HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8172 (Adopting East SR Neighborhood Plan)RESOLUTION NO. 8172
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE
EAST SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, on December 18, 1988, the City Council adopted a work program
for the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan noting that the recently adopted
General Plan would be used as the basis for most land use and intensity
decisions; circulation standards and improvement needs; and recreation,
affordable housing, major environmental protection and safety standards;
and that the Neighborhood Plan would address more specific, unresolved
issues of neighborhood concern. The work program further called for
completion of a draft Plan within 10 months and appointing a representative
Neighborhood Advisory Committee to assist in development of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the East San Rafael Neighborhood Advisory Committee met in
January, 1989 to identify issues of particular neighborhood importance; and
WHEREAS, in March, 1989, a 300 person trilingual representative survey was
conducted which confirmed that most of the issues identified by the
Committee were of widespread neighborhood concern; and
WHEREAS, City staff and other City consultants then reviewed these issues,
prepared background reports about each of them, and identified possible
policies and programs to address them.
Consultants reports included:
1) A March, 1989 Neighborhood Issues Survey
2) An Economic Analysis of a possible new neighborhood shopping
center in East San Rafael, prepared by Economics Research
Associates, March, 1989
3) An April, 1989, noise impact assessment for the neighborhood
plan.
4) Hazardous materials information prepared by Brunsing Associates:
June -August, 1989
5) City reports included Demographics, Parks and Recreation,
Community Meeting Rooms/English Second Language, Child Care,
Building and Landscape Maintenance, Parking, Street Sweeping,
Abandoned Vehicles, Police Services, Health Services, Community
Design, Flooding and Hazardous Materials.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee reviewed this information at
several meetings and made recommendations about which programs should
be included or modified; and
WHEREAS, a community workshop was held in July, 1989, to review the
Committee's draft Plan recommendations and direction; and
WHEREAS, a draft Neighborhood Plan was then prepared which proposed
new neighborhood services and other policy and program additions but
utilized the General Plan for major land uses, intensities; and circulation,
recreation, housing, environmental protection and safety standards; and
WHEREAS, proposed new and revised programs and policies necessitated a
General Plan Amendment and a new environmental assessment; and
WHEREAS, the environmental assessment for program and policy changes,
prepared in September, 1989, resulted in a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impacts; and
WHEREAS, a draft Plan was published in October, 1989 and distributed in the
neighborhood and to interested persons and agencies; and
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Planning Commission is required by State law to
hold at least one public hearing and make a written recommendation to the
legislative body on amendments to its General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November
28, 1989 to hear public comments on the plan and consider the draft Plan,
directing staff to respond to comments received; and
WHEREAS, primary comments concerned police services and seismic safety;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed staff responses to comments
contained in the published staff report on December 12, 1989 and
recommended Council adoption of the Neighborhood Plan described below
with several changes which follow:
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SUMMARY DESCRIPTION:
The Neighborhood Plan includes many new policies which focus on
neighborhood services provision and community design. Upgrading and
enhancing the liveability of the neighborhood and retaining economic
viability is the Goal of the Neighborhood Plan. The Plan also incorporates
General Plan policies and programs regarding major land uses and
intensities; recreation and housing standards; and policies to address natural
environment, safety and noise issues. As the neighborhood is a major
residential, employment and recreational destination, such actions have
Citywide benefit. This Plan provides direction for future City decision-
making, and new development and redevelopment efforts.
Major Plan Features
Land Use
• Continues General Plan land uses and intensities except for City
site, where park land use, rather than residential/park or
neighborhood commercial/park use, is proposed;
• Recommends incentives for improving neighborhood services
• Continues timing of development policies;
• Strongly supports Canal/Bayfront policies;
• Expands neighborhood design and appearance policies
Recommends new "safe crossings" at major intersections
Revises bicycle routes
Allows white, bright trim colors on apartment buildings
Proposes standardized street tree programs on major residential
streets
Circulation
• Continues General Plan circulation policies;
• Updates policy pertaining to the I-580/101/Bellam Blvd Interchange
consistent with Council action
• Identifies "needed neighborhood serving uses" for Priority Project
Processing
Neighborhood Services
• Suggests highest funding priorities for additional park
development; an ongoing anti -litter campaign; and
stronger/expanded code enforcement;
• Recommends park development of the City's Bellam site, rather
than the mixed uses preliminarily proposed in the General Plan;
• Recommends highest park funding priority for acquisition and
development of Canal/Harbor Park;
• Proposes portion of City's Bellam park site for affordable child care
use;
• Recommends improved property maintenance and design review
ordinances and additional code enforcement;
• Recommends a consultant parking study to identify opportunities
for additional street parking; no exceptions to parking standards;
evaluating parking standards for adequacy; stricter parking
standards for remodels; and other parking programs;
• Recommends ordinances to require apartment and business
property owners to clean sidewalks, curbs and gutters around their
property; additionally recommends adding hand sweeping of
streets and consideration of a "tow away" /mechanical street
sweeping program
• Supports additional Police Department staffing for the abandoned
vehicles abatement program and conducting abandoned vehicle
"sweeps"; supports additional nearby auto dismantling operations;
recommends publicizing process for reporting abandoned cars;
• Strongly recommends an ongoing anti -litter campaign;
• Supports additional Police Department staff as area grows or calls
for service increase, or the seriousness of calls for service increase;
• Recommends inclusion of an East San Rafael representative on the
Marin Health Services Council
Natural Environment, Safety and Noise
• Strongly supports General Plan policies and programs,
• Provides more specific delineation of neighborhood environmental
resource areas
PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED REVISIONS:
1. Revise ESR -60 to state: "ESR -60. Police. Provide adequate police staffing
levels as new residential and commercial uses are constructed, as calls for
service increase or as the type of calls for service change, becoming more
serious."
2. Add definitions of Part I and Part II crimes to the Police Services
Background and state that "serious" calls for service are typically Part I and II
crimes.
Part I Crimes
Part II Crimes
Homicide
Drunk
Forcible Rape
Drunk Driving
Robbery
Forgery and Counterfeiting
Arson
Fraud and embezzlement
Assault with weapons
Other assaults
or resulting in serious
Gambling
injury
Liquor laws
Thefts
Narcotics sale/ manufacturing and possession
Auto Thefts
Weapons possession
Burglary
Prostitution and Commercialized Vice
Sex offenses other than rape, prostitution
Child abuse, other offenses against the family
Stolen property buying, possession
Vandalism
Disorderly conduct
Vagrancy
Other offenses
3. Update the Police Services Background re: increases in City population,
calls for service and staffing levels to include the following information:
In the last decade, there has been a significant increase in population in East
San Rafael, however, Citywide population has increased only slightly due to
general aging of the population and smaller household sizes. The 1976 City
population was 45,611; the 1989 State Department of Finance population
estimate for San Rafael was 46,427. During the last 7 years, calls for service
have increased citywide by 25% and East San Rafael's share of that total has
increased. However, major crimes have decreased significantly. To maintain
service levels as calls for service have increased, Police Department staff has
increased by 18% including 3 officer positions which were funded in the 89/90
FY. (This is a change from information in the draft Plan p. B-48 which cited
1988/89 FY information)
4. Revise ESR-uuu to state: " Increased Efficiency. Continue to explore ways
to increase department efficiency through increased multi lingual staff,
improved equipment and technologies, and alternatives to officer responses:
such as increased use of police service aides."
5. Revise ESR-aaaa to state: "ESR-aaaa. Multi-Lingual/Multi Cultural.
Support and encourage continued multi-lingual/multi cultural police
department training programs."
6. Highlight, on p. B-53, that the major community service organization in
East San Rafael, the Canal Community Alliance, identifies alcohol and drug
abuse as a significant problem in the community.
7. Modify ESR-kk to read: "Possible site. Land for a child care center is a
recommended part of a future City park on City owned land, end of Bellam
Boulevard if State Agencies agree the site is acceptable and feasible for such
use."
8. Add the following background information on seismic risk to p. B-61 after
paragraph "d". # 4. Noise would be renumbered to #5.
"4. SEISMIC RISK AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
The San Rafael Planning Area, along with all of California, is located in one of the most earthquake prone
areas of the world. There are no known active faults within San Rafael, but the area is subject to seismic
activity from nearby faults. The nearest known active fault traces are the San Andreas fault, about 10
miles to the southwest, and the Hayward fault, 8 miles to the northeast. The maximum predicted
earthquake magnitudes for these faults are 8.3 and 7.0 respectively. The risk from seismic shaking from
events on these faults is high.
In addition to seismic shaking, earthquakes may induce ground failure and "tsunamis", or earthquake -
generated ocean waves. Ground failure is the displacement of the ground surface due to failure of
underlying earth materials during earthquake shaking and may take the form of liquifaction, lateral
spreading, differential settlement, or in hillside areas, landsliding.
The General Plan identifies East San Rafael as a high hazard area from the standpoint of seismic risk.
About 1/2 of the Planning Area is in the high hazard category. (See map) Except for San Quentin ridge,
all of East San Rafael was originally marshland. The marshland soil typically consists of soft and
compressible silts, commonly known as bay mud. In these areas, earthquakes may induce "lateral
spreading" This phenomenon results in gradual or rapid loss of strength in foundation materials, and
structures can either gradually settle or break up as foundation soils move, literally by flowing. Buildings
must be carefully designed to resist this circumstance.
Bay mud is a poor foundation material. The suitability of bay mud lands for foundations can and has
been improved over much of East San Rafael by placing fill materials. The suitability of fill over bay mud
for foundations depends primarily upon the thickness and quality of the fill, and the size and weight of the
proposed building. Fill over bay mud in much of East San Rafael provides adequate foundation support
for well-designed, relatively lightweight buildings. Buildings of one to two stories can frequently be
supported on shallow foundations in the fills.
Under current building practices, some three story buildings may be built on "floating" foundations.
However, heavier and/or taller structures typically require a deep foundation that transfers the new
building loads to more competent material below the bay mud. Deep foundations are more expensive
than shallow foundations, and the cost rises as the depth of the foundation increases. Since much of East
San Rafael is underlain by a 50 to 90 foot thickness of bay mud (See map of bay mud depths), deep
foundations would have to extend to at least these depths and probably, in many cases, up to 30 to 40 feet
deeper. The cost of such a foundation system is usually prohibitive for three story structures in areas like
East San Rafael.
Proposed new development on filled land over bay mud are primarily concerned with site settlements
and the problem of poor foundation conditions. New projects are required to have geotechnical
investigations to evaluate fill thickness, bay mud thickness, strength of materials, a history of the site,
settlement analysis, mitigation measures for any unusual or high-risk seismic hazards that are believed to
affect the site, and site grading and foundation design recommendations tailored to the needs of the site.
The General Plan contains additional discussion of the Geotechnical Review procedures required by San
Rafael.
Building codes are upgraded every three years to take into account new information. Older buildngs in
East San Rafael were constructed under standards in effect at the time they were built. Other cities are
beginning to look at the need to study performance of older buildings on fill and possibilities for
retrofitting. This is an issue the City might also want to study in the future.
In an earthquake, emergency preparedness planning is important. Emergency preparedness planning
consists of three major parts: government actions, private organization actions, and individual actions.
Emergency preparedness planning recognizes that in the first 72 hours after a major disaster, people
must be self sufficient. Governments cannot provide all of the services that may be needed. Therefore,
disaster preparedness involves planning efforts by local government, private organizations and local
groups to identify resources, provide public awareness and formulate plans about what to do in an
emergency situation.
The City is continually updating its emergency response plan which details personnel responsibilities,
public instructions, surveys of the emergency situation, providing for care and treatment of affected
persons, evacuation and/or rescue as needed, coordinating with the Red Cross, enforcing police powers,
etc. The City Fire department also provides public education programs on individual emergency
preparedness, distributes emergency preparedness information, and has established emergency
medical supply caches throughout the City. The County Office of Emergency Services and Red Cross
trains community groups about disaster preparedness and distribute emergency preparedness
information. Individual preparedness training is considered to be particularly important for this high
density neighborhood. Bahia Vista School is a designated neighborhood emergency shelter.
Emergency connectors are reviewed in the General Plan. Large area evacuation routes are Highways 101
and 580, and other major through roads, such as Lucas Valley Road and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
Many circulation improvements called for in the General Plan will also improve emergency access in and
to East San Rafael including the Andersen Drive and Francisco Blvd. West extensions, Francisco Blvd.
East widening, a new overcrossing over I-580 at Irene Street, and connection of the northern and southern
portions of Kerner Blvd."
9. Delete proposed ESR -6 re: Residential Care Facilities and ESR -x re: Design
Review Board notification to allow City task forces studying these issues to
complete their work and make their recommendations. Forward
recommendations of the East San Rafael Neighborhood Advisory Committee
to these other task forces for their consideration.
10. Retain existing General Plan language re: condominium conversions;
and revise ESR -7 consistent with Housing policy to state "...to strictly limit
condominium conversions, except limited equity cooperatives or other
innovative housing proposals which are affordable to low and moderate
income households; ..."
11. Revise ESR -36 to be consistent with existing General Plan height limit
language as follows: "ESR -36. Suburban Character. Retain and promote a
suburban rather than an intensively developed urban character in East San
Rafael through relatively low building heights, varied building setbacks,
landscaping and open space provisions. Buildings shall be a maximum of
three stories except for hotels, which may achieve a higher building height
per general land use provisions."
12. Add stronger language to the "Implementing Program Priorities" section
cautioning readers that the City and Redevelopment Agency have limited
budget ability to accomplish all proposed programs in the near future. Bring
Appendix A ("Proposed Neighborhood Plan Program Priorities for General
Plan Amendment") forward to this section.
13. Modify ESR-dddd as follows: "ESR-dddd. Public Information.
Recommend that the Canal Community Alliance or some other appropriate
body develop a public information or outreach program for the East San
Rafael neighborhood regarding existing County health services and private
non-profit programs."
14. Include in the Summary Section, p. S-2, information from the
Neighborhood Survey which identifies characteristics of the neighborhood
people like and dislike most. Highlight that crime, drugs and prostitution are
what people like least about East San Rafael.
15. Add a program consistent with Policy ESR -52 to further develop
Pickleweed Park consistent with the Pickleweed Park Master Plan.
16. Re -prioritize consultant parking study from priority 1 to a priority 2 (See
Appendix A).
17. Re -prioritize the permit parking feasibility study from priority 3 to a
priority 2.
18. Modify ESR -52 Park funding priorities as follows:
1) acquisition of the Holiday Magic property, removal of the Holiday
Magic building and partial park development (Priority 1)
2) acquisition and development of remaining Canal/Harbor site
properties; permit marine businesses continue to use these other
properties until sufficient funds are available to improve the larger
site for park use (Priority 1/2: lower 1 /high 2)
3) development of playfields at the City's Bellam site (Priority 1/2)
4) further development of Pickleweed Park (Priority 2)
5) development of other recreation facilities at the City's Bellam
site (Priority 2)
19. Prioritize "safe crossings" construction as a priority 1 rather than a priority
1/2.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also recognized a significant
neighborhood concern about crime and strongly supported a better analysis of
crime statistics to evaluate police services staffing levels in East San Rafael
and throughout the City. The analysis should consider the impacts of
increased population and diversity in the Canal. In particular, the
Commission believed that a breakout of Part I and Part II crimes for this
neighborhood would provide base data for future crime analysis and would
help identify changes which have occurred over the past 10 years as a result of
neighborhood demographic changes; and
WHEREAS, the Commission encouraged the Council to consider an
ombudsman position to organize volunteer efforts to help get people
involved in solving community problems; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael held a duly noticed
public hearing on the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan on February 5, 1990,
considered Commission and public comments and concerns, and adopted a
resolution certifying the Negative Declaration for the Plan on February 20,
1990; and
WHEREAS, the Council requested an evaluation of a possible overcrowding
ordinance which might be included in the Neighborhood Plan prior to its
adoption, and this information was provided on May 7, 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
San Rafael adopts the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan and amends the
General Plan accordingly as follows:
1. Replace the East San Rafael policies and programs in the General Plan with
Neighborhood Plan policies and programs as revised by the Planning
Commission and City Council;
2. Revise Housing program H-hh to delete the City -owned property at the
end of Bellam Blvd. for residential use;
3. Modify the bicycle routes map to show a new bicycle route on the proposed
Irene Street overcrossing; identify a bicycle route along the western edge of
the City's Bellam property and Canalways to Kerner Blvd.; delete Francisco
Blvd East as a proposed bicycle route;
4. Modify the Implementing Program Priorities section to
a. add East San Rafael programs and priorities as noted in Exhibit A
b. Modify program CB -h Canal -Harbor Park development from a
Priority 2 program to a Priority 1 program
c. Add stronger language to the "Implementing Program Priorities"
section cautioning readers that the City and Redevelopment Agency
have limited budget ability to accomplish all proposed programs in
the near future.
I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, 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 Monday, the 7th day of
May , 1990, by the following vote, to wit.
AYES: Councilmembers : Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers : Shippey
JE M. LEONC I, CITY CLERK
EAST SAN RAFAEL
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
Adopted May 7, 1990
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
San Rafael City Council
Lawrence Mulryan, Mayor
AI Boro
Dorothy Breiner
Gary Frugoli
Joan Thayer
San Rafael Planning Commission
Paul Cohen, Chair
Ross Cobb
Bob Livingston
Richard O'Brien
Joyce Rifkind
Sue Scott
John Starkweather
Project Team
Robert Pendoley, Planning Director
Jean Freitas, Principal Planner
Jane Hershberger, Assiociate Planner
Assisting Staff
Kathy Campbell, Canal Community Alliance
Katie Korzun, Senior Redevelopment Planner
Sharon McNamee, Recreation Director
Torn Solis, San Rafael City Schools
Consultants
MQQre. iacofano, Goltsmarl
Community Participant Facilitators and
Neighborhood Plan Survey
Daniel lacafano
Jim Oswald
Carolyn Verheyen
Yoshiharu Asanoumi
AiWworth. Rodkin & Associates
Noise Consultants
Rich Illingworth
East San Rafael
Neighborhood Advisory
Committee
Steve Arago, Parks and Rec. Commission
Ralph Crocker, Canal Community Alliance
Dick Dickason, Marin Property Managers
Jeff Dinh, Asian Community
Alejandro Escobedo, Hispanic Community
Don Foster, Bahia de Rafael Townhomes
Allan Haliock, Area Businessman
Robert Hoffman, Friends of Spinnaker Pt_
Dennis Horne, Major Property Owner
Greg Hyson, Ecumenical Assn for Housing
Liz Nager, Canal Community Alliance
Jim Ring, Chamber of Commerce
Paul Silva, Canal Citizens on Patrol
Dorothy Skaff, Canal Ministry
Jean Starkweather, Marin Conservation
League
Gail Theller, Community Action Marin
Economics Research Associates
Neighborhood Shopping Center
Economic Feasibility Analysis
Brunsina Associates
Soils and Hazardous Materials Consultants
for City Site, end of Bellam Blvd.
Tom Brunsing
Helen Friedman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
Goals and Policies
General Land Use
Residential
Non -Residential
Canal/Bayfront
Specific Sites
Neighborhood Design
Circulation
Neighborhood Services
Natural Environment
Safety and Noise
Programs
Residential
Non -Residential
Canal/Bayfront
Neighborhood Design
Design Guidelines
Neighborhood Services
Parks and Recreation
Community Meeting Rooms/
English Second Language
Child Care
Building and Landscape Maintenance
Parking Improvements
Street Sweeping
Abandoned Vehicles
Police Services
Health Services
Natural Environment, Safety, Noise
Implementing Program Priorities
Background Reports
Neighborhood Description
Resident Population Characteristics
Housing and Job Characteristics
S-1
P-1
P-1
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-3
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-9
P-10
P-11
P-11
P-11
P-11
P-12
P-13
P-13
P-13
P-14
P-15
P-16
P-17
P-18
P-19
P-20
P-20
P-21
P-22
B-1
Land Use
B-7
Overall
B-7
Residential/Housing
B-8
Non-Residentia'
B-12
Canal/Bayfront
B-12
Specific Sites
13-12
Neighborhood Design
13-11 7
Circulation
B-19
Neighborhood Services
B-20
"a, -ks and Recreation
B-20
Community Ivieeting Rooms
B-25
English Second Language
B-28
Child Care
B-29
Building and Landscape :Maintenance
B-31
Parking
B-34
Street Sweeping
B-39
.Abandoned Vehicles
B-45
Police Services
3-47
Health Services
3-51
Schools
B-53
Library Services
B-54
Natural Environment
B-55
Safety and Noise
B-55
General
B-55
Hazardous Materials
B-55
Flooding
B-59
Seismic Risk and Emerg. Preparedness
B-61
Noise
B-63
Appendices
Suggested Street Tree Types
Trash Receptacle Desigr•
Illustrations of Circulation Improvements
Soils Information
Allardt's Canal Background Information
Neighborhood Survey results
SUMMARY
Introduction
East San Rafael is one of San Rafael's largest neighborhoods, located east of
Highway 101 and south of the San Rafael Canal. Also known as the "Canal
neighborhood", East San Rafael is diverse and dynamic, with approximately 2,800
homes, 6,500 jobs and more than 300 acres of,privately held vacant land. The
neighborhood has outstanding natural features including the San Rafael Canal, a two
mile long Bay parkband shoreline, regionally important wetlands, and the San Quentin
Ridge hillside. Pickleweed Park and its community center, Bahia Vista Elementary
school and a City Fire station are major public facilities in the neighborhood.
The residential portion of the neighborhood, located northwest of Bellam Blvd., is
comprised of many large apartment buildings and condominium complexes, as well as
single family homes along the Canal. About 80% of the units are rental units.
Between 1980 and 1989 there have been major shifts in the population characteristics
of the area, from 1 & 2 person, primarily white households to larger and more ethnically
diverse households. Not surprisingly, given the housing stock, income levels are
lower than the City as a whole. This residential area is served by a small
neighborhood shopping center in the neighborhood, as well as nearby commercial
complexes of Mann Square and Montecito.
Non-residential development in the neighborhood includes a freeway oriented retail
strip, and office/light manufacturing uses including automobile service uses.
Process
Neighborhood representatives have long been concerned about neighborhood growth
and development, neighborhood services, and the overall appearance and image of
the neighborhood. Work on a neighborhood Plan began in 1983 to address these
issues.
The City and Canal Community Alliance obtained joint grant funds from the San
Francisco Foundation to start work on an early draft of the East San Rafael
Neighborhood Plan. Work on that plan was nearing completion when the City
imposed a moratorium to update its General Plan_ Much of the Neighborhood Plan
work was incorporated in the City's General Plan effort from 1986-88. The General
Plan, after two years of review and comment from many neighborhood participants,
resolved major neighborhood issues including land uses and intensities, and citywide
standards and policies for recreation, housing, the natural environment and safety.
Completion of the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan was identified as one of the
S-1
General Plan's highest priority implementing programs_ The Neighborhood Plan
would look at issues of importance to the neighborhood and provide greater detail on
issues discussed during the General Plan.
In December, 1988, the City Council adopted a work program for the Neighborhood
Plan and established an 18 member Neighborhood Advisory Committee to assist in
plan preparation. The Committee was comprised of Canal Community Alliance,
business and homeowner group representatives, ethnic representatives, parks and
recreation, housing and environmental group representatives_ At its first meeting in
January, the Committee identified issues of importance to the neighborhood which the
Plan should address, including land uses for the City site at the end of Bellam Blvd,
street sweeping, abandoned vehicles, police services, community design, parks, and
many others.
In March, 1989, the firm of Moore, lacafano, Goltsman conducted a trilingual,
300 -person representative survey of neighborhood issues. The survey first asked what
people like and dislike most about East San Rafael. People responded that they like
the quiet, peaceful atmosphere of many parts of the neighborhood. They also like its
location/accessibility to other Bay Area places, being close to the water; and
Pickleweed Park, When asked what thev like least, respondents cited crime, drugs
and prostitution; trash, litter and deterioration, gangs and loitering; the high density and
traffic congestion. (See survey appendix for more complete listing).
The survey confirmed that most of the issues identified by the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee were of wide neighborhood concern. Ranking of various neighborhood
issues are summarized in the following chart:
EAST SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY RESULTS
Percentage People Saying "Much Improvement Needed" - Top Ranked
Supermarket
52%
English Second Language Classes 42%
Towing Abandoned Cars 41%
Health Clinic 41%
Parking
36%
Bellam Site Park
36%
Canal/Harbor Park
36%
Drug Store
30%
Rec. Programs, ages 6-10 28%
Street Cleaning 27%
More Open Space around Buildings 26%
S-2
Paved Sport Courts 25%
Grass Ballfields 24%
Police Services 20%
Percentage People Saying "Much or Some Improvement Needed"
Overall Ranking of All Issues Surveyed
Towing Cars 82%
Grass Ballfields 80%
Paved Sport Courts
79%
English Second Language Classes
78%
Bellam Site Park
77%
Canal/Harbor Park
74%
Parking
73%
Supermarket
73%
More Open Space Around Buildings
70%
Drug Store 69%
Street Cleaning 67%
Health Clinic 67%
Tree Planting
59%
Rec. Programs - ages 11-18
55%
Bicycle Paths
54%
Street Lights
53%
Rec. Programs -ages 6-10
52%
Police Services
52%
Library Services 47%
Banks, Personal Services/Shops 47%
Sidewalks, crosswalks 42%
Community Meeting Places 40%
Flood Control 30%
Fire Services 15%
Note: 241s of Parents responded Child Care Improvements are Needed
City staff and other consultants then reviewed these issues, prepared background
reports about each of them, and identified possible policies and programs to address
them. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee then reviewed this information at
several workshops, and made recommendations about how these policies and
programs should be modified and which policies and programs should be included in
the Plan. An August 17, 1989 Community Workshop provided additional direction
regarding some proposed programs and policies. At its last meeting in September, the
Committee also suggested priorities for future funding of various service programs
S-3
Plan Content
The Neighborhood Plan includes many new policies which focus on neighborhood
services provision and community design. It also incorporates General Plan policies
and programs regarding land uses and intensities; recreation and housing standards;
and policies to address natural environment, safety and noise issues. Neighborhood
representatives are proud of their community and have recommended actions to
upgrade and enhance it. As the neighborhood is a major residential, employment and
recreational destination, such actions have Citywide benefit. This Plan provides
direction for future City decision-making, and new development and redevelopment
efforts.
Major Plan Features
Land Use
• Continues General Plan land uses and intensities except for City
site, where park land use is proposed;
• Recommends incentives for improving neighborhood services
• Continues timing of development policies;
• Strongly supports Canal/Bayfront policies;
• Expands neighborhood design and appearance policies
Recommends new "safe crossings" at major intersections
Revises bicycle routes
Allows white buildings and bright trim colors on apartment buildings
Proposes standardized street tree programs on major residential streets
Circulation
Continues General Plan circulation policies;
Updates policy pertaining to the 1-580/101/Bellam Blvd
Interchange consistent with Council action
Identifies "needed neighborhood serving uses" for Priority Project
Processing
Neighborhood Services
Suggests highest funding priorities for additional park development; an
ongoing anti -litter campaign; and stronger/expanded code enforcement;
Recommends park development of the City's Bellam site, rather than the
mixed uses preliminarily proposed in the General Plan,-
Recommends
lan;Recommends highest park funding priority for acquisition and development of
S-4
Canal/Harbor Park;
• Proposes portion of City's Bellam park site for affordable child care use;
• Recommends improved property maintenance and design review
ordinances and additional code enforcement;
• Recommends no exceptions to parking standards; evaluating parking
standards for adequacy; stricter parking standards for remodels; a consultant
parking study to identify opportunities for additional street parking; and
other parking programs;
• Recommends ordinances to require apartment and business property
owners to clean sidewalks, curbs and gutters around their property;
additionally recommends adding hand sweeping of streets and consideration
of a "tow away"/mechanical street sweeping program
• Supports additional Police Department staffing for the abandoned
vehicles abatement program and conducting abandoned vehicle "sweeps";
supports additional nearby auto dismantling operations; recommends
publicizing process for reporting abandoned cars;
• Strongly recommends an ongoing anti -litter campaign;
• Supports additional Police Department staff as area grows or calls
for service increase, or the seriousness of calls for service increase;
• Recommends inclusion of an East San Rafael representative on the
Mann Health Services Council
Natural Environment, Safety and Noise
• Strongly supports General Plan policies and programs,
• Provides more specific delineation of neighborhood environmental
resource areas
S-5
EAST SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
GOAL
Enhance the Liveability and Appearance of the East San Rafael
Residential Community for All and the Economic Viability of the Area.
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN POLICIES
General Land Use
ESR -1. Overall Land Use.. East San Rafael is a diverse residential neighborhood and
major employment center with potential for significant growth. New public and private
deve lopmenUredevelopment should enhance the existing neighborhood,
ESR -2. Timina of Development. New development is to be timed consistent with
General Plan land use and circulation policies. Development timing policies shall be
implemented so as to permit landowners reasonable interim use of their properties.
f?esidential
ESR -3. Existina Residential Areas. Conserve and upgrade the existing residential
neighborhood through public and private actions.
ESR -4. New Residential Areas. Develop well-designed new residential areas at
medium densities to increase the diversity of housing types in the neighborhood,
provide residential development opportunities close to jobs, and to support and
enhance the existing residential neighborhood.
ESR -5. Housing Mix. Encourage ownership units in new construction to increase the
variety of housing types in East San Rafael -
ESR -6. Housina. Consistent with City Housing policies and programs, provide City
leadership in preserving, protecting and conserving the rental housing stock. Support
City Housing policies and programs to strictly limit condominium conversions, except
limited equity cooperatives or other innovative housing proposals which are affordable
to low and moderate income households; encourage upgrading of existing residential
areas; prevent housing discrimination; and require provision of long term units
affordable to low or moderate income households in new housing projects with more
than10 units.
