
C02
Greenfield
Avenue
West End
Avenue N/A 1 (974) 0 (0) 11 (1) 0 (0) 1 (467) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 16 18 101
C03
Fourth
Street
Second
Street/
Marquard
Avenue N/A 2 (1063) 9 (1) 18 (3) 7 (1) 1 (329) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 0 (0) 39 11 56
C04
West End
Avenue
Greenfield
Avenue
Marquard
Avenue 3 (2487) 14 (3) 19 (4) 13 (4) 2 (877) 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (10) 0 (0) 56 6 29
C05
West End
Avenue
Marquard
Avenue N/A 1 (1032) 9 (1) 18 (3) 9 (2) 1 (307) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 0 (0) 41 10 53
C06
Second
Street
Fourth
Street/
Marquard
Avenue
Miramar
Avenue 4 (7609) 21 (11) 22 (13)
16
(20) 4 (4327) 4 (5) 5 (6) 0 (0) 4 (21) 0 (0) 80 3 13
C07
Second
Street West Street N/A 2 (1085) 0 (0) 16 (2) 9 (2) 1 (335) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 0 (0) 32 14 67
C08
Second
Street East Street N/A 2 (1239) 12 (2) 18 (3) 11 (3) 1 (488) 2 (1) 3 (1) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 51 8 41
C09
Second
Street
Miramar
Avenue N/A 3 (1649) 9 (1) 0 (0) 11 (3) 2 (1298) 0 (0) 4 (2) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 29 15 73
C10
Second
Street G Street N/A 2 (1450) 12 (2) 0 (0) 11 (3) 2 (1069) 2 (1) 4 (2) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 34 13 64
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 244
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
C11 G Street
Fourth
Street/
Marquard
Avenue
Second
Street 3 (1751) 19 (7) 0 (0) 14 (6) 2 (1166) 2 (1) 4 (2) 3 (1) 1 (4) 0 (0) 48 9 48
C12
D Street/ C
Street
Fourth
Street
San Rafael
Avenue 5 (36027) 24 (44) 21 (9)
16
(18) 5 (31499) 5 (43) 5 (30) 5 (13) 4 (39) 0 (0) 92 1 3
C13
Miramar
Avenue/
First Street
Second
Street E Street 4 (10406) 20 (9) 11 (1) 15 (9) 4 (7354) 4 (7) 5 (10) 3 (1) 3 (18) 0 (0) 71 4 20
C14 First Street E Street D Street 3 (2291) 14 (3) 11 (1) 11 (3) 3 (2018) 3 (2) 4 (2) 3 (1) 1 (4) 0 (0) 53 7 38
C15
Fourth
Street/
Second
Street
West City
Limit (near
Ross Valley
Drive)
Second
Street 4 (9468) 22 (14) 20 (5) 9 (2) 3 (1877) 3 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (39) 0 (0) 66 5 23
C16
Fifth
Avenue
River Oaks
Road N/A 3 (1522) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 21 121
C17
Fifth
Avenue
River Oaks
Road
Racquet
Club Drive 4 (5251) 0 (0) 18 (3) 0 (0) 1 (168) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 27 16 80
C18
Fifth
Avenue Happy Lane N/A 3 (1620) 0 (0) 11 (1) 0 (0) 0 (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 17 17 99
C19
River Oaks
Road
Racquet
Club Drive N/A 3 (1639) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 19 119
C20
Fifth
Avenue
Racquet
Club Drive N/A 2 (1458) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (68) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 20 120
C21
Fifth
Avenue
River Oaks
Road H Street 5 (20644) 20 (9) 22 (11)
15
(12) 3 (2623) 3 (3) 3 (1) 5 (5) 3 (17) 0 (0) 81 2 11
D01
Downtown
East-West
Connectio
n
Fourth
Street/
Second
Street Union Street 5 (33545)
25
(214) 22 (13)
17
(65) 5 (67235) 5 (78) 5 (62) 5 (16)
5
(295) 0 (0) 94 1 1
D02
West
Tamalpais
Avenue
Second
Street
Mission
Avenue 4 (9187) 25 (95) 21 (7)
17
(38) 5 (16566) 5 (9) 5 (16) 0 (0)
5
(119) 0 (0) 86 3 6
D03
Davidson
Middle
School
Path
(Lindaro
Street/
Jordan
Street/
Mahon
Creek Path/
Andersen
Drive
Woodland
Avenue 4 (4388) 16 (4) 0 (0) 14 (7) 4 (4905) 0 (0) 4 (3) 5 (5) 3 (14) 0 (0) 50 15 44
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 245
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
Lovell
Avenue)
D04
Fourth
Street Union Street
San Rafael
High School
playing field 1 (925) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1948) 4 (4) 3 (1) 3 (1) 2 (7) 0 (0) 15 26 102
D05
Third
Street
Grand
Avenue
East City
Limit (near
Embarcader
o Way) 4 (4439) 23 (25) 18 (3)
16
(14) 4 (7563) 5 (12) 4 (4) 4 (3) 4 (36) 0 (0) 83 4 9
D06 First Street D Street B Street 3 (2146) 14 (3) 0 (0) 7 (1) 3 (2275) 3 (2) 4 (3) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 35 19 63
D07
Safeway
Path First Street
Albert Park
Path 3 (1712) 16 (4) 0 (0) 11 (3) 3 (2626) 3 (2) 4 (3) 0 (0) 2 (7) 0 (0) 42 16 52
D08
Second
Street
Highway
101
undercrossi
ng N/A 2 (1125) 12 (2) 19 (4) 7 (1) 4 (3187) 0 (0) 4 (4) 0 (0) 3 (19) 5 (4) 56 9 30
D09
Second
Street
Highway
101 on-
ramp N/A 2 (1072) 19 (7) 21 (7) 13 (4) 4 (2912) 2 (1) 4 (2) 0 (0) 4 (20) 5 (4) 72 7 18
D10
Second
Street
Highway
101 off-
ramp N/A 1 (985) 21 (10) 11 (1) 9 (2) 4 (2921) 4 (4) 4 (3) 0 (0) 3 (15) 0 (0) 56 10 31
D11 First Street B Street N/A 2 (1481) 14 (3) 0 (0) 9 (2) 3 (2177) 3 (2) 4 (2) 0 (0) 2 (8) 0 (0) 37 18 60
D12
Andersen
Drive
Albert Park
Path
Mahon
Creek
Connector 3 (1767) 9 (1) 11 (1) 14 (6) 4 (2897) 3 (2) 4 (3) 3 (1) 2 (9) 0 (0) 52 14 40
D13
Andersen
Drive
Lindaro
Street N/A 2 (1141) 9 (1) 0 (0) 11 (3) 2 (1646) 0 (0) 4 (3) 3 (1) 2 (6) 5 (4) 38 17 58
D14
Lindaro
Street
Jordan
Street N/A 2 (1114) 9 (1) 0 (0) 9 (2) 2 (1135) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 1 (4) 0 (0) 26 23 82
