HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2018-01-09 Agenda PacketAGENDA
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, January 9, 2018, 7:00 P.M.
o COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 1400 FIFTH AVENUE
r,,`- SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
URGENT COMMUNICATION
Anyone with an urgent communication on a topic not on the agenda may address the Commission at this time. Please notify the
Community Development Director in advance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes 12/12/17
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 3255 Kerner Blvd. Suite #2 — Request for a Use Permit to allow a church in a 521 -sq. ft. 2nd floor office
suite; APN: 009-191-18; General Commercial (GC) District; West Bay Builders, Carlos Israel Avalos,
Applicant; Shao Hua Shen, Owner; Case Number: UP17-013- (Project Planner: Alan Montes)
3. DRAFT DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL PARKING & WAYFINDING STUDY — Presentation of the Zoning
and Development Standard recommendations presented in the Draft Downtown San Rafael Parking &
Wayfinding Study. This draft study, which was prepared by the City of San Rafael, provides a
comprehensive review of Downtown parking and includes numerous recommendations on parking rates,
wayfinding, SMART, parking policies, marketing and promotion, pedestrian network, bicycle parking, and
zoning/development standards. The Planning Commission review will focus on the recommendations
related to zoning and development standards. P17-012. (Project Managers: Paul Jensen, Community
Development Director and Jim Myhers, Parking Service Director)
4. Annual Meeting of Planning Commission for 2018 to include: a) election of officers; and b) review of
Planning Commission "Rules and Procedures"; and c) selection of liaisons to DRB meetings. (Planner:
Raffi Boloyan)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
I. Next Meeting: Janaury 24, 2018
11. I, Anne Derrick, hereby certify that on Friday, January 5, 2018, 1 posted a notice of the January 9,
2018 Planning Commission meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board.
• Sign interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling 415/485-3085 (voice) or 4151485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in
advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request.
• Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 20 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at
415/454-0964.
• To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain
from wearing scented products_
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Agency Board less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection in the
Community Development Department Third Floor, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda -related materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to
the meeting.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL TAKE UP NO NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11:00 P.M. AT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS. THIS SHALL BE INTERPRETED
TO MEAN THAT NO AGENDA ITEM OR OTHER BUSINESS WILL BE DISCUSSED OR ACTED UPON AFTER THE AGENDA ITEM UNDER CONSIDERATION AT
11:00 P.M. THE COMMISSION MAY SUSPEND THIS RULE TO DISCUSS AND/OR ACT UPON ANY ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM(S) DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY A
UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT.APPEAL RIGHTS: ANY PERSON MAY FILE AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON
AGENDA ITEMS WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS (NORMALLY 5:00 P.M. ON THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY) AND WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS OF AN ACTION ON A
SUBDIVISION. AN APPEAL LETTER SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK, ALONG WITH AN APPEAL FEE OF $350 (FOR NON -APPLICANTS) OR A $4,476
DEPOSIT (FOR APPLICANTS) MADE PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AND SHALL SET FORTH THE BASIS FOR APPEAL. THERE IS A $50.00
ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF AN APPEAL BY APPELLANT.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, December 12, 2017
til
r
Cj
WITH r-
Regular Meeting
San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes
For a complete video of this meeting, go to http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings
CALL TO ORDER
Present: Larry Paul
Berenice Davidson
Sarah Loughran
Mark Lubamersky
Jeff Schoppert
Jack Robertson
Absent: Barrett Schaefer
Also Present: Raffi Boloyan, Planning Manager
Steve Stafford, Senior Planner
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
ROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES
URGENT COMMUNICATION
CONSENT CALENDAR
1, Minutes 11/14/17
Jack Robertson moved and Mark Lubamersky seconded to approve Minutes as presented. The vote is
as follows:
AYES:
Larry Paul, Berenice Davidson, Sarah Loughran, Mark Lubamersky, Jeff Schoppert,
Jack Robertson
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Barrett Schaefer
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 108 Bellam Blvd. ("Peter's Beacon" Service Station) – Request for an Environmental and Design
Review Permit a Use Permit Amendment and a new Sign Program to allow upgrades to an
existing, 1,666 sq. ft. service station with minor motor vehicle repair (Smog Test). The proiect
proposes: 1 Approximately 600 sq. ft. of new bathroom,_ entry and service bay additions; 2)
Conversion of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. of existing service bays to mini -market use; 3) New
exterior colors and materials on the building and fuel canopy: 4) A new trash enclosure; 5) New
site landscaping, drainage and parking improvements; and 6) New signage. The project also
request a parking modification to allow a reduction in the number of required for the project, from
12 to 8 on-site parking spaces; APN: 008-106-05; General Commercial (GC) District Zone; Steve
Murch for SKS Architects Applicant; Peter Jizrawi, Owner; Case No.s: ED16-112; UP16-059;
SP17-004. Project Planner: Steve Stafford
Staff Report
Jack Robertson moved and Mark Lubamersky seconded to approve project as presented. The vote is as
follows:
AYES: Larry Paul, Berenice Davidson, Sarah Loughran, Mark Lubamersky, Jeff Schoppert,
Jack Robertson
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Barrett Schaefer
3. Preparation in advance of Annual Meeting of Planning Commission to include: a)
distribution of Planning Commission "Rules and Procedures" for review before annual
meeting; and b) assignment of Planning Commission liaisons for 2018 DRB meetings.