P- t
Non -Residential:
ESR -7. Neiahborhood Retail. Encourage improved and additional neighborhood retail
stores and commercial services of high quality design to serve residents and
employees within General Plan traffic/FAR limits. Traffic allocation bonuses and
development timing priority may be provided as incentives for such uses. Other
incentives may also be provided for high quality design.
ESR -8. New Business Develooment. In addition to Citywide economic development
priorities, encourage and give priority to new business development which benefits the
East San Rafael neighborhood through provision of needed services, low traffic
impacts, or employment of a high percentage of neighborhood residents.
ESR -9. Fxj_Stino Business Areas. Support and encourage the upgrading of existing
East San Rafael business areas, consistent with infrastructure needs. Encourage
redevelopment and upgrading of existing motel sites.
ESR -10. -Gonflictina Uses. Prevent the encroachment of new residential development
into industrial/office areas to minimize conflicts. Businesses locating adjacent to
residential areas shall be designed to minimize nuisance impacts. However, through
future study called for in the General Plan (H-jj), evaluate the suitability of specific
industrial/office parcels in this neighborhood for possible residential or mixed use
development.
W"
ESR -11. Buildina and Automotive Services. Maintain availability of sites for building,
automotive and related service industries important to San Rafael's economy and
needed for the convenience of its residents and businesses.
ESR -12. Possible Hotel Qevelooment. Encourage development of a hotel or hotels
northwest of the San Rafael Yacht Harbor and south of the Pelican Way ponds. Give
preference to hotels which have identifiable benefits to the neighborhood such as job
training programs.
ESR -13. Limited Retail/Service Uses. Allow limited retail and commercial service uses
such as deli's, copy shops, etc. which serve area businesses or employees to locate
throughout industrial/office areas. Land uses with large yard operations and limited
retail building square footage may be considered appropriate in industrial/office and
industrial areas upon site specific review. Such uses include automobile sales centers
and lumber yards.
ESR -14. Hiah Traffic Generatina Businesses. By limiting retail commercial land use
designations, direct general retail commercial uses that generate heavy traffic volumes
to other city locations better able to offer traffic capacity.
CanaUBayfront:
ESR -15. Canal/Bayfront. Strongly support Canal/Bayfront policies in the General Plan.
ESR -16. Qgnalfront Uses, Enhance the San Rafael Canal waterfront resource through
development of marine related uses along non-residential portions of the Canal as
recommended in the Canal and Bayfront section.
ESR -17. Opal/Bayfront Access. Increase/improve public access and visual access to
the Canal and Bayfront which are outstanding neighborhood features, consistent with
policies and programs in the Canal/Bayfront section.
ESR -18. Marin Islands.. Marin Islands development potential is very limited as noted in
the Canal/Bayfront section. The neighborhood supports public/non profit acquisition of
the Marin Islands due to the islands' high habitat value.
Specific sites.-
ESR-19.
ites.
ESR-19. Citv Site Use. Use the City site at the end of Bellam Blvd. to facilitate
community goals of providing additional recreation facilities and, if possible, child care.
Designate the City site for park use.
ESR -20. Windward Wav Residential Parcel. Allow medium density residential use on
the 2.5 acre parcel,
P-3
ESR -21. ,spinnaker. Allow medium density residential use on the 26.4 acre
developable portion of the Spinnaker on the Bay site. Densities of up to 10 units per
acre are appropriate near the adjoining Spinnaker Point project_ Create sufficient
public parking at the east end of Bellam Blvd. and provide pedestrian access from that
point to the shoreline band. Buffer site wetland areas, which provide habitat to rare and
endangered species and have high resource value, from the project.
ESR -22. Canalways. Designate and zone 15 acres of the Canalways site for medium
density residential use. Approximately ten acres is designated for light industrial/office
use near Kerner Blvd. Buffer site wetland areas from the project. The rationale for the
residential designation is to help meet housing needs. However, it is recognized that
the site's wetlands provide habitat to rare and endangered species, and have high
resource value. The site could, therefore, be difficult to develop with residential or
business uses.
ESR -23. Canalways/Seinnaker Wetlands. The City recognizes the importance of
Canalways and Spinnaker -on -the -Bay wetlands which provide habitat to rare and
endangered species and will work with interested agencies and groups to protect these
resources.
ESR -24. Coordinated Citv_ . Canalways. and Windward Wav Residential Site Dein.
Encourage a coordinated circulation system and design layout for the City park site,
Canalways, and adjacent Windward Way residential parcel.
ESR -25. Auto Center. Redesignate commercial areas labelled "A" on the Land Use
Plan to a specified Auto Center land use at least 10 acres in size when auto center
rezonings are approved. Encourage existing automobile dealers in the City to move
there.
ESR -26_ _$an Quentin Ridae. Preserve San Quentin Ridge as open space through the
development process due to its visual significance, importance as a community
separator, slope stability problems and wildlife/endangered species habitat value. The
exact delineation of "conservation" and "development" portions of the site on the land
use map is schematic, with development to be limited to the lower, less steep portion of
the site. A public access trail is to be provided. (See Recreation Plan Maps
ESR -27. Granae Parcel adiacent to Bav Park. Encourage transfer of development
potential from shoreline band parcel to a nearby parcel to facilitate shoreline band
completion and appropriate development along the shoreline -
ESR -28. E elm tion. Projects which have a valid approval for a specific building
square footage exceeding the FAR/peak hour trips allowed by the Plan shall be exempt
from proposed FAR/trip limits.
ESR -29. Nolan. In accordance with unique and special circumstances delineated by
P-4
resolution, allow the property owner of 9-132-21 to proceed with FAR's consistent with
other developed Bahia Industrial Park properties, recognizing that such an FAR is not
guaranteed but must meet design review and other City standards.
•- �,ySTr "�'�" .•.�K{••='�_.;� �• -„ �- .:r��,,,r, _=?.i. i-P'.'�... -.._-. ..,A,:=moi" -
Neighborhood Design:
ESR -30. Appearance. Improve neighborhood appearance from within the
neighborhood.
ESR -31. Visual AQnearance. Enhance the area's appearance as a major entryway to
the city from 1-580 and 101.
ESR -32, Quality Design. Ensure high quality design in all redevelopment and new
development projects.
ESR -33. Views. Retain and enhance neighborhood views of surrounding hills and the
Canal and Bayfront from public streets and major public pedestrian paths.
ESR -34. Desian Guidelines. Improve neighborhood design guidelines relating to entry
roads, landscaping, view retention, etc. Incorporate East San Rafael design guidelines
included herein in project review.
ESR -35. _$uburban Character. Retain and promote a suburban rather than an
intensively developed urban character in East San Rafael through relatively low
building heights, varied building setbacks; landscaping and open space provisions.
Buildings shall be a maximum of three stories except for hotels, which may achieve a
higher building height per general land use provisions.
P-5
ESR -36. YLaerfront Desian and Access. Strongly support water -oriented design
consistent with policies and programs in the Canal and Bayfront section.
ESR -37. J&cle Routes. Improve neighborhood bicycle routes through construction of
the bicycle paths identified on the Bicycle Routes map.
ESR -38. Pedestrian. Improve pedestrian safety and comfort through construction of
safe crossings, improvement of sidewalks along major pedestrian entry streets, parking
lot landscape screening, and other means.
ESR -39. Gatherino Places. Provide increased opportunities in appropriate locations
for neighborhood information distribution and gathering (such as new parks, "safe
crossings", neighborhood restaurants...)
ESR -40. Recycling_/Clpanup. Encourage individual recycling through provision of
screened, permanent recycling bins, school programs, advertising existing recycling
opportunities, etc.
ESR -41. Maintenance, Citv-Owned Properties. Improve maintenance of City -owned
properties such as landscape medians.
Circulation:
ESR -42. Circulation Improvements. Provide the circulation improvements identified in
the Circulation Policies and further described in the circulation background. Major East
San Rafael improvements include Bellam Blvd. interchange modifications, widening of
Francisco Blvd. East, extension of Kerner Blvd., construction of Beach Park Street, and
the Irene Street area overcrossing.
ESR -43. Traffic Signals. Install signals identified on the Circulation Improvements map
as warranted. Synchronize timing of Francisco Blvd. East lights.
ESR -44. Traffic allocations for development. Development potential in East San Rafael
has been limited based on traffic capacity defined by LOS standards. Underdeveloped
parcels in East San Rafael are individually allocated additional trips as identified in the
Appendices. The trip allocation system distributes traffic capacity of proposed
improvements and insures that ultimate development will not exceed the improved
transportation system capacity. Traffic mitigation fees based on the project's share of
increased PM peak period traffic will be collected to provide partial funding for needed
transportation improvements.
ESR -45. Residential Density and Commercial Intensity,. Medium densities are
proposed on major vacant residential parcels. Commercial development intensities
were developed based on land use type and location. A high impact area in the
immediate vicinity of the critical Bellam interchange has been allocated less trip
W
generation than areas farther away_ The following floor area ratios were used as the
basis for allocating trip generation to individual sites. A parcel specific listing is
included in Appendices to the Plan.
Low Impact Area. Floor Area Ratios for the Low Impact Area north of Louise,
and west of Highways 580 and 101, and south of Bellam Blvd.:
General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial
• Commercial Sales of Bulk Items and Speciaity Retail .32
• General Retail and Service 21
Office 26
Light Industrlal/Office and Industrial .38
Hiah Impact Area. Fbor Area Ratios used for the High Impact Area east of
Highway 101 between Louise Street and Bellam Boulevard:
General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial
• Commercial Sales of Bulk Items and Specialty Retail .26
• General Retail and Service .18
Office .22
Light Industrial/Office and Industrial .33
ESR -46. 1-580/101/Bellam Blvd. Interchana_e Imorovements, Guaranteeing
improvement of the 1-580/101/Bellam Blvd. interchange at the earliest possible date is a
high City priority. The City is pursuing federal and state funding sources for
1-580/101/Bellam Blvd. improvements but has determined such sources may not be
available within a reasonable period of time. In order to assure timely funding of the
Bellam Blvd. Interchange improvements, redevelopment monies targeted for the
Andersen Drive extension have been re -programmed to the 1-580/101/Bellam Blvd.
interchange Phase I improvements.
ESR -47. pevel0l3ment Phasina.. Timing of East San Rafael projects shall occur in
conjunction with needed road improvements as described in Circulation Policy C-3.
ESR -48. Needed Neiahborhood Servina Uses. "Needed neighborhood serving uses"
which should receive priority in East San Rafael are identified as a supermarket; a drug
store; neighborhood shopping centers which include uses such as a dry cleaners, deli
and market, video store, etc.; doctors and dentists' offices and non-profit medical clinics;
as well as public uses such as parks and schools. Other similar uses which serve
primarily neighborhood residents and employees and receive broad neighborhood
support may also qualify.
Afelghborhood Services:
ESR -49. Neiahborhood Services{. Provide or encourage provision of improved
services to area residents, employees and visitors. ('Defined as public and
quasi -public services to residents and businesses such as but not limited to parks and
P-7
recreation, child care, health services, police services, street sweeping, etc.)
ESR -50. Parks and Recreation. Increase recreation opportunities and facilities to serve
neighborhood residents and employees. Secure and improve two new neighborhood
parks, one at the end of Canal and Harbor Streets to provide a water -related park with
improved communitywide access to the Canalfront and improve recreation
opportunities to high density apartment areas furthest from existing facilities; and the
second on City -owned land at the end of Bellam Blvd. In addition, complete planned
Pickleweed Park and Shoreline Band improvements, and enhance Beach Park as
noted in the Canal/Bayfront section.
Exisfing Smaf! Canal' 4arbor Park
ESR -51. Park Fundina Priorities. Suggested priorities for expenditure of neighborhood
park funds are as follows:
1) acquisition and development of the Holiday Magic property, removal of the
Holiday Magic building and partial park development (Priority 1);
2) acquisition and development of remaining Canal/Harbor site properties;
permit marine businesses to continue to use these other properties until sufficient
funds are available to improve the larger site for park use (Priority 1/2: lower
1/high 2);
2) development of playfields at the City's Bellam site (Priority 1/2);
3) further development of Pickleweed Park consistent with the
Pickleweed Park Master Plan (Priority 2);
4) development of other recreation facilities at the City's Bellam
site (Priority 2).
ESR -52. Communitv Meeting Rooms and ESL Classes_. Recognize the need for
affordable meeting/activity space, particularly during the evening, for English Second
Language classes and other programs and activities, with priority given to
neighborhood residents.
ESR -53. Child Care. Affordable, accessible child care programs are a high priority
need in East San Rafael and shall continue to be facilitated and encouraged through
City actions.
ESR -54. improve Property Maintenance. Improve code enforcement standards and
procedures. Require owners to maintain their properties in good condition and
appearance. Consider expanding certain enforcement provisions to side and rear
yards, not just areas visible from public streets.
ESR -55. Parkina. Require adequate parking and loading in all new development
projects in accordance with parking standards. Take actions to improve existing
parking and loading problems.
ESR -56. Retain Private Residential Recreation Areas. Provision of additional onsite
residential parking should not diminish existing usable onsite recreation areas.
ESR -57. _Street Sweeoinq. Maintain clean streets.
ESR -58. Abandoned Vehicles. Minimize abandoned vehicles on streets and private
property.
ESR -59. Police. Provide adequate police staffing levels as new residential and
commercial uses are constructed, as calls for service increase or as the type of calls for
service change, becoming more serious.
ESR -60. Health Services. Improve community representation on County public health
advisory boards to improve neighborhood accessibility to and encourage expansion of
public health facilities -
ESR -61. Schools. Support efforts of the School District to provide adequate space for
increasing student enrollments. Encourage continued City/School dialogue on such
issues.
ESR -62. Library Services. Support expanded library services in East San Rafael.
Natural Environment, Safety and Noise
ESR -63. NaturaLEnvironment. Strongly support General Plan Natural Environment
policies.
ESR -64. Environmental Resources_ Significant environmental resources in the East
San Rafael neighborhood to be protected and conserved include but are not limited to:
• Wetlands/Baylands including the San Rafael Canal
• Threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Such
habitats include but are not limited to East San Rafael ponds,
marshlands and Baylands, and (potentially) San Quentin Ridge
• The Bay shoreline
• San Quentin Ridge/hillside
• Archaeological Resources on upland sites
ESR -65. Access to Open Space. Public access to East San Rafael open space areas
to be provided when projects are approved and shown in the General Plan includes
access to and along the shoreline, portions of the Canalfront, and San Quentin Ridge_
Such access shall minimize conflicts with sensitive habitat areas and with nearby
development, including parking conflicts.
ESR -66. Drainageway Enhancement. Encourage enhancement of neighborhood
drainageways to serve as wildlife habitat as well as drainage facilities.
ESR -67. Water Quality. Maintain acceptable water quality in the San Rafael Canal and
other water bodies, including San Pablo Bay. "Acceptable" for the Canal and other
water bodies means periodically monitoring water quality and vigorously pursuing the
elimination of sewage or hazardous materials leaks into the storm drainage system to
minimize contaminants entering these water bodies consistent with all pertinent State
Health and Water Quality regulations.
Safety and Noise:
ESR -68. 5LLtetv and Noise. Strongly support General Pian Safety and Noise policies
and programs, and the following additional neighborhood safety and noise policies.
ESR -69. Emeraencv PrPnaredness. On at least an annual basis, hold neighborhood
emergency preparedness training sessions, including information about emergency exit
routes, in East San Rafael. Encourage non-profit translation of emergency
preparedness pamphlets into both Spanish and Vietnamese.
ESR -70. Procedures_ Continue to formalize and improve City and County procedures
and coordination in handling hazardous materials incidents.
ESR -71. FII Heiahts. Until such time as the Public Works Department completes its
evaluation of the need and merits of more stringent finished floor elevations due to the
rising sea level phenomenon (as part of the Storm Drainage Master Plan), the Public
Works Department will continue the practice of requiring +7 foot NGVD finished floor
elevation after 30 years settlement for major new projects in East San Rafael.
ESR -72. Existina Problems. Support development and enactment of a City Noise
Ordinance to help alleviate nuisance noise conflicts through the establishment of
quantified noise limits.
P-1 0
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PROGRAMS
Land Use Programs:
Residential.-
ESR-a.
esidential:
ESR-a. Redevelopment Role in Housing. Provide Agency assistance in acquiring and
redeveloping poorly maintained apartment complexes to rehabilitate and uagrade such
units while retaining their affordability to low and moderate income households.
Non -Residential:
ESR -b. fiedevelopment Aa_ encv Particioation. Support and encourage Redevelopment
Agency participation in the development or redevelopment of marine related uses along
the Canal.
ESR -c. Agency Role in Non -Residential Area Upgrading. Encourage use of
Redevelopment Agency funds to assist in the acquisition and redevelopment of key
blighted non-residential projects in East San Rafael.
ESR -d. Agency Assistance with Shopping Center. Redevelopment Agency staff will
work with owners of the existing neighborhood shopping center at Medway, Belvedere
and Vivian to encourage its upgrading and expansion. Agency funds may be used, if
appropriate, to assist in its acquisition and redevelopment. The shopping center may
be expanded into the adjacent industrial/office designation upon approval of a specific
development plan.
ESR -e. Ilrgentives. Bonus traffic allocations and priority processing may be provided as
incentives for improved neighborhood services.
Canal/Bayfront
ESR -f. General, Strongly support programs in the Canal/Bayfront section of the
General Plan.
ESR -g. Canal Access. Improve public access to the Canal at the ends of Front, Mill and
Canal Streets through negotiations with property owners using public rights of way and
P-1 1
through development of the Canal/Harbor Park. Negotiate to open the end of Mill Street
to the harbor, and improve public access at the end of Front Street.
Neighborhood Design Programs
ESR -h. Desian Plan5-. Develop specific design plans for the freeway frontages, and the
Bay shoreline and Canal which address image, setbacks, height, public access,
landscaping, architectural design, Canal and Bay view protection and enhancement,
and wildlife habitat protection. Gary Place is identified as a site which needs special
design treatment. The Canal design plan should also evaluate where public access
should be pursued along residential portions of the waterfront.
ESR -i. Safe Crossinas,. Construct "safe crossings" with street trees, landscaping where
appropriate, benches, trash receptacles and kiosks at major intersections. Prioritize
intersections on major roads adjacent to bus stops for this improvement. Use accent
colors or pavement types. Minimize bicycle/pedestrian conflicts in the "safe crossing"
design.
ESR -j. Street Trees and Shrubs. Install standardized street trees, and shrubs where
appropriate, on major residential/entry streets. Prioritize the following streets for tree
planting: Canal, Medway, Harbor, Kerner, Bellam.
ESR -k. Sidewalks. Construct concrete sidewalk improvements where needed.
Prioritize installation of concrete sidewalks where pavement is missing or on pedestrian
entry streets. Other areas: require concrete sidewalks as projects remodel.
ESR -I. Bicvcle Routes. Bicycle Route Improvements to be constructed:
1) Complete pedestrian/bicycle path to and along shoreline.
2) Include bicycle path on proposed Irene Street Overcrossing.
3) Construct Kerner Blvd_ bicycle path when Kerner is extended.
4) Include bicycle route from the City's Bellam Blvd_ site to
Kerner Blvd. as part of adjoining property development.
5) Delete Francisco Blvd. East as a bicycle route.
6) Improve bicycle path markings at Marin Square_
7) Investigate feasibility of improving the eastbound Bellam Blvd
pedestrian/bicycle connection under Highways 101 and 580.
8) Construct Canalfront bicycle path as properties redevelop.
9) Work to establish a north/south connection along the NWPRR right
of way to Larkspur Landing.
ESR -m. Covered BuS ,%- =. Encourage GGBD to provide covered bus stops.
ESR -n. Underground Utilities. Underground utility wires along high priority public
streets. Require undergrounding in new development.
P-1 2
Nelghborhood Design Guidelines
ESR -o. Building Paint Colors. Encourage use of white and off-white paint colors and
bright trim colors on East San Rafael buildings.
ESR -p. Sidewalks. Require concrete sidewalks when properties remodel.
ESR -q. Business Trash Receotacles and Pickup. Require standard design trash
receptacles (See appendix) and regular trash pickup within a specified distance as
conditions of approval for food stores, restaurants, or other high public use projects.
ESR -r. Dumpster Screenina. Require permanent, durable screening of dumpsters and
trash containers (or well designed trash containers) in all development approvals.
Encourage annual cooperative City/homeowner group efforts to achieve screening of
existing dumpsters.
ESR -s. Outdoor Storaae Screenina. Require screening of outdoor storage in all
development approvals.
ESR -t. Entry Roads. As conditions of development approvals, require building
setbacks or other design/entry treatments and landscaping to open up and improve the
appearance of community entry roads (Harbor, Medway, Bellam).
ESR -u. View Corridors. Maintain view corridors identified in the Neighborhood Plan
through project design.
ESR -v. Design Review Ordinance. Minimum Landscape Standards. Add minimum
standards to City's design review ordinance to require that development projects
provide and retain attractive landscaping in good condition.
ESR -w, Noticing. Through proper noticing and project review, assure implementation
of existing design review ordinance guidelines regarding signing, lighting, etc. so that
projects do not adversely affect surrounding projects, Neighborhood associations and
nearby property owners should be notified earlv on about projects which may affect
them and neighborhood meetings shall be required as part of any major development
project.
ESR -x. Imorove Maintenance of Citv Prooerties. Provide sufficient funding and
maintenance of City -owned property (such as landscape medians) to keep them in
good condition and appearance.
Neighborhood Services Programs
Parks and Recreation
ESR -y. City Site. Designate City -owned property (6.4 acres) at the end of Beliam Blvd,
P-1 3
for a public park. Develop a master plan including neighborhood input and construct
park facilities. Desirable elements of park design include ballfields, basketball courts,
children's play areas, and an affordable child care center.
ESR -z. Canal/Harbor Park. Redevelooment Prioritv. Establish a high priority for
Redevelopment Agency negotiation, purchase and improvement of Canal/Harbor park
parcels as opportunities arise- Public Trust fund monies are designated for use on this
site, thus acquisition with public trust funds would not compete with other park
development priorities.
ESR -aa. Canal/Harbor Park Size and Use. The Canal/Harbor Park size should be
maximized to potentially include three (3) parcels as identified on the Recreation Plan
map. Uses should be consistent with the Canal/Bayfront section. Other desirable
elements include children's play areas. Once park acquisition is assured, prepare a
park development plan including neighborhood input regarding facilities.
ESR -bb. Park Redevelooment Fundina. Include funds for purchase and/or
development of the Canal/Harbor Park, City parksite at the end of Bellam Blvd., further
improvement of Pickleweed Park, and Shoreline Park development in Redevelopment
Agency bond negotiations.
ESR -cc. Pickleweed Park. Continue development of Pickleweed Park consistent with
the Pickleweed Park Master Plan.
Community Meeting Room/ English Second Language
ESR-dd. Encourage Increased Use of Existina Facilities. Explore joint use agreements
between the City/ Canal Community Alliance/College of Marin and the School District to
find ways to make the Bahia Vista School multi purpose room and possibly classrooms
more accessible and affordable for community use.
P-1 4
ESR-ee. Neiahborhood Use. Continue to give priority to ngighborhood use of
Pickleweed Community Center as outlined in the City/Canal Community Alliance
Memorandum of Understanding, given lack of alternate facilities in this neighborhood.
ESR-ff. Prioritize Use of Pickleweed Community Center. The Pickleweed Advisory
Board should evaluate East San Rafael activity needs and recommend guidelines to
the Parks and Recreation Commission for prioritizing Pickleweed Center community
programs.
ESR-gg. Pickleweed Communitv Center Ooeratiort. Review uses and hours of
operation to consider and protect nearby residential uses. Coordinate this information
with police department. (Note: Planned Pickleweed Park improvements will better
screen parking areas from apartments)
ESR-hh. Additional Meetino Room(. Negotiate for use of a room that could serve as a
community meeting room in any new or expanded neighborhood shopping center or
other appropriate commercial/office uses as part of the development approval process.
ESR -ii. Enolish Second Lanouaae (ESL). Provide Neighborhood Plan documentation
of need for additional neighborhood evening ESL classes to the College of Marin
administration.
Child Care Programs
ESR -j. Citvwide Task Force. Support the Citywide Child Care Task Force Study,
expected to provide additional broad based solutions to child care needs to ensure that
child care needs in the East San Rafael neighborhood are adequately addressed.
ESR-kk. Possible Site. Land for a child care center is a recommended part of a future
City park on City -owned land, end of Bellam Boulevard, if State Agencies agree the site
is acceptable and feasible for such use.
ESR -Il. Private Centers. Encourage development of private child care centers and
family day care homes in East San Rafael.
ESR -mm. Permit Process. Expedite processing of planning permit applications for
child care centers.
ESR -nn. Incentives. Continue General Plan policies on child care which waive City
fees for all proposed child care centers; allow child care centers under any General
Plan land use designation except for "Hillside Resource Residential" and "Hillside
Residential" areas; waive FAR's for permanent child care portions of non-residential
buildings; and encourage continued use of schools for childcare programs.
ESR-oo. School Coordination. Request that the School District include a child care
P-1 5
advocate on the District's long term planning committee. Additionally, encourage after
school activities and classes as an alternative to licensed child care.
ESR -pp. Recreation Proaramg. Continue to enhance after school recreation programs
to augment licensed child care.
W
77�
_-
Building and Landscape Maintenance Improvement Programs:
ESR-qq. Conditions of Aoproval. Through project review, require that standard
conditions of design review approval include language to maintain and retain/keep
landscaping in good condition.
ESR-rr. Desion Review Ordinance. Minimum Landscape Standards.
ESR -ss. Improve Nuisance Abatement. Add language to Chapter 120 (nuisance
abatement) to require buildings to have attractive landscaping in good condition, and to
retain or replace such landscaping. Additionally, within legal restrictions, revise Chapter
120 to streamline the abatement process. Add fines and/or community cleanup
penalties to nuisance abatement ordinances. Use any such money to fund an
educational campaign or other code enforcement programs to aid in building and
landscape maintenance.
ESR-tt. Cleanup Camp-aign. (See ESR-ggg)
P-1 6
Parking Improvements
ESR-uu. Parking Standards. Complete evaluation of Zoning Ordinance parking
standards. Revise standards as needed to require adequate parking in new
development projects. No reductions/adjustments to parking standards should be
allowed for East San Rafael projects, due to existing parking problems.
ESR -w. Pgrkina Standards for Additions/Remodels. In Zoning Ordinance revisions,
consider stricter parking standards for additions to multi -family residential, commercial
or industrial projects, to not only provide parking for the proposed addition, but to
reduce the parking deficit for the existing project. Additionally, "substantial" remodel
projects (to be defined by revised zoning standards) should be required to meet parking
standards in effect at the time of the remodel. Standards should also address certain
minor add ons (such as a pool equipment room) which would not require addditional
parking.
ESR-ww. Towing. Maintain existing abandoned vehicle towing program; accelerate
program if possible to free up street parking spaces.
ESR-xx. Encouraae Apartment Parking Structures. Encourage property owners of
existing large apartment projects to consider building two-story parking garages to
expand offstreet parking when remodeling.
ESR-yy. Parking Lot Design_ Establish design guidelines to improve landscaping and
screening of parking lots. Encourage design options to make residential parking lots
visually attractive and safer to the pedestrian, such as the use of landscaped trellises, or
the use of special paving to create pedestrian paths through parking lots. As
appropriate, try to achieve an attractive pedestrian courtyard appearance in residential
parking lots.
ESR-zz. Sidewalk Parkina. Construct concrete sidewalks, curbs and gutters to
discourage sidewalk parking along major pedestrian entry streets. (Canal, Harbor,
Medway, Kerner, Bellam, Belvedere).
ESR-aaa. Feasibilitv Study. Study feasibility of a permit parking system to help reduce
onstreet parking.
ESR-bbb. New Parkina Lot Possibilities. Encourage the Redevelopment Agency to
identify potential sites for satellite parking lots.
ESR-ccc. Onstreet Car Repair. Review and explore ways to improve ordinances
limiting car repairs on the street, and their enforcement.
ESR-ddd. pisplavina "For Sale" Sions. Review and if appropriate, encourage better
enforcement of City ordinances prohibiting the parking of vehicles on a street for the
pdncioal purpose of displaying the vehicle for sale.
P-1 7
ESR-eee. Parkins Studv. Hire consultant to conduct a parking study to evaluate
whether street modifications could result in increased amounts of onstreet parking
Street Sweeping
ESR-fff. Publicize Schedule; Publicize the City's street sweeping schedule using signs,
flyers, ads, etc_ so people can voluntarily move cars if possible.
ESR-ggg. Anti-Litter/Recvclina Campaian. Conduct a broad based, ongoing anti -litter
campaign including periodic information in the Canal Community Alliance newsletter, EI
Continental, apartment manager posters; installation of additional standard design trash
containers and signs, installation of permanent recycling bins, school programs, etc.
The campaign should be a cooperative venture with the City, residents, property
owners, and other neighborhood agencies.
ESR-hhh. Trash Containers and Pickuj2. Encourage Redevelopment Agency, Golder
Gate Bridge District and business installation of standard "Don't Litter" signs and
additional standard design trash receptacles (See Appendix) where people
congregate: bus stops, neighborhood shopping centers, convenience markets, parks,
etc. Assure regular trash pickup.
ESR -iii. Jm5h Picku-p. Certain Usea. Include as conditions of convenience market, fast
food restaurant or similar use permit approvals a requirement for ongoing regular litter
and trash pickup in street/yard areas around the building and offsite within a distance to
be specified by City permits.
ESR -h. prQpertv Owner Litter PickuD Reauirement. Expand Ordinance 9.12.036 to
require business and apartment property owners, and condominium associations to
clean up trash and debris on the sidewalks, curbs and gutters in front of their properties.