D15
Lindaro
Street
Woodland
Avenue N/A 1 (1031) 9 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (552) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 15 27 103
D16
Woodland
Avenue Seibel Street N/A 1 (941) 9 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (426) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 15 28 104
D17
Southern
Heights
Boulevard
150 feet
north of
Meyers
Road N/A 3 (1584) 0 (0) 11 (1) 0 (0) 1 (68) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 17 25 98
D18
Francisco
Boulevard
West
Second
Street
Andersen
Drive 4 (2873) 21 (12) 22 (10) 14 (7) 4 (5081) 3 (2) 4 (3) 0 (0) 4 (27) 0 (0) 77 6 16
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 246
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
D19
Andersen
Drive
Francisco
Boulevard
West N/A 1 (736) 9 (1) 11 (1) 0 (0) 2 (656) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 5 (4) 27 22 79
D20
Highway
101
undercross
ings
Various
Locations
(not shown
on map) N/A 4 (6034) 24 (37) 21 (9)
16
(16) 5 (11896) 5 (17) 5 (12) 0 (0) 5 (95) 5 (7) 90 2 4
D21
Puerto
Suello Hill
Pathway
Pacheco
Street
Merrydale
Road 4 (6985) 22 (19) 21 (6) 15 (8) 2 (1656) 0 (0) 5 (6) 4 (2) 4 (50) 0 (0) 78 5 14
D22
Fourth
Street
Hetherton
Street N/A 2 (1222) 20 (8) 0 (0) 13 (4) 3 (2322) 3 (3) 4 (2) 0 (0) 3 (17) 5 (7) 53 13 37
D23
Mission
Avenue Union Street N/A 1 (996) 14 (3) 16 (2) 9 (2) 2 (1651) 4 (4) 3 (1) 3 (1) 2 (8) 0 (0) 56 11 32
D24
Lovell
Avenue
Woodland
Avenue
(west) Irwin Street 3 (2412) 9 (1) 0 (0) 11 (3) 3 (2343) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (4) 1 (4) 0 (0) 32 20 66
D25
Lovell
Avenue
Jordan
Street N/A 1 (999) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1118) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 1 (2) 0 (0) 8 29 113
D26
Lovell
Avenue Irwin Street N/A 1 (1055) 9 (1) 0 (0) 9 (2) 2 (819) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 22 24 90
D27
Mission
Avenue
Belle
Avenue
Embarcader
o Way 3 (2615) 0 (0) 11 (1) 9 (2) 1 (485) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 1 (1) 0 (0) 29 21 72
D28
Mission
Avenue
Hetherton
Street N/A 2 (1466) 19 (7) 0 (0) 14 (7) 3 (1940) 3 (3) 4 (2) 0 (0) 3 (17) 5 (7) 54 12 34
D29
Third
Street
Hetherton
Street N/A 2 (1111) 23 (20) 16 (2) 13 (4) 3 (2793) 3 (3) 4 (2) 0 (0) 3 (19) 0 (0) 69 8 22
E01
Point San
Pedro
Road
Marina
Boulevard
Montecito
Road 5 (16046) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 (3) 1 (201) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (24) 4 (1) 24 3 85
E02
Point San
Pedro
Road Sea Way
Balboa
Avenue/
Bay Way 1 (1058) 14 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (36) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 4 (1) 23 4 87
E03
Point San
Pedro
Road
Balboa
Avenue/
Bay Way
San Pedro
Cove 3 (1519) 14 (3) 19 (4) 0 (0) 1 (138) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (3) 0 (0) 4 (1) 44 1 51
E04
Point San
Pedro
Road
Manderly
Road N/A 0 (379) 0 (0) 11 (1) 0 (0) 0 (22) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 4 (1) 18 5 95
E05
Point San
Pedro
Road
San Pedro
Cove
Bayview
Drive 1 (935) 9 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (328) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 4 (1) 17 6 97
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 247
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
E06
Point San
Pedro
Road Knight Drive N/A 0 (194) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (50) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 7 9 118
E07
Point San
Pedro
Road Main Drive Riviera Drive 1 (982) 14 (3) 0 (0) 13 (4) 1 (218) 3 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 36 2 61
E08
Point San
Pedro
Road Riviera Drive
Cantera
Way 3 (1653) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (86) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 7 8 117
E09
Cantera
Way
Point San
Pedro Road
North San
Pedro Road 4 (3711) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (16) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (2) 10 7 110
F01
Grand
Avenue
Francisco
Boulevard
East
Second
Street 2 (1212) 21 (12) 19 (4) 14 (5) 3 (2864) 4 (4) 3 (1) 0 (0) 4 (22) 0 (0) 70 6 21
F02
Grand
Avenue
Fourth
Street
Second
Street 4 (4550) 24 (37) 19 (4) 15 (9) 5 (8890) 5 (16) 5 (8) 0 (0) 5 (74) 0 (0) 80 3 12
F03
Second
Street
Grand
Avenue N/A 1 (873) 19 (7) 11 (1) 7 (1) 3 (2736) 4 (4) 3 (1) 0 (0) 3 (19) 0 (0) 50 10 43
F04
Montecito
Plaza
Waterfron
t Trail
Grand
Avenue Third Street 4 (3167) 12 (2) 16 (2) 11 (3) 4 (3269) 4 (4) 3 (1) 3 (1) 4 (21) 0 (0) 60 7 26
F05
Canal
Crossing
Mouth of
Yacht Club
harbor Third Street 3 (2437) 0 (0) 11 (1) 0 (0) 2 (916) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 17 16 100
F06
Yacht Club
Drive
Francisco
Boulevard
East
Yacht Club
Drive north
terminus/
Beach Park 2 (1065) 16 (4) 0 (0) 11 (3) 3 (2697) 3 (2) 3 (1) 0 (0) 2 (8) 0 (0) 40 11 54
F07
Harbor
Street
Francisco
Boulevard
East Canal Street 4 (7207) 18 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (4025) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (8) 0 (0) 29 14 75