Staff Report
There was no vote on this item.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
ANNE DERRICK, Administrative Assistant III
APPROVED THIS—DAY—OF— , 2018
Berenice Davidson, Chair
SAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION!
Meeting Date
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers
January 9, 2017
2—
UP17-013
Community Development Department – Planning Division Project Planner: Alan Montes – 415.485.3397
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 3255 Kerner Boulevard #2 — Request for Use Permit for a church with up to 25 seats
and a request for reciprocal parking; APN: 009-191-18; General Commercial (GC) District; Carlos
Israel Avalos, Applicant; Shao Hua Shen., Owner; Case Number: UP17-013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The key issue with this project is whether a modification to the parking requirements contained in the
Zoning Ordinance is warranted. The applicant has requested a modification to the City's parking
requirements citing the different hours of operation of the 2nd floor uses (offices) on the site. After a
review of the materials, staff recommends that the modification to the parking requirements is warranted
and appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving the project with
conditions.
Address/Location: 3255 Kerner Blvd #2 Parcel Number: 009-191-18
Property Size: 39,000 Neighborhood: Canal
Site Characteristics
General Plan
Designation
Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Project Site:
General Commercial
General Commercial
Retail/Restaurant
and Office
North:
Light Industrial/Office
Core Canal
Industrial/Office
General Office
South:
Light Industrial/Office
Light Industrial/Office
Auto Repair
East:
Light Industrial/Office
Light Industrial/Office
Clinic
West:
General Commercial
General Commercial
Tire Store
Site Description/Setting:
The subject site is a 39,000 -square foot lot, located at the south-west corner of Kerner Blvd and Bellam
Blvd. The site is accessed by vehicle along Kerner boulevard. The site is currently developed with a 11,331 -
sq. ft. commercial/office building that has 45 parking spaces. The ground floor is commercial and the top
floor is office. The structure is currently occupied with five (5) permitted uses:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: UP17-013
Ground Floor
➢ Prime Time Nutrition (Grocery) — 991 sq. ft.
➢ Yu Shang (Restaurant) — 2,701 sq. ft.
➢ Nuevo Amanecer (Restaurant) — 1,965 sq. ft.
➢ La Plaza Market (Grocery) — 2,254 sq. ft.
Upper Floor
➢ Coghlan Law Office (General Office) — 1,041 sq. ft.
➢ Offices (Vacant, including proposed church) — 2,275 sq. ft.
The Coghlan Law Office is open from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday -Friday.
Yu Shang and Nuevo Amanecer are open from 11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m., daily.
La Plaza Market is open from 9:00 a.m. — 8:00 p.m., daily.
Prime Time Nutrition is open from 9:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m., daily.
BACKGROUND
Page 2
The site, 3255 Kerner Blvd., was approved in August 1977 for a 10,372 -sq. ft. commercial/office building.
During the project review 46 parking spaces were required for the facility.
The applicant's floorplans identify the gross square footage for the building being 11,331 sq. ft. and the
site having 45 parking spaces. It appears that one (1) parking space has been removed to meet ADA
parking requirements. The plans don't show any additions from what was initially approved. Staff believes
the inconsistency is due to the initial square footage submitted to the City in the 1970's being net, rather
than gross.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to operate a church in a 521 -sq. ft. second floor office suite. The project also requests
a reduction in the parking requirement given that the proposed church use would operate during different
days and at different hours than the permitted office uses. Furthermore, the applicant believes a parking
reduction is warranted given the location of the proposed church in relation to the local residency of many
of the congregation members.
The proposed church use would operate on Sunday's, between 10:30 a.m, and 12:30 p.m. and Tuesday
and Friday, between 7:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. It is estimated that the average congregation will be 15
people with a maximum of 25 people attending service. The proposed church is proposing to only offer the
regularly scheduled services, and special events will occur during the regular services.
ANALYSIS
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The project is consistent with all the applicable General Plan policies. This project would place a needed
use within the community where a majority of the congregation resides and would therefore promote
walking as a primary means of transportation, which would reduce local traffic impacts. Furthermore, this
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case No: UP17-013 Page 3
project would capitalize on shared parking by adding a use to the site that has different days and hours of
operation, thus allowing sharing of the limited parking resources in the area.
Specifically, the project is consistent with the following General Plan 2020 Policies:
Land Use Policy LU -23, Land Use Map and Categories, as the site is designated General Commercial and
religious institutions are identified as allowable in this designation subject to a Use Permit.
Circulation Policy C-8, Eliminating and Shifting Peak Hour Trips, as the use will operate outside of peak
hours and will not generate any new peak hour trips.