Include fine provisions for property owners who do not comply.
ESR-kkk. Hand Sweeoina_Service. Add regular hand sweeping service to supplement
mechanical street sweeping. (Periodic use of San Quentin workers is currently the most
cost effective way to hand sweep streets and pick up trash along the street sides and
center median. Summer student workers, such as those funded by the Canal
Community Alliance, or other community-based programs, could also be used to
supplement street cleaning.)
ESR -ill. Apartment Manaaers. Until ordinance changes are adopted, alert and
encourage Apartment Managers to sweep up trash when long -parked or abandoned
vehicles are moved, as parking is at such a premium, and vacant parking spaces are
quickly used.
ESR-mmm. Towina/Mechanical Street Sweepin(j. Consider a signing, towing and
P-1 8
mechanical street sweeping program.
Abandoned Vehicles
ESR-nnn. Adequate Staff. Support increased assignment of Police Department
personnel to the abandoned vehicle abatement program. At a minimum, maintain
current City levels of staffing (1 contract parking enforcement officer; 2 police service
aides, part time) for abandoned vehicle enforcement.
ESR -000. Auto Dismantlina. Support additional auto dismantling operations in
appropriate San Rafael locations (such as near the Marin Recycling Center) to assure
adequate future storage and dismantling capability.
ESR-ppp. Process for Reporting Abandoned Cars. Publicize to property managers and
individuals that
1) phoning in complaints to the Police Department about onstreet
abandoned cars is necessary to start the abatement process. (Provide
type of car, car license, and location).
2) phoning in complaints to the Code Enforcement Officer about
abandoned cars on private property is necessary to start that
abatement process.
ESR-qqq Sweeps. Conduct regular abandoned vehicle "sweeps" in problem areas.
ESR-rrr. Tow Comoanv List. Develop a list of private tow companies that will tow cars
from private property for use by apartment owners, condominium associations, etc.
ESR-sss. Imflrove Private Property Towina. Improve towing of abandoned vehicles
from private property through revised procedures or ordinances.
Police Services
ESR-ttt. PQlire Stafffna. To provide adequate service levels, add police department
staff as the City grows and calls for service increase, or if the type of calls for service
change, becoming more serious. Allocate staff to most efficiently address service
needs_ Methods could include modifying police beat boundaries and increasing
neighborhood patrols during certain hours such as after school.
ESR-uuu. Increased Efficiency. Continue to explore ways to increase department
efficiency through increased multi-lingual staff, improved equipment and technologies,
and altematives to officer responses, such as increased use of police service aides.
ESR-vvv. Belf Heln Efforts. Initiate and support citizen and property owner/manager
self-help efforts such as Neighborhood Watch, etc., through formal and informal training
sessions and followup. Regular dialogue with neighborhood groups is seen as an
important way to maintain good community/Police Department relations.
ESR -www. Grime Prevention Desion. Continue to review new projects to assure crime
prevention design and appropriate security hardware.
ESR-xxx. Emeraencv ConnPrtQl. Construct Andersen Drive to provide more rapid
emergency access between East San Rafael and Central San Rafael.
ESR-yyy. Call Box. Consider a police kiosk or police call box in the neighborhood.
ESR-zzz. Soeed Enforcement. Install speed limit signs and implement increased
speed enforcement on major residential streets, specifically Canal, Medway, Kerner
and Fairfax.
ESR-aaaa. Mufti-Lingual/Multi Cultural. Support and encourage continued
multi-lingual/multi cultural police department training programs.
Health Services Programs
ESR-bbbb. Re rreesPntation. Request inclusion of an East San Rafael neighborhood
representative on the Marin Health Council, an advisory body to the Marin County
Board of Supervisors.
ESR-cccc. Needs Information. Forward the following information on identified health
care needs in the East San Rafael Neighborhood to the Marin Health Council for
consideration:
i) pre and post natal care for MediCal eligible women.
P-20
ii) alcohol and drug abuse programs.
iii) nutritional information/education programs.
iv) dental care.
v) emergency health care services.
vi) an expanded outreach program for STD and Tuberculosis
screening.
vii) pediatric services.
viii) public information or outreach programs concerning
existing health care programs.
ix) expanded hours of operation, evening hours in
particular, for public health clinics to avoid conflict
with work schedules.
x) continued need for translation services (Spanish,
Vietnamese and English) with health care.
Also state to the Health Council that there is a strong
desire for relocation of the existing County public health
facility to East San Rafael, or other alternatives that
would improve health services to East San Rafael.
ESR-dddd. Public Information. Recommend that the Canal Community Alliance or
some other appropriate body develop a public information or outreach program for the
East San Rafael neighborhood regarding existing County health services and private
non-profit programs.
ESR-eeee. Multi-Linoual. Support continued multi lingual (Spanish/English and
Vietnamese/English) social support services associated with the Public Nursing Station
and County health care clinics.
Natural Environment, Safety and Noise Programs
ESR-ffff. Environmental Resource Protection, Implement Natural Environment, Safety
and Noise policy through programs called out in the Natural Environment, Safety and
Noise sections of the General Plan.
ESR-gggg. Citv Site Cleanuo. Interim and ultimate remediation measures needed for
the City's site, end of Bellam Blvd, shall be undertaken consistent with
recommendations of the City's hazardous materials consultant, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, State Department of Health Services and County Environmental Health
Services.
P-2 1
IMPLEMENTING PROGRAM PRIORITIES
The implementation programs in the Neighborhood Plan are described in detail in the
policies and programs section. The purpose of this section is to group these Pian
implementation programs into priority categories, recognizing that the City and
Redevelopment Agency have limited funds. The priorities identify higher priority
programs relative to one another based on their importance to the neighborhood_
Many implementing programs are placed in the "Priority 3" category recognizing that
there are limited resources. These projects are important to full implementation of Plan
goals, but they may be dependent on special funding or development opportunities in
order to be accomplished.
The following listing of program priorities is intended to set forth the City's best effort for
completing the actions described. Since this listing is a best effort situation, it may not
be possible to start all of the programs within the prescribed time frame. Further it must
be recognized that each of these programs must be evaluated withjin the overall
context of City budget decisions which are made each year. However, it is intended
that the annual evaluation of the General Plan, expected to occur in January of each
year, would review the programs and allow for updating of the tables based on current
need and funding availability.
Many of the implementation programs in the East San Rafael Plan result in additional
costs to the City_ Some of these programs, such as Shoreline Park and Canal/Harbor
Park development, were already included in the City's 1988 General Plan and were
prioritized as part of that Plan. Some of the neighborhood plan programs are new.
They include new capital improvement projects, and new, ongoing operational costs.
The following listing is added to the General Plan Implementing Program Priorities
listing and is in similar format.
P-22
BACKGROUND REPORTS
BACKGROUND REPORTS
NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND ACCESS
East San Rafael is a diverse and dynamic neighborhood, with outstanding natural
features including the San Rafael Canal, a two mile long shoreline along San Pablo
Bay being developed as a community parkband, regionally important wetlands, and
San Quentin Ridge. Pickleweed Park and its Community Center, Bahia Vista
Elementary School and a fire substation serve the neighborhood. Most of the area is
flat, consisting of former wetlands and bay filled for development.
The residential area, developed primarily in the 1960's and 1970's, contains many well
maintained larger apartment buildings, condominium projects and homes, as well as
some less well maintained complexes. Within the neighborhood there are two
convenience stores, a small neighborhood shopping center, and several restaurants.
There are also three distinctive business areas --a car dealership/ retail commercial
strip along Francisco Blvd. East, an older industrial area north of Bellam Blvd. and a
newer landscaped industrial/office area along Kerner Blvd. and Andersen Drive. Most
buildings are one - three stories with little open land around them.
In 1989, the neighborhood is home to an estimated 8000 residents, 17% of the City's
total population. The population is ethnically diverse, as well as highly mobile. The
area also contains 15% of the City's jobs_ Vacant land provides potential for
additional housing and jobs growth.
East San Rafael is bounded by the San Rafael Canal and Bay on the north and east,
and Highway 101 on the west and south. Existing access roads into the community
include Francisco Blvd. East on the north and south, and Bellam Blvd. in the center. In
about 10 years, another overcrossing is planned to connect Kerner Blvd. at
approximately Irene Street to Andersen Drive.
The following discussion further describes the neighborhood.
1. RESIDENT POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
a. Ethnicity
In 1980, the neighborhood ethnic household breakdown was 78% white, 7.5% black,
5% asian, 6% hispanic and 3% other. Neighborhood residents have changed
significantly since 1980. There has been a major in -migration of asian (primarily
Vietnamese) and hispanic (Mexican and Central American) families. Blacks have also
increased slightly and include a Haitian subgroup. Most recently, hispanic in -migration
has been the greatest. A 1989 East San Rafael neighborhood survey identified 5010
white, 9% black, 16% asian, 21 % hispanic and 4% other.
b. Household Size and Estimated Population
In 1980 there were 5,165 residents in the neighborhood and 2,598 households for a
persons per household (pph) size of 1.99. The Citywide average, by comparison, was
2.4 pph_ While the Citywide household size, according to State Department of
Finance estimates, has decreased to 2.2 pph, the East San Rafael household size is
estimated to have increased substantially to 2.8-3.0 pph in 1989_ This estimate is
based on two recent surveys:
1) A January, 1989, Property Managers apartment survey where
property managers were asked to identify total numbers of units and
tenants in their buildings. Property managers representing 440 units,
16% of all units in East San Rafael, responded to the survey. This
sample identified 2.8 pph.
2) A March, 1989 300 person representative survey sample where
residents were asked how many persons lived in their house or
apartment. This survey identified a household size of 2.9-3.0 pph.
Using 2.8-3.0 household size X the 2,826 Fast San Rafael dwelling units minus 56
units (a 2% vacancy rate), there are an estimated 7,756-8,310 residents in East San
Rafael in 1989_
c. Children
The neighborhood elementary school population reflects the increases in
neighborhood population and ethnic groups. In 1979-80, 45% of Bahia Vista School's
269 students were hispanic, asian or black. In 1988-89, 70% of its 475 students were
asian, hispanic, or black. Over the last ,fQ.Ur years for which data is available, the asian
student population has remained relatively constant; hispanics have increased from
100-195 students (28-41% of school pop). The black student population also
increased from 38-72 students in four years, however, there were 48 black students in
1980. Phone interviews found that 38 elementary school age students from East San
Rafael had requested transfers to other public schools, 20-30 students attend area
parochial schools, and 20-40 attend private schools.
Two recent surveys also confirm that there are many more families with children in East
San Rafael than there were in 1980. The 1980 Census identified children aged <1-17
as 18% of the total population. The 1985 CCA surrey indicated children had Increased
to 23% of total neighborhood population. The 1989 Neighborhood Plan Survey
indicated a continued increase to 30% of the total population. However, review of this
total against known school enrollments indicate that families with children may have
been overrepresented in the plan survey sample, and that children aged 0-17 are more
likely to comprise 26-27% of the total population.
d. Age of Population
While children in East San Rafael have increased as discussed above, residents over
65 years of age have not. The 1980 census identified 5% of residents over 65 years of
age; the 1989 East San Rafael survey also identified 5%. The largest age group in
East San Rafael has always been young adults, aged 18-34 years, comprising 46% of
residents in 1980, and 37-40% of residents in 1989. Older adults aged 35-65 were
30% of the total population in 1980 and 28-30% in 1989.
e. Income
No reliable information is available since the 1980 census regarding household
income in East San Rafael compared to the City as a whole. In 1980, East San Rafael
median household income was 28% lower than the Citywide average. Per capita
income was 16% lower than the Citywide per capita income. Given other population
trends, per capita income is likely to have decreased over the last nine years.
f. Cars per household
The 1989 East San Rafael survey found that 12% of surveyed households reported
having no cars, 47% have one car, 32% have two cars, 30% have three cars, 1 % have 4
cars, and 1 % have 5 cars.
M
2. HOUSING AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS
a. Number and Type of Housing Units:
1980: Housing units totalled 2,725. 2598 were occupied; 127 were vacant (Vacancy
rate of 4.8% compared to 2.3% citywide). 83% were renter occupied, compared to 41 %
Citywide. Rental units included many condominiums. In 1981, a planning department
survey found half of all condominium units in East San Rafael and Citywide were
rented. About half of all East San Rafael units were in apartment complexes of 10 or
more units_
1989: Housing units totalled 2,826. The type of housing units changed little in 9
years. 101 new homes were constructed between April, 1980, when the census was
conducted, and January, 1989. Of these, 18 were apartments, 83 were condominiums.
A 1989 Bahia condominium projects survey found that 54% of the 488 condominiums
continue to be rented. The vacancy rate in 1989 Citywide is 1%, thus East San Rafael
vacancy rates are estimated to be 2%. If this rate is applied to East San Rafael, 2,770
units would be occupied.
b. Age of Housing Units
Most of the East San Rafael apartment complexes were built in the late 1950's and
early 1960's. The Bahia condominiums were built later, in the early 1970's. Spinnaker
Point is the most recent development area, constructed in the late 1970's/1 980's.
c. Residential Land Area and Density
Gross land area devoted to residential uses in 1989 was 154 acres. "Gross area"
includes streets and existing developed residential projects but excludes major park
and open space areas (Pickleweed Park, the Shoreline parkband) and Bahia Vista
School. 2,826 units over 154 acres results in an overall density of 18 units per acre. if
Spinnaker Point is excluded from this total, the remaining residential area has a gross
area density of 21 units per acre. Spinnaker Point densities alone were approximately
7 units per gross acre. These figures compare with single family neighborhood
densities in San Rafael of 3-5 units per acre. If streets are excluded, net site densities
for apartment areas range from 21-43 units per acre.
d. Additional Residential Vacant Land/Development Potential
There are several vacant residential sites in the neighborhood in early 1989:
1. Spinnaker Point - 48 units under construction; 5.9 acres land
2. Spinnaker on the Bay: 111 units fully approved; 13.28 acres land
3. Remaining Spinnaker on the Bay: 6.5-15 units potential on 15.65
acres=102-232 units. Application submitted for 136 units on
remaining land_
4. Windward Way parcel: 16-37 units potential; more if affordable
project. 2.5 acres land
5. Canalways site: 97-225 units potential; 15 acres land
These vacant parcels result in a range of ultimate development potential.
There is potential for another 374 - appr. 650 units being constructed in the
neighborhood over the next 10-15 years. These new units could result in another
1050-1800 neighborhood residents in the next 10-15 years, if household size remains
relatively constant (28 pph).
e. Jobs - Existing and Potential
In 1980, there were 5291 jobs in East San Rafael east of 1-580, 15.4% of the Planning
Area total. ABAG has estimated approx. 43,000 jobs in the San Rafael Planning Area
as of 1987. 151/1. of this total would be 6450 jobs in East San Rafael. The San Rafael
General Plan projects another 3000 jobs (approx) in East San Rafael between 1987
and 2000. (Approx. Total 9,500)
Kerner Blvd. area businesses are extremely varied, including offices, warehouses, light
manufacturing, automobile service, film making, and contractor's yards. The older
industrial area north of Bellam Blvd. contains a variety of smaller light industrial,
storage and office uses, as well as a high concentration of automotive service uses
serving automobile sales businesses located along Francisco Blvd. Some marine
businesses are located along the San Rafael Canal. Along Andersen Drive are
located large communications, transportation, utility and waste collection facilities, as
well as manufacturing uses and specialty retail uses.
Vacant commercial acreage (1989) in East San Rafael east of Highway 101 and 1-580
totals 130 acres. In the Andersen Drive area, there is another 60 acres of land suitable
for business development. (Steep hillside and most wetland areas were not identified
for development) Assuming that 1/3 of the lot area is devoted to a one story
building --which is a relatively low development intensity for commercial/industrial uses
--this acreage supports more than 2.6 million additional square feet of
commercial/industrial development potential.
TM
Ethnlchy,
1980 Census - Households by race
(Census Tract 1122 - same as ESR neighborhood)
While
81% >
[ 6% idenirfied selves
Black
7.5% >
as Hispanic; census
Asian
5 >
does not list Hispanic
Other
6 >
as an ethnic group]
If cross tabulate above with Spanish Origin by race:
White
Black
Asian
Other
Hispanic
1985 CCA Survey - Households
78%
7.5%
5%
3%
6%
1989 300 Person (Household)
representative survey
White
68%
White
50%
Black
3%
Black
9%
Asian
9%
Asian
16%
Other
2%
Other
4%
Hispanic
11%
Hispanic
21%
Household Size
1980 Census STF 3A
41 % - one person households
37%- 2 person households
14% - 3 person households
5% - 4 person households
1.5%- 5 person households
1% - 6 or more person hh
Average (mean) household size:
1.99
1989 300 person
representative survey
20%
26%
19%
16%
14%
5%
2.9-3.0
Note: 1989 Apartment Owner Survey found 2.8 persons per household
1985 Canal Community Alliance 600 person survey found a mean household size of
2.4 persons per household
5K:j
Household Income
1980 Census
Income
# Households
Planning Area
city
x$5,000
1,874
1,692
$5,000-9,999
2,582
2,307
$10,000-19,999
5,468
4,817
$20,000-24,999
2,488
1,968
$25,000-34,999
4,067
3,098
$35,000-49,999
3,703
2,808
$50,000+
3,024
2,176
Total Households
23,206
18,866
Median HH Income
$23,238
$21,411
Per Capita income
$11,542
LAND USE
East San Rafael
349
434
1,072
315
314
163
79
2,726
$15,353 (72% of Cry)
(66% of PA.)
$9,641 (84% of City)
The land use section of the Neighborhood Plan identifies land use categories and
intensities, when development should occur, and overall community design policies.
Commercial and neighborhood services are also included in this section. Land use
policies are also included for specific sites.
1. OVERALL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
a. General
East San Rafael land uses were established primarily through a lengthy General Plan
process (1986-88). An exception is the "park" land use designation for City -owned
property at the end of Bellam Blvd, proposed through the Neighborhood Plan process.
Land Uses are identified on the attached Land Use Plan map. They include "medium
density residential" for vacant residential areas, and "light industrial/office" for most
vacant non-residential areas. Intensities for the light industrial/office area were
determined based on capacity of the proposed neighborhood street network.
Major hillside and wetland resource areas are designated for "conservation". The
shoreline parkband is shown as "park/open space". Non residential shoreline
137
properties are generally designated "Marine Related". The "Marine Related"
designation allows water dependent businesses such as boat building; boat repair,
sales and services uses; marinas; and boat charter services as well as shopping
centers; restaurants; hotels/motels; and parks that draw people to the waterfront_ While
parks are allowed in the "Marine -Related" land use designation, the Canal/Harbor
parcels are not designated as "park" because they are not yet city owned. They are
identified as a proposed park site on the Recreation Plan map.
b. Timing of Development
As in all areas of the City, new development is to occur only when infrastructure
improvements are available to serve the new development. Water hookup limits and
circulation improvement needs are constraints which will slow the rate of new
development in East San Rafael. In 1989, the City gave preliminary and/or final
approvals to several new projects in East San Rafael including:
-the first phase (111 units) of Spinnaker -on -the -Bay,
-a Honda dealership and restaurant on Francisco Blvd. East and the
Canal;
-expansion of the Customer Company;
-relocation of Golden State Lumber to Andersen Drive;
-Orchard Supply Hardware on Andersen Drive.
Additionally, remaining buildings at Bayview Business Park have been approved as a
result of litigation between the property owner and the City.
These new projects use up most remaining traffic capacity to mid "Level of Service D",
the City's traffic congestion standard for City intersections. Remaining capacity to mid
D is being held in reserve for interim uses to allow owners of vacant property some
limited use of their land until the Bellam interchange is improved. Other redevelopment
projects could also go ahead in the interim if they had historic trips. While the Bellam
Blvd. project has been locally funded, it is still likely to be 5 years until construction,
given the lengthy State process for environmental review and design.
Some of these approved projects may not be built because they do not have water
hookups. In 1989, Marin Municipal Water District banned new hookups until their water
supply can be expanded. Any major expansion is likely to take at least 5 years. The
District is currently studying options to increase their supply.
2. RESIDENTIAL/HOUSING
a. Introduction
The General Pian Housing Element contains many city policies to promote a mix of
housing types throughout the community and protect, conserve and enhance the
existing housing stock. Special emphasis is placed on construction of new housing
affordable to low and moderate income households, because the private market has
W.
been less successful in deltvering such housing in San Rafael.
All new residential projects throughout the city are required to provide a minimum of
10% of their units affordably: to moderate income residents. For projects to be
considered high priority, affordable housing projects, a minimum of 15% of the units
must be available for low and moderate income residents.. This policy is one of the
primary measures the City has to assure that at least some of the new units built will be
available for low and moderate income households.
,Additionally, the Housing Element strongly urges protection of the existing rental
housing stock and limits condominium conversions because rental housing provides
more affordable housing in San Rafael..
Unlike other areas of the City, East San Rafael contains a high percentage of rental
units. Neighborhood Plan policy encourages increasing the mix of housing types in the
neighborhood to enhance and add stability and variety to it.
b. Housing Opportunity Areas
A few sites are identified in the General Flan Housing Element as housing opportunity
areas" where higher percentages of affordable housing units are appropriate. These
include portions of the St. Vincents and Silveira ranches, some Downtown sites, sites
at Smith Ranch, and a Windward Way parcel in East Sari Rafael. The City site at the
end of Bellam Blvd., called out as a housing opportunity site in the General Plan, is
now recommended for park use for several reasons:
• there is a high percentage of affordable units currently in East San
Rafael compared to other areas of the city-,
B- 9
there is significant need for additional neighborhood parks to serve
existing residents in this higher density neighborhood and a lack of
alternate sites for park use;
there are anticipated high costs of remediating site lead
contamination and potential high liability risk for housing use.
c. Housing Conservation
To protect the existing rental housing stock, which provides most of the City's existing
lower cost housing, the City has established strict limits on converting apartments to
condominiums and has programs encouraging the acquisition and rehabilitation of
rental housing by non -profits.
The City and Redevelopment Agency can provide some direct assistance for affordable
housing projects. The City has set up a Housing Fund to assist in land acquisition for
affordable housing projects, rehabilitation loans, rental assistance, etc. The
Redevelopment Agency can also provide land or seed money for new projects or
housing rehabilitation. The Agency must set aside 20% of its tax increment income for
affordable housing projects.
For example, the Redevelopment Agency is currently assisting the Mann Housing
Development Corporation, a non profit, in the purchase of a 28 unit apartment at Canal
and Medway Streets. The Agency, County Housing Authority, and County are loaning
the Corporation funds to acquire the property and will be paid back overtime, Units
will remain affordable to low income households.
To enhance and upgrade East San Rafael, the neighborhood plan emphasizes the
Agency's role in rehabilitation and unaradina poorly maintained existing apartments
while retaining low and moderate income rents. By contrast, citywide policies focus
solely on Redevelopment Agency involvement in constructing and retaining affordable
units_
d. Residential Care Facilities
The City's General Plan contains two policies/programs relating to residential care
facilities:
H-10. Conversions to Group Quarters. Allow conversion of appropriately located
and constructed units to group quarters provided the conversion is based on suitable
standards and meets San Rafael's share of the County's special housing needs.
H-dd. Emergency Housing. Initiate a Countywide Action Plan for providing
emergency housing, halfway houses and homes with supervised care. San Rafael will
encourage the County, Marin cities and non-profit organizations involved in emergency or
specialized housing, including housing for homeless, to create an interjurisdictional plan In
which each community has an opportunity to address its special housing need and identify
Its local opportunity for meeting this need in order to meet each community's fair share.
Funding for the plan preparation could be from Marin County Community Development
Block Grant Funds.
These programs are a result of longstanding concern on the part of the City of San
Rafael that San Rafael contains more than its local share of such facilities. Two 1985
studies prepared by City and County staff concluded that the City of San Rafael had
39% of all Marin County residential care facilities_ Of the larger residential facilities
serving more than 6 clients, 50% were located in San Rafael. By contrast, the City of
San Rafael had approximately 20% of the County's population. Novato, which had a
larger population, had only 8% of the residential care facilities although it has similarly
priced and types of housing used for many such facilities, fairly good public
transportation and significant employment opportunities.
The City report concluded that a countywide action plan should be prepared and could
have the following benefits:
• It could bring together all of the agencies who are involved in
regulation and placement to discuss coordination and regulation of
the facilities;
• develop a "fair share" approach concerning location of residential
care facilities;
• provide more comprehensive information on issues important to
neighborhood residents, sponsors, clients so that there is more
informed decision making; and
• possibly provide a county concensus concerning recommended
changes to state law.
Citywide and Countywide studies were underway in the fall of 1989. The
neighborhood's concern was that the neighborhood has problems it is trying to
overcome. It has more lower income residents, higher density apartments, and a
proportionately higher crime rate than other areas of the city. There is a great desire for
high quality new development that will benefit and upgrade the neighborhood.
Neighborhood Plan policy recommends that size and number of facilities locating in
East San Rafael be limited to serve neighborhood needs.
e. Condominium Conversions
In order to protect the rental housing stock, the General Plan prohibits condominium
conversions except for: limited equity cooperatives "and other innovative housing
proposals which are affordable to low and moderate income households." The
Neighborhood Advisory Committee recommends that this language be changed to "or
other non profit enterprises for low income households." They concluded to greatest
need is for low income housing; and that moderate income needs are being met with
market rate rental housing stock. While staff agreed that low income should be the
target, staff stated that a mixed low and moderate income project would provide a
B-11
greater mix of tenants, and would offer moderate income purchase possibilities. This
recommendation would be a modification of Citywide housing policies.
3. NON RESIDENTIAL
Policies relating to non residential land uses describe the importance of encouraging
improved neighborhood retail stores and services in East San Rafael and of retaining
building and automotive businesses in San Rafael. They also discuss conflicting uses,
upgrading of existing business areas, and supporting certain types of uses, such as
hotels.
In neighborhood plan discussions, there was concern about what type of development
would occur on car dealership sites, should these dealers move. The plan identifies
these freeway frontage sites for retail uses which are no more traffic intensive than the
auto dealerships.
There was also concern expressed about residential/non-residential design and use
conflicts where these uses are adjacent to each other, such as glare from lighting, poor
sign design, screening of outdoor storage and trash containers, etc. The Plan includes
a policy which addresses this issue by prohibiting the encroachment of new residential
uses into industrial/office areas to minimize conflicts_ It further states that businesses
locating adjacent to residential areas shall be designed to minimize nuisance impacts.
Other programs also address use conflicts. Uses more likely to cause noise or other
problems (such as littering, loitering) will require use permits in the new zoning
ordinance. The City Noise Element establishes noise standards for new non-residential
uses locating near residential areas and proposes eventual development of a noise
ordinance.
4. CANAL BAYFRONT
Neighborhood representatives were strongly supportive of the "Canal, Bayfront and
Marin Islands" section policies and programs. These policies and programs provide for
marine -related uses along non-residential parts of the Canal; require water oriented
design and development of Shoreline and Canal design plans; provide for increased
public access and view opportunities to the waterfront; require a public shoreline
parkband and rock rip rap along the Bay frontage; require a walkway along the Canal
waterfront between the Harbor Center and Grand Avenue; require resolution of historic
State title claims as properties redevelop; promote actions to assure long term
maintenance of the Canal as a navigable waterway, encourage City or Redevelopment
Agency involvement in marine -related projects; and provide for improved flood control.
5. SPECIFIC SITES
Specific site recommendations relate to development of several key vacant parcels.
Such policies were largely developed as part of the General Plan and have been
B- 1 2
updated and retained in the Neighborhood Plan.
One site which received significant review and a different land use designation is a 6.4
acre City owned site at the end of Bellam Blvd. The General Plan called for an
economic feasibility analysis ani' additional soils studies as part of the Neighborhood
Plan process to help identify the most appropriate use of this site.
a. City site
Several uses were suggested for the City site, including affordable housing, a new
neighborhood shopping center, a child care center, and a neighborhood park with
ballfields. 'The March, 1989, East San .1afael Neighborhood Plan survey ranked a
neighborhood park as the most desired use of the City site, with 86% stating such as
use was very or somewhat desirable_ Survey respo-idents ranked a child care center
second, a neighborhood shopping center third, and low cost housing fourth.
The Neighborhood Ac+llisory Committee considered many pieces of information in
making its decision. They consideree results of the Neighborhood Survey, which
placed very high priority on additional park facilities; results of the neighborhood
shopping center analysis which indicated a market potential for only one 20,000
square foot neighborhood shopping center; a soils study 1-,hich identified hazardous
levels of lead on portions of the site; traffic impacts; park needs, and other information.
They recommended that the site be used for a park and possible child care center.
They concluded that East San Rafael needs another 9 to 12 acres of parkland to meet
City neighborhood park standards, and that the 6.4 acre City site provides the largest
possible site to help rneet that need_
The Committee did not recommend a neighborhood shopping center because the
shopping center analysis concluded _hat the neighborhood can only support on;;
neighborhood shopping center about the size of the existing Lee's market complex.
Summaries of the economic analysis and hazardous materials soils study follow. -he
Parks and 13ecreation discussion in the neighborhood services section analyses
neighborhood park needs.
After the Committee recommendation, ---ity departments were concerned that the site,
� 'hich had long had development value as a potential housing or mixed use site, %eras
now proposed solely as a park site. The City had, in essence, lost a valuable asset.
They noted that sale of a portion of the site for development could provide funds for
park development of the remaining portion, or for other public purposes, and asked the
Committee to reconsider a mixed use. `-he Committee stat --d that there is a clear need
for the entire site to be used as a neighborhood park. Their response was while it may
take the City longer to come up a, lith money for park development, the land should not
be lost for this purpose.
B- 13
Neighborhood Shopping Center Economic Feasibility Analysis
for City owned property, end of Bellarn Blvd.