F08
Francisco
Boulevard
East
Grand
Avenue
Vivian
Street 5 (11357) 24 (39) 20 (5)
16
(16) 5 (10965) 4 (5) 4 (2) 0 (0) 4 (37) 0 (0) 82 2 10
F09
Canal
Street
Harbor
Street
Pickleweed
Community
Center
entrance 5 (50661) 23 (25) 19 (4) 9 (2) 4 (6866) 4 (4) 0 (0) 5 (7) 4 (71) 4 (1) 78 4 15
F-10
Canal
Street
Sorrento
Way
Schoen Park
(east end) 5 (15523) 20 (8) 11 (1) 0 (0) 2 (832) 4 (6) 0 (0) 5 (12) 3 (17) 4 (1) 53 9 35
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 248
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
F11
Bahia
Place
Creek
Pathway Canal Street
3230 Kerner
Boulevard
(Marin
County
Mental
Health
Services) 5 (31994) 23 (20) 11 (1) 11 (3) 5 (10270) 5 (10) 4 (3) 5 (8) 4 (43) 4 (1) 76 5 17
F12
Bellam
Boulevard/
Baypoint
Village
Drive
Andersen
Drive
Baypoint
Drive 5 (19247) 25 (53) 23 (23)
17
(29) 5 (29727) 5 (33) 5 (12) 0 (0) 5 (87) 4 (1) 93 1 2
F13
Bellam
Boulevard
Kerner
Boulevard N/A 3 (2192) 17 (5) 11 (1) 0 (0) 4 (3010) 0 (0) 3 (1) 0 (0) 2 (7) 0 (0) 40 12 55
F14
Kerner
Boulevard
Bellam
Boulevard
Kerner
Boulevard
south
terminus
(south of
Irene Street) 3 (2848) 17 (5) 11 (1) 7 (1) 4 (8426) 4 (7) 5 (6) 0 (0) 3 (16) 0 (0) 55 8 33
F15
Kerner
Boulevard
Pathway
Kerner
Boulevard
southern
terminus
(south of
Irene Street)
Kerner
Boulevard
north
terminus
(north of
Shoreline
Parkway) 0 (189) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1682) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 4 (2) 11 18 109
F16
Kerner
Boulevard
270 feet
north of
Shoreline
Parkway
Grange
Avenue 1 (853) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (5282) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (26) 4 (2) 13 17 105
F17
San
Francisco
Bay Trail
San
Francisco
Bay Trail
south
terminus
(south of
Baypoint
Drive)
San
Francisco
Bay Trail
north
terminus
(north of
Target) 2 (1153) 0 (0) 11 (1) 11 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 5 (3) 29 13 71
F18
Francisco
Boulevard
West
Canal
Neighborho
od N/A 3 (1566) 18 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1035) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0) 24 15 86
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix H | 249
Prioritization Criteria Score (raw value)
ID Primary Begin End Population Collisions Areas of Concern Public Comments Employment Centers Civic Centers Medical Facilities Schools Transit Gap Closure Overall
Score
Group
Rank
Overall
Rank
F19
Canal
Neighborh
ood N/A N/A 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 19 124
G01
Sir Francis
Drake
Boulevard
Andersen
Drive N/A 0 (208) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (839) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 5 (4) 8 6 115
G02
I-580
Connector
I-580 on-
ramp
Francisco
Boulevard
East 0 (98) 0 (0) 11 (1) 0 (0) 1 (558) 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 4 (2) 20 3 92
G03
Grange
Avenue
Francisco
Boulevard
East
Kerner
Boulevard 0 (131) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1378) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 4 (2) 8 5 114
G04
Grange
Avenue
Francisco
Boulevard
East
230 feet
from
Piombo
Place 0 (131) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1378) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 4 9 123
G05
San
Francisco
Bay Trail
San
Francisco
Bay Trail
south
terminus
(east of
Piombo
Place)
San
Francisco
Bay Trail
north
terminus
(north of
EAH
Housing
parking lot) 0 (109) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1050) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 4 (2) 8 7 116
G06
Francisco
Boulevard
East
South City
Limit/
Richmond-
San Rafael
Bridge
Grange
Avenue 1 (403) 0 (0) 16 (2) 7 (1) 4 (3382) 3 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (16) 4 (2) 38 1 59
G07
San
Quentin
Terrace
West City
Limit/ Main
Street
Francisco
Boulevard
East 0 (107) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) 4 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 0 (0) 6 8 122
G08
Sir Francis
Drake
Flyover
Sir Francis
Drake
Boulevard/
Andersen
Drive
Shoreline
Park 1 (476) 0 (0) 11 (1) 9 (2) 3 (2328) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (9) 0 (0) 27 2 77
G09
San
Francisco
Bay Trail
Marin Rod
& Gun Club
Shoreline
Park 0 (65) 0 (0) 11 (1) 0 (0) 1 (558) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 4 (2) 19 4 93
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 250
Appendix I: Funding Opportunities
This appendix contains a list of potential sources of bicycle and pedestrian funding.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 251
This appendix provides information on potential funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Federal, state and local government
agencies invest billions of dollars every year in the nation’s transportation system. Only a fraction of that funding is used in development
projects, policy development, and planning to improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. Even though appropriate funds are limited,