Safety Policy S-32, Safety Review of Development Projects, as the project had been routed and
reviewed by all the necessary City Departments.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 5 — General Commercial District
Religious institutions are identified as allowable uses in this District subject to obtaining a Use Permit from
the Planning Commission. The Use Permit is required to ensure that the use is compatible with its
surroundings and would not negatively impact this site nor those in the surrounding area. The Canal
neighborhood has a large demand for religious institutions.
The primary use of the space would be for church services on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. It is
anticipated that no more than 25 persons would attend each of the three services for the week. No other
ancillary uses are proposed within the tenant space.
No new development is proposed as part of this application; therefore, the project is not subject to the
development standards for the District, or an Environmental and Design Review Permit.
Chapter 18 — Parking
Currently, the site is developed with 45 parking spaces and when the building was originally constructed,
it complied with the parking requirements for a retail/office building. Based on current zoning requirements
for a retail/office building, the site would be considered conforming. However, two of the downstairs tenants
are restaurants which currently have a more intensive parking requirement of 1 space for each 50 -sq. ft.
of floor area intended for public use. Staff does not have these exact numbers, but when the restaurant
uses went into the structure city staff at that time considered the parking intensity to be the same as a retail
space.
The proposed change in use would convert 521 sq. ft. of second floor office into a religious institution. The
parking requirement for the change in use would be the difference of parking required for the current use
(office at 1 per 250 sq. ft. and religious institution at 1 space for every 4 seats). This change in use would
require four (4) additional parking spaces than what currently exists.
The applicant has requested a modification to the City's parking requirements to allow the change in use
without providing additional, off-street parking. The reasons cited for the parking modification are that the
hours of operation for the new use are significantly different than the other permitted office uses, which
would allow the shared use of the parking facilities. Offices generally operate between 8:00am and 5:00pm,
Monday through Friday, and as the proposed use is proposing to operate during off peak hours/days (7:30
p.m.- 9:30 p.m., Tuesday and Friday, and 10:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m., Sunday) staff finds that the site can
accommodate the proposed use, as conditioned.
Following a review of the existing conditions at the site as well as the application materials for the proposed
use, both staff and the Department of Public Works find that the shared parking would be appropriate for
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP17-013 Page 4
this site and the mixture of uses that exist. The proposed mixture of uses on this site would have minimal
conflict, if any, in their primary hours of operation and the demographics of the church members would
result in a reduced parking demand. Furthermore, parking in general is limited in the Canal neighborhood.
There are very few, if any sites that could accommodate the strict parking requirement for a religious
institution. By not allowing this type of use in the neighborhood, there are larger impacts by requiring this
type of facility to locate outside the neighborhood that is serves and thereby creating increased traffic
impacts by forcing parishioners to travel great distances.
Chapter 22 — Use Permit
To grant a Use Permit for the use and the parking reduction, the Planning Commission must find:
a) That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located,
b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city,
c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning
ordinance
Given the discussion summarized in this report, staff recommends that the findings to grant the Use Permit
to allow the religious institution and the reduction to the parking requirements can be made.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
This application was not been referred to the Design Review Board, as no exterior changes are proposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project proposes to re -tenant an existing, developed space. This activity is deemed to be
categorically exempt from environmental review per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in
Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site and the Marin Villa -Canal Housing Alliance
Neighborhood Association, and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all
meetings, including this hearing.
Staff has not received any written or verbal comments on this project as of the date of the reproduction of
this staff report.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Approve the application as conditioned (Staff Recommended)
2. Approve the application with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval;
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UPI 7-013
Page 5
3. Continue the applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or
concerns; or
4. Deny the project and Direct staff to return with a revised resolution.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Letter from applicant
4. Plans
Exhibit 1— Vicinity Map
BELL
1b Or 2
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 10 -
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
CONDITIONALLYAPPROVING A USE PERMIT (UP17-013) TO ALLOW A RELIGIOUS
INSITUTION TO OCCUPY 521 SQ. FT. OF AN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR OFFICE SUTIE
AND A MODIFICATION TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW RECIPROCAL
(SHARED) PARKING IN AN EXISTING 11,331 SQ. FT COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDING
LOCATED AT 3255 KERNER BOULEVARD
(APN: 009-191-18)
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2017, Carlos Israel Avalos submitted an application to the City of
San Rafael requesting a Use Permit to allow a religious institution at this site and a modification
to the parking requirement to allow reciprocal parking at 3255 Kerner Blvd; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project was determined to be exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301, Existing Structures; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Use Permit application was reviewed by the Department of
Public Works, Fire Prevention and the Chief Building Official of the City of San Rafael and was
recommended for approval subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2018, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the proposed Use Permit, accepting all oral and written public
testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff and closed
said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San
Rafael does hereby approves the Use Permit for the religious institution and reduceing parking
requirements, based on the following findings and subject to the conditions of approval below:
Findings (UP17-013)
1) The proposed religious institution use is in accord with General Plan 2020, the objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the General Commercial (GC) District in which
the site is located in that:
a. As documented in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, the project is
consistent with Land Use Policy LU -23. (Land Use Map and Categories), Circulation
Policy C-8 (Eliminating and Shifting Peak Hour Trips), and Safety Element Policy S-
32 (Safety Review of Development Projects).
b. The proposed use would foster harmonious and workable relationships among land
uses, reduce negative impacts caused by inappropriate location, use of buildings and
provide adequate, safe and effective off-street parking given the proposed hours of
operation and the nature of the proposed use.