Summary:
Neighborhood representatives and residents had a high degree of interest
in a supermarket and neighborhood shopping center on the City owned
site, end of Bellam Blvd. To make an informed decision on this important
Neighborhood Plan issue, the City commissioned a feasibility analysis.
The economic consultant concluded, given existing and proposed new
development, there is a 75-80% chance that a 10,000 square foot market in
a new neighborhood center approximately 20,000 square feet in size would
succeed in East San Rafael_ The average neighborhood shopping center
size in 1988 nationwide was 73,000-100,000 square feet. Standard new
supermarkets average 25,000-35,000 square feet in size.
Historical Background
In 1985, consultants for the prior draft Neighborhood Plan interviewed
several grocery chains to determine interest in locating a supermarket in
East San Rafael. No supermarket chain was interested. Comments at that
time were that East San Rafael is an isolated neighborhood, not an easily
accessible location likely to be able to draw upon a larger market area.
During General Pian preparation in 1986, the City's economic consultant
was asked to evaluate the market potential for a supermarket in the
neighborhood. Recht Hausrath concluded that the market population
would not support a standard size new supermarket.
New Study
Estimates of the existing residential population had increased, and
residential development potential had decreased since work on the
General Plan started. In order to provide a more definitive and updated
analysis, the work program for the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan
included hiring an economic consultant to specifically analyze the potential
for a supermarket and neighborhood shopping center.
The firm of Economics Research Associates was selected to perform the
work. City staff provided the following information, after it had been
reviewed by Canal Community Alliance representatives, to the consultant:
1 , City site local[an and size [6.39 acres, triangular in shape, flat]
2. Tyne of shonning center desired [Standard size chain
discount supermarket in a standard size neighborhood center
with a discount drug store such as a Longs, and related
neighborhood serving uses; or, if a major center is not
supportable, a smaller center, anchored with a competitively priced
supermarket and drug store.
3. Size, location and anchor tenants of comr)etina centers
[Included United Market, Montecito Shopping Center, etc.]
4. Existing and Potential Market Area Residential and Emolovment
Ponulalion. [East San Rafael east of '-fighways 101 and 1-580 was
determined to be the primary market area. Staff estimated that the
existing market population had increased to approx. 8000 reside.,its
�Alith potential for another 1000-2000 residents over the next 10-15
years]
5. Estimated �/iMarket Area Household Income. [in 1980, East
San 'tafael median household income was 72% of the
Cityv,ide average and .34% of the per capita income_ This
compative relationship was assumed to have remained.
,After the consultant received this information, he toured the City site and
existing competing retail facilities.
The consultant then took the following steps to complete the analysis_ ERA
estimated the existing and future per capita market area retail sales
generation. ERA then evaluated the location of the City site in relation to
the existing and future market population, the locations, sizes, age and
conditions of the competing retail facilities both inside and outside East San
Rafael, and estimated sales capture rates. The estimates sales by retail
sector was then converted to supportable retail square footage. ;
• The complex anchored by Lee's Market is, however, not without some
advantages of its own. It is closer to the existing higher density apartment
area and within walking distance of about half of the apartment units, has
an established clientele and most likely has a very low rent basis. If
threatened by competition, the complex could be renovated to be more
effective.
• With an existing center operating successfully in the neighborhood and
having the potential to upgrade, there is substantial risk to the long term
success of this new development on the subject property_ To maximize the
chances of success, ERA suggested that the development be sized at not
less than 20,000 square feet and that the anchor grocery store be at least
10,000 square feet. ERA stated size is essential to the ability of the center
and the anchor store to offer a sufficient variety of goods to sustain
patronage. ERA estimated that a well designed center on the City property,
planned with the intention of dominating the local trade, would have a
75-80% probability of long term success.
Hazardous Materials Soils Testing
The hazardous materials testing for the City site found hazardous levels of
lead on the site. This lead washes out of the soil relatively easily_
Contaminated soil is found within approximately 2/3 of the landfill portion of
the site.
As interim safety measures, the site was completely fenced and posted with
warning signs. Surface site runoff was determined not to be a problem as
the site is surrounded by a levee. No hazardous levels of lead have been
found in subsurface monitoring wells_ Fencing off the site minimizes threats
to any nearby persons. Air quality testing found no hazardous levels of lead
in the air onsite.
The City is proceeding to have all testing completed. Once testing and any
interim remedial measures are completed, the City will explore remedial
actions for long term reuse of the site. Remedial actions may involve
hauling all or part of the soil offsite, fixing the lead so that it is not mobile
and/or capping the site with an impermeable clay layer. There is no
decision regarding which measure will be used at this time. The extent of
the problem and the alternatives will be examined prior to making a
decision.
If the alternative selected involves keeping at least some of the
contaminated soil onsite, there are land use considerations. The consultant
stated lower cost housing is probably the most difficult use to have on the
site. There are problems in installing and maintaining utilities and
constructing structures, liability over time, and more difficulty in controlling
how people use the land. For example, if people have yards, it may be
difficult to monitor their watering practices, what they plant, etc.
With a neighborhood shopping center, installation of utilities poses a similar
problem as for housing, but buildings and parking would cover a major part
B-16
of the site which would provide a double cap. There is generally more
control over landscaping and maintenance than for residential projects.
(However, such a project becomes more marginal if in addition to the
market constraints, there are increased construction costs or potential
ongoing liability concerns.
The consultant stated that a par',. is easier to deal with technically in that it
has no structures, and utilities needed are more limited, as long as people
realize there must be some constraints to insure a safe park design. For
example, trees may be limited to portions of the site where a cap is not
needed, or to hilly mounds_ Special care would need io be taken with
drainage and watering so water does not pond on the site. Water bodies
would not be included in the design. Hardcourts or parking could be
located over more contaminated parts of the site for added protection.
i,, child care use on the site should be similar to a park use in that the park
will need to be designed to be completely safe for persons using it. -i it is so
designed, it should also be safe for child care. -dowever, construction costs
may be high, and there is a perception it is a more sensitive use_
The least costly type of land use would be to cap the site, fence it and use it
for storage, but this does little to benefit the community, and was not desired
by Neighborhood Plan committee members.
NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN
Improving neighborhooc appearance is a major focus of i ie neighborhood plan_
neighborhood design policies and programs play an important role in achieving this
goal. Improving community entry roads --Harbor, Medway, Bellam and Kerner is one of
the design strniegies. The Plan encourages setback of buildings or other design
treatments along entry roads as buildings remodel to often up the streets, the addition
of street trees, and improved sidewalks along Medway and Harbor Streets. _imited
undergrounding of .utilities is also proposed at key locations to improve street
apper=.�ance.
Improving the appearance of other residential neighborhood streets, bicycle and
pedestrian safety and traffic control were other neighborhood concerns. To address
these issues in part, the Plar. recommends construction of "safe crossings" at certain
major intersections. Fafe crossings are expanded siclm..,alk areas at intersections, +.lith
room for trash containers, street trees, landscaping, information kiosks and benches.
They also reduco the street %-A,idth that the pedestrian must cross.
Additionally, several bicycle route improvements are called for in the plan. The
Neighborhood Plan proposes to modify the Bicycle Routes Plan in the General Plan by
eliminating Irancisco Blvd, East as a bicycle route because it is a high speed, narrov•;
Mi
and noisy road inappropriate for heavy bicycle use. The Plan also proposes two new
bicycle routes not shown in the General Plan: one along the west side of the City and
Canalways properties (or east side of adjacent properties) south to Kerner Blvd.; and
the second on the proposed Irene Overcrossing. The former would provide a direct
north/south route through the neighborhood without having to travel on the most
heavily used section of Kerner Blvd. The Irene Street crossing would provide a bicycle
route alternative to Bellam Blvd. for persons travelling south on Andersen Drive.
Bicycle routes are identified on the Bicycle Routes Map.
A new Neighborhood Plan design recommendation addresses building paint colors.
The City's Design Review Ordinance, adopted in 1972, establishes a strong preference
for earthtone/woodtone colors. The ordinance states that:
"Other colors and materials may be accepted if the applicant can
demonstrate that they are appropriate to the style, are appropriate
accent colors, and are harmonious with the site or compatible with
the character of the neighborhood. "
The Neighborhood Plan proposes that in East San Rafael, white and off-white building
paint colors, and bright trim colors be considered potentially compatible with the
character of the neighborhood. Such colors could help brighten up the apartment area,
and project a cleaner appearance.
Other design policies retain the three story height limit in the General Plan. However,
the Neighborhood Plan proposes limited height exceptions.
design policies also identify a need for design plans along the Bay Shoreline, Canal,
and freeway frontage. The Shoreline Design Plan was adopted in the fall of 1989. The
Shoreline Plan proposes a relatively low use bicycle and pedestrian path, native
landscaping, and related facilities such as picnic areas. A Design Plan for the freeway
south of Second Street is expected to be start in late 1989. A Canalfront Design Plan is
also high priority.
Bay and Canal view preservation and enhancement, water -oriented design along the
Canal and Bayfront, tree preservation, water conserving landscape design, and
pedestrian -oriented streets are other design policies in the General Plan.
Neighborhood design policies and actions add to these policies.
As part of the Neighborhood Design review, staff conducted a neighborhood
reconnaisance to identify problems. Problem areas are identified on the
neighborhood reconnaisance map and include poorly maintained buildings --
"eyesores", properties which need improved landscaping, screening of trash
enclosures, etc. The Committee also noted a need for screened, permanent recycling
bins. A second, accompanying Community Design map identifies proposed locations
for the "safe crossings", views important to preserve, and bus stop and sidewalk
improvements. Tree planting is proposed along major residential streets. Bicycle route
improvements and pedestrian path improvements are identified on the Bicycle Routes
map and Recreation Plan map_
Public Works Department staff note that, given the existing sidewalk configuration,
street trees should be located behind the sidewalk, which, depending on street right of
ways, is likely to be on private property. As the City does not have a tree maintenance
crew at this time, planting of additional trees requiring City maintenance will compound
staff shortages_ Department staff suggest that such a tree planting program might be
set up so that private property owners are responsible for tree maintenance.
Sidewalk improvements are proposed where sidewalks are missing, and along Harbor
Street, the main pedestrian entry street into the neighborhood. Improving sidewalks
along Harbor Street means replacing paved asphalt areas with concrete sidewalks to
discouraging cars parking across the sidewalk, and to delineate pedestrian areas.
Improving these sidewalks would also provide an improved pedestrian streetscape_ If
not included as part of a redevelopment project, cost of these improvements would
likely need to be shared between the adjacent property owner and the City consistent
with City policy on the installation of sidewalks.
CIRCULATION
Traffic congestion was the most significant problem identified by people during
preparation of the General Plan. Improving and maintaining acceptable traffic
operating conditions was a primary consideration in development of the Plan.
The General Plan looked at land use and circulation together so that traffic capacity
established a maximum limit on desired types of development and redevelopment
while still meeting other community goals. The Plan established a total amount of
development which could be accommodated within the planned circulation system
while maintaining acceptable traffic operations. ("Acceptable traffic operations" was
determined by the the City Council to be "Level of Service D".) The total amount of
development was then allocated to vacant or underdeveloped properties in terms of
peak hour trips and corresponding Floor Area Ratios. In the future, all planned
development would then "fit' within the planned circulation system.
In some areas, the planned circulation system is not in place. In East San Rafael, for
example, several circulation improvements must be constructed in order to accom-
modate all planned development and maintain acceptable traffic operations. Some of
these new improvements --such as the Bellam Blvd. ramps relocation-- involve the
State Dept. of Transportation and are expected to take several years to construct.
The Council decided it was important to retain acceptable traffic operations throughout
the City while needed improvements are being designed and constructed. Thus, in the
•
areas where much new development is proposed and traffic operations would drop
below the established standard until new improvements are constructed, some
development is being delayed.
In order to choose which development should be allowed to proceed in these traffic
impacted areas, a "priority project" process was set up. The Council stated certain high
priority projects should be given priority for the limited remaining Mid Level of Service
D traffic capacity until needed street improvements are constructed.
Since some needed street improvements may take years, the Council also decided that
a certain amount of traffic capacity (between the middle and low end of Level of Service
D) should be set aside gfjy for high priority projects. Thus, even if all Mid Level of
Service D street capacity had been given to various projects, a needed neighborhood
shopping center would have a chance of being approved after by using the additional
capacity set aside only for such projects.
The Circulation section of the General Plan also establishes policy regarding how the
transitway on the North West Pacific Railroad right of way should be developed;
proposes transit system monitoring for responsiveness to community needs,
establishes fees for funding of local street improvements and supports regional funding
of needed regional improvements; mandates carpooling/TSM programs for large new
development projects to reduce peak hour trips, and establishes a bicycle routes plan,
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
The neighborhood services section was a major focus of the Neighborhood Plan. It
supplements the community services section in the General Plan which deals with
citywide fire, police, library, child care, sewage treatment, streets, schools, and public
cultural activities. The neighborhood plan deals more specifically with services
important to the neighborhood and includes many new neighborhood policies and
programs to improve community services.
1. PARKS AND RECREATION
The General Plan Recreation Element establishes standards for new park
development, describes recreation facilities which should be retained should any
school site be sold, identifies potential park sites and public access trails on the
Recreation Plan Map, and references neighborhood recreation facilities.
The Neighborhood Plan reanalysed neighborhood park needs, based on increased
population estimates, and more specifically addresses neighborhood park policies and
programs.
a. Existing Park and Recreation Facilities
Pickleweed Park. Pickleweed Park is the neighborhood's largest recreation facility.
Approximately 17 acres in size, it currently has a 2-112 acre grass field used for
baseball and soccer, a community center, a children's play area, a community garden,
nine picnic and barbeque areas, a child care facility, a parcourse and shoreline access
along the site's outer levee edge. The levee is the northern terminous of the East San
Rafael Shoreline Parkband. Pickleweed Park also has two parking lots. About 10.5
acres of the site is usable park area. Portions of the site are seasonal wetland or tidal
marsh.
In 1987-88, a revised Pickleweed Park Master Plan was developed to incorporate
changing community needs, child care uses, and provide better use of the park_ Uses
for the park were based on a community park survey, two walking tours and task force
input. The park master plan calls for improved landscaping and observation mounds,
childrens' natural play areas, a boat launch/lagoon at the northwestern corner, a
basketball court, an amphitheater, and expanded parking from 46 to 104 spaces.
Parking lot improvements include improved screening of the lot from adjacent
residential uses.
This park is the primary neighborhood park and is located within. 1/2 mile of most
neighborhood residents_ It receives heavy use. Use of the Community Center is part
of ongoing discussions between the Pickleweed Advisory Board composed of three
Canal Community Alliance (CCA) and two Parks and Recreation Commission
O
Canal Community Alliance (CCA) and two Parks and Recreation Commission
representatives. There is an existing Memorandum of Understanding between the
Canal Community Alliance and the City which establishes how much Community
Center space is allocated for CCA use. (Review "community meeting rooms" section
for additional information)
Schoen Park. Schoen Park, 0.1 acres in size, is adjacent to Pickleweed Park, the
Shoreline Parkband and Canal Street and contains children's play equipment and a
picnic/barbeque area. The Pickleweed Park Master Plan and draft Shoreline
Parkband Design Plan call for better integration of this park with the other facilities
through removal of fencing, and possible moving of play equipment.
Beach Park. Beach Park is a little used 0.4 acre park located behind auto
dealerships along the San Rafael Canal. While the site is within the East San Rafael
neighborhood, it is not easily accessible from the residential area and does not servo
as a residential neighborhood park facility. Access is from Francisco Blvd. East and a
driveway south of Dexter Toyota. The park contains a fishing pier, parking, a small
boat tie up, and 5 barbeques and picnic tables. Additionally, the City leases a portion
of the site to the San Rafael Yacht Club for their clubhouse.
The General Plan promotes expanded public access and use of this park through
construction of a new Beach Park access road, construction of a bicycle and
pedestrian access path along the canalfront between the Harbor Center and Grand
Avenue, and a possible public/private joint park venture-
Canal/Harbor Park. At the end of Canal Street, the City maintains a small public
seating and landscaping area for viewing the San Rafael Canal. (0.1 acres). The site
is central to the older apartment area and has water access and views.
Shoreline Parkband. The two mile long East San Rafael Shoreline Parkband is an
important communitywide resource and low intensity recreation use area. The
approximately 100 foot wide shoreline strip is adjacent to sensitive wetland areas
along nearly half its length. It is partially dedicated and improved.
When completed, the parkband will provide a continuous shorefront bicycle and
pedestrian path, picnic and seating areas. The Shoreline Park Design Plan also calls
for limited parking at entry points, signing and information kiosks, landscape
enhancement, rest room facilities, and a children's play area and meadow field
adjacent to the Shoreline Industrial Park. The Plan also promotes a loop
bicycle/pedestrian connection along Kerner Blvd. Future, tower priority possibilities
include piers, a bridge to connect the Spinnaker on the Bay and Canalways habitat
areas, and reconfiguration of certain ponds. While the parkband does not provide
active use neighborhood recreation facilities, it does help meet certain neighborhood
recreation needs.
B- 21
Status: In early 1989, portions of the parkband adjacent to Spinnaker Point, Bayview
Business Park and Bay Park Offices were City owned and improved. Other portions
adjacent to Shoreline Industrial Park and the City Pond were City owned but not
improved. Improvements to the City Pond piece are scheduled to be underway in
1989. The section adjacent to Spinnaker on the Bay is anticipated to be dedicated in
1989. Other sections are privately owned and will be dedicated and improved as
conditions of development approvals.
Bahla Vista Elementary School. The school's 1.5 acre turf playfield is configured
to provide two softball diamonds or a soccer field. Neither the diamonds or soccer field
is standard size. Additionally, the school contains about an acre of hardcourts for
basketball, foursquare, etc, and a children's play area.
b. Recreation Needs
Acreage:
City -owned neighborhood and community parks total 138 acres, providing 3 acres of
parks per 1000 residents. Twenty five public schools and one school site supplement
the local park system, providing hard court and playfields for organized sports
activities_ The East San Rafael population has grown from 5,100 to an estimated 8000
in the last 9 years. With this population increase, the neighborhood is currently below
the 3 acres/1000 City average for neighborhood and community parkland acreage by
about 6.5 acres. This need could increase or decrease dependent upon future
household size.
New development will create additional demand for new parkland area. 50 new
homes are under construction in early 1989 and there is potential for another 375-650
units being constructed in the neighborhood over the next 10-15 years. These new
units could result in another 1,050-1800 neighborhood residents in the next 10-15
years, 2 household size remains relatively constant (2.8 pph). Smaller household
sizes closer to the projected City average (2.1 pph) would result in another 800-1350
residents. The City requires 3 acres of new parkland (or a fee equivalent) per 1000
new residents. These new units would create a demand for another 2.4-5.4 acres of
parkland.
Existing aD_d new development create a need for another 9-12 acres of neighborhood
parks.
The Recreation Element of the General Plan also recommends that neighborhood
parks should be located within 1/2 mile of residents and have a minimum size of 5
acres, in order to provide a variety of active recreation facilities: sportfields, tennis
courts, play equipment, picnic areas, quiet areas, parking, etc.
Desired Facilities:
Additional recreation facilities were ranked as a very high need by neighborhood
B- 22
residents in the 300 oerson neighborhood survey conducted in 1989. 74-80% of
respondents indicated that each of the following recreation facilities is either much
needed or somewhat needed:
• a nev! park at the City owned property on Bellam Blvd.
• expansion of the Canal/I :arbor Park
-additional grass playfields
additional paved sport courts
These 4 park facilities ranked amon t� he top six needed neichborhQod services in
thhe March. 1989 Neighborhood Survev.
d. Proposed Park Facilities
Over the past 4 years, possible neighborhood park sites have been extensively
discussed and agreed upon_ The best sites for neighborhood parks were identified as
ane City site at the end of Bellam Blvd. and a park at the end of Canal and ,arbor
Streets: these sites are identified in the General Pian. Located at opposite ends of the
neighborhooc=; these sites would provide a variety of recreation opportunities near all
residents. Additionally, the State Lands Commission has recognized the Canal/Harbor
site as a waterfront site of significant importance, thus purchase of the site would
qualify for use of State Trust funds.
The following policy summarizes 1988 General Plan park policy in East San -1afael-
ESR-23 Recreation Improvements. Secure and improve two n&.., neighborhood
parks, one at the end of Canal and Harbor Streets to provide a water -related park with
improved communitywide access to the Canalfront and improve recreation opportunities to
high density apartment areas furthest from existing facilities; and the second on City -owned
land adjoining Bellam Blvd. Develop the Canal/Harbor Parte and improve Beach Park
consistent with Canal/Bayfronf section recommendations. Emphasize development of
?ickleweed Park as a more active recreation area, with facilities for young people and a
possible fishing pier or a small boat launch.
(While a "marina green" adjacent to the shoreline at the Shoreline Industrial Park is
included as a future possibility in the General Plan, this park, like Beach Park, would
not serve as a neighborhood park for the residential neighborhood due to its distance
from the neighborhood, thus is not discussed further here- It has been identified as
lower priority by the Shoreline Park Committee, after completion of the Shoreline
Parkband.)
This analysis reevaluated the amount of neighborhood parkland needed. In 1980, witl,
small household sizes, 'ickleweed Park nearly met existing neighborhood park needs:
nev 1 development alone caused a need for near park land. Therefore, the General
Plan proposed that only 2 acres of the 6.4 acre City site at the end of Bellam Blvd_ and
an increase in the Canal/Harbor park size would be needed for future park use.
B- 23
The increased East San Rafael population suggests that there is a need to use all of
the City site for an "active use" park and heightens the need for development of these
park sites. These two parks would provide up to nine acres of additional parkland to
meet the needs of the existing and future population. The larger City site park size
would also allow development of new playfields: the prior two acre size was
inadequate for playfields and other uses. The shoreline park, long a high City priority,
also provides recreational benefits to the neighborhood.
Funding for Park Development.
Two new parks will be a significant additional expense to the City: for purchase,
planning and development, and ongoing maintenance. Costs for each of the three
Canal/Harbor Park parcels is expected to be several hundred thousand dollars_
Development costs would include hazardous materials testing (and possible
remediation), as well as park planning, engineering, and construction. Although there
are no acquisition costs for the City's Bellam site, there are ongoing hazardous
materials testing and remediation costs, park planning, engineering and construction
costs.
Park maintenance is expected to run more than $48,000 per year (personnel and
supplies) for both sites and $27,000 for one time equipment costs. (1989 dollars)
These estimates are based on estimated 1989 maintenance figures for the new 7 acre
Peacock Gap Neighborhood Park. Public Works staff note that it would be impossible
for the Department to maintain current service levels without adding personnel and
equipment. Thus, timetables for constructing these new facilities should be coupled
with a commitment from the City Council to add park maintenance personnel.
Shoreline parkband development and maintenance costs are additional and are
detailed in the Shoreline Park Master Plan.
In early 1989, the City had $320,000 from resolution of State Lands Commission public
trust claims to assist in purchase of Canal/Harbor Park property. Some additional
funds could be forthcoming from this funding source as additional state public trust title
claims are resolved. Two major properties have settled public trust claims to date;
approximately 36 additional properties are affected and could eventually contribute.
Another major source of funding for park development is the Quimby Parkland
Dedication in -lieu fee. Spinnaker on the Bay Phase 1 recently was required to pay
in -lieu fees of $101,000. Another 375-650 potential homes in East San Rafael would
generate park in -lieu fees when approved.
Redevelopment Agency Bond Renegotiation: The Agency expects to negotiate a new
redevelopment bond with the County and School District in the near future.
Redevelopment funds are a critical source for purchase and development of these
parks.
Other sources of funds for park purchase and/or development include the Community
Development Block Grant program, Marin Community Foundation grants, private funds
from concessions, Coastal Conservancy grants and State Park grant funds.
2 COMMUNITY MEETING ROOMS
a. Existing Facilities
Pickleweed Park Community Center, 50 Canal Street
Has one conference room for 25 persons
3 classrooms which hold 25 persons (can be opened up to provide
larger space for up to 75 persons)
Pyramid Room (teen drop in center)
Multi-purpose room/gym (capacity of 325 seated, 200 at tables, 400
standing)
Is staffed 9 am -10 pm Monday through Thursday and 9 am- 5 pm
Friday. Is also available for rentals Friday evenings and weekends.
Pickleweed Park Community Center is one of three community centers in the City and
is open to the general public for varied recreation programs and activities, private
rental and other uses.
Free Use
- Under terms of a 1982 Memorandum or Understanding between the
City and Canal Community Alliance, no City fees are charged for f
classroom and the Dvramid room. Additionally, 4 multi-purpose room
uses per year are free to the Canal Community Alliance.
Pickleweed Rental Costs:
- Ql ss and conference room rental rates
Mon- Thurs (9am-10 pm): $2.50/hr for non-profit groups; $5/hr for private
groups; $10/hr for commercial groups_
Weekends and Friday evenings after 5: Add an add'I $12/hr for
administration, securities, staff attendant, utilities. If rent for
more than 8 hrs on weekends, charge is $18/hr over 8 hours.
- Multi Pu rope Room
Mon- Thurs (9am-10 pm):
$10/hr for non profit groups ; $20/hr for private groups and non-profit fundraising;
$35/hr for commercial groups.
Weekends and Friday evenings after 5:
$22/hr non profit; $32/hr private; $47/hr commercial. Add an
additional $6/hr if room is rented for more than 8 hours.
•i h n $30 flat fee for non profit groups; $40 for private; $80
commercial.
• Deck if rented separately: $10 flat fee for non profit groups, $20
private; $40 commercial. If rent Multi Purpose room, deck is included
at no charge.
Bahia Vista School Multipurpose Room and classrooms,
125 Bahia Way
Room has a capacity of 200 seated.
Available weekday evenings 4:30-9:30.
Rental charaes: Charge $20/hr for a minimum of 2 hours for
custodial service and $30 room charge.
Classrooms are not generally rented out. Furniture is for elementary
school age children.
Canal Community Alliance Office, 91 Larkspur Street
Conference room for 15 persons.
Available evenings after 5, sometimes during weekdays and
weekends, primarily for CCA -related activities as room has no
outside door, and CCA staff must be there for the meeting. Agency
does try to accommodate groups upon request.
No rental fees_
Other Community Meeting Rooms:
While there are other neighborhood meeting rooms, such as a 100 -seat dining room at
Phoenix Leasing, a large room at Center Point, or homeowner clubhouses at
condominium complexes, they are not open for general public, ongoing use.
Phoenix's facilities, like CCA's, do not have outside doors and staff must be present.
Phoenix staff report these facilities might be made available for special community
events but are not set up for ongoing programs or private use. The homeowner
clubhouses are small (approx. 20 persons) and are restricted to homeowner use.
While the Board of Directors might be able to allow one time community use of its
facilities, allowing general, ongoing public use would require a 2J3 vote of the
homeowner's association. Center Point's room is fully occupied for drug programs.
b. Rental Fee Examples
• A two hour daytime or Mon-Thurs. evening meeting for a non-profit 15 person group
would cost $5 for a Pickleweed Center classroom, 0 at Canal Community Alliance.
• A three hour 100 person evening meeting at Pickleweed multi-purpose room would
cost $30 for a non-profit group. The same meeting at Bahia Vista School would cost
$90_
• Five hour weekend wedding reception in Pickleweed multi purpose room with
EM
kitchen use would cost $190
Charges for Pickleweed Community Center are low when compared to other cities and
are very low when compared to private facilities. For example, Petaluma and Corte
Madera charge $10/hour and $18/hour for non-profit use of community center
classrooms day or evening. In mid 1989, the Recreation Department was conducting
a market study to consider whether it was appropriate to raise rental fees.
c. Availability of Community Meeting Rooms
Pickleweed Community Center is a heavily used facility. Most evening times are
currently booked at Pickleweed. However, many day times are available for groups,
even in the free classroom #3. (See charts) To rent Pickleweed facilities for large
single events on weekends, groups typically have to call a minimum of four weeks
ahead to be able to reserve a particular time --often more. Some events are booked a
year in advance. Sundays tend to be more available than Saturdays. However, if
there are soccer tournaments scheduled outside, staff may be unable to rent the
building at the same time due to lack of onsite parking. Also, some building/park
events or activities in adjacent classrooms may be incompatible and not scheduled
due to noise transmission problems between rooms. Additionally, apartments are
located across the street from Pickleweed Park_ Scheduling of evening hour events
must consider impacts on residential uses. There have been instances of late night
activities disturbing nearby residents.
Bahia Vista School will rent its multi purpose room for meetings or classes (not private
parties), and it is usually available during weekday evenings. However, the rental cost
is high.
CCA's conference room is available for CCA -related activities and the Agency tries to
accommodate groups up to 15 persons upon request. There is no outside door, thus
staff must be present.
d. Needs Identification
Neighborhood Advisory Committee members identified a need for:
• additional meeting/activity space
• more affordable meeting/activity spaces; and
• more informal use places (i.e., no need to reserve space ahead of time)
The Neighborhood Plan survey asked East San Rafael residents whether community
meeting places are "much needed", "somewhat needed" or "not needed". Only 6% of
residents said additional community meeting places are "much needed" and 34% said
they were "somewhat needed", which was one of the lowest ranked of all service
needs.
3-27
From the survey of Pickleweed and Bahia Vista School use, it appears that there is a
need for additional, reasonably priced evening meeting/activity room spaces. Space
at Pickleweed is limited and Bahia Vista space is costly. Additionally, lack of parking at
Pickleweed prohibits scheduling of major events at both the center and the outside
fields. The Pickleweed Park Master Plan calls for doubling the amount of onsite
parking; this would allow increased scheduling of events outside and in the Center at
the same time, depending on uses and numbers of persons.