they are available. To support agency efforts to find outside funding sources to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements, a summary
by source type is provided below.
Federal Sources
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)
The FAST Act, which replaced Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2015, provides long-term funding certainty for
surface transportation projects, meaning States and local governments can move forward with critical transportation projects with the
confidence that they will have a Federal partner over the long term (at least five years).
The law makes changes and reforms to many Federal transportation programs, including streamlining the approval processes for new
transportation projects and providing new safety tools. It also allows local entities that are direct recipients of Federal dollars to use a design
publication that is different than one used by their State DOT, such as the Urban Bikeway Design Guide by the National Association of City
Transportation Officials. More information: https://www.transportation.gov/fastact
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP)
The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) provides states with flexible funds which may be used for a variety of highway, road,
bridge, and transit projects. A wide variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements are eligible, including trails, sidewalks, bike lanes,
crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and other ancillary facilities. Modification of sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) is also an eligible activity. Unlike most highway projects, STBGP-funded pedestrian facilities may be located on local and
collector roads which are not part of the Federal-aid Highway System.
Fifty percent of each state’s STBGP funds are sub-allocated geographically by population. These funds are funneled through Caltrans to the
metropolitan planning organizations in the state. The remaining 50 percent may be spent in any area of the state.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 252
STBGP Set-Aside: Transportation Alternatives Program
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) has been folded into the Surface Transportation Block Grant program (STBG) as a set-aside funded
at $835 million for 2016 and 2017, and $850 million for 2018, 2019, and 2020. Up to 50 percent of the set -aside is able to be transferred for
broader STBGP eligibility.
Improvements eligible for this set-aside fall under three categories: Transportation Enhancements (TE), Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S), and the
Recreational Trails Program (RTP). These funds may be used for a variety of pedestrian and streetscape projects including sidewalks, multi-use
paths, and rail-trails. TAP funds may also be used for selected education and encouragement programming such as Safe Routes to Schools.
Non-profit organizations (NGOs) are now eligible to apply for funding for transportation safety projects and programs, including SR2S programs
and bike share.
Complete eligibilities for TAP include:
1. Transportation Alternatives. This category includes the construction, planning, and design of a range of pedestrian infrastructure
including “on–road and off–road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active forms of transportation, including sidewalks,
bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other safety–related infrastructure, and
transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Infrastructure projects and systems
that provide “Safe Routes for Non-Drivers” is still an eligible activity.
2. Recreational Trails. TAP funds may be used to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both active and
motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other active and motorized
uses. These funds are available for both paved and unpaved trails, but may not be used to improve roads for general passenger vehicle
use or to provide shoulders or sidewalks along roads. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:
• Maintenance and restoration of existing trails
• Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment
• Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails
• Acquisition or easements of property for trails
• State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a state’s funds)
• Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a
state’s funds)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 253
3. Safe Routes to Schools. There are two separate Safe Routes to Schools Programs administered by Caltrans. There is the Federal program
referred to as SRTS, and the state-legislated program referred to as SR2S. Both programs are intended to achieve the same basic goal
of increasing the number of children walking and bicycling to school by making it safer for them to do so. All projects must be within
two miles of primary or middle schools (K-8).