2) The proposed religious institution use together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City in that: a) no expansion of
the existing building is proposed; b) the hours or operation of the proposed use would be
outside of the primary hours of operation for the other second floor uses in the building and
surrounding area and the Department of Public Works has reviewed the application and
determined that no adverse parking impacts should result; c) the reviewing City Departments
have reviewed the project, monitored the project site, and developed conditions of approval
that would ensure that the use would operate in a manner as described and comply with all
life and safety code requirements; and d) the use would serve the nearby high density
residential community and provide a needed neighborhood use that would reduce the amount
of traffic from patrons travelling to other locations to receive the services from this use.
3) That the proposed religious institution use complies with each of the applicable provisions
of the zoning ordinance, in that: a) religious institutions are allowable uses in the GC District
subject to obtaining a conditional Use Permit; b) the existing structure is legal non-
conforming in terms of floor area ration and no expansion of the existing building is
proposed; and c) a modification to the parking requirements as provided in finding #4 below
is granted to allow reduced parking for this use since the proposed use would operate
outside of the hours of operation of other office uses on the site and reciprocal parking is
appropriate for such a situation.
4) A modification to the parking requirements to allow reciprocal parking per Section
14.18.080 is warranted for this site given that the complementing variation in period of daily
demands occurs between the church use and the other uses on the site. The religious
institution use will operate primarily the other 2nd floor uses do not operate, which allows the
site to accommodate the additional four (4) parking spaces for the proposed use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael
approves the Use Permit subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval (UP17-013)
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1. This Use Permit (UP17-013) approves the operation of a religious institution on the
second floor of the existing retail/office building at 3255 Kerner Blvd. Suite #2 (521 sq.
ft.). This Use Permit also authorizes a reduction in the parking requirements based on
this use as conditioned, operating at different hours than the majority of the other uses in
the building and on the site, specifically the other 2nd floor tenants.
This Use Permit shall authorize the following activities and intensities of use for the
religious institution:
a. Permitted Use - Religious services on the following days and times:
i. Sundays - 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
ii. Tuesdays — 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
iii. Fridays - 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
-2-
b. Ancillary use —Office use for the church to be conducted seven days a week
during normal business hours.
2. No more than 25 seats are to be permitted within the religious institution.
3. Those attending the religious institution should be encouraged to carpool or walk to the
religious institution.
4. The modification to the parking requirements to allow a parking reduction for the
proposed church use is approved based on a religious institution use, number of seats
and the hours of operation for the use. The hours of operation proposed and conditioned
would occur outside of the primary hours of the other 2 I floor uses on the site and
therefore would not conflict with the other uses. This Use Permit establishes the
allowable hours of operation for the church use and no changes to the use, number of
seats, or the hours of operation are allowed without review and approval of the City.
Should any changes to the hours of operation be requested, or number of seats an
amendment to the Use Permit for the parking reduction may be required and be subject
to review and approval of the Planning Commission.
5. The parking reduction is granted for this specific type of use as proposed and as
modified by these conditions of approval. This parking reduction does not transfer to
another type of use without an amendment to the Use Permit and the granting of another
parking reduction, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. Any
change in ownership of the religious institution shall comply with these conditions
otherwise the parking reduction shall not be valid and the use would be required to
provide additional parking to satisfy the parking requirements of the Chapter 18 of
Zoning Ordinance or cease its operation.
Community Development Department, Building Division
6. The maximum occupancy for the religious institution shall be 35 people and a sign with
the maximum occupancy shall be mounted in the suite.
San Rafael Sanitation District
7. If new connections are made to the sanitary sewer system, plans shall be submitted to
the San Rafael Sanitary District for review and approval.
Fire Department
8. Provide and mount one 51b 2A:10B:C dry chemical fire extinguisher.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
meeting held on the 9th day of January 2018.
Moved by Commissioner
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
and seconded by Commissioner
-3-
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: BY:
Paul A Jensen, Secretary Berenice Davidson, Chair
Additional information to complete the application for the (UP17-013)
Church Use Permit
Dear Mr. Montes:
I'm submitting the additional information in order to fulfill with the requirements to get the
Use Permit.
1) Regarding to the maximum number of seats, I keep the number of 25 seats.
2) As the schedule of our worship services, I want to make a correction. The right time
for the services of Tuesday and Friday is:
Tuesday: 7:30 p.m. a 9:30 p.m.
Friday: 7:30 p.m. — 9:30 p.m.
3) 1 checked the floor plan, and 1 still keep the maximum number of seats in 25.