3. ENGLISH ASA SECOND LANGUAGE
Community residents have stated that the greatest social service need in East San
Rafael is more and/or improved ESL classes. 42% of residents said "much
improvement` is needed, and another 36% said "some improvement" is needed. While
this need was greatest among Hispanic respondents, where 90% stated improvement
was needed, 74-79% of whites, blacks and asians all stated improvement was needed.
a. Existing Providers:
College of Mares=
The College of Marin provides free adult English as a Second Language (ESL)
classes
- during daytime hours every weekday at Pickleweed Community
Center.
two evenings a week at Pickleweed Center.
- daytime and evening classes at the College of Marin Greenbrae
campus.
- at La Familia Center, Lincoln Avenue both weekdays and evenings.
However, due to traffic/parking problems at this location, evening
classes have been dropped and will be offered at the Greenbrae
campus in the fall.
- at other locations such as Indian Valley College.
These ESL classes are state funded. Except for morning classes at Pickleweed
Center, which have run approximately 70% of capacity, all classes are operating at
capacity with waiting lists.
Canal Communitv Alliance:
The Canal Community Alliance provides free adult ESL classes at Pickleweed
Community Center, most evenings and some daytime hours.
All classes are full and there are waiting lists. There is an emphasis on
beginning/survival English and vocational English in the CCA classes_ Funding for
these classes is provided by the Marin Community Foundation. The Alliance is
conducting a fundraiser to increase the number of classes and has submitted
application for increased program funding.
Numbers of adult ESL classes have been limited by State funding amounts. Also,
more evening classes at Pickleweed would be competing for space with other
recreation and community programs. While space is available at Bahia Vista School,
is expensive.
Needs:
The College of Marin ESL Director states that the ESL classes are over capacity, thus
there is no additional State funding for additional students. He states there is ongoing
difficulty finding reasonably priced space for community-based evening classes. He
reported that Statewide, highest ESL attendance is during evening hours, but
second-highest attendance occurs during morning hours. College of Marin
administrators have been uncertain why Pickleweed morning classes have never been
full; morning classes offered at other Marin locations have waiting lists. Committee
members and English Second Language teachers responded that people work during
the day: the need is for evening classes_ Evening classes are full and have waiting
lists.
The CCA ESL Coordinator states that people are requesting more evening and
weekend classes. She agreed with the College of Marin Director that there finding
affordable space for evening classes is difficult.
The City is not a provider of ESL classes. Through the East San Rafael survey, the
City has documented a need for additional ESL classes, which supports provider
group applications for grants or requests for reasonably priced community meeting
room space.
4. CHILD CARE
a. Background
Child care needs in East San Rafael, and throughout the City, have been recognized
for several years. The General Plan includes policies to promote childcare as follows:
LU -57 Child Care. Encourage and plan for the retention and development of child care
centers to meet citywide and neighborhood child care needs. In conjunction with the School
Districts, encourage continuation of child care programs at school sites because of their suitability
for such uses and convenient locations in residential neighborhoods. Encourage provision of
affordable child care with maximum programs and hours of operation by waiving all fees for
proposed child care centers. Child care centers shall not be precluded in any land use designation
except the low intensity "Kilside Resource Residential' and "Hillside Residential' areas. Each site
proposed for a child care use shall be evaluated on a case by case basis. The City may waive FARs
for permanent child care portions of non residential buildings.
LU -58 Child Care Centers on Public Sites. The city will assist in examining publicly owned
sites for child care use in areas that have limited or no available or cost effective sites and, it
7warranted, such use should be designated on said sites.
HMO
Several studies have been conducted in the recent past on child care needs In the
East San Rafael neighborhood, including 1) the Child Care Report contained in the
August, 1985, Draft East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan, and 2) the Canal Community
Alliance Report of the Canal Area Child Care Task Force (dated June, 1988).
Additionally, the 1989 East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan survey found that 94% of
parents said additional child care services were much or somewhat needed. When
asked why they didn't use existing child care, the reasons given most often were that
children are cared for at home (27%), the existing facilities are non affordable (24%), or
that children are too young or too old (20%).
The 1985 Child Care Report in the Draft East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan
concluded that
a) additional subsidized and scholarship spaces are needed at existing
child care centers;
b) additional child care spaces are needed to serve area children;
c) additional infant care is needed.
The 1988 CCA Child Care Task Force also documented childcare needs and
neighborhood interest in child care services. That study concluded that
a) existing child care spaces and subsidies need to be stabilized by
provision of two child care portables at Pickleweed, retention of
space at Bahia Vista School, and long term use of the San Pedro
School facilities by the Community Action Marin preschool;
b) additional subsidy funds are needed for existing space. This
need for subsidized space was confirmed in a May 1989, survey of
area child care vacancies. 53 non -subsidized child care vacancies
existed in East San Rafael. (see chart)
c) there is a lack of suitable sites available for additional child care
facilities and additional child care spaces should be developed with
subsidy provisions.
The first objective --stabilizing existing programs, has been met in part by City
construction of two portables at Pickleweed Park and by the fact the School District is
incorporating child care space in Its short term plans for Bahia Vista and San Pedro
School. The subsidy problem is nationwide, and is starting to be addressed at the
Federal and State levels.
The third objective --designating child care sites --is potentially addressed by the
designation of the City site, end of Bellam Blvd., as a City park and potential affordable
child care site. Hazardous lead levels on the City site will require remediation before
this site could be used for a child care center. The Neighborhood Plan proposes that a
portion of the Bellam Blvd. site be designated for a child care facility if the State
Department of Health Services agrees such a use is acceptable. It is anticipated that
the City could lease land to a public or non-profit child care provider to build and
M
operate an affordable child care center on the City site.
May, 1989 East San Rafael Child Care Vacancies
Bahia Vista Children's Center 6 non -subsidized vacancies
Pickleweed Community Park
Capacity: 40 children (Lon waiting list for subsidized
City program (34 subsidized) slots
After school care
Children Services Proar m No vacancies
Bahia Vista Elementary chool
Capacity: 30 children
CCA program (fully subsidized)
After school care
Canal Child Care Center No vacancies
San Pedro School (1 -year wait list for subsidized
Capacity: 30-35 children slots.)
Community Action Marin program
98% subsidized (2 mid. inc. slots)
Fulltime preschool program
Marin Headstart Proararn No vacancies
215 Mission Avenue
Capacity: 43 children
All subsidized
Part-time pre-school
Little Flower Montessori School 47 vacancies (non -subsidized)
46 Louise Street
Capacity: 72 children
Non -subsidized childcare
($325.00 per month)
4 children presently subsidized by CCA.
In addition to neighborhood efforts, a Citywide Task Force comprised of private and
public representatives has been formed to develop a comprehensive child care action
plan for San Rafael. The task force will be hiring consultants to conduct a needs
assessment which will form the basis of an action plan for the City. Childcare needs in
East San Rafael will be addressed as a part of this plan.
5 BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Improved property maintenance was identified by the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee as a significant concern. While the majority of buildings in East San Rafael
B- 31
are well maintalned, some are not. These few detract from overall neighborhood
appearance. In addition to Community Design strategies, such as additional trash
receptacles, improving City landscape standards and anti litter campaigns, the
Committee focused on ways to improve City code enforcement ordinances to get
results from property owners who do not maintain their buildings and yards.
The Committee recommended adding fines to certain ordinances to provide some
incentives to clean up. They recommended that notice and hearing procedures be
streamlined to the extent permissible by law. Third, they recommended two new
programs which would expand Code enforcement responsibilities. First, they
recommended a new ordinance to require business and apartment property owners
and condominium associations to clean the curbs, gutters and sidewalks in front of
their properties. Second, they recommended that property maintenance provisions
apply to the entire property_ Current City ordinances (1.20.030) state that auto, packing
box, lumber, broken furniture, etc. storage are a public nuisance only if visible from a
public street although depositing or permitting debris, wreckage or other waste... on
any part of one's property is a violation of 9.12.030_ The Committee recommended that
all property maintenance provisions be expanded to include the entire property.
Arguments against such expansion is that it is an invasion of privacy and more
difficult/expensive to enforce.
The City's one Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for enforcing city ordinances
relating to building and landscape maintenance. While some proposed changes
would increase Code Enforcement responsibilities, streamlined procedures could
make enforcement more efficient. Additional fines could also help recover some costs
of increased enforcement.
Existino ordinances. with brief discussions of their shortcomings. follow:
a. Nuisance abatement, Chapter 1.20 generally.
The formal nuisance abatement process is cumbersome. Under Chapter 1.20.030,
certain property maintenance situations are defined public nuisances. ("...to maintain
premises in such a manner that any of the following are found thereon.... unpainted
buildings causing dry rot --- broken windows constituting hazardous conditions...
overgrown vegetation likely to harbor rats ... etc.) However, the procedures section
states the City must hold a hearing to ascertain whether each specific case is a public
nuisance. If the City Council agrees, they then issue the order to declare it a public
nuisance, and give the person 30 days to correct. If the condition is not corrected, the
Code Enforcement Officer or Public Works Director are the abatement officers --the City
hires contractors to get job done, maintains cost records, holds another public hearing
to see if cost records are correct and then liens the property. No fines are levied. In
effect, this is a low cost loan with city staff doing all the work for hearings, figuring out
plans, getting bids. It costs the building owner nothing to be a violator.
B- 32
a. Weeds, plants/tree trimming
Three Municipal Code Sections relate:
Sec 8.12.120 "Duty to trim sidewalk trees and hedges. Any owner or occupant of a
building, lot or premises shall keep all sidewalk trees and hedges properly trimmed in
such a manner that the same shall not interfere with the free use of sidewalks."
Discussion: This section is clear and easy to use. The Code Enforcement Officer can
write infraction citations ($50 fine) on this section.
Chaoter 1.20.030 F and G "Overgrown vegetation" or "dead, decayed, diseased or
hazardous trees, weeds and other vegetation" which are: likely to harbor rats,
constitute an unsightly appearance, are dangerous to public safety or welfare, or are
determinental to nearby property or property values are declared nuisances.
Discussion: There is only a violation if landscaping is there. No violation exists if there
is no landscaping. If bushes are taken out, no code section requires landscape
replacement. While the design review section of zoning ordinance requires design
review of landscape modifications, this is an approval process, not an enforcement
process and in many cases it is not known what was there before. Additionally, the
standard re: declining property values has never been applicable, as Marin County
property values have steadily increased.
Sec. 9.12.040 No owner, agent, lessee, or other person having charge of any lot shall
permit any weeds to remain on the property.
Discussion: If a person violates this section, the City streets superintendent must give
written notice of such failure to the owner or if he can't be found, post such notice on
the property. The notice must describe the work to be done and shall provide 10 days
to remove the trash and debris. If the work is not done within 10 days after posting, the
city must clear it, keep a record of the work done and the cost, and file a lien on the
property with the County Assessor.
Alternatively, the Code Enforcement Officer may issue a warning citation, documenting
the evidence of the problem and give the property owner a reasonable time (typically
15 days) to correct the situation. If the situation is not corrected, he/she may then , after
again witnessing the violation, issue an infraction citation ($50 fine) which must be
signed by the owner, lessee, manager or occupant of the premises and then must be
delivered to the Municipal Court. The matter is then handled by the court. The fine
may be paid but the problem situation may not be required to be cleaned up by the
cou rt.
b. Trash/debris:
Three municipal code chapters relate:.
B- 33
9.12.030 No owner, agent, lessee or other person having charge of any lot shall
permit refuse to remain thereon nor permit debris or other waste, etc to be placed upon
the lot_
Discussion: Same as 9.12 above
9.12.036 No person owning or occupying a place of business shall sweep into or
deposit in any gutter, street, sidewalk or other public place within the city the
accumulation from such place of business of any refuse, rubbish, garbage, debris,
paper, glass, dirt, dust, animal or vegetable matter, cans, sweepings, or other matters
of similar nature. All persons owning or occupying places of business within the city
shall keep the sidewalk in front of their business premises free from said matters_
Discussion: Same as 9.12 above
Chanter 1.20. Trash and debris are public nuisances. See prior discussion_
c. Building maintenance/unpainted building, etc:
Only Chapter 1.20 relates to this situation.
Chaoter 1.20.030 P. 0. R. Property which is maintained in such a condition so
defective that it causes nearby property values to go down, gr maintaintenance is "so
out of harmony or conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent properties"
and it substantially diminishes the enjoyment, use, or property values of adjacent
properties car maintenance which (adversely) affects at the same time an entire
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons is declared a public nuisance_
Discussion: The first standard re: declining property values has never been
applicable, as Mann County property values have steadily increased_ The second and
third standards are subject to nuisance abatement discussed above, which is a
cumbersome process. Lack of fines may also make enforcement more difficult.
Informal Approach:
Since nuisance abatement, even with improved procedures and fines, is a
cumbersome and time consuming process, informal approaches are always used first.
A telephone call requesting compliance with codes often will yield quick results. As
part of the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan, several building and landscape
maintenance problems, and building "eyesores" were identified. Staff has written
owners of identified properties requesting improvements and many of those
improvements have been accomplished.
6. PARKING BACKGROUND REPORT
��
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee and May, 1989, Neighborhood Plan Survey
identified parking problems as one of their greatest concerns. 73% of neighborhood
survey respondents said much or some improvement was needed in parking. Besides
posing a practical inconvenience to local residents, the parking shortage affects the
flow of traffic within the neighborhood, creates traffic hazards in some cases, and
impacts the visual quality of the neighborhood.
a. Existing Conditions
Any drive through the apartment area (north of Kerner Boulevard) during the day
reveals unusually high levels of onstreet parking, ranging from 50-80% of available
curbside space. Onstreet parking in this residential area increases significantly in the
evening, with streets typically parked at 70-90% of their capacity, if not higher.
The office/industrial area between Harbor and Medway Streets is also heavily
congested due to inadequate onsite parking and truck loading areas. Sidewalk areas
are sometimes used as parking spaces and it is not uncommon to find trucks stopped
in the middle of streets for deliveries or unloading. Streets are parked at 90-100% of
capacity during the day_ (See maps). If the street is parked on one or both sides, traffic
may be blocked entirely or restricted to one lane by onstreet loading.
Parked automobiles are a dominant visual element in the neighborhood_ Factors
which contribute to the "auto congested" appearance of the neighborhood include
narrow street widths, the problem of abandoned vehicles, and the visibility of offstreet
parking for existing residential developments. The parking configurations for existing
apartment buildings typically includes either 1) ground level parking underneath or in
front of apartment buildings without garage doors, or 2) side lot parking areas visible
from the street as long parking corridors.
B-35
b. Parking Recommendations
Committee members stressed that due to the existing parking shortage, no exceptions
should be granted to parking requirements. They recommended that parking
standards be analysed and revised where needed. To reduce existing parking deficits,
they recommended that parking standard revisions consider requiring parking above
that needed for the addition alone, when remodelling and expansion occurs_ Other
ideas discussed by the Committee included public parking garages, permit parking,
parking meters, displaying vehicles "for sale" and major street modifications to
increase parking.
Parkina Standards.
The Canal apartment area was largely developed in the early 1960's and 70's, under
less stringent parking standards than currently required. The parking standards in
effect when most of the apartment buildings were constructed were either the original
parking standards of the 1951 Zoning Ordinance or the 1962 amended parking
standards. Past and present parking standards follow:
est Parking;
1 space/@5 studios
1 space/910 1-bdrms
1 space/020 2-bdrms
Current parking standards require more parking spaces than the older parking codes
for one and two bedroom apartments. In addition guest parking is now required for
'M;L
Parking Standards
1951
1962 1973-1989
Oriainal Code
amended Code
Current Code
Small Buildings
Studio:
studio:
(Less than 4 units);
1 space/unit
1 space/unit
1 space/unit
1 Bedroom
1 Bedroom:
1 space/unit
1.5 spaces/unit
Large Buildings
(More than 4 units):
bedroom:
2 Bedroom+:
.75 space/unit
1.5 spaces/unit
2 spaces/unit
3 Bedroom+:
3 Bedroom+:
2 spaces/unit
2 spaces/ unit
est Parking;
1 space/@5 studios
1 space/910 1-bdrms
1 space/020 2-bdrms
Current parking standards require more parking spaces than the older parking codes
for one and two bedroom apartments. In addition guest parking is now required for
'M;L
projects with more than 5 studio units, 10 one bedroom units or 20 two bedroom units.
Staff is evaluating current parking standards as part of the Zoning Ordinance update.
The current residential parking standards are a significant improvement over past
standards. Onstreet parking utilization much lower in the newer development projects,
such as the Bahia de Rafael and Spinnaker Point, although residents are disturbed by
construction parking, angled parking on cul-de-sacs, and overnight truck parking along
Bellam Blvd.
The current residential parking standards are generally comparable to the parking
standards used by other jurisdictions for multiple dwelling units. They exceed the
parking demand estimated for low to mid -rise apartments by the Institute of
Transportation Parking Generation Manual. Further, East San Rafael residents do not
own more cars than normal. The results of the 1989 East San Rafael Neighborhood
Survey indicate that 12% of the respondents' households had no car, 47% owned one
car, only 32% owned two cars, and 9% had three or more cars. Staff is continuing to
evaluate parking standard adequacy for all types of uses. Revised parking and
loading standards will be proposed as part of zoning ordinance revisions.
Public Parking Garage
At the May 9 Neighborhood Advisory Committee meeting, it was suggested that public
parking areas are needed in East San Rafael to address parking shortages. Public
parking garages are funded through private assessment districts in combination with
Redevelopment Agency land acquisition. The Redevelopment Agency has built public
parking garages in the Downtown area in conjunction with the Downtown Parking
Authority. The garages were built as part of an overall retail strategy, with the intent of
making money.
If a group of apartment owners in East San Rafael decided to form a parking
assessment district, the Redevelopment Agency could assist with land acquisition.
There are a number of constraints which make this an unlikely option, including
construction costs, the limited availability of suitable sites, and operation or
maintenance costs, including security. At present, the cost of building a parking
garage is approximately $16,000.00 per parking stall. Other than the parcel at 158
Mill Street, there is no apparent place to build such a garage which would be
convenient to apartment dwellers. Even the site at 158 Mill Street is basically in the
industrial part of the neighborhood. And, due to potential security problems,
supervision would be required at the parking garage, increasing operation costs for the
garage. The Committee recommended that the Agency continue to identify potential
parking lot locations in the event property owners were to desire to form an
Assessment District.
Permit Parkina
Another recommendation at the May 9 Neighborhood Advisory Committee meeting
was the possibility of a residential permit parking system, similar to ones used in San
B- 3 7
Francisco or other large cities. This suggestion was made in the context of a
discussion on the towing of abandoned vehicles_ A permit parking system could be
used to reserve onstreet parking for apartment tenants.
City staff have been contacted numerous times in the past with requests to establish
residential parking permits in areas around the fringe of downtown, including areas on
D, B and First Streets, and the Hayes and Latham neighborhood. A residential permit
parking system has not been established in the City of San Rafael to date. There are
two main reasons for this. In the first place, the City holds that public streets, which are
maintained by a general tax (gas taxes), should not have parking restricted to serve a
localized group. Typically, roadways maintained by the public are generally available
to the public on an equitable basis, and significant limitations on use are considered
appropriate only for private streets where there is no expenditure of public funds for
maintenance.
The second reason that residential parking permit systems have not been
implemented is the administrative cost of a permit program and potential for expansion.
The administration of a parking permit system includes signing, procedures to maintain
a list of issued permits, update the list on an annual basis (reissuing new permits or
recalling invalide permits), patrolling areas on a periodic basis, and appearing in court
to define citations. These services were estimated to cost $45,000 on an annual basis
for a relatively small district for isolated blocks around Downtown. The cost of
administering 2,700+ parking permits in a relatively transient neighborhood could be
significantly higher. This cost would result in a prohibitive permit fee, or a substantial,
and unprecedented, City subsidy of the program.
The Committee requested that the City further investigate the feasibility of such a
system and further stated that only a limited number of permits should be granted to
each apartment to reduce on street parking.
Maior Street Desion Modifications
The possibility of major street design and traffic control measures, such as the use of
parking bollards or barriers to close off streets, similar to Berkeley, and the possible
use of angled parking to increase parking and improve traffic control was discussed.
City staff studied major street modifications and concluded that these measures do not
appear practical in this neighborhood for several reasons. 1) There is not a great
problem with through -traffic since the neighborhood is not enroute to other
destinations, 2) most of the streets are too narrow to accomodate angled or
perpendicular parking, and 3) angled parking is more dangerous than parallel parking
in terms of vehicles backing out of spaces with limited view range into traffic. However,
the Committee recommended that the City hire a consultant to conduct a parking study
to evaluate whether street modifications could result in increased amounts of onstreet
parking.
"For Sale" Sians in Parked Vehiclea
Another item raised by the Committee concerned the possibility of enforcing an
existing ordinance which prohibits the parking of vehicles on a street for the "principal
purpose of displaying the vehicle for sale." This ordinance was adopted to keep
businesses such as car dealerships from using the streets to park vehicles for sale.
However, it is nearly impossible for the Police Department to prove whether an owner
of a private vehicle with a "for sale" sign in their window is parking it "for the principal
purpose of displaying the vehicle for sale". They may be using the car during the day
and parking it on street at night because of inadequate onsite parking. It is far easier to
tag the car as an abandoned vehicle.
Time Limited Parking
One committee member mentioned the possibility of time-limited parking to reduce
onstreet parking congestion. Typically time limited parking is established in
commercial areas to maintain turnover of retail patrons. It does not reduce onstreet
parking.
The Canal area was developed with inadequate parking for the types of businesses,
such as auto repair shops, presently occupying the buildings. H significant portion of
the ofistreet Narking in this area is probably employee parking. Establishing time limits
will not create more parking spaces or increase turnover of retail patrons since this is
largely ars Industria!/oiiice area. It will inconvenience employees 9_vho have to
continually move their vehicles. It will not reduce the number of cars in the area, but
cause them to be moved more frequently. In residential areas, time limited parking
would pose hardships to many residents. It would not affect abandoned cars. Laws
governing abandoned car tow away �.--,ould supercede. _ he committee recommended,
however, that parking meters be explored more fully in the 'iture.
The Traffic Cloordinating Committee reviews and decides on all requests for parking
time -limits. In general, the Traffic Coordinating Committee has not been supportive of
time-limited parking or parking meters in areas outside of the Downtown for the
additional reason that there are ongoing monitoring and enforcement costs.
T. STREET SWEEPING
Sixty-seven percert of persons responding to the neighborhood survey stated much or
some improvement is needed in street cleaning. While the City sweeps all City streets
every two weeks, a relatively high level of service compared to other Bay Area cities,
mechanical street s% ,eeping is not as effective in East San Rafael because of the large
number of cars parked on th, street, and because people drop so much litter on the
streets soon after the sweepers come through. Also, since East San Rafael is fiat,
stormwater does not drain well, leading to silt accumulation in the gutters.
Staff vies ted other muidple family areas of the City for comparison. Other areas, such
as Gerstle park, had more organic debris (such as leaves) than Last San Rafael. Like
10 K
East San Rafael, streets were not completely clean. However, there was more jtE on
East San Rafael streets. Additionally, there were more long -parked cars in East San
Rafael under which silt and trash accumulate.
To improve appearance of City streets, the Neighborhood Plan recommends that:
a) the City, neighborhood groups and property owners cooperate on
an anti -litter campaign
b) the City use signs and other means to publicize the street
sweeping schedule so that people could voluntarily move cars off
the street;
c) more trash containers be installed;
d) property owners be required to sweep up trash on the curbs,
gutters and sidewalks around their buildings
e) the City add ruular hand sweepinq of streets to supplement the existing
street sweeping program. The City has used workers to hand sweep streets
twice on a trial basis, and streets were noticeably cleaner after the hand
sweeping,
fl the City consider a mandatory towing and mechanical street
sweeping program.
Benefits and problems with these various recommendations are described in the
charts following the City Street Sweeping Description. The Public Works Department
considers periodic hand sweeping to be a viable program as long as the City is able to
utilize the free labor of San Quentin crews but states new funding would be needed to
otherwise staff such a program. Costs for a mandatory towing and mechanical street
sweeping program would be even greater and City staff have significant concerns
about the impacts that a towing program would have on apartment residents.
Committee members, however, strongly recommend that such a program be
considered, at least on a trial basis.
The existing City street sweeping operation is outlined below.
Description of Clty Street Sweeping Operatlons:
Equipment: 3 street sweepers
1 leaf vacumn machine
Manpower: 2 full time street sweeper equipment operators
Hours: Operators work midnight to Sam (summer)
and 2-10am (winter).
Reasons for night operations:
1) less traffic interference.
2) Downtown must be swept at night and City policy requires that Downtown be
swept every worknight.
M111it
3) Sweeper equipment must be serviced daily. Servicing
takes 1-3 hours every day and must take place during normal work hours when
staff is available,
d) During heavy rainfall, sweepers act as emergency personnel checking and
manning pumps.
Schedule: All of the City is swept 2 times a month except during periods of heavy rainfall
and during the fall when leaves require additional sweeping. The City is divided
into the following areas: Downtown (swept nightly); Fairhills; Gerstle Park; Sun
Valley; West End and residential Canal; Bret Harte and Lincoln; non-residential
Canal and Dominican; Peacock Gap and Glenwood; southern Terra Linda;
northern Terra Linda and Civic Center; Merrydale, northwestern Terra Linda and
Francisco Blvd, West,
Residential East San Rafael streets (Canal, Larkspur, Novato, Fairfax, Charlotte,
Elaine, Sonoma, Portofino, Capri, Amalfi, Lido, Sorrento, Marian, Kerner from
Bellam to Canal, Bahia, Catalina, Newport) are typically
swept every other Thursday night.
The non-residential portions of East San Rafael are typically swept gyery other
Monday nicht.
Level of Twice a month sweeping is a relatively high levet of Service:
serviQe. A survey of other cities found the following:
Walnut Creek, I month
Petaluma: 2x month
Marinwood: 1-2x/year
Corte Madera: 2x month winter,
1 x month summer
Santa Rosa: 1 x month
Novato: Once every 4-6 wks
Rohnert Park- 2x month
San Anselmo: 1 x week fall,
1/ev 3-4 mo. rest of year
Benefits and Problems of hand sweeping and mandatary
towing/mechanical street sweeping programs are summarized in the
following charts.
PARKING PROHIBITION/MECHANICAL SWEEPING AT NIGHT
Benefits
Problems
• Would keep streets clean
• Severe parkono impact on residents due to inadequate
• May get rid of onstreet
onsite parking and lack of alternative parking areas.
abandoned vehicles
Could lead to parking on landscape areas, blocking
driveways, etc. Most residential streets north of Kerner
are 70-90% occupied at night. Along Lincoln Avenue, 3-5
cars continue to be towed daily after several years of
signing/towing. Cost of getting car out of tow company lot
is more than $80.
- Community ill will if cars are towed -those who are
towed may be least able to afford it.
. Cost of signing every 300' estimated to be $13,000+.
Sign maintenance an additional, ongoing cost. Sign "clutter"
• Cost of additional Police Department staff to ticket cars
for tow away. (up to $30,000/yr) P.D. staff must await
tow truck arrival.
- Tow companies currently not available at night for
towing except on special call. Tow company may refuse to
tow inoperable vehicles.
• if divide Canal into more than 2 sweeping areas, so that
fewer residents are affected on any one night, likely to
reduce street sweeping service to rest of city.
• Noise problems with nighttime sweeping and towing
• Resentment if sweeper breaks down, doesn't come
PARKING PROHIBITION/MECHANICAL SWEEPING DURING DAY
Benefits
Problems
• Would keep streets clean
- Severe narking impact on residents due to inadequate
• May get rid of on street
onsite parking and lack of altemative parking areas.
abandoned vehicles
Could lead to parking on landscape areas, blocking
driveways, etc. Impact less severe than at night,
however, most residential streets north of Kerner are
50-80% occupied during the day. Since onstreet parking
remains high and is random, with few long stretches of
open street, street sweeping Is unlikely to be much more
effective than at night. Along Lincoln Avenue, 3-5 cars
continue to be towed daily after several years of
signing/towing. Cost of getting car out of tow company lot
is more than $80.
• Community ill will if cars are towed -those who are
towed may be the least able to afford it.
. Cost of signing every 300' estimated to be $13,000+.
Sign maintenance an additional, ongoing cost. Sign "clutter"
• Significant cost of additional Police Department staff to
ticket cars for tow away as noted above.
• Tow company may refuse to low inoperable vehicles
• It divide Canal into more than 2 sweeping areas, likely to
reduce street sweeping service to rest of city.
• Loss of (1) nighttime sweeping staff in emergencies.
Sweepers are the only regular Public Works staff on duty
12-7 am.
• Less efficient sweeping due to traffic
• Greater safety/liability due to increased pedestrian and
auto traffic.
- May create difficulties In maintaining sweeping
equipment (vehicles are serviced every day during
normal work hours for 1-3 hours)
• Community resentment if sweeper breaks down, doesn't
come after cars have been moved
SIGNING (VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE), MECHANICAL_ SWEEPING AT NIGHT
Benefits Problems
- Would let community know when • Likely to be ineffective due to inadequale onstreet
street sweeping occurs so that they parking and lack of alternative parking areas. Could could
move cars. Could improve lead to parking on landscape areas, blocking driveways,
mechanical sweeping efficiency if etc. Impact less severe if sweeping occurs during
community voluntarily moves the day rather than at night. Long stored and abandoned
vehicles. vehicles unlikely to be moved, thus less likely to be
effective-
- Cost of signing $13,000+. Maintenance of signs an
ongoing additional cost. Sign "clutter".
- If divide Canal into more than 2 sweeping areas so
that fewer residents are affected on any one night, likely
to reduce service to rest of city.
Potential costs of public education program
her Impacts discussed above under other mechanical sweeping alternatives.