The Safe Routes to Schools Program funds non-motorized facilities in conjunction with improving access to schools through the Caltrans
Safe Routes to Schools Coordinator.
Eligible projects may include:
• Engineering improvements. These physical improvements are designed to reduce potential bicycle and pedestrian conflicts with
motor vehicles. Physical improvements may also reduce motor vehicle traffic volumes around schools, establish safer and more
accessible crossings, or construct walkways or trails. Eligible improvements include sidewalk improvements, traffic calming/speed
reduction, and pedestrian crossing improvements.
• Education and Encouragement Efforts. These programs are designed to teach children safe walking skills while educating them
about the health benefits and environmental impacts. Projects and programs may include creation, distribution and
implementation of educational materials; safety-based field trips; interactive pedestrian safety video games; and promotional
events and activities (e.g., assemblies, walking school buses).
• Enforcement Efforts. These programs aim to ensure that traffic laws near schools are obeyed. Law enforcement activities apply to
cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles alike. Projects may include development of a crossing guard program, enforcement
equipment, photo enforcement, and pedestrian sting operations.
• Planning, designing, or constructing roadways within the right-of-way of former Interstate routes or divided highways. At the time
of writing, detailed guidance from the Federal Highway Administration on this new eligible activity was not available.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 254
405 National Priority Safety Program
Approximately $14 million annually (5 percent of the $280 million allocated to the program overall) will be awarded to States to decrease bike
and pedestrian crashes with motor vehicles. States where bike and pedestrian fatalities exceed 15 percent of their overall traffic fatalities will
be eligible for grants that can be used for:
• Training law enforcement officials on bike/pedestrian related traffic laws
• Enforcement campaigns related to bike/pedestrian safety
• Education and awareness programs related to relevant bike/pedestrian traffic laws
•
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) provides $2.4 billion nationally for projects that help communities achieve sig nificant
reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, bikeways, and walkways. Non-infrastructure projects are no longer eligible.
Eligible projects are no longer required to collect data on all public roads. Pedestrian safety improvements, enforcement act ivities, traffic
calming projects, and crossing treatments for active transportation users in school zones are examples of eligible projects. All HSIP projects
must be consistent with the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The 2015 California SHSP is located here:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/shsp/docs/SHSP15_Update.pdf
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) provides funding for projects and programs in air quality
nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter which reduce transportation related em issions.
These federal dollars can be used to build pedestrian and bicycle facilities that reduce travel by automobile. Purely recreational facilities
generally are not eligible.
To be funded under this program, projects and programs must come from a transportation plan (or State (STIP) or Regional (RTIP)
Transportation Improvement Program) that conforms to the SIP and must be consistent with the conformity provisions of Section 176 of the
Clean Air Act. States are now given flexibility on whether to undertake CMAQ or STBGP-eligible projects with CMAQ funds to help prevent areas
within the state from going into nonattainment.
In the Bay Area, CMAQ funding is administered through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on the local level. These funds are
eligible for transportation projects that contribute to the attainment or maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards in non-
attainment or air-quality maintenance areas. Examples of eligible projects include enhancements to existing transit services, rideshare and
vanpool programs, projects that encourage pedestrian transportation options, traffic light synchronization projects that improve air quality,
grade separation projects, and construction of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Projects that are proven to reduce direct PM2.5 emissions
are to be given priority.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 255
Partnership for Sustainable Communities
Founded in 2009, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities is a joint project of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The partnership aims to “improve
access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities
nationwide.” The Partnership is based on five Livability Principles, one of which explicitly addresses the need for pedestrian infrastructure
(“Provide more transportation choices: Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household tr ansportation
costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health”).
The Partnership is not a formal agency with a regular annual grant program. Nevertheless, it is an important effort that has already led to some
new grant opportunities (including the TIGER grants). Mill Valley should track Partnership communications and be prepared to respond
proactively to announcements of new grant programs.
For more information, visit: https://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 256
State Sources
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
In 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation creating the Active Transportation Program (ATP). This program is a consolidation of the Federal
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), California’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and Federal and California Safe Routes to Schools
(SRTS) programs.
The ATP program is administered by Caltrans Division of Local Assistance, Office of Active Transportation and Special Program s.
The ATP program goals include:
• Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking,
• Increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users,
• Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals,
• Enhance public health,
• Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program, and
• Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users.
The California Transportation Commission ATP Guidelines are available here:
http://www.catc.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/2014Agenda/2014_03/03_4.12.pdf
Eligible bicycle and Safe Routes to Schools projects include:
• Infrastructure Projects: Capital improvements that will further program goals. This category typically includes planning, design, and
construction.
• Non-Infrastructure Projects: Education, encouragement, enforcement, and planning activities that further program goals. The focus of
this category is on pilot and start-up projects that can demonstrate funding for ongoing efforts.
• Infrastructure projects with non-infrastructure components
The minimum request for non-SRTS projects is $250,000. There is no minimum for SRTS projects. More information is available here:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 257
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
The Office of Traffic Safety Program is a partnership effort between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal
Highway Administration, and the states. In California, the grants are administered by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS).
Grants are used to establish new traffic safety programs, expand ongoing programs or address deficiencies in current programs. Eligible
grantees are governmental agencies, state colleges, state universities, local City and County government agencies, school districts, fire
departments, and public emergency services providers. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety
funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and priority is
given to agencies with the greatest need. Evaluation criteria to assess need include potential traffic safety impact, collision statistics and
rankings, seriousness of problems, and performance on previous OTS grants.