4) In addition of our regular services, I'm not considering celebrate any other activity
in the future. Basically, the only familiar events that we celebrate are holidays, but we
do it during our regular services time.
5) Regarding to the parking rule, I'm applying for the reciprocal parking code
because I made the correction for the hours of the services for Tuesday and Friday. In
fact, if it's necessary, I can make modifications to the schedules.
Sincerely,
Pastor Carlos Israel Avalos
V, 9 19
JUL 1 (1 2017
Iglesia Bautista Renacer ,. NING
a) Size of the suite: 43302 usable SF and 621.1 von W ale SF (The landlord says that
because they rent at usable space and not rentable space,, then the max lease is one
year.
b) lnside the suite, we will set up approximately 25 cha1rs7 On no pWo, and
Whose are the only furniture that we will own.
c) We won't have any rr uMcal instvurraents and mkvolC hoes -81 h0r.
d) Our days and time of the services will be:
1. Sunday. 10.30 am% to 12.30 Pomo
3. Frlldayo 7.30 a.m. to 9.30 Pomo
e) The type of our activities is wo[rvMp sarrAceso
D The average of people involved: 15 peo&
cg) For now we have no plan for extra services, and bask -"Hy, WO c ce sbrllte sPeClal
events duving ®uw r(e90ar SMvic0s.
3255 Kerner Blvd — August 2017
Parking Study
i
Date
Time
Number of Vehicles
Tuesday 08, 2017
8:15 P.M.
26
Friday 11, 2017
7:45 p.m.
30
Tuesday 1.5, 2017
1 8:45 p.m.
2
Friday 18, 2017
18:00 P.M.
125
IF)(h I blIr �
At —T-vage
s IvIl"V-1
-2 b7
P,
V - c
PREPARED FOR:
Keegan & Coppin Company, Inc.
101 Larkspur banding Circle
Larkspur, CA 94939
Tel (415) 461-1010
Fax (415) 524-1419
http://Www.keegancoppin.com
i
MI
FLOOD. PLAN
3255 KERNER BLVD.
SAN R.AFAEL, CA
FIRST FLOOR
(As Measured: OctobeI-2008)
En
PARKING LOT
Survey J ¢'� 0.08% I LASEtdN60 is a registered US trademark of Laserteoh® Plootplans Ltd.
i Accuracy:r—inht 199R -MMR L.—t—hM Fl—l— Lul_ All Riehfs lieserved
0 16,
l/16"=1'-0"
TEL: (888) 3936655
FILE: 8-265
PRE .PARED FOR: KERNER BLVD®
Keegan & Coppin Company, Inc. SAN .PAEL.) CA
101 Larkspur Landing Circle
Larkspur, CA. 94939 SECOND FLOOR
Tel (415) 461-1010
Fax (415) 524-1419 (As Measured: October 2008)
http://Www.keegancoppin.com
LEASE PLAN
Area: 788 SF Area: 1, 642 SF
FLOOR SUMMARY
- SaXT.
Total Rentable
3,117
Total Usable
2,591
Combined R/U
1.2028
MOP Goth b _ :>.
>f�.:::
W-11"iCommon
433.
4
392.7
AREAS COA+l1PUTED IN
ACCORDANCE
WITH ANSfBOMA 255,1 (9998) STANCIARI)
Survev Accuracv: +1- 0.04 %
' SCALE: 1116" =1' —0"
UWFM aV fsa rogistered US trademark ofLasertechV Floorplans Ltd.
W ---d..-. -A
it+• #
Usable
Rentabif
--
1
525.0
631.
2
433.2
521.
3
360.3
433.
4
392.7
e472.
5
306.6
369,
6
573.7
6W
C
TEL: (888) 393-61655
FILE 5-265
PREPARED FOR:
Deegan & Coppin Company, Inc.
101 Larkspur Landing Circle
Larkspur, CA 94939
Tel (415) 461-1010
Fax (415) 524-1419
http://Www.keeganeoppin.com
FLOOR PLAN
I&S05 KERNER BLVD.
SAN RAFAEL.) CA
SECOND FLOOR
(As Measured: October 2008)
16' 8' 0 16,
SCALD 1 / 16" =1' -0"
Survey AGCU ia(.'ji. +/— 0.04 %1 LMERt Cc @ is o registered US tradomark of Lasertee110 Ftoorplans Ltd.
) C.
TEL: (888) 393-6655
FILE_ 8-265
Address: 3256 Kerner Blvd.
Sari Rafael, CA
1 2 3
AN'S11130MA (1996) AREA ANALYSIS
4 5 6 6A 7
Date Printed: 10120/2008 3:09 PM
Usable Areas
s 9 10 it
X17+R+91 45-101
Floor
Gross
Building
Area
Gross
Measured
Area
- .,
Floor
Rentable
Area
Space
I.D.