HAND SWEEPING BY A CREW EVERY FOUR TO SIX WEEKS TO SUPPLEMENT
MECHANICAL SWEEPING
Benefits Problems
- Streets get swept where . Additional City Operating Costs for crews, trucks, mis'c
sweeping machines can't reach equipment, City supervision, liability as follows'.
- Visible, ongoing service Marin Conservation Corps: $24,000/year
Youth groups: $19,000/year
San Quentin men_ $13,000/year
- Unless new staff hired, reduces services the street
crews would otherwise provide
• Ineffective in getting debris under parked cars
R?
• Scheduling difficulties: if it rains on the days
sweeping is scheduled, sweeping may not occur until
following month
'Public Works Department estimates
HAND SWEEPING BY AN INDIVIDUAL EVERY FOUR TO SIX WEEKS
Benefits
• Streets get swept where
machines can't reach
• Visible, ongoing service
• More flexibility in cleaning;
person could "spot sweep"
• Added staff available for
other jobs when it rains
Problems
• Additional City Operating Costs':
1 additional maintenance worker: $31,600/yr
and $15,000 additional City truck (If contract for
service through a maintenance company, may cost
less but could be opposed by Union)
• Ineffective in getting debris under parked cars
•Public Works Department estimates
Results of Trial Hand Sweeping by San Quentin workers
The week of February 21, 1989, eleven San Quentin workers hand swept East San
Rafael streets with two City staff assisting. They cleaned debris out of median strips,
shoveled silt and debris out of gutters, and broom swept. They were unable to clean
under parked cars but did clean between cars. Time taken: 3 days. Workers swept
the area north of Bellarn Blvd_ in approximately 2 days. Workers cleaned area south of
Bellarn Blvd. and spot cleaned on a 4th day. Amount collected was 1 truck load the
first day, less the other two days. The amount was roughly equivalent to 2 sweeper
loads. Private streets are privately maintained and were not swept.
Effectiveness: Staff viewed streets both before and after the February sweeping.
Overall appearance was improved, however, because of significant onstreet parking,
and problems with people littering after sweeping occurred, streets were not
completely clean/spotless. Few community comments were received. Staff viewed
streets again in April. With more people out due to good weather, street litter was
greatly increased. Hand sweeping in May, 1989 yielded increased results.
Increase Property Owner Maintenance Responsibilities
The Committee requested that staff research the possibility of an ordinance requiring
apartment and business owners to clean the sidewalks, curbs and gutters around their
property. The City Attorney states that such a requirement is within the City's police
powers and can be done. Currently, the City has a municipal code section requiring
business owners to keep the sidewalks in front of their businesses clean as follows:
9.12.036_ Merchant's Duty to keep sidewalks free of litter. No person
owning or occupying a place of business shall sweep into or deposit in any gutter, street,
sidewalk or other public place within the city the accumulation from such place of
B-44
business of any refuse, rubbish, garbage, debris, paper, glass, dirt, dust, animal or
vegetable matter, cans, sweepings, or other matters of similar nature. All persons
owning or oocupying places of business within the city shall keep the sidewalk in front of
their business premises free from said matters.
This code section could be expanded to require apartment and business owners to
clean sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Regular property owner cleaning of sidewalks,
curbs, and gutters would greatly assist in improving street cleanliness. The primary
City implication is that it would be an additional code enforcement responsibility to
enforce the new law.
8. ONSTREET ABANDONED VEHICLE TOWING
Abandoned vehicle towing was the highest ranked service needing improvement,
according to the March, 1989 East San Rafael survey. 82% of respondents said much
or some improvement is needed to this program. Police Department staff state that the
program is currently working about as well as it can and there are no significant
problems with it. Perceptions are clearly different. In part this is attributable to the fact
that many East San Rafael cars appear to be abandoned but actually are not.
The Committee made several recommendations to improve towing of abandoned cars,
including increasing or at least maintaining existing staff assigned to this program,
conducting abandoned vehicle "sweeps", publicizing how to report abandoned
vehicles and start the car removal process; encouraging additional auto dismantling
facilities in appropriate locations, and improving abandoned vehicle abatement
procedures on private property.
a. Existing City program:
City Staffing: Parking Enforcement Officer (full time), 2 Police Service Aides (part
time), Police Officers on patrol (part time)
Towing Contract: City has contracted with Marin Auto Body to tow all abandoned
vehicles in the City for the last two years. Marin Auto Body has car storage and
dismantling facilities out of town. The company will take all abandoned vehicles the
City can find up to approximately 60 vehicles per month. City costs include ticketing
and support staff and paperwork (approx. $2.50/car)
b. How does the Abandoned Car Towing program work?:
On complaint, two Pollce Service Aides mark vehicles. Additionally, officers on patrol
may, as time permits, mark disabled vehicles or other vehicles which appear to be
abandoned. Once on -street vehicles are marked, State law requires waiting a
minimum of 72 hours before towing. Within 3-5 days, the Parking Enforcement Officer
checks to see if the marked car is still there. 11 it is, she will so note and notify the low
EM
company to pick it up. Within 4-10 days of the car being marked, it is towed. If the car
has been moved, the Police Department may again mark it, but the process must begin
again. In 1988, the Police department marked 2,522 cars, and 736 were towed (29%).
The other cars had been moved.
In addition to these ongoing efforts, the Police Department in October, 1988 and
January, 1989 conducted trial "sweeps" of East San Rafael. They systematically
marked all cars which appeared to be abandoned. Both times, approximately 100 cars
were marked. Of this total, 30-35 were towed (30-35%). The other 65-70 cars had
been moved. The Police Department concluded that this intensive additional effort did
not yield improved results over that obtained from people calling in to report
abandoned vehicles and does not plan to conduct additional sweeps. Advisory
Committee members, however, recommend this additional service because it assures
periodic removal of abandoned vehicles without residents having to call in complaints.
Cars which are being stored on the street are typically stored there because there is
not enough onsite parking, or because the car is temporarily disabled. The Citywide
and East San Rafael statistics clearly show that manv cars which appear to be
abandoned are not.
c. Any significant problems with the existing program?
There are currently no significant problems associated with the City's program of
towing abandoned vehicles. This is a much improved situation over 1986.
Before the City negotiated the contract with Marin Auto Body, the City had a difficult
time getting its three rotation tow companies (Valley, Red Hill and Dan Ness)` to take
—n abandoned vehicles because these tow companies are not auto dismantlers and
have no room to store cars for the15-40+ days required until the cars can legally be
dismantled. Thus, when Marin Auto Body began towing abandoned vehicles in 1987,
there was a 6 month backlog of known abandoned vehicles waiting to be towed. That
backlog has been eliminated. The Parking Enforcement Officer estimated that there
may be approximately 50 abandoned vehicles in all of San Rafael as of February,
1989.
In 1987, 415 cars were towed. In 1988, as the program became more efficient, 736
vehicles were towed. 298 or 40% of the total were towed from East San Rafael.
Some complaints have arisen because of the amount of time it takes to get a car
towed. The three day notice is a legal requirement which is clearly necessary, given
the number of cars which are not abandoned but are stored on the streets. The
amount of time it takes to actually tow the car depends on the number of cars waiting to
be towed at any one time.
d. State Laws:
State law requires that on street vehicles be marked for 72 hours before they can be
towed. Once towed, the tow company must notify the car's registered owner and hold
the vehicle for 15 days if it is valued at less than $300, and for 30-40 days if it is valued
at more than $300. There is no State funding for towing of abandoned vehicles.
'The City contracts with three tow companies (on a rotation basis) to tow illegally parked cars (for example,
cars in "tow away" zones or blocking driveways).
9. POLICE SERVICES
a. Personnel
Police Department staffing (FY 89/90) in San Rafael consists of 72 officers, 2 police
service aides, and 27 support staff. 57 sworn officers are assigned to patrol; the
remainder are involved in investigations, crime prevention, youth services,
administration, etc. In 1977-78, there were 68.5 officers. In the last 10 years, 13
non -officer staff have been added, such as Police Service Aides, Parking Enforcement
Officers, etc.
b. Patrol Areas
The police department has divided the City into seven beat patrol areas. To determine
the parameters of these beats the City is divided into fifty-nine (59) reporting zones.
Beats are then drawn based upon such criteria as response times, geographical
considerations and work load as determined by the calls for service generated and
measured by reporting zones. Typically, there is one patrol officer within one or more
of the patrol areas during a 24 hour period_
The Canal patrol area (Beat 3) is comprised of five (5) main reporting zones and
encompasses 2.5 square miles or 15,8% of the total land area of the city. Table A
shows the number of calfs for service by year for the entire city and for East San Rafael_
Police calls for service have steadily increased in East San Rafael while Citywide calls
for service have remained similar for approximately 3 years. During the same time
period, Part I or major crimes have decreased Citywide_ A statistical break out for the
Beat 3 patrol area is not currently available_ However, a break out of certain Part I
crimes used for crime analysis shows 20-24% occurring in East San Rafael.
TABLE A
Total Calls for Servlce
Part I Crimes
Citywide
East San Rafael
Citywide
#
#
1982 31,191
5,194 16.7
3049
1983 34,995
5,907 16.9
2829
1984 36,853
6,321 17.2
2932
B- 4 7
1985
38,421
7,159
18.6
2679
1986
39,052
7,569
19.4
2966
1987
39,524
8,301
21.1
2724
1988
39,279
8,895
22.6
2665
Source: Police Department
The increase in calls for service in East San Rafael is likely a direct result of the
increased population and jobs development in the area_ The neighborhood
population is estimated to have increased from 5,100 to 8,000 residents in the past 9
years. Increase in calls for service have increased proportionately. In 1980, the area
contained 11 % of the City's population and generated 179/o of calls for service; in 1989,
the area contained 17% of the population and 23% of calls for service. Jobs in this
area also increased from 5,300 in 1980 to 6,450 in 1987_
The somewhat higher -than -City -average number of calls for service by population is
consistent with the type of land uses in East San Rafael. Higher density residential
and commercial uses typically generate higher calls for service than low density
residential, office and industrial uses as shown on the following chart. East San Rafael
contains a concentration of high density residential uses and in the past 10 years, new
commercial land uses, such as Marin Square, have developed.
TABLE B
POLICE SERVICE DEMAND BY TYPE OF LAND USE
Land Use Relative Demand
ger Net Acre
High Density Residential (15-30 u/ac)
+300 percent
Local Commercial
+227 percent
Regional Commercial
+128 percent
Medium Density Residential (7-15 u/ac)
+116 percent
Business/Professional
+104 percent
Low Density Residential (3-6 u/ac)
0 (standard acre)
Light Industrial
-42 percent
Hillside Residential (1-2 u/ac)
-68 percent
Rural Residential (less than 1 u./ac)
-92 percent
Part I and Part 11 crimes typically comprise the more "serious" calls for police service.
Those crimes are further identified as follows:
PART I CRIMES
PART it CRIMES
Homicide Drunk
Forcible Rape Drunk Driving
Robbery Forgery and Counterfeiting
Arson Fraud and embezzlement
Assaults with weapons or resulting in serious injury Other assaults
am
Auto Thefts
Burglary
Thefts
c. Community Volunteer Efforts:
Gambling
Liquor laws
Narcotics sale/manufacturing and possession
Weapons possession
Prostitution and Commercialized Vice
Sex offenses other than rape, prostitution
Child abuse, other offenses against the family
Stolen properly buying, possession
Vandalism
Disorderly conduct
Vagrancy
Other offenses"
The Canal Citizens on Patrol were formed in 1988. This volunteer group of 25 men
and women assisted the police department by patrolling the streets 15 nights per
month and reporting suspicious activities and persons_ Their assistance was
beneficial to the Department by acting as "eyes and ears" for the police officers_ The
group disbanded in 1989.
Neighborhood Watch. Many attempts by the police department have been made to
start neighborhood watch groups, but most do not have long life expectancies. The
crime prevention officer continues to work with neighborhood groups and associations
as well as business and community groups to identify ways the department can work
with area representatives to combat and prevent crime_
d. Service Needs:
San Rafael has changed from a suburban residential community in 1960 to the
County's urban center with a large employment base in 1989. As the urban center,
police problems are not caused from residents only but from people from other
communities. While population has remained relatively steady Citywide due to
declining household sizes, numbers of housing units increased by 2,000 and jobs
increased by 15,000 between 1970 and 1985. The daytime population has been
estimated to be 70,000 or more. Along with these changes have come increases in
calls for police service as noted in Table A.
TABLE C CITY GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS
Year
Population
Housing Units
Jobs
1970
38,977
13,887
24,700
1976
45,611
18,469
1980
44,700
19,237
34,736
1985
44,150
19,566
40,100
1989
46,427
20,665
Sources: ABAG Projections '85; State Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates; 1970,
'76 and'80 Census figures.
MM
In the last decade, there has been a significant population increase in East San Rafael,
however, Citywide population has increased only slightly due to general aging of the
population and smaller household sizes. The 1976 City population was 45,611; the
1989 State Department of Finance population estimate for San Rafael was 46,427.
During the last 7 years, calls for service have increased citywide by 25% and East San
Rafael's share of that total has increased. However, major crimes have decreased
significantly. To maintain service levels as calls for service have increased, Police
Department staff has increased by 18% including 3 officer positions which were funded
in the 89/90 fiscal year. Additionally, the department has modified other procedures to
achieve greater efficiency, such as mailing out forms rather than sending officers to
take information. However, as changes in the community continue --additional staff can
be expected to be needed_
East San Rafael is an area of the City projected for growth. The General Plan calls for
another 375-650 homes in the neighborhood over the next 10-15 years, which could
result in another 1,050-1,800 additional residents. 3,000 additional jabs are also
projected in East San Rafael over the next 10-12 years. Projected levels of growth are
anticipated to require additional personnel in order to maintain police service levels.
Personnel could range from Police Service Aide type positions to sworn officers.
When asked what people do not like about the Canal: crime, drugs and prostitution,
gangs and loitering, ranked very high. One police department function, abandoned
vehicle towing, was ranked highest of all services needing improvement. And when
asked what people would specifically do to improve East San Rafael, police service
functions ranked highest ("Increase police protection", "fight crime/drugs/prostitution",
"improve traffic flow" and "prohibit loitering" were 57% of total mentions). These
perceptions are somewhat contradictory to one other survey question in which
residents ranked "improving police services" relatively low when compared to other
neighborhood service needs such as additional park and recreation facilities. This
survey result may be reflective of the fact that people believe the police department is
doing a good job with the resources available, but still believe crime and police related
functions are the biggest problems in the neighborhood.
e. Substation: Some interest in an East San Rafael Police substation was
expressed by Neighborhood Advisory Committee members. While Police Department
staff agrees with the need for additional personnel as the area grows, they conclude a
substation would reduce levels of police service by taking funds away from patrol
officers and putting them into a facility and additional office staff. Police staff also note
that a substation would not be particularly useful to the community. Police substations
are typically used
- in large cities, which may have substation staff equivalent to San Rafael's total
Police Department staff;
- or in large counties, where there are major distances to travel. Neither of these
conditions apply in San Rafael_ East San Rafael is two miles and five minutes away
from the department's headquarters. A substation in a City the size of San Rafael
would likely be open only with a clerk during daytime hours_ It would not be manned
with a police officer: most of the time the officer is out on patrol. For the community,
the substation would be a place people could come to report a crime or request
information during the day. This function could also be accomplished with a phone
call. However, the Committee states that a fixed police presence in the neighborhood,
such as at a kiosk, would be helpful.
f. Speed Enforcement
The committee recommended installation of additional speed limit signs and
implementation of increased speed enforcement. In response to committee comments,
additional speed limit signs were installed in the fall of 1989_ When no sign is posted,
the law provides that the speed limit is 25mph_ Speed limit signs are typically posted
on major streets. Increased speed enforcement is related to police staffing levels --with
additional staff, lower priority tasks can be accomplished.
10. HEALTH SERVICES BACKGROUND
The health services report identifies the range of lower cost public health services
available in Marin County. Closer and affordable public health care was identified as a
need by 679/o of respondents in the March, 1989, neighborhood survey_ Public health
clinics for the entire county are located at 920 Grand Avenue and at the Downtown
San Rafael Post Office.
While Health Care administrators agreed there are significant health care needs in
East San Rafael, they noted it is highly unlikely that a second county public health
clinic could be opened due to ongoing County budget cutbacks. They stated the only
likely way to locate a clinic in East San Rafael would be to relocate the existing 920
Grand Avenue clinic, which means finding a suitable building at similar costs to the
existing County -owned facility.
The Marin County Board of Supervisors make all public health care decisions in the
County and they are guided by the advisory Marin Health Council. The Neighborhood
Advisory Committee recommended that an East San Rafael representative be
appointed to this Council to help influence the Board on health service matters and to
lobby for an East San Rafael clinic location_
a. Existing Health Care Services
The East San Rafael community has one private medical clinic, and one alcohol and
drug recovery program located within the neighborhood. First Medical Marin, located
at 25 Bellam Boulevard in the Marin Square Shopping Center, is a private medical
clinic with fifty percent of its services devoted to pre-employment check-ups, and fifty
percent to a daytime walk-in minor emergency clinic. The Neighborhood Recovery
B- 51
Center, also known as the Centerpoint Community Center, is an alcohol and drug
social model program located at 86-C Belvedere Street in East San Rafael.
The Marin County Health and Human Services Agency, which provides Countywide
public health services, is the primary provider of public health care services to this
community. The County operates a public health clinic at 924 Grand Avenue,
approximately one mile north of East San Rafael homes. The County also provides
public health nursing services in homes and at a downtown clinic accessible by bus_
Specialized health services are offered by the Marin County AIDs Program and the
Marin County Community Mental Health Program.
Another health care program serving the East San Rafael community is the Marin
Community Clinic, which has a fully equipped clinic in Fairfax and runs a satellite
evening clinic at the 920 Grand Avenue County Public Health Clinic. The Marin
Community Clinic is an independent, private, non-profit health care agency which
accepts Medical and CMSP (County Medical Services Program) patients, and bases
patient fees on a sliding scale. Other private non-profit health agencies offer
specialized health services including perinatal programs and alcohol and drug
recovery programs.
Local hospitals include Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Terra Linda, and Marin General
Hospital in Greenbrae. Both hospitals provide comprehensive medical care and
general emergency services to insured patients. Marin General Hospital also provides
County public health emergency services.
The types of medical services offered through these clinics, hospitals and programs
are summarized on following charts.
b. Needs Identification
A 1989 East San Rafael neighborhood opinion survey identified the need for a health
care clinic which is conveniently located and affordable. 67% of those surveyed said
that a health care clinic is either "much needed" (41 %) or "somewhat needed" (26%) in
the neighborhood. When asked why they thought a clinic was needed, the reason
given most often (65% of total responses) was that a closer location was needed for a
health clinic. Other survey respondents (17%) indicated that the neighborhood needs
an affordable clinic. Others commenting explained that a health care clinic is needed
in East San Rafael because of the neighborhood's dense population and the lack of a
clinic in the area.
Health care administrators and others interviewed affirmed the need for affordable
general medical care for East San Rafael residents. The community was described as
being needy in terms of healthcare, and often uninsured. (Problems with the MediCal
payment system compound the problem, since many private physicians, and in
particular many OB/GYN doctors, will not accept MediCal patients. Under MediCal,
R- 5 2
OB/GYN doctors are reimbursed less than their usual and customary fees; the
paperwork and bureaucracy surrounding the MediCal payment system is
time-consuming and often painstaking; and many of the MediCal cases involve high
risk pregnancies related to drug or alcohol use by mothers, or by lack of medical care
in the early stages of pregnancy.)
More specific East San Rafael health care needs identified by health care
administrators and others interviewed include the following types of services_
a) pre and post natal care for MediCal eligible women.
b) alcohol and drug abuse programs,
c) nutritional information/education programs.
d) dental care.
e) emergency health care services.
f) an expanded outreach program for sexually transmitted diseases
and tuberculosis screening.
g) public information or outreach programs concerning existing health
care programs,
h) expanded hours of operation, evening hours in particular,
for public health clinics to avoid conflict with work schedules.
i) continued need for translation services (Spanish, Vietnamese and
English) with health care.
j) pediatric care
The major community service organization in East San Rafael, the Canal Community
Alliance, identifies drug and alcohol abuse as a significant problem in the community.
Healthcare administrators noted it is highly unlikely that another County public health
clinic can be opened due to County budget cutbacks. The only way to locate a clinic in
East San Rafael would be to close and relocate the 920 Grand Avenue clinic_ If a
health care facility were available in the neighborhood, several private non-profit
health care providers have expressed some interest in offering part-time clinics. A
major obstacle to this scenario involves procuring a building suitable for use as a
health care facility at similar costs to the existing County -owned facility.
Alternative options for improving health care services for East San Rafael residents
include a mobile medical clinic, improving public information or outreach programs
about existing health care programs, expanding the hours of operation at existing
clinics, and/or providing a medical shuttle service to improve access to existing clinics
located outside of the community_
11. SCHOOLS
East San Rafael is served by Bahia Vista Elementary School in the neighborhood,
Davidson Middle School south of Downtown, and San Rafael High east of Downtown.
e- 53
After declining enrollments in the late 1970's and early 1980's and the closure of half
of San Rafael School District schools, elementary and middle school enrollments are
increasing again and are projected to continue to increase for the next several years.
Bahia Vista School has experienced the most rapid increases in enrollment. In
1989/90, San Pedro School, located east of Downtown on Point San Pedro Road, was
reopened to handle much of this increase_
In November, 1987, the Board of Education received a report which showed that the
District would need at least 12 additional classrooms for Kindergarten to Fifth Grade
(K-5) students by 1992-93. To plan for these, increased enrollments, the District
established a Facilities Advisory Committee. The Committee received revised
enrollment projections in November 1988. K-5 enrollments were then projected to
require an additional 23 regular classrooms by 1994/95. Davidson Middle School
projections were also reviewed and projected to need 7 additional classrooms by
1994/95. The committee was to recommend the desired number of classrooms for
each site and recommend which facilities should be used to meet the increase in
enrollment.
The Committee's approach was to assess how projected enrollment could be
distributed among school sites so that children could share equal amounts of clasroom
and playground area in a setting contributing to education quality. Members evaluated
existing site facilities against State standards and District "norms", developed
assumptions of ideal classroom size, and desirable student enrollments for each site;
evaluated safety factors and site constraints, and other user needs (such as child care).
Committee recommendations were presented to the Board in September, 1989.
Bahia Vista is the most crowded school in the District. The Committee recommended
to the Board that no additional buildings be placed on the Bahia Vista site and that one
portable be removed. San Pedro, Glenwood and Gallinas Schools were identified as
the most appropriate school sites to meet increases in K-5 enrollments. The
Committee further recommended Master Planning of sites. The Neighborhood Plan
recommends City/School District coordination on matters relating to schools.
12. LIBRARY SERVICES
The City of San Rafael currently has one public library located at 1100 E. Street
Downtown. With a high demand for and extensive use of library services, the existing
facility has run out of space to adequately house eollections, users, services and staff.
General Plan policies recommend an expanded Downtown area library, and then
consideration of branch libraries in East San Rafael and Terra Linda.
Forty seven percent of respondents to the East San Rafael Neighborhood Survey
stated that improvement was needed in library services. The neighborhood has a high
proportion of recent immigrants and non-English speakers. It is also lower income
compared to the rest of the City. One of the traditional ways in which immigrant
4111211
children have become integrated into the mainstream culture is through the use of the
public library. For these reasons, the City library in cooperation with the Marin County
library will begin bookmobile service to East San Rafael in the fall of 1989, staffed by a
bilingual Spanish/English speaking librarian.
NATURAE. ENVIRONMENT
The Na: ural Environment section of the San Rafael General =tan addresses
preservation of open space for a variety of purposes; protection of environmental
resources such as wetlands and hillsides; and maintaining water quality in the Canal
and other water bodies. Environmental protection policies in the General Plan
received very strong support during Neighborhood Plan development. Committee
members supported the careful wording of the General Plan environmental Protection
policies_ They added policies identifying specific neighborhood environmental
resources.
SAFETY AND NOISE
1. GENERAL
Safety concerns considered in the Citywide General Plan include geologic and
seismic risk, flooding, hazardous materials, disaster preparedness, fire, crime
preventior., etc. The extent of hazards on any site depend on local conditions and is
an important factor in planning the intensity, type and design of land uses. The Safety
section includes Geotechnical Review Procedures for assuring that soils, seismic and
hazardous waste concerns are addressed early in the development revie�', process.
The Neighborhood Plan strongly supports General Plan safety policies. Updated
background information to address hazardous materials and flooding is included in the
Neighborhood Plan as these two issues were of particular neighborhood concern,
2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Introduction
Hazardous —astes are any chemical compound creating a threat to health, ranging
from automobile oil to known cancer causing chemicals. In the 1970's and 1980's,
hazards created by toxic -,aste spills, contaminated soil, hazardous materials disposal
and by contamination from former dump sites have become a subject of increasing
concern. Federal and state legislation have focused or
• cleanup of the most hazardous dump sites,
• landfill monitoring programs to identify and contain potential
hazards from landfills,
- phasing out of disposal of liquid hazardous wastes on land,
B- 55
• phasing out of disposal of liquid hazardous wastes on land,
• reducing hazardous waste production and increasing recycling and
treatment of hazardous wastes
• programs relating to businesses using hazardous materials,
• wastewater pretreatment requirements for industries discharging
hazardous waste into municipal systems,
• guidelines for handling and cleanup of various hazardous materials
• regulating transport of hazardous materials
• inspecting hazardous waste generators
In conjunction with State and federal requirements, local governments have major
responsibility for
• identifying specific sources and amounts of hazardous waste
generation,
• identifying appropriate potential sites for hazardous materials
disposal facilities,
• establishing programs to dispose of household hazardous wastes,
• regulating underground storage tanks,
• handling specific hazardous materials incidents and emergency
response planning;
• in development or redevelopment, minimizing exposure to any onsite
hazardous materials through removal or mitigation
While there are no Class 1 (most dangerous) landfills located in Marin County, San
Rafael contains several former landfills and sites filled prior to 1974 , when more
stringent fill requirements went into effect. Known former landfills, pre -1974 fill sites
and areas which are or have been zoned for industrial or commercial uses are
mapped in the General Plan. Since the General Plan was adopted, the State Water
Quality Control Board has classified the City site at the end of Bellam Blvd. as a former
landfill. Additionally, many area businesses use small amounts of hazardous materials
which require proper storage and handling. Hazardous materials such as paints,
solvents, and cleaning compounds are also typically present in small quantities in
people's homes_
b. State Regulations and Responsibilities
The State Water Quality Control Board is responsible for evaluating the potential threat
to water quality by existing and former landfills. Landfill sites statewide are prioritized
for such evaluation_ Based on a 12 year State review schedule (starting in 1986), the
San Quentin site would be analyzed in 1989, the Ghilotti Brothers and Bayview
Business Park sites in 1991, the Central Marin site in 1994, and the Cecotti site in
1995. The small City landfill at the end of Bellam was added to the list in 1989, and
was given a high priority for review at the City's request.
Work programs for testing landfills are approved by the Water Quality Control Board
RM
staff. Testing then proceeds in accordance with state guidelines_ f potential problems
are identified in initial testing, additional testing must be undertaken. Ongoing
monitoring is also part of this program. If Board staff determine that hazardous wastes
have migrated into the water, they will notify the Department of Health Services and the
California `Haste Management Board, which % gill then require appropriate remedial
action.
The Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance 7istrict (BAAQMD), does not routinely monitor
any sites in San Rafael for hazardous air pollutants. yowever, it they receive several
complaints on any source, they will investigate and can issue fines. B;- AQMD staff
state that landfills do not typically cause problems until they are drilled into, when
methane and other odor -producing substances may escape.
Businesses generating heavy metals and certain hazardous wastes are required by
Federa: -aw to pre -treat such waste prior to discharging it into a sewage treatment
system. The Sanitation District is involved in inspecting the handful of San -lafael
businesses required to pre treat to insure that proper procedures are followed.
In addition, State law requires the State Department of Health Services to compile lists
of identified nazardous waste facilities, and all land designated as hazardous waste
property —hile the State Water Resources Control Board must compile lists of sites
which have had leking underground storage tanks or are solid 1-aste disposal facilities.
In 1989, tha., list included 28 sites in San Rafael, nearly all of which had been identified
due to underground storage tank leaks.
1 h State Highway Patrol regulates transport of hazardous «pastes.
c. County Regulations and Responsibilities
The County Environmental Health Department is responsible for approving landfill
closure plans for former landfills which describe future land uses, ongoing monitoring
activities, and impacts and mitigation measures to ensure that development is not
adversely affected by the previous landfill operation. Mitigation measures can include
engineering measures for methane gas reduction, capping to keep rainwater out and
any leacheates in, etc.
Counties are also responsible for preparation of hazardous waste management plans.
.11 February, 1989, The County and cities of Mann approved a draft - lazardous Waste
Management 'lan for submittal to the State. In accordance with State requirements,
this Plan identifies types and amounts of hazardous materials in Mann County;
establishes siting criteria for hazardous materials disposal facilities; proposes waste
management programs--i.e., %„paste disposal and source reduction/recycling
programs; and safe transportation programs. --)e Plan concludes that "small quantity
generators” generate most (85%) of the hazardous wastes in the County and that
households contribute about 5% of the total. Waste oil is the largest constituent of
B- 57
Marin's hazardous waste stream (70%). The County hired a hazardous waste
coordinator in February, 1989 to assist in implementing the Hazardous Waste
Management Plan. A major task of the coordinator in 1989 was to set up household
hazardous waste collection days.
d. City Regulations and Responsibilities
The City's Fire Department is responsible for monitoring the storage and use of
hazardous materials in businesses and for regulating underground storage tanks. San
Rafael was one of the first cities to have an ordinance (adopted 1985) requiring
businesses using hazardous materials to obtain permits from the fire department. The
permit requires that businesses identify onsite storage facilities and types and
quantities of materials being stored; provide written inspection procedures, an
employee training program, and an emergency contingency plan; and identify
emergency equipment availability. The State Toxic Substances Control Division of the
State Health Department is also responsible for monitoring businesses which use
hazardous materials.