The California application deadline is January of each year. There is no maximum cap to the amount requested, but all items in the proposal
must be justified to meet the objectives of the proposal.
More information: http://www.ots.ca.gov/
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 258
Source: Caltrans Transportation Funding in California (2017)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 259
Source: Caltrans Transportation Funding in California (2017)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 260
Source: Caltrans Transportation Funding in California (2017)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 261
Regional & Local Sources
Metropolitan Transportation Commission OneBayArea Grant (OBAG)
The Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) OBAG program is a funding approach that aligns the Commission's inv estments
with support for focused growth. Established in 2012, OBAG taps federal funds to maintain MTC's commitments to regional transportation
priorities while also advancing the Bay Area's land-use and housing goals.
OBAG includes both a regional program and a county program that targets project investments in Priority Development Areas and rewards
cities and counties that approve new housing construction and accept allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
process. Cities and counties can use these OBAG funds to invest in:
• Local street and road maintenance
• Streetscape enhancements
• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
• Transportation planning
• Safe Routes to School projects
• Priority Conservation Areas
In late 2015, MTC adopted a funding and policy framework for the second round of OBAG grants. Known as OBAG 2 for short, the second round
of OBAG funding is projected to total about $800 million to fund projects from 2017-18 through 2021-22.
More information: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2
Developer Impact Fees
As a condition for development approval, municipalities can require developers to provide certain infrastructure improvements, which can
include bikeway projects. These projects have commonly provided Class II facilities for portions of on-street, previously-planned routes. They
can also be used to provide bicycle parking or shower and locker facilities. The type of facility that should be required to be built by developers
should reflect the greatest need for the particular project and its local area. Legal challenges to these types of fees have resulted in the
requirement to illustrate a clear nexus between the particular project and the mandated improvement and cost.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 262
Bay Trail Project
The Bay Trail Project provides grants for trail planning and construction through a partnership with the State Coastal Conservancy. In addition,
the Bay Trail Project ensures consistency with the adopted Bay Trail Plan, provides technical assistance, enlists public participating in trail-
related activities, and publicizes the Bay Trail and its benefits to the region.
More information: http://baytrail.org/about-the-trail/building-the-trail/
Roadway Construction, Repair and Upgrade
Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities. To ensure that roadway
construction projects provide these facilities where needed, it is important that the review process includes input pertaining to consistency
with the proposed system. In addition, California’s 2008 Complete Streets Act and Caltrans’s Deputy Directive 64 require that the needs of all
roadway users be considered during “all phases of state highway projects, from planning to construction to maintenance and repair.”
More information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets.html
Utility Projects
By monitoring the capital improvement plans of local utility companies, it may be possible to coordinate upcoming utility pro jects with the
installation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure within the same area or corridor. Often times, the utility companies will mobilize the same
type of forces required to construct bikeways and sidewalks, resulting in the potential for a significant cost savings. These types of joint projects
require a great deal of coordination, a careful delineation of scope items and some type of agreement or memorandum of understanding, which
may need to be approved by multiple governing bodies.
Cable Installation Projects
Cable television and telephone companies sometimes need new cable routes within public right-of-way. Recently, this has most commonly
occurred during expansion of fiber optic networks. Since these projects require a significant amount of advance planning and disruption of curb
lanes, it may be possible to request reimbursement for affected bicycle facilities to mitigate construction impacts. In cases where cable routes
cross undeveloped areas, it may be possible to provide for new bikeway facilities following completion of the cable trenching, such as sharing
the use of maintenance roads.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix I | 263
Other Sources
Local sales taxes, fees and permits may be implemented as new funding sources for pedestrian and bicycle projects. However, any of these
potential sources would require a local election. Volunteer programs may be developed to substantially reduce the cost of implementing some
routes, particularly multi use paths. For example, a local college design class may use such a multi-use route as a student project, working with a
local landscape architectural or engineering firm. Work parties could be formed to help clear the right of way for the route. A local construction
company may donate or discount services beyond what the volunteers can do. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good
source of local funding, in which the businesses can “adopt” a route or segment of one to help construct and maintain it.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix J | 264
Appendix J: Previous Objectives
This appendix contains a list of policies and objectives from the 2011 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix J | 265
Goal 1: Coordination - Build on existing and ongoing planning efforts to identify changing needs at the local and regional levels, including
Complete Street, environmental, and transit projects.
• Objectives:
o Adopt this updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
o Maximized coordination between the City and community to facilitate citizen review and comment on issues of mutual concern
o Retain the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
o Seek funding for bicycle facility project through regional, state, and federal funding programs
o Coordinate with multi-jurisdictional planning and funding applications, and system integration, when appropriate
Goal 2: Connectivity - Develop bicycle and pedestrian networks that connect residents and visitors to major activity and shopping centers,
existing and planned transit, and schools. Work to close gaps between existing facilities.