-
Space
Descri tion
Office
Area
Store
Area
Building
Common
Area
Floor
Usable
Area
c:°.F aal-_._
1
8,067
7.984
23
A
Retail
828
BRetail
2,114
C
Retail
2,531
D
Retail
1,840
Restrooms/Haliway
390
E1eclSbWTe1 Rm
44
Lobby
114
Floor Totals
8.0671
7,984
23
7,9621
1
928
6,485
156
7,5721
390
2
3,264
3145
75
1
Office
525
2
Office
433
3
Office
360
4
Office
383
5
Office
307
6
Office
574
RestroomslHailway
478
FloorTot-als
3264
3,945
75
3,070
2,591
0
0
2,691
479
BLDG TOTALS 1 11,3T 11,1301, 981 11,03-211 1 F 3,V9701 6,4U 958 70,163 869
'1 "
_67,61 *A11 UPtPPsrtt'eSq. FP.
1117[ 5%
` laaerteoh is a registered US trademark, y . --J
ANSUBOMA (1996) AREA ANALYSIS
Basic Rentable Areas
12 13 14 15 iG 17 17A
moi,-.. —A", ...f. tt Att it .-,il.,l1 <..C...../iC\\ —417.1-71
Date Printed: 10120/2008 3:09 PM
RENTABLE AREAS
18 14 20
�I,%* IAO 171 =f19+191
Floor
RIU
Ratio
Office
Area
Stare
Area
Building
Common
Area
Building
Rentable
Area
Building
RIU
natio
Combined
RIU
Ratio
Office
Area
Store
Area
Total
Rentable
Area
978.2�a
991
2,223.26
2,25
2,661.03
2,70
1,934.84
1,964
46.40
120.00
1.0515
976.25
6,819.13
166,40
7,961.79
_
1.06-161
991
6,924
7,915
621.89
631
513.20
521
426.82
433
465.18
472
363.20
369
679.68
690
1.1$46
31069.97
0.00
0.00
3,069.97
1.2028
3,117
0
—._
-. 7J%JIE1'
--
4046.22 6819.13 186.40 11031.76 1.0153 4,108 8,92+1 11032
°Aq Units are Sq. F(,
Lasertedl Is a rogislamd US tradsmarh.
n
PROPOSED
RETAIL -OFFICE
DUILDIN
Q.
o 7
g r_.
9 l
b-'
r�4t�r
SAN INAFAUL PLANNING 0KPARVPwQQW-W
STAFF RIK-PORT MAP
0 7T-
of
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: DRAFT DOWNTOWN SAP! RAFAEL PARKING & WAYFINDING STUDY— Presentation
on the Zoning and Development Standard recommendations of the Draft Downtown San Rafael
Parking & Wayfinding Study. This draft study, which was prepared by the City of San Rafael, provides
a comprehensive review of Downtown parking and includes numerous recommendations on parking
rates, wayfinding, SMART, parking policies, marketing and promotion, pedestrian network, bicycle
parking, and zoning/development standards. The Planning Commission review will focus on the
recommendations related to zoning and development standards.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July 2017, the Draft Final Report of the Downtown San Rafael Parking & Wayfinding Study was
completed and made available for public review. Commissioned and prepared as a follow-up to the
Downtown Station Area Plan (SAP), this study covers many topics and presents many recommendations
regarding parking in Downtown San Rafael. The topics and recommendations cover, among others, public
parking management, metering, parking rates/pricing, parking time limits, parking supply and demand,
enforcement, marketing, wayfinding, the pedestrian network, bicycle parking, as well as zoning and
development standards. The Draft Final Report was vetted and guided by City staff and a Community
Working Group (CWG) comprised of key stakeholders.
The Draft Final Report includes recommended changes and amendments to the City's zoning and
development standards specific to Downtown parking. Although City zoning code amendments are not
proposed at this time, it is prudent to present the recommendations to the Planning Commission for review
and comment prior to final review of the Draft Final Report by the City Council. Included in this staff report
is a list of 14 zoning and development standard recommendations, along with a summary of staff comments
and CWG input. It is requested that Commission review and comments be focused on these 14 potential
recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
a. Review and comment on the Draft Parking & Wayfinding Study zoning and development standard
recommendations; and
b. Accept the report.
BACKGROUND
In planning for the arrival of the Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) service, in 2009, Downtown
San Rafael was designated as a Priority Development Area (PDA). The Downtown PDA established a Y2 -
mile radius planning area around the SMART station and Bettini Transit Center. Following this action, in
2010, the City accepted a grant to prepare the Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan (SAP). The
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: P17-012 Page 2
purpose of the SAP was to study potential land use and transportation opportunities to support sustainable,
future development in the PDA. The San Rafael Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) on Economic
Development and Affordable Housing assisted with the development of the SAP and the final plan was
completed and accepted by the City Council in 2012.
The SAP contains six primary goals including Goal 4, which focuses on Downtown parking. Goal 4 states,
"Supply adequate parking for new housing and businesses while encouraging transit use, walking and
bicycling." Further, the SAP includes a comprehensive implementation program, which calls for the City to
seek funding opportunities to study the area and implement policies and recommendations. Specific to
Goal 4, the implementation program includes the following recommended actions related to Downtown
parking:
A. Review parking regulations for the Plan area and consider making changes to encourage more
efficient use of privately -owned parking spaces.