The Fire Department also has a special unit to contain hazardous materials spills. In
November, 1982, the cities and County of Marin, California Highway Patrol and County
Fire Districts signed a Joint Powers Agreement to have the County identify the type of
spill and have the San Rafael Fire Department contain the spill.
Development Proiec_t,,i
For several years, environmental review of development projects have included soils
and groundwater testing where there were suspected or potential problems. The 1988
General Plan and revised Geotechnical Review procedures formalized city policy and
review procedures relating to hazardous materials.
New development or redevelopment projects must include a preliminary soils
investigation as part of the review process. The preliminary investigation must now
identify historic land uses, the nature of any fill and a site reconnaisance for
evidence/potential of hazardous materials. If hazardous contamination is suspected or
encountered --and on any former landfills --hazardous waste investigation reports must
be prepared. Investigations are to include subsurface soil borings, surface water
sampling, installation of monitoring wells, mapping of any contamination zones, a
discussion about water supplies that may be affected and mitigation measures.
Hazardous waste investigation reports are reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Review
Board. San Rafael is ahead of most other communities in adopting this kind of
standardized review procedure.
Other hazardous materials problems, such as unauthorized dumping into the storm
drainage system, dumping of oil or trash on a site, etc., are handled on a complaint
basis by a combination of City Code Enforcement, Fire Department, and County
Um
Environmental Health Department staff.
In the fall of 1989, the City hired a Hazardous Materials Coordinator to improve
coordination among departments in the handling of hazardous materials issues.
3. FLOODINO
a. Rising Sea Level
Since he adoption of the General Plan, the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (ISCMC) has issued a Bay "Ian Amendment supporting earlier predictions
regarding rising sea level. The BCDC report predicts a. future rise in sea level due to
the "greenhouse effect." -.-he "greenhouse effect" refers to the long term warming of
the earth's surface from heat radiated off the earth and trapped in the earth's
atmosphere by gases released into the atmosphere. BCDC estimates that the sea
level could rise between four and five inches in the Bay in the next 50 years, and
approximately one and one-half to five feet by the year 2100, depending on the rate of
accelerated nse in sea level caused by the "greenhouse effect." The actual -later leve:
rise around the Bay Area %vill also depend upon land elevation changes related to
lifting of the earth, or "subsidence" due to ground water extractions or settling of bay
mud or fill.
To address the rise in sea level concern, BCDC's Bay '31an Amendment (No. 3-88)
includes findings and policies relative to rising sea level including the following
policies: a) local governments should assure that their requirements and criteria reflect
future sea level rise and b) Bay fill projects should be constructed with the lowest floor
above the highest estimated tide level for the expected life of the project or be
protected by adequate levees to allow for subsidence over the expected life of the
project. Additionally, new policies call for the protection of levee right-of-ways to allow
for future levee x Widening on the inland side to support additional levee heigt;t without
placing levee widening till in the Bay.
-:"he B�y Plan Amendment reaffirms the need for building setbacks from levees and
levee upgrading when properties develop or redevelop, as called for in the San Rafael
General Plan, as well as the need to monitor levee subsidence over time. Additionally
it supports a need to eventually revise the City's flood standards.
In 1984, the City adopted a flood protection ordinance, Title 18, with flood elevation
and floodproofing requirements for buildings constructed within the 100 year floodplain
(much of East San Rafael). he ordinance requires that new buildings be constructed
to a minimum base flood elevation (+ 6 NGVD in East San Rafael) after thirty years
settlement_ This ordinance wording allows the Public Works Department to require
higher fill heights if needed. During preparation of the 1985 Draft East San Rafael
)leighborhood Plan, the City's hydrologic consultant recommended increasing
floodproofing standards to +7 finished floor elevation in Fast Sar; .71afael, due to the
MM
rising sea level predictions. These more stringent standards were not adopted as part
of the subsequent General Plan because 1) the Storm Drainage Master Plan will
provide more definitive standards and 2) BCDC and other regional agency
recommendations had not been adopted. While BCDC has now adopted its Bay Plan
Amendment, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), which established the City's first standards, have not issued any flood
elevation revisions.
The scope of the ongoing Storm Drainage Master Plan includes an evaluation of the
need and merits of more stringent finished floor elevations which will in part be based
on federal/regional recommendations. Until those studies can be completed, the
Public Works Department in practice is requiring +7 foot NGVD finished floor elevation
for new projects in East San Rafael.
b. Storm Drainage Master Plan
Phase 1 of the Storm Drainage Master Plan for the San Rafael Redevelopment Area
was prepared in January 1980. Phase I of the plan contained conceptual alternative
solutions to the City's flooding problems and related cost comparisons. Work is
continuing on the Storm Drainage Master Plan. Phase it will ultimately result in very
specific flood protection recommendations. Current work includes mapping and field
verification of the existing storm drainage system (location, type and age of pipe,
elevations). Mapping the entire San Rafael Basin system is estimated at this time to
take approximately three more years if funding continues. The system must be
mapped in order to fully identify any flood routing or pipe/pump deficiencies.
Anticipated timing for completion of Phase II work is approximately five years off.
c. Army Corps of Engineers General Investigation Study
At the City's request, the Army Corps of Engineers initiated a reconnaissance study for
the San Rafael Canal in 1983. The reconnaissance study concluded that there is a
flood problem and that the solution would need to specifically be determined through a
more detailed General Investigation Study. In October of1986 a General Investigation
Study of the Canal flooding problem was funded (50% local, 501/a federal funds.) This
multi -step study involves specifically identifying the Canal flooding problem,
developing possible solutions to the flood problem and cost/benefit ratios for the
solutions, selecting one solution to be studied in greater detail, and developing a cost
sharing agreement with the City to pay for 25-35% of construction costs. The
recommended solution is submitted to Congress for funding. After federal and local
funding is assured, final engineering and construction occurs. The estimated time for
completion of the General Investigation Study is at least five years off.
To date, the General Investigation Study has specifically determined that tidal flooding
is the primary concern along the Canal. To address this problem, the General
Investigation Study currently proposes three alternative solutions to solve the Canal
lash%
flooding problems: 1) a tidal flood wall on the southerly side of the channel 2) a tidal
barrier structure at Pickleweed Park extending to the Mann Yacht Club and 3) a tidal
barrier structure located further west at Pickleweed Park extending to the Seastrand
subdivision wetlands. The cost of the tidal barrier and seawall structures has been
estimated to be approximately twenty million dollars. To help evaluate the three
possible solutions, the Public Works Department will set up a local advisory committee
in the summer of 1989 including representatives from the Fast San Rafael
Neighborhood, city staff, the City Council and Planning Commission. The Corps will
then complete its cost benefit analyses and select one alternative.
d. Interim Incremental Flood Control Improvements
Since the Storm Drainage Master Plan and the General Investigation Study are longer
term projects, the City Council has approved funding for incremental flood control
improvements prior to completion of these studies. the first interim step included
raising the existing levee height at lova points. Backup generators have also been
installed for each of the storm drainage pumps to prevent pump failures which occured
in 1982 and resulted in flooding. Additionally, levee improvements are required when
adjacent properties develop or redevelop. An example is the car lot on Grand Avenue
just south of the Canal, which included levee/landfill improvements. In 1989-90 the
Public Works Department will be surveying the condition of major Gast San Rafael
storm drainage lines. While this information will be included in the Storm Drainage
Master Plan system inventory, it will also provide immediate information to the Public
Works Department to evaluate the need for any pipe replacement.
4. SEISMIC RISK AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
The San Rafael Planning Area, along with all of California, is located in one of the most
earthquake prone areas of the world. (here are no kno��m active faults within San
Rafael, but the area is subject to seismic activity from nearby faults. The nearest known
active fault traces are the San Andreas fault, about 10 miles to the southwest, and the
Hayward fault, 8 miles to the northeast. -1-he maximum predicted earthquake
magnitudes for these faults are 8.3 and 7.0 respectively. The risk frovo seismic shaking
from events on these faults is high.
In additiot, to seismic shaking, earthquakes may induce ground failure and "tsunamis"
or earthquake -generated ocean waves. Ground failure is the displacement of the
ground surface due to failure of underlying earth materials during earthquake shaking
and may take the form of liquifaction, lateral spreading, differential settlement, or in
hillside areas, landsliding.
The General Plan identifies East San Rafael as a high hazard area from the standpoint
of seismic risk. About 1/2 of the Planning Area is in the high hazard category_ (See
map) Except for San Quentin ridge, all of East San Rafael was originally marshland.
The marshland soil typically consists of soft and compressible silts, commonly known
am
as bay mud. In these areas, earthquakes may induce "lateral spreading" This
phenomenon results in gradual or rapid loss of strength in foundation materials, and
structures can either gradually settle or break up as foundation soils move, literally by
flowing. Buildings must be carefully designed to resist this circumstance.
Bay mud is a poor foundation material. The suitability of bay mud lands for foundations
can and has been improved over much of East San Rafael by placing fill materials.
The suitability of fill over bay mud for foundations depends primarily upon the thickness
and quality of the fill, and the size and weight of the proposed building. Fill over bay
mud in much of East San Rafael provides adequate foundation support for
well-designed, relatively lightweight buildings. Buildings of one to two stories can
frequently be supported on shallow foundations in the fills.
Under current building practices, some three story buildings may be built on "floating"
foundations. However, heavier and/or taller structures typically require a deep
foundation that transfers the new building loads to more competent material below the
bay mud. Deep foundations are more expensive than shallow foundations, and the
cost rises as the depth of the foundation increases. Since much of East San Rafael is
underlain by a 50 to 90 foot thickness of bay mud (See map of bay mud depths), deep
foundations would have to extend to at least these depths and probably, in many
cases, up to 30 to 40 feet deeper. The cost of such a foundation system is usually
prohibitive for three story structures in areas like East San Rafael.
Proposed new development on filled land over bay mud are primarily concerned with
site settlements and the problem of poor foundation conditions. New projects are
required to have geotechnical investigations to evaluate fill thickness, bay mud
thickness, strength of materials, a history of the site, settlement analysis, mitigation
measures for any unusual or high-risk seismic hazards that are believed to affect the
site, and site grading and foundation design recommendations tailored to the needs of
the site. The General Plan contains additional discussion of the Geotechnical Review
procedures required by San Rafael.
Building codes are upgraded every three years to take into account new information.
Older buildngs in East San Rafael were constructed under standards in effect at the
time they were built. Other cities are beginning to look at the need to study
performance of older buildings on fill and possibilities for retrofitting. This is an issue
the City might also want to study in the future.
In an earthquake, emergency preparedness planning is important. Emergency
preparedness planning consists of three major parts: government actions, private
organization actions, and individual actions_ Emergency preparedness planning
recognizes that in the first 72 hours after a major disaster, people must be self
sufficient. Governments cannot provide all of the services that may be needed_
Therefore, disaster preparedness involves planning efforts by local government,
private organizations and local groups to identify resources, provide public awareness
AMe
and formulate plans about what to do in an emergency situation.
The City is continually updating its emergency response plan which details personnel
responsibilities, public instructions, surveys of the emergency situation, providing for
care and treatment of affected persons, evacuation and/or rescue as needed,
coordinating with the Red Cross, enforcing police powers, etc. The City Fire
department also provides public education programs on individual emergency
preparedness, distributes emergency preparedness information, and has established
emergency medical supply caches throughout the City. The County Office of
Emergency Services and Red Cross trains community groups about disaster
preparedness and distribute emergency preparedness information. Individual
preparedness training is considered to be particularly important for this high density
neighborhood. Bahia Vista School is a designated neighborhood emergency shelter.
Emergency connectors are reviewed in the General Plan. Large area evacuation
routes are Highways 101 and 580, and other major through roads, such as Lucas
Valley Road and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Many circulation improvements called
for in the General Plan will also improve emergency access in and to East San Rafael
including the Andersen Drive and Francisco Blvd. West extensions, Francisco Blvd.
East widening, a new overcrossing over 1-580 at Irene Street, and connection of the
northern and southern portions of Kerner Blvd."
5. NOISE
The Noise Element identified noise problems in the community, established noise
standards for new land uses, and recommended potential solutions to existing noise
problems. These standards are supported in the Neighborhood Plan.
APPENDICES
SUGGESTED STREET TREE TYPES
FOR MAJOR EAST SAN RAFAEL
RESIDENTIAL STREETS
RECOMMENDED STREET TREES
(Based on recommendations of Parks Superintendent after research/field survey of
East San Rafael. Looked for trees growing well in area, trees that are salt tolerant, not
too messy, generally non invasive roots.)
Chinese pistache (Pistacia) Deciduous, moderate growth, tolerant of poor soils,
drought, reliable street tree
.Japanese Plum (Prunus "Hollywood") Deciduous, purple leaves, light pink flowers
Evergreen Pear (Pyrus kawakamii) Evergreen, white flowers, stake, tolerant of many
soils
Red Oak (Quercus rubra) Deciduous, fast growth, needs water, high branching
Scarlet Oak (Quercus coccinea) Deciduous, moderate growth, deep roots, good
street tree
Sycamore (Platanus acerifolia) Deciduous, fast growing, tolerates most soils, smog
and dust, good street tree, somewhat drought tolerant
Raywood Ash (Fraxinus) Deciduous, almost evergreen, fast growing, no seeds, good
street trees
Summit Ash (Fraxinus) Deciduous, almost evergreen, fast growing, no seeds, good
street trees
Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) Deciduous, tolerant of acid, alkaline, some
drought, known to draw bees, good lawn tree, shouldn't plant too close to
sidewalks --heaves sidewalks, several varieties of G.T. inermis are thornless, have few
or no pods
Locust (Robinia). Deciduous, hardy, drought and poor soil tolerant, fast growing, roots
egressive
Metrosideros. Evergreen, require careful staking and pruning, red flowers, wind and
salt tolerant, drought resistant, good street trees
Hackberry (Celtis) Deciduous, related to elm but smaller, deep rooted, drought and
wind tolerant
Victorian Box (Pittosporum undulatum) Evergreen, moderately fast growth, dense
tree, white flowers„ sticky, yellowish orange fruit messy on lawn or paving, strong roots
become invasive with age
Red Maple (Acer rubrum) Deciduous, fairly fast growth, good red fall color, showy
flowers
TRASH RECEPTACLE- STANDARD DESIGN
Figure 42- Trash Receptacle
6.11 Trash Receptacles
Trash receptacles recommended are simple in
design, difficult to nand2lize, and easy to
maintain and service. Concrete accent elements in
colors similar to the shoreline crushed stone path
and rockwork should be selected.. Trash recep-
tacles should be consistent for the entire length of
the Shoreline Park at spadngs b.. 1 by acti-
vity use and need. Trash receptacles are round,
should have drainage holes in the bottom, include
internal plastic cans, and be permanently anchor-
ed to the ground.
Preliminary Product Recommendations:
Fabricator. Dura Art Stone, Newark,
California or approved equal.
Model No.: TR -Q
Color. Coachella Sand C-15 by LM.
Scofield Company
Fuush. Medium Sandblast
The above trash container design is recommended in the Shoreline Park
Master Plan for the East San Rafael shoreline. Similar trash container -
designs are recoirnnended for new containers at "safe crossings", parks,
bus stops and outside East San Rafael businesses such as convenience
stores.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF EAST SAN RAFAEL
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
SOILS INFORMATION
SOILS INFORMATION
In 1984, Don Herzog & Associates prepared a Geotechnical Investigation of East San
Rafael for the 1985 draft East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan. Subsequent General
Plan policies, maps and background information incorporated most of this work.
However, the Herzog report included a geologic map of Bay Mud depths reproduced
here for information purposes. The map identifies that most of East San Rafael is filled
land over Bay Mud. Bay Mud depths are up to 90 feet deep.
ALLARDT'S CANAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ALLARDT'S CANAL
Hislory
In 1850 when California became a State, it received title to all tide and submerged lands within its
boundaries. In 1870, the then -existing San Rafael Creek composed to tide and submerged lands was
surveyed by Mr. G.F. Allardt and a channel was surveyed within the Creek to be held perpetually in State
fee ownership. Since the date of Allardt's survey, the surveyed Canal has been dredged and straightened
which has resulted in portions of the historic Allardt's Canal being bypassed by the present realigned
Canal. Most of these bypassed areas have been filled and are no longer covered by the tides, yet they are
still subject to State title claims and the public trust rights of navigation and fisheries.
in 1923, the City of San Rafael received a legislative grant in trust of all tide and submerged lands within the
City of San Rafael, With this grant in trust, the City was responsible for protecting the "public trust", i.e.,
protecting and enhancing the rights of the general public to use the State's tide and submerged lands and
waterways for harbors, (water related) commerce, navigation, fisheries and all appurtenances thereto. The
grant also speclied protection of rights to public access to and along the waterfront. Since 1923, the
courts have expanded public trust purposes to include rights to, among other uses, water -oriented
recreation and open space.
The City's original 1923 grant (Chapter 83, Statutes of 1923) did not allow land subject to the public trust to
be conveyed. However, in 1971, the City's grant of trust powers was amended (Chapter 1742, Statutes of
1971) to allow the City to convey or exchange, subject to approval of the State Lands Commission, certain
filled lands which are found to be no longer useful or susceptible to use for the public trust purposes of
harbors, commerce, navigation, fisheries, or appurtenances thereto. All money (or other items of value
specified by Chapter 1742) received by the City as a result of such conveyances or exchanges may be
used only for the acquisition of other property which will be useful for and take on the legal character of tide
and submerged land. Lands acquired with trust revenues become assets of the trust. Revenues derived
from the lands must be used in accordance with the granting statutes and the Statewide public trust - for
water -related commerce, navigation, fisheries, water -oriented recreation and open space.
Public trust funds may be used to generate income for ongoing improvements to continue to enhance the
public trust in the Statewide interest. Such funds are not to be used for projects strictly benefitting a
particular neighborhood or City.
For many years, the City worked with the State Lands Commission to try to resolve public trust title claims in
the Canal area that that resulted from the realignment of the Canal so that property owners who had record
title to parcels not useful for trust purposes might receive clear title to their property. Resolution of title
claims increases the marketability and desirability of property along the Canal, and therefore, increases the
potential for redevelopment of the area. Further, as the City must have State approvals on development
applications involving public trust property, development applications can be subject to long delays and
may be denied. Resolution of title questions through monetary payment also makes funds available to buy
other property suited for public trust purposes.
Allardt's Canal Prooram
The Allardt's Canal program referred to in the General Plan and referenced in the East San Rafael
Neighborhood Plan, and agreed to by the City and State Lands Commission staff allows resolution of
public trust title claims along and in the historic Allardt's Canal by payment of funds into escrow accounts
used in such settlements. Funds In these escrow accounts may be used for acquisition of property only_
In accordance with terms of the trust grant, the City takes the lead in negotiating individual settlements with
land owners along the Canal, each settlement subject to State review and approval The amount of these
settlements are determined by an appraisal process which reflects the fair market value of the lands. The
State retains the right to review and accept or deny any appraisal. The settlements involve money and/or
land. In a land settlement, the State and City would clear title to a tract no longer useful for public trust
purposes in exchange for land suitable for such purposes. The selection of any property to become public
trust land requires State approval_ Access to the parcel, and if applicable, along its waterfront side is critical.
Monetary settlements would be deposited into an escrow account or accounts to be used for acquisition of
other land along the Canal best suited to and most needed for public trust uses. Such acquisition might
include Canal frontage parkland suitable for broad public use which is designated in the General Plan and
East San Rafael Plan.
Allardt's Canal as reserved by the City is shown on the Allardt's Map. State and City title claims to historic
tide and submerged lands adjacent to Allardt's Canal are not shown on the map and the map is not to be
relied upon as inclusive of all City and State public trust claims. Some properties along the Canal were sold
as swamp and overflow lands and may be in fact be, all or in part, tide and submerged land. Title to tide and
submerged land contained within the boundaries of the swamp and overflow patent did not pass to
purchasers with the sales- Title issues created by this situation may also be cleared by the process
described herein where such property is no longer useful for public trust purposes.
General Procure for ResQlvinq Title Claims
The City lakes the lead in negotiating individual settlements when property owners are interested in
redeveloping their properties (or may negotiate with a property owner at any time). The State and City title
claims are typically cleared as part of the City's development approval process.
When development applications are submitted, the developer provides staff a survey of the property. The
property surveyor shall use the City's recorded Allardt's Canal Record of Survey to identify the portion of
the properly affected by Allardt's Canal as shown on the resurvey, Additionally, the applicant is required to
pay for a property appraisal. The appraiser must be given instructions by State and City staff and be
acceptable to all parties. The applicant also provides information to document the applicant's claim of title to
the property. This information includes a chain of title going back to 1941, or, where the chain of title does
not go back to 1941, tax records on said proeprty for the period 1961 to 1971.
City and State Lands Commission staffs will use all available information to assess the quality of the State's
and City's claim to the property, and arrive at a land or monetary settlement. Any settlement value in land or
dollars would reflect the strength of the public's interest being conveyed or settled and the rights, claims,
and equities of the person in whose favor the settlement is made. The land or dollar amount would then be
submitted to the State Lands Commission for review and approval.
MARCH, 1989, EAST SAN RAFAEL
NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY RESULTS
EA S T SA N RA FA FL
1989 NEIGH R- ORHOOD SURVEY RESULTS
A S•_,:nmary of the Rusulis of the Easi Say, Rafael Noighborhond Si-avtc Conducted l uwir, lf-,, Month
of March 1989
Community Survey Consultant
MOORE 1ACOFAN0 GOLTSMAN
1802 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
(415) 845-7549
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Introduction . . . . . . . . I
11, Survey Adam n ,,,tr,-itrnn . . . I i
IT Survey Sar oh, G, oa _sc;tens(ics . , 1s
IV. 4ghli hts From th,_- Survey ReS.UIt , i
V. Results From the -,urvey Ouestions 1
East San Rafael Ne.ghbarhood Survey ResuUs Page t
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpcse of this survey was to find out what residents of East San Rafael think are the major issues and
opportunities facing their neighborhood The City of San Rafael will use the information collected by this
community survey to develop a Neighborhood Plan which reflects residents' values and concerns and serves
as a guide for the future of East San Rafael — its appearance, neighborhood services, parks and facilities
Threehundred and four (304) individuals were surveyed.
Survey results are presented as a series of lab and bar charts for ease of interpretation. Above each chzri, a shoe
wrrrien summary puts into words what the charts depict visually. Highlights of the findings of the survey begin on
Page iv.
Interpreting the Survey Results
Closed -ended questions have been tabulated as the percentage of all survey respondents checking each of the
possible categories.
Oper,-ended questions (i.e., questions without pre-codabte answers), have been content -analyzed and presented
as the number of times a particular item was mentioned (frequency) and as a percentage of the number of total
mentions for a particular item. Open-ended questions are displayed in rank order according to the number of times
(frequency) the particular item was mentioned. Because the entire sample did not respond to these questions and
the number of total mentions may be relatively small, findings for some of the open-ended questions cannot be
generalized reliably to the population of East San Rafael as a whole. Open-ended questions provide qualitative
information because they allow people to respond to a particular item with their own words, rather than solely within
the confines of a pre -structured answer. They also provide an opporlunily for respondents to slate their opinion on
items not addressed by the questionnaire, thereby offering a check on the relevancy of the items that are
presented.
The yellow pages summarize the major findings of the survey. Individual question results are presented in
Section V.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The survey questions were based on an issues identification meeting with the Neighborhood Advisory Committee
with follow-up input from City start. The survey instrument underwent several drabs and a pilot lest before it was
developed into its final form (see Appendix for a copy of the actual survey instrument)_
The survey distribution plan was designed to reach a representative cross-section of East San Rafael residents at
their homes. The number of interviews conducted in each block was proportionate to the number of housing units
in each block. The total survey sample (304) represents four percent (4%) of the neighborhood population and len
percent (10%) of the Iota) number of households in the neighborhood. Although the survey was administered
randomly and interviews were distributed evenly throughout the neighborhood, the demographic characteristics of
the Survey sample may not correspond exactly to the demographic characteristics of the population of East San
Rafaot as a whole.
A suR,ey team was trained to administer the survey using in-person face -to -lace interviews. Survey team
members introduced themselves to each potential respondent and explAined the purpose of the survey, the
general nature of the questions and how long it would lake. All surveys were completed during the period from
February 27 through March 11, 1989.
The survey was also translated and administered in Spanish and Vietnamese to increase the participation of these
groups and to ensure a representative sample rellecling the ethnic diversity of the neighborhood_
In general, residents expressed a strong willingness to participate in the survey and appreciated the opportunity to
express their views.
III. SURVEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Page n
The chart below summarizes the survey sample characteristics. The first column describes the survey
respondents' characteristics; the second column represents 1988 protections from the 1980 Census for census
Tract number 1122, East San Rafael.
From National Planning Data Corporation's (NPDC) on-line demographics service.
" The actual ethnicity of the neighborhood population is believed to be more closely reflected by the survey
sample than by NPDC's 1988 projections. Two recent neighborhood surveys (the 1985 Canal Community Alliance
Survey and the 1987 Pickleweed Park Survey) reported neighborhood ethnicity closer to the findings of this survey.
The NPDC projections, which are based on 1980 Census data, do not take into account the rapid changes in
population which have occurred in the East San Rafael neighborhood during the 1980's.
IV. HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE SURVEY RESULTS
A summary of the main survey findings is presented below and on the next lew pages Detailed results for each
question appear in Section V.
The Neighborhood (Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4)
When asked what they like best about the East San Rafael Neighborhood, respondents nert•3ned,
the quiet, peaceful atmosphere;
• the iocaticn and accessibility to other Bay Area places;
• being close to the water;
• Pickleweed Park,
their own neighbors or East San Rafael residents;
• the weather, and;
• it is an affordable place to live.
W:ien asked what they like least, respondents cited:
crime, drugs and prostitution,
• trash, litter and deterioration;
gangs and people loitering in the Canal area,
• the high density;
• traffic congestion.-
noise,
ongestion;noise, and;
• the area along Canal Street in general,
The most often mentioned suggestions for neighborhood improvement correspond closely with the
respondents' dislikes.
increased police protection;
• neighborhood cleanup;
increased efforts to fight crime, drugs and prostitution;
creating jobs,
• improving traffic flow;
• prohibiting loitering, and;
opening a health care clinic.
Survey Sample
Census Projections-
# of Respondents
304
—
Gender
Male
49%
49%
Female
51%
51%
Ethnicity"
'
White
50%
7311.
Black
9%
9%
Asian
160/.
7%
Hispanic
2t%
10 %
Other
4%
2%
Tenure
Owner
22%
NA
Renter
781%
From National Planning Data Corporation's (NPDC) on-line demographics service.
" The actual ethnicity of the neighborhood population is believed to be more closely reflected by the survey
sample than by NPDC's 1988 projections. Two recent neighborhood surveys (the 1985 Canal Community Alliance
Survey and the 1987 Pickleweed Park Survey) reported neighborhood ethnicity closer to the findings of this survey.
The NPDC projections, which are based on 1980 Census data, do not take into account the rapid changes in
population which have occurred in the East San Rafael neighborhood during the 1980's.
IV. HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE SURVEY RESULTS
A summary of the main survey findings is presented below and on the next lew pages Detailed results for each
question appear in Section V.
The Neighborhood (Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4)
When asked what they like best about the East San Rafael Neighborhood, respondents nert•3ned,
the quiet, peaceful atmosphere;
• the iocaticn and accessibility to other Bay Area places;
• being close to the water;
• Pickleweed Park,
their own neighbors or East San Rafael residents;
• the weather, and;
• it is an affordable place to live.
W:ien asked what they like least, respondents cited:
crime, drugs and prostitution,
• trash, litter and deterioration;
gangs and people loitering in the Canal area,
• the high density;
• traffic congestion.-
noise,
ongestion;noise, and;
• the area along Canal Street in general,
The most often mentioned suggestions for neighborhood improvement correspond closely with the
respondents' dislikes.
increased police protection;
• neighborhood cleanup;
increased efforts to fight crime, drugs and prostitution;
creating jobs,
• improving traffic flow;
• prohibiting loitering, and;
opening a health care clinic.
Page In
Physical Improvements (Oueslions 4 and 5)
Eighly-two percent (820,1.) of survey respondents thought (he removal of abandoned vehicles needs much or
some improvement. Parking (730/a) and street cleaning (67%) were also though( to be in need of improvement.
Over hall of the survey respondents indicated that at least some improvement is needed in tree planting, bicycle
paths and street lights (591%. 54%, 53% respectively).
Forty -Iwo percent (42%) of respondents thought sidewalks, crosswalks and pa(hways need improvement; thirty
percent (30%) thought flood control could be improved.
• Other suageslions for improving the neighborhoods physical environment included neighborhood cleanup,
improved traffic flow and adding more Irees and landscaping. Though not exactly a physical improvement,
some respondents mentioned (he need for a health care clinic in response to this open-ended question.
City, County and School Services (Ouesfions 6 and 7)
•
The improvement or expansion of English as a Second Language Programs was favored by 78% o1
respondents. Supervised alter -school programs for children 11 to 18 need improvement or expansion
according to 55% of survey respondents and 520% thought that similiar programs for children 6 to 10 are also
needed.
About hall of the survey respondents thought that police services (52%) and library services (47%) need
improvement or expansion, although only 1310 indicated that fire services are inadequate.
When asked what other community services might need improvement or expansion, respondents Indicated
childcare, classes for children, classes (or adults, jobs and job training and drug awareness programs.