• Objectives:
o Where feasible, include planning and design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as an integral part of the process for all
transportation investments
o Complete missing connections to establish direct routes for walking
o Support the installation of appropriate pedestrian facilities as part of all new transportation investments, development projects
and transit facilities
o Review existing zoning code ordinances that require bicycle parking spaces are built as part of development projects
o Encourage the installation of bicycle parking in the public right-of-way as appropriate
o Coordinate with local businesses and schools to offer improved bicycle parking
o Explore the adoption of zoning requirements for lockers and showers to be added to new commercial buildings
o Upgrade bicycle parking at City recreation facilities
o Consider that parking for bicycles is as essential as parking for cars
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix J | 266
o If feasible, require major City-sponsored community events to include convenient bicycle parking and publicize such
accommodations
o Start a campaign that counts how many bicycle parking spaces are being created and setting quantifiable goals
o Support and promote improved bicycle access to all local transit facilities
o Encourage Golden Gate Transit District to add bicycle parking, including covered and secure, at transit facilities, and to use
higher capacity racks on all buses.
Goal 3: Safety - Identify and prioritize the mitigation of bicycle- and pedestrian-related safety improvements.
• Objectives:
o Identify funding for ongoing maintenance of sidewalks and pathway
o Undertake routine maintenance of bicycle and walkway network facilities, such as sweeping bicycle lanes and trimming
vegetation next to bicycle lanes and sidewalks
o Undertake major maintenance of bicycle and walkway facilities, such as restriping bicycle lanes and resurfacing paths and
sidewalks
o Consider bicycle and walking facilities in the repair and construction roadways
o Provide an easy method (such as a hotline or email) for the public to report road/walkway hazards, and create an effective and
appropriate response mechanism to correct reported hazards
Goal 4: Universal Design - Promote design standards and support facilities that encourage bicycling and walking among people of all ages and
abilities, including children, seniors, families, and people with limited mobility. Work to match project designs to the residents they are intended
to serve.
• Objectives:
o Ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled
o Identify funding for construction of ADA compliant curb cuts
o Continue to use the most up-to-date design guidance
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix J | 267
Goal 5: Programs - Support bicycling and walking by providing educational and encouragement programs.
• Objectives:
o Identify and mitigate impediments and obstacles to walking to school, such as a Safe Routes to Schools program
o Plan for, support and promote implementation of traffic calming devices and techniques where feasible
o Work with the Police Department to implement enforcement and education programs
o Develop adult and youth bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, and safety programs with the help of available
bicycle and pedestrian facility programs such as Safe Routes to Schools and Public Service Announcements
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix K | 268
Appendix K: Maintenance
This appendix discusses bicycle- and pedestrian-specific maintenance needs.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix K | 269
Bikeways are an integral part of San Rafael’s transportation network, and maintenance of the bikeway network should be part of the ongoing
maintenance program for all City transportation facilities. As such, bikeway network maintenance should be adequately funded. In addition to
maintenance funds from general revenue, the City may also want to consider pursuing other methods of securing funding for bikeway and pathway
maintenance. Examples of alternative funding include “adopt-a-trail” programs, implementing recreational fees on the purchase of recreational
equipment in the City, project-specific fundraising, and the sale of City-developed bicycle maps. The Transportation Authority of Marin has
undertaken development of maintenance strategies for countywide pathways which may provide insights into development of a similar program
for bikeways in San Rafael.
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix L | 270
Appendix L: Trip Estimates
This appendix provides an estimate of the change in bicycle and pedestrian trips following full implementation of the list of proposed projects.
These estimates should be considered level of magnitude estimates and are intended to provide high-level insight into the potential positive
impacts of plan implementation.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), motor vehicles are responsible for approximately 75 percent of the
smog in the Bay Area. Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a key goal of the BAAQMD, and fully implementing San Rafael’s bicycle network
will help achieve this goal by providing residents safe and functional ways to get to work, school, or shopping without relying on motor vehicles.
Based on data from the American Community Survey and estimates of walk and bicycle mode share for school and bike -to-transit trips, the
current number of daily walk and bicycle trips in San Rafael is estimated to be 42,800, of which 8,000 are commute or school trips. These 42,800
trips effectively replace an estimated 33,200 motor vehicle trips per day, a savings that amounts to an estimated 41,300 vehicle-miles traveled
(VMT) per day.
If implementation of the proposed projects increases the number of bicycle and walk trips in San Rafael by 5 percent (low estimate), 10 percent
(mid estimate), or 20 percent (high estimate), the corresponding change in reduced motor vehicles trips per day would be 36,400, 38,000, and
41,600 trips, respectively.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix L | 271
Current Commuting
Statistics
Bike
Value
Walk
Value
Source
Current Population 59,948 American Community Survey (2012-2016), total population
Number of Commute
Trips per Day (all modes)
58,572463 American Community Survey (2012-2016), (workers 16 years and over – worked at home as
primary means of transportation to work) x 2 for roundtrips
Number of
Bicycle/Walk-to-Work
Commute Trips per Day
926 2,382 American Community Survey (2012-2016), walk/bicycle as primary means of transportation
to work x 2 for roundtrips
Bicycle/Walk-to-Work
Mode Share
1.6% 4.1% American Community Survey (2012-2016), walk/bicycle as primary means of transportation /
workers 16 years and over
Number of College
Students
4,051 American Community Survey (2012-2016), undergraduate students + graduate/professional
school students
Estimated College
Bicycle/Walk Commute
Trips per Day
400 400 National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, Case Study No. 1, 1995. Review of bicycle
commute share in seven university communities (5%) x 2 for roundtrips (rounded to nearest
hundred); 2005 Traveler Opinion and Perception Survey (FHWA) found 4.9% of all trips to
school were by walking x 2 for roundtrips (rounded to nearest hundred).