B. Consider implementing public parking management strategies in the Plan area.
C. Explore the feasibility of establishing car -share near the transit stations.
D. Explore opportunities to provide additional parking for bicycles.
E. Consider options for providing additional municipal parking that would: i) investigate the
availability of parcels in the Study area that could be acquired for the development of public
parking, ii) Develop a financing strategy, and iii) acquire a site, and plan and develop a parking
garage.
F. Consider ways to meet parking demand for transit users as needed.
In response to the Downtown SAP, on December 1, 2014, the City Council accepted a $250,000 grant
from the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) to fund a Parking and Wayfinding Study for the Downtown
area. The objectives of the study were to analyze the City's current public parking; explore anticipated
future parking needs including future transit ridership (e.g., SMART); examine and upgrade the current
wayfinding program for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians; and to propose parking policies and
management options to maximize usage of existing parking supply.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Downtown Parking & Wayfinding Study - Scope
In 2015, Kimley-Horn and Associates, transportation consultants were hired to prepare the Downtown
Parking & Wayfinding Study. Based on feedback from the community and recommendations from key
stakeholders, the study was scoped to include the following:
The area of the study was expanded beyond the initial SAP geographic area (1/2 -mile radius
surrounding the SMART station) to include the greater Downtown San Rafael area. Specifically,
the expanded area includes the West End Village (west of D Street) and the Lindaro
Street/Francisco Boulevard West areas.
2. A detailed review of existing conditions including data collection to assess: a) existing parking
supply and demand (including SMART parking demand); b) parking duration/turnover and parking
duration time limits. Data collection included, among others an intercept survey, an on-line survey,
and pop-up workshops.
3. Application of the "Park +" parking model software utilizing assumptions and calibrated data (from
#2 above) to evaluate four scenarios for Downtown parking supply/demand: a) existing conditions:
b) near-term development (inclusion of new development approved, under construction, or in the
review process); c) long-term development (development assumptions under General Plan 2020);
and d) maximum capacity conditions (continued population growth within the study area consuming
the available parking supply).
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: P17-012
Page 3
4. Recommendations for on-going monitoring of parking supply and demand utilizing the "Park +"
parking model.
5. Recommendations for public parking management including metering, parking rates/pricing,
parking time limits, parking supply, enforcement, marketing and promotion, and wayfinding.
6. Recommendations for the pedestrian network, specifically crosswalks, sidewalks, and paths. In
addition, review and present recommendations for public bicycle parking infrastructure.
7. Recommendations for zoning and development standard changes/amendments for Downtown
parking.
Study Process and Findings
The Parking and Wayfinding Study project was divided into the following four distinct phases:
Phase 1 - Information gathering including data collection and modeling;
Phase 2 - Completion of an initial draft report with consultant recommendations and initial public
outreach;
Phase 3 - Feasibility analysis and a comprehensive engagement effort; and
Phase 4 - Completion of a Final Draft Report with City staff recommendations
In Phase 1, Kimley-Horn and Associates collected a significant amount of supply/demand data on the
current state of parking and wayfinding in the Downtown area. This effort included, but was not limited to:
on -street metered parking usage and rates, usage at public and private parking facilities (lots and
structures) within the Downtown area; traffic counts; destination -based parking behaviors; pedestrian
counts on paths of travel; and extensive public outreach including in-person and online surveys. The
information gathered not only included data about public parking facilities and options, but also included
usage at private lots and structures.
The most significant and key task under Phase 1 assessed existing, near-term, and long-term parking
supply and demand of public and private parking lots, as well as on -street parking. Field surveys were
conducted for this task. The field surveys found that even during times of highest use on typical weekdays
and typical Saturdays, there is more than enough parking in the overall study area to accommodate existing
demand. While popular on -street parking areas such as 4th Street between Lincoln Avenue and E Street
are fully occupied, overall, the existing parking occupancy in the study area is 64%.1 For the near-term
and long-term, Kimley-Horn estimates that parking occupancy would be at 67% and 69%, respectively.
The excess of supply is mostly influenced by underutilized private parking lots and public parking
structures/garages found to have low occupancy.
Based on the data gathered in Phase 1, in spring 2016, Kimley-Horn completed and submitted an initial,
draft report with findings and recommendations (Phase 2). The initial draft report presented approximately
50 recommendations to improve existing, Downtown parking conditions ranging from signage to
implementing public-private partnerships with Downtown businesses that have excess parking.
During Phase 2, City Staff presented the initial draft report and consultant recommendations to numerous
stakeholder groups including the Chamber of Commerce, CAC, Economic Development Subcommittee,
Business Improvement District (BID), Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and at the monthly
' The practical capacity for parking is defined as 85-90% utilization/occupancy. The general rule is to have 10-15% parking
vacancy as a cushion. Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: P17-012 Page 4
meeting of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents.