Recreation Facilities (Oueslions 8 and 9)
• Over 50% of survey respondents indicated that each of the recreation iacil&es mentioned in the survey is either
much needed or somewhat needed'
• Grass ballfields (80%);
Paved outdoor sporls courts (79%);
New neighborhood park on the City -owned progeny a( Bellam Boulevard and Playa del Rey (77%);
• Expanded park at Canal and Harbor S(reels (740/6);
• More open space around new or remodeled buildings (70%), and;
Community meeting places (53%).
When asked it they had other suggestions for recreation facilities which are needed in the neighborhood,
respondents mentioned expanded recreation opponunilies, a heated swimrr_ng pool, a movie theater and more
playgrounds.
Addilional Neighborhood Services (Oueslion 10)
Fitly-tvrc percent (520/.) of survey respondents said a supermarket is much needed and 21% said it is
somewhat needed for a combined total of 73%_ A total of 69% indicated that a drug sloe is needed; 30% said
it was much needed and 391% said somewhat needed.
Fe iy-one percent (41%) said that a health care clinic is much needed in East San Rafael and 26% sa-d it is
somowhal needeo for a combined total of 67%. Wnen asked why they ihmt a clinic is needed, respondents
indicated
A closer location is needed especially for emergencies and for accessibInty by walking and bus;
The dense population in East San Rafael requires a clinic;
An affordable clinic is needed, and,
There is no clinic in the greater San Rafael area.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of survey respondents though( banks and other personal services and shops are
needed in East San Rafael.
Childcare (Ouestion 11)
• A senes of questions about childcare was posed to respondents with children under 16 years ofd- Of those
respondents, 31 % use existing community childcare services and 69% do not.
• Reasons for not using the existing services included:
• childcare at home;
• unaffordable facilities;
children too young or too ofd for childcare;
respondents unaware of existing services, and;
• undesirable existing facifties.
Page iv
• Of those survey respondents who have children under 16, 716% said additional childcare services are much
needed, 23% said they are somewhat needed and 6°% said they are not needed -
Possible Uses for the City -Owned Land at the End of Bellam Boulevard {Question 12)
A neighborhood park was considered the most desirable use for the City -owned site, with 86% of survey
respondents indicating that they find this very desirable or somewhat desirable.
A childcare center was also considered desirable by the rnalornty of respondents (70%)
• Sixty-three percent (63%) of survey respondents though[ a neighborhood shopping center including a market is
a desirable use of the land at the end of Bellam Boulevard_
• U; ng the site for loew-cosl housing was considered desirable by 50% of the survey sample and a community
meeting place was favored by 43%-
C_'ier ideas for use of this site included a recreation facility and park, a health care clinic, natural open space
and a -rovie theater.
Profile ofSurlv,?yRespondents -(nueslions 11-1, 11-2, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
• `)e East San Ralael Neighborh000 is ethnicaffy diverse. Fthy percent (50`,0) of the survey respondents are
White, 21 % are Hispanic, 16". are Asian, 90% are Black and 4% are of some other ethnic background_
Whereas most of the interviews were conducted in English, 12% of the respondents were interviewed in
Spanish and 8°/ in Vietnamese -
Seventy percent (70%) of survey respondents indicated that they are employed Of those respondents who
indicated that they work away from home, twenty percent (20%) work in San Rafael, 20°% in San Francisco or
on the Peninsula. 17% work in East San Rafael, 15% in South Marin, 12% in North Marin, 2% work in the East
Bay and 8% work :n some other location.
• Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the East San Rafael residents rent their homes -
The mean household size of survey respondents is estimated at 3-01 persons per household, based on
responses to Question 17- (T -e mean household size is 2.9 persons based on responses to Question 18.)
• Sixty-five percent (651%) of!he households are comprised of 3 or fewer people, 30% are comprised of 4 or 5
persons and 5% have 6 or more people living in '.'-eir households.
• Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the household; have children 18 or younger. Seventeen percent (17%) of those
`ave children under 2, 29% have children 2 to 5, 29% have c'-rldren 6 to 10, 19% have children 11 to 15 and
6% have children 16 to 18 years old.
• Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the households '-ave one or two cars, 71% have 3 cars and 2% have 4 or more
cars, .2% have no cars. Of the 47% of households that reported one car, 33% were 1 -person households.
25% were 2 -person households, 14% we re 3 -person households, 151%were 4 -person households, t 1Vwere
5 -person households and 2% were households with 6 people- Forty-six percent (46%) of households had
fewer cars than the number of adults living in the households-
Otho,- Comments (Questions 21 and 22)
• Tv,,enty-five percent (25%) of survey respondents had additional comments and 751.1. did not -
Respondents commented that the survey is a good idea and that the neighborhood must fight crime, drugs and
prostitution, clean up the physical environment, improve traffic flow and improve communication between the
City of San Rafael and the East San Raiael neighborhood
Summary charts for questions 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are presented o^ the next few pages- These summary charts
display the percentages of respondents who indicated some level of desirability or agreement with the proposed
policy of statement In some cases, the wording of questions on the charts has been condensed for ease of
graphic presentation. Please refer to the individual question results for the exact wording of each question and to
obtain a more complete interpretation of the findings-
Page v
Summary of Question 4
Physical Improvements Needed in East San Rafael
Towing Broken Down Ca,s q
Parkin
37 I I
S1reelCleaningdQ
r --Y
Tree Planting � 47
Bicycle Palhs 42
' I
Sheet Lights .�� 38
I
Sidewalks, Crosswalks, etc. 35
Flood Control 23
law
__.. --
0 20 40 60 80 100
of Total Sample
® Much Improvement Meedad
❑ Some Improvement Needed
Summary of Question 6
City, County and School Services Needing Improvement or Expansion
En; ,sC as a 2nd language 36
Programs - Ages >>-18 ,j•i�', 36
:a
programs Ags-. 6-10 z�';�j�, 24
�:.54. .,,;.Saw_ I
�,-
-
Force Services .. 32 f
h
Library Services_ I
•.�3•h;i'� 32
Frye services 12
61
0 20 40 60 00 100
of Total Sample
IV Much Improvement Needed
M Some Irnprovernenl Needed
Poye yr
Summary of Question &
Recreation Facilities Needed in East San Rafael
Grass 8allf elds L4. 56
-
Paved Sports Cowls >' .. •. ;
Sd
I I
New Park al 6ellamil#?'y";: 6. 41
Expanded Park at Canal/Harbor-
i
More Open Space 44
cm r
¢:.-,
Community Meeting Pfaces
34 j
0 20 40 60 80 ton
I of Total Sample
15 Much Needed j1 Some Needed
Summary of Question 10
Additional Neighborhood Services Needed
Drug Siore
31b'' 39
Heallh Care Clmrc .,"; '"A t 1 ' 26
.cf..
ZE
Banks 37
I
I
Personal Services/Shays . 31
— ---- - ---- -- _ .........,------...- —
0 20 60 GO 80
of Total Sample
Ig Much Needed ❑ Somre Nee;fgd
Summary of question 12
P.30P VII
Potential Uses for the City -Owned Site at the End of Bel lam Boulevard
Nuighbofhood Park
Childcare Center
Shopping Censer
Low Cost Housing
Community Meering Place Z
39
28
25
Y)"
15
33
0 20 40 60 so 500
I/.
of Total Sample
Very Desirable ❑ Somewhat Desirable
V. RESULTS FROM SURVEY QUESTIONS
Detailed results from each survey question appear on the following pages
Question 1: What do you like best about the East San Rafael Neighborhood?
The quiet, peaceful atmosphere, location and accessibility, the canal and f rckleweed Park were menhonrd mu;1
often as what survey respondents like best about the East San Rafael Neighborl=d-
# of Total % of Total
ivientions Mentions
Quiet, Peaceful Atmosphere 86 24
Accessibility/Location 56 16
Water/Bay/Canal 40 1 1
Pickleweed Park 35 10
People/Neighbors 25 7
t.Meather 22 6
Affordability 18 5
Question 2, What do you like least about the neighborhood?
Crime, drugs and prostitution, trash, litter and delenoration, the presence of gangs and loiterers and the high
density were mentioned most often as what survey respondents like least about the East San Rafael
Neighborhood.
#t of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Crime/Drugs/Prostilul'on
` 1 0
34
Trash/Lier/Deterioration
35
11
Gangs/Loiterers
24
7
High Density
20
6
Traffic Congestion
15
6
Noise
16
5
Canal Area
-6
5
Ouestion 3: Thinking about places you've lived before, do you have any suggestions for
improving the East San Rafael Neighborhood?
Increased police protection, neighborhood cleanup, increased efforts against drugs, crime and prostilu(ion, and
creating jobs were suggested most often as ways io improve the East San Rafael Neighborhood.
# of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Increase Police Protection
40
18
Clean Up Neighborhood
33
14
Fight Crime/Drugs/Prostitution
27
12
Create Jobs
11
5
Improve Traffic Flow
1 1
5
Prohibit Loitering
10
4
Open Health Care Clinic
10
4
Ouestion 4: Now I'd like to ask you about some specific physical improvements that
might be needed in East San Rafael. Realizing that we can't do everything all at once,
please identify which items need much improvement, some improvement or no
improvement. You may assign much improvement to a maximum of two Items.
A. Street cleaning
Twenty-eighl percent (28%) of survey respondents said much improvement in street cleaning is needed, 39% said
some improvement is needed, 30% said no improvement Is needed and 3% didn't know or had no opinion.
% or Total Sample
60 -
50
40 i
1
39._.,-
30
t
20
10
4
0
Much Improvement Needed
No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Needed Don) Know/ND OPW01)
Question 4 (Continued)
B. Street lights
Fifteen percent (15°r) of survey respondents said much improvement in street lighting is needed, 38% said some
improvement is needed, 42%Said no improvement is needed and 5%didn't know or had no opinion.
of Total Sample
60
i
I
I
so 4- -
-4 42
[ .•,. ice. --t ;i ,
201
Much Improverneni Naaded No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Needed Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 4 (Continued)
C. Sidewalks, crosswalks, pathways
Seven percent (7%) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed in sidewalks, crosswalks and
pathways, 35% said some improvement is needed, 52% said no improvement is needed and 6% didn't know or
had no opinion.
%a1 Total Simple
6U.--- - — -— - - --
t
I
O
Much Bmprovemehl Needod No Improvement Needed
Some Improw-man( Needed Don'I Know+No Opinion
Question 4 (Continued)
D. Flood control
Seven percent (7%) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed in flood control, 23% said some
improvement is needed. 46% said no improvement is needed and 24% didn't know or had no opinion.
M. or 101al Sample
601
l
-so i=-_
-46
40
30
23
10l
Much Improvement Needed No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Needed Don't Knew/No Opinion
Ouestion 4 . (Continued)
E. Parking
Thinly -six percent (36%) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed in parking, 37% said some
improvement is needed, 25% said no improvement is needed and 2% didn't know or had no opinion.
% of Total Sample
60
I
SO — ----
40
3 6
30
20
�.j'
:gj
Much Improvement Needed
No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Needed Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 4 (Continued)
F. Tree planting
Twelve percent (12%) of survey respondents said much Impravement is needed In tree planting, 47% said some
improvement is needed, 37%, said no improvement is needed and 4% didn't know or had no opinion
"e of Total Sample
60,
SO 1
40 �....----_ - ___.. f_... 7— ..
j 437 V
Much Improvement Needed No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Needed Dori r Know/No Opinion
Question 4 (Conimued)
G. Towing Of broken-down cars
Forty-one percent {41 °o) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed in removing abanda;l:�d
vehicles, 41 % of survey respondents said some improvement is needed, 13% said no improvement is needed and
5% didn't know or had no opinion,
-401 Total Sam}ste
60
50
40:
41 41
20
Much Intprovernent Needed No lmpfovement Needed
Some Improvement Need.- J Don't KnowfNo Opinion
Question 4 (Continued)
H. Bicycle paths
Twelve (12%) of survey respondents said much improvement in bicycle paths is needed, 42% said some
improvement is needed. 27% said no improvement is needed and 19% didn't know or had no opinion_
"o of Tolyl Sample
60
4 0 4 2 -..-........ .--- -
t
30--- I
i
20-
191,
12
Much Improvement Needed No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Needed Oon'I Know/No Opinion
Question 5: Do you have any other suggestions for improving the neighborhood's
physical environment?
Neighborhood cleanup, improved traffic flow, a health care clinic and addllicnaf trees and landscaping were
suggested most often for improving the neighborhood's physical environment.
# of Total %. of Total
Mentions Mentions
Clean Up Neighborhood 21 25
Improve Traffic Flow 17 20
Open Health Care Clinic 15 18
Plant Trees/Landscape 1 1 13
Question b: Now I'd like to ask you about some city, county and school services which
may need improvement orexpansion. Again, realizing that we can't do everything all at
once, please Indicate which services are most in need of Improvement or addition on a
scale of much, some or no improvement oraddition needed. Please assign much
improvement needed to a maximum of two items.
A_ Police services
Twenty percent (20%) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed in police services, 320% said some
improvement is needed, 41% said no improvement is needed and 7% didn't know or had no opinion.
of Total Sample
40
IQ
F
20
UL
LL
,.�£
--
ti=
Much Improvement Needed
No Improvement Needed
Soma Improvement
Needed Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 6 (Continued)
B. Hire services
Three percent (3%) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed in fire services, 12% said some
improvement is needed, 51% said no improvement is needed and 35% didn't know or had no opinion.
/ of Total Sample
60 -
SO
ao
30
20
Much Impravemeni Noeded No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Needed Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 6 (Continued)
C. Library
Fifteen percent (15%) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed in library services, 32% said some
improvement is needod, 28% said no improvement is needed and 25% didn't know.or had no opinion,
% of TOlal Sample
60
50° —
30; `32 _
I k 28 25_
20j _
Much Improvement Needed No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Needed Don't Know,No Opinion
Question 6 (Continued)
D. Supervised after school programs for children under 10
Twenty-eight percent (280/.) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed in supervised after-school
programs for children under 10, 24% said some improvement is needed, 11% said no improvement is needed and
37% didn't know or had no opinion.
% of Tolal Sample
60
sol —
i
AOj---- ---•----- - .__
_--__.4�_._.._._ _..--
I
�7
30
28
z� .
o
10
Much Improvement Needed No Improvemenz
Needed
Some lmprovemenr Needed
Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 6 (Continued)
E. Supervised aller school programs torch I I dren 11 —18
gmeleen percent (19%) of survey respondents said much Improvement Is needed in supervised after-school
programs for children 11 to 18, 36 % said some improvement is needed, 7% said no improvement is needed and
38% didn't know or had no opinion.
% of Total Sample
GD
5D
40
�] 6-
20
Much Improvement N"dad No
Improvement Needed '
Some Improvement Neoded Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 6 (Continued)
F. English as a Second Language programs
Forty-two percent (421/) of survey respondents said much improvement is needed and 3G// said some
improvement is needed in programs for English as a second language, 9% said no improvement is needed and
13% didn't know or had no opinion.
of Total Sampfu
GD - -
I
t
ao r ^f 36 --
2D'
—I
10
D
ILL—
Much
Lam.__Much improvement Needed No Improvement Needed
Some Improvement Narded 0on't KnoWNa Opinion
Question T Are there any other community services which you think need improvement
or expansion?
Childcare and daycare services, classes for children and adult classes were mentioned most often as community
services needing improvement or expansion.
# of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Childcare/Daycare
12
1 1
Classes for Children
1 1
10
Classes for Adults
1 1
10
Jobs/Job Training
9
8
Drug Awareness Programs
9
8
Question 8: In this question 1'd like to ask you about specific recreation facilities which
have been suggested as possible Improvements to the East San Rafael Neighborhood.
Please indicate which facilities are needed on a scale of much needed, somewhat needed
or not needed. Please assign much needed to a maximum of two items.
A. Community meeting places
Six percent (6%) of survey respondents said community meeting places are much needed, 34% said they are
somewhat needed, 48% said they are not needed and 12% didn't know or had no opinion.
% of Total sample
sor
t
I
501
48-, .:
ao
20
101
D
Much Needed Somewhal Needed Not Needed Don't KnowiNo Opinlon
Question 8 (Continued)
B. New neighborhood park near Bellam and Playa del Rey
Thinly -six percent (36%) of survey respondents said a new neighborhood park near Bellam Boulevard and Playa
dal Rey Is much needed, 41 % said it is somewhat needed, 171/. said it is not needed and 6% didn't know or had no
opinion.
/ of Total Sample
60
Sol,
40 rW j
I ..17 '!
o
` Much Needed Somewhat Needed Not Needed
t)on'I KnnwJNo Opinion
Question 8 (Continued)
C. Expanded neighborhood park near Canal and Harbor by removing some existing buildings
Thirty-six percent (36%) of survey respondents said an expanded neighborhood parte near Canal and Harbor
Streets is much needed, 38% said It is somewhat needed, 15% said It is not needed and 11 % didn't know or had
no opinion.
of Tolal Sample
60,
50
c0.
36 38
I ,
t 0 — J
Much Needed Somewhal Needed Not Needed Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 8 (Continued)
D. More open space around new or rernodeied buildings
Twenty-six pe►cen((26%) of survey respondents said more open space around new or remodeled buildings is
much needed. 44% said it is somewhal needed, 19% said it is not needed and 1 Sq didn't know or had no opinion.
/- of Total Sample
60,
J 0
�-
�54�
e0,
t
401
30[
20t�
It
-r- •-.
9.
Much Needed Somewhat Needed
Nol Needed
Oon'I Know'No Opinlon
Question 8 (Continued)
E. Paved outdoor sports courts for basketball, volleyball, etc,
Twenty-six percen((26%) of survey respondents said paved outdoor sports courts (or basketball, volleyball, etc.
are much needed, 54% said they are somewhat needed, 12% said they are not needed and 8% didn't know or had
no opinion. -
°.e of Total Sample
60:
Much Needed Somowhal Needed
2 ---�.
67
Not Needed Don'f KnowiNo Opinion
�54�
e0,
Much Needed Somowhal Needed
2 ---�.
67
Not Needed Don'f KnowiNo Opinion
Question 8 (Continued)
F. Grass fields for baseball, softball, soccer, football
Twenlyfour percent (24%) of survey respondents said grass fields for baseball, softball, soccer, foolball, etc. are
much needed, 56% said they are somewhat needed, 12%, said they are not needed and 6% didn't know or had no
opinion.
/ of
Total Sample
fill.
40
30
pr
f 24
20
�-'Y.,_,_�;.r�Y
p
.._mow-✓��1._
_ .-W� ..�_._..-.
Much Needed
Somewhat Needed Not Needed
Don) KhbwtNO opmion
Question g: Do you have any other suggestions for recreation facilities which are needed
in East San Rafael?
Expanded recreational opportunities and a heated swimming pool were mentioned most often as recreational
iacitltles needed in East San Rafael
t o` Total % of Total
ivlentions Ivientions
Expand Recreation Opportunities 2 '. 20
Add a Heated Swimming Pool 13 13
Open a Movie Theatre 9 9
Add More Playgrounds 8 8
Question 10: 1'd like to further discuss other neighborhood service needs. As 1 read a list
of possible services, please say if the additional service is much needed, somewhat
needed, or not needed in East San Rafael. Please assign much needed to a maximum of
two items.
A. Supermarket
Fifty-two percent (52%) of survey respondents said a supermarket is much needed In East San Rafael, 21 % said it
is somewhat needed, 26% said it is not needed and t % didn't know or had no opinion.
% of Total Sample
60,
5 0
3 g
30
20
-
I .y
30,
10
20
Much Needed
Somewhat Needed Not Needed Don't Know/No Opinion
.,';--u:�' L, Y,
r�
ems;, -.•�•- -
L
a
Much Needed Somewhal N-odod No[ Needed Don't Krlow'No Opinion
Question 10 (Continued)
H. Drug store
Thirty percent (30%) of survey respondents said a drug store is much needed in East San Rafael, 39% said it is
somewhat needed, 29% said it is not needed and 2% didn't know or had no opinion-
/ of Total Sarnpte
60.
so
40
3 g
30
20
-
{�
10
Much Needed
Somewhat Needed Not Needed Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 10 (Continued)
C. Banks
Ten percent (10%) of survey respondents said banks are much needed in East San Ralad, 37°1 said they are
somewhat needed, 49% said they are not needed and 4% didn't know or had no opinion_
of Total Sample
5D
i
s0'
_
l
30
20
20
s-
m7
,
ia(
y sem_
Somewhat` Needed
Nol Nodded Don't Know/No Opinion
01
Much Needed Somevrhel Needed Not Needed Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 10 (Continued)
D. Other personal services or scores (Beauty shops, laundries, etc-)
Ten percent (10%) of survey respondents said other personal services or stores (beauty shops, laundries, etc-) are
much needed in East San Rafael, 37% said they are somewhat needed, 46"6 said they are not needed and 7
didn't know or had no opinion.
% of Total Sample
E0,
SU
l
30
20
1 V.
m7
,
Much Needed
Somewhat` Needed
Nol Nodded Don't Know/No Opinion
Question 10 (Continued)
E. Health care cfinic
Forty-one percent (41%) of survey respondents said a health care clinic is much needed in East San Rafael, 26%
said it is somewhat needed, 24%. said it is not needed and 91/. didn't know or had no opinion.
% of Total Sample
60-
t MA
Much Needed Somewhat Needed Not Needed Don't KnowlNo Opinion
Ouestion E-1: Why do think a clinic is needed?
(This question was asked if respondents indicated Much Needed or Somewhat Needed to the previous quest on:
10•E.)
A closer, more quickly accessible location, an affordable clinic and the dense population of the neighborhood were
mentioned most open by survey respondents to explain why they satd a health care clinic is needed in East San
Rafael.
# of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Need Closer Location
129 65
Need Affordable Clinic
33 17
Dense Population Needs Clinic
17 9
No Clinic in Area
10 5
Question 11-1: Do you have children 18 or younger?
Thiny•nlne percent (39%) of survey respondents said they have children 18 or younger and 60°/ said they do not.
of Total
Sample
r
Yes 39
NO 60
No Answer 1
Question 11-2: What are their ages?
(This question was asked if respondents indicated that they have children under 18 years old)
# of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Under 2
40
17
2 - 5 Years Old
69
29
6 - 10 Years Old
68
29
11 - 15 Years Old
43
19
16 - 18 Years Old
14
6
Question 11-3: Do you use the existing community childcare services?
(This question was asked if respondents mdicaled that they have children under 16 years old)
Of those survey respondents who have chitdren under 16 years Did. 31 % use existing communily childcare
services and 69% do not,
q of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Yes 34 31
No 75 69
M
Question 11-4: Why not?
(This question was asked if respondents indicated that they have children under 16 years old and do not use
existing childcare services)
Children are cared for at home, unaliordable existing facilities and children too young or old for childcare were
mentioned most ohen as reasons for not using existing childcare services.
# of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Children Cared For at Home
19
27
Existing Facilities Unaffordable
17
24
Children Too Young or Too Old
14
20
Unaware of Existing Childcare
6
8
Existing Facilities Undesirable
6
8
Question 11-5. Do you think additional childcare services are much needed, somewhat
needed or not needed?
(This nueslion was asked if respondents indicated that lhcy have children under 16 years old)
01 those survey respondents who have children under 16 years old, 71%said additional childcare services are
much needed, 23% said they are somewhat needed and 6% said they are not needed.
it of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Much Needed 76 71
Somewhat Needed 24 23
Not Needed 6 6
Question 12: Now, I'd like to show you a map of East San Rafael so that we can discuss
your ideas for the use of a particular area. The City owns some land at the end of Bellam
Blvd IShow site on map]. We'd like to know what you think the site should be used for. As
read a list of suggestions for possible uses, I'd like you to consider whether you find the
use very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable.
A. Low cost housing
Thirty-five percent (35%) of surrey respondents said low cost housing is very desirable, 150,o said it is somewhat
desirable, 13% said It is somewhat undesirable, 30%, said it is very undesirable and 6% didn't know or had no
opinion.
% o1 Totn1 Sample
60
so
40
20
Very Desirable Oon't Know/No Opinion Very Undesirable
Somewhat Desirable samewhat Undesirable
Question 12 (Continued)
B- A neighborhood park
Forty-seven percent (471/.) of survey respondents said a ne �hborhood park is very desirable, 391% said it is
Somewhat desirable, 5% said it is somewhat undesirable, 5%saki it is very undesirable and 4% didn't know or had
no opinion
%of Total Sample
60-
so:
0-
so; -..
I •-
iu
I
Very DDSirobla Don't Know/No Opinion Very Undesitabie
Somewhal Desnablo Somewhat Undesirable
Question 12 (Continued)
C. A child care center
Forty-two percent (42%) of survey respondents said a child care center is very desirable, 28% said it is somewhat
desirable, 50% said it is somewhat undesirable, 2% said it is very undesirable and 220/ didn't know or had no
opinion.
% or Total Sample
60i
- —
f
a0
�
r4 2 e--�--..._
---... _.. _----•- --
i
28
20 t-
- V:0.�
' r
0
: 3
Very Desirable
Don't Know/No Opinion Very Undesirable
Somewhat Oesirable
Somewhat Undesirable
Question 12 (Continued)
D. Community meeting place
Ten percent (10%) of survey respondents said a community meeting place is very desirable, 33% said it is
somewhat desirable, 269 said it is somewhat undesirable, 12% said it is very undesirable and 19% didn't know
or had no opinion.
al Total Sample
60
50'
1
40 i - - ——..---- - —
i I
30'
20i 1 E� ,✓�
19
10 7
12
Very Desirable Don't Know/No Opinion Very Undesirable
Somewhat DeSifable Somewhat Undesirable
Qu&stion 12 (Continued)
E. A neighborhood shopping center including a market
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of survey respondents said a neighborhood shopping center, including a mafkat. Is ver)'
desirable, 25% said it is somewhat desirable, 18% said it is somewhat undesirable, 14% said it is very undesirable
and 5% didn't know or had no opinion-
% of Toter Sample
60
30
20�J..
1 D'
LL
0
Very Desirable
Don't know/No Opinion
Very Undesirable
Somewhat Desirable Somewhal Undesirable
Question 13: Do you have any other suggestions for possible uses for this site?
A recreation facility or part, a health care clinic, natural open space and a movie theater were mentioned most
often as other Possible uses for the land at the end of Bellam Blvd.
# of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Recreation Facility/Park 22 23
Health Care Clinic 20 21
Open Space 13 14
Movie Theatre 9 10
Oueslion 74: Do you own orrent your home?
Twenty-two percent (22%) of survey respondents indicated that they own their homes and 78% said that (hey rent
their homes.
% of Total Sample
so
Question 75- What is your current employment status?
Sixty-three percent (63%) of survey respondents work away from home, 9% are retired, 9% are students, 7% work
at home, 6% are homemakers, 3% are unemployed and 2% are in between jobs -
Working Away From Home
a '
Retired
,I 1
Student L -E,
I
Working at Horne
Homemaker 6.
i
s
Unemptoyed #
t � I
In Between Jobs
i l f
0 10 20 70 40 so 60
% of Total Sample
70
Question 16: Where do you work?
(This question was asked it respondents indicated that they work away from home)
Twenty percent (20%) of the survey respondents who work away from home work in San Rafael, 20% work in San
Francisco or on the Peninsula, 17% work in East San Rafael, 15% wore, in South Marin, 12% work in North Marin,
3% work in the East Bay and 1211. work elsewhere.
% of Total Mentions
San Rafael
20
S.FJPeninsula
20
East San Rafael
17
South Marin
15
North Marin
12
East Bay
3
Other
12
Question 17: Now many people live in your house (apartment]?
Twenty percent (20%) of survey respondents live alone, 26% have 2 person households, 14% have 3 persons.
16% have 4 persons, 141/ have 5 persons and 5% have 6 persons or more living in their home. The average
mean household size based on responses to this question was 3.0 persons.
1 Person
i7i
2 People - . -�' .•---_. µ.. .�,.__ .... ;--- -.2 6 1.
3 People
4 People
5 People 14
6 People "2
r W
7 People 1
8 or More 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
of Total Sample
Question IS: What are their approximate ages?
Survey respondents reported household members' ages as follows: 20% under 9 years old (0 —9), 101% ten to
seventeen (10 — 17), 37% eighteen to thirty -tour years old (18-34), 280/ thirty -live to srxly•hve (35— 65) and 5%
over 65 years old (65+).
(Families with children may be over -represented in chis sample compared to the population as a whole based on
known public and private school enrollments and earlier surveys.)
0 - 9 Years Old
-20,
10 17 Years Old I
18 - 34 Years Old 37-
35 65 Years Old _2
Over 65 Years Old
0 10 20 30 40 50
% of Total Sample
Question 79: How many cars do you and other people in your house [apartment] have?
Forty-seven percent (47%) 01 Survey respondents' households have one car, 32% have two cars, 3% have three
cars, 1 % have 4 cars, 1 % have 5 cars and 121% have no cars.
(Forty-six percent (469'x) of the households had (ewer cars than the number of adults in the households.)
1 Car
2 Cars 32'
3 Cars 7,
4 Cars
5 Cars
None
0 10 20 30 40 50
% of Total Sample
Question 20: Would you like to add your name to a mailing list to receive future
information about the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan?
% of Total
Sample
Yes 56
NO 44
Question 2i: is there anything else you'd like to say about things not covered In the
survey?
% of Total
Sample
Yes 25
No 75
Question 22: Other Comments
Positive comments about the survey, the need to fight crime, drugs and prostitution, and neighborhood clean-up
were mentioned most often as addilional comments.
# of Total % of Total
Mentions Mentions
Survey is Good Idea 11 13
Fight Crime/Drugs/Prostitution 9 1 1
Clean Up Neighborhood 7 9
Improve Traffic Flow 6 6
Improve ESR -City Interaction 4 5