School Children (K-12) 8,165 American Community Survey (2012-2016), grade 1 – grade 12
Estimated School
Children Bicycle/Walk
Commute Trips per Day
700 3,100 Marin County Safe Routes to Schools 2016 Program Evaluation, 19% of students walked and
4% biked x 2 for roundtrips (rounded to nearest hundred), based on weighted average by
school enrollment
Number of Daily Bike-to-
Transit Users (Marin
Transit)
82 N/A Marin Transit Ridecheck Report (2011 Local Bus Survey), Bikes Ridership Activity by
Geography (San Rafael - Central)
Total Number of Daily
Bicycle/Walk Commute and
School Trips
8,000 Number of Walk/Bicycle-to-Work Commute Trips per Day + Estimated College Walk/Bicycle
Commute Trips per Day + Estimated School Children Walk /Bicycle Commute Trips per Day +
Number of Daily Walk/Bicycle-to-Transit Users (rounded to nearest hundred)
Estimated Non-Work or –
School Trips per Day
34,800 NHTS (2009), 1 walk/bicycle commute or school trip : 4.35 social, recreational, utilitarian, medical,
shopping, family/personal business, transport someone, meals, or other trips (rounded to nearest
hundred)
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix L | 272
Estimated Current Bicycle/Walk
Trips
Value Source
Total Daily Bicycle/Walk
Trips
42,800 Total number of daily bicycle/walk commute and school trips + Estimate non-work or –school
trips per day
Reduced Vehicle Trips per
Weekday
33,200 Assumes 80% commute, 77% college, 39% K-12 school, and 80% other trips replace motor vehicle
trips for bicycling (rounded down) and assumes 82% commute, 81% college, 46% K-12 school, and
82% other trips replace motor vehicle trips for walking (rounded to nearest hundred)
Reduced Vehicle Miles per
Weekday
41,300 Assumes average bicycle trip length of 3.54 miles for commute trips, 2.09 miles for college trips,
0.77 miles for K-12 trips, and 1.89 for all other trips and assumes average walk trip length of
0.67miles for commute trips, 0.48 miles for college trips, 0.36 miles for K-12 school trips, and 0.67
for other trips (rounded to nearest hundred)
Potential Future Bicycle/Walk
Commuters
Value Source
Estimated Increase in
Bike/Walk Trips (Low)
44,900 5% increase over total estimated daily bicycle/walk trips (42,800), rounded to nearest hundred
Estimated Increase in
Bike/Walk Trips (Mid)
47,000 10% increase over total estimated daily bicycle/walk trips (42,800), rounded to nearest hundred
Estimated Increase in
Bike/Walk Trips (High)
51,400 20% increase over total estimated daily bicycle/walk trips (42,800), rounded to nearest hundred
Estimated Future Reduced
Vehicle Trips per Weekday
36,400
(Low),
38,000
(Mid),
41,600
(High)
Maintains proportion from existing vehicle trip reduction calculation (81%) and rounded to
nearest hundred
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix M | 273
Appendix M: ATP-Compliance Checklist
This appendix lists the sections required by Caltrans for the City of San Rafael’s bicycle and pedestrian to be eligible for funding from the Active
Transportation Program (ATP).
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix M | 274
Required Plan Elements Location within the Plan
(a) The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute
numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and
pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan.
Appendix L
(b) The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists in the plan area,
both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious
injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan.
Safety section
(c) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but
not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings,
major employment centers, and other destinations.
Context section
(d) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities. Existing section
Proposed section
(e) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. Existing section, proposed
section, and Appendix G
(f) A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private
parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments.
Appendix G
(g) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections
with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at
transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for
transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
Existing section
Proposed section
(h) A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities at major transit hubs. These must
include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings.
Coordination section
(i) A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle networks to designated
destinations.
Existing section
Proposed section
(j) A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle facilities,
including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, freedom from encroaching
vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and
lighting.
Appendix K
(k) A description of bicycle safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included
within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement
responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle safety, and the resulting effect
on collisions involving bicyclists.
Existing section
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix M | 275
Required Plan Elements Location within the Plan
(l) A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged
and underserved communities.
Page 6
(m) A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions,
including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with other local or regional transportation,
air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable
Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan.
Coordination section
(n) A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for
implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for
implementation.
Appendix H
(o) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects
and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists in the plan area. Include anticipated
revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle uses.
Appendix I
(p) A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep
the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan.
Appendix J
(q) A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan
was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO,
school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s)
in which the proposed facilities would be located.
Appendix P
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix N | 276
Appendix N: Complete Street Policy
This appendix contains the City of San Rafael’s Complete Street policy.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix N | 277
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix N | 278
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix N | 279
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix N | 280
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix N | 281
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix N | 282
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | Public Review Draft Appendix O | 283
Appendix O: Plan Comments
This appendix contains a list of comments on the draft plan.
The ongoing plan comments can be found at the following link on Box: https://apd.box.com/s/yopvciql9iu7igpu9107g1fb05yv96qn
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix P | 284
Appendix P: City Council Resolution
This appendix contains a placeholder for the signed resolution adopting the City of San Rafael’s bicycle and pedestrian plan.
Return to list of appendices
San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update | City Council Draft Appendix P | 285
Intentionally left blank