Based on the community's feedback from this initial round of outreach, it was determined that more time
needed to be spent with key stakeholders on understanding, evaluating and customizing the
recommendations in the report to be more tailored to San Rafael. Many felt that the initial recommendations
from Kimley-Horn, while valid, would benefit from further analysis by stakeholders who were deeply
knowledgeable and concerned with parking needs in the Downtown area.
Community Working Group Input
In December 2016, a Parking & Wayfinding Community Working Group (CWG) was formed to include 10
key community members/stakeholders representing: the Downtown CAC, Sustainable San Rafael, San
Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Downtown business owners, neighborhood representatives, a commercial
realtor and local developer/land owner. The CWG met monthly from January to October 2017 engaging
in meaningful discussions and providing thoughtful and thorough feedback on each set of
recommendations in the initial draft report. The group spent a total of over 25 hours with City staff and
Kimley-Horn reviewing and providing input. City staff from the City Manager's Office, Parking Services,
Economic Development, Public Works, and Community Development attended these monthly meetings to
provide input and ensure the recommendations were coordinated and in line with other City projects and
initiatives.
The CWG categorized recommendations into seven major focus areas:
• SMART
• Marketing and promotion of downtown parking
• Parking Policies (rates, time limits, enforcement, parking supply)
• Pedestrian Network (crosswalks, sidewalks, paths)
• Bicycle Parking Infrastructure
• Zoning and Development Standards (parking district, parking requirements, bicycle parking
requirements)
• Wayfinding
Publication of f=inal graft Report
The Final Draft Report was published in July 2017, is posted on the City's website. Please see the
Executive Summary or the Full Report
As the Downtown Parking & Wayfinding Study addresses many topics and recommendations, the Parking
Services Division staff has prepared two documents that provide a more abbreviated summary of the study
elements. These summary documents entitled "Handouts - November 9, 2017", and "Summary of Staff
Recommendations and Community Working Group Input - August 2017" are both attached (Exhibits 1 and
2).
An informational summary of the Final Draft Report was presented to the City Council on October 16, 2017.
The City Council will review the Final Draft Report on January 16, 2018. Prior to the City Council's review
and action on the Final Draft Report, it is prudent to include the Planning Commission's review and
comments on the report recommendations that are specific to zoning and development standards.
ANALYSIS
As noted above, the scope of the study includes zoning and development standard recommendations for
Downtown parking based on, among others, the parking supply and demand assessment and best
practices administered by other communities with similar urban, downtown environments. The zoning and
development standard recommendations are presented in Section 5 of the study pages 60-70. The zoning
recommendations for bicycle parking are presented in Section 6 of the study, pages 72-80. Although no
specific ordinance amendments to SRMC Chapter 14.18 (Parking Standards) or other formal actions are
proposed at this time, the list of recommendations would ultimately result in further study and formal actions
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: P17-012
Page J
requiring future Planning Commission review. For now, the recommended zoning and development
standards are being presented to the Planning Commission for initial review and comment. As noted
above, the Commission comments will be forwarded to the City Council.
The following is a list of the 14 zoning and development standard recommendations presented in the Final
Draft Report. For each recommendation, the study recommends a specific time frame for implementation
(short-term [0-2 years], medium-term [2-4 years] and long-term [4+ years]), which is based on the
complexity of the recommendation and extent of further study. Also, following each recommendation are
staff comments and the consensus input from the CWG.
Adopt clear and strategic Guiding Principles as formal policies for the operation and
management of Downtown public parking, as stated in the City's Municipal Code Section
14.18.010 (Parking Standards). Timing: short-term
Staff comments and CWG Input: What is recommended here is that guiding principles be added to
the "Purpose" section of SRMC Chapter 14.18 (Parking Standards). This recommendation is
logical and appropriate to support the other zoning and development standard recommendations
that are presented for this chapter and summarized below. Staff and the CWG support this
recommendation.
2. Amend City Municipal Code Section 14.18.000A (Downtown Parking Assessment District) to
clarify that the first 1.0 of floor area ratio on a property is "waived" from providing off-street
parking as the required parking is provided by the current Parking District. Timing: short-
term
Staff comments and CWG Input: Established in 1958, the current Downtown Parking District is
bounded by D Street to the west, Mission Avenue to the north, Lincoln Avenue to the east and 2"d
Street to the south. The current Parking District provides the required parking (in the form of on -
street parking and off-street public lots/structures) for up to 1.0 floor area ratio (FAR) of non-
residential development on each property within the district. So, the District provisions in SRMC
Chapter 14.18 already provides for a "waiver. " However, the recommendation would clearly define
the parking allowance as a waiver from the parking requirements, and would qualify that the waiver
reflects the actual parking supply and demand within the district. This recommendation is not a
substantive change to the code. Staff and the majority of the CWG support this recommendation.
3. Amend City Municipal Code Section 14.18.080 (Parking requirements for reciprocal uses
with shared parking facilities) to encourage developers/property owners to pursue more
shared parking. Timing: short-term
Staff comments and CWG input. The current code provisions allow a developer/property owner
to request a reduction in the required parking when the parking between two or more uses have a
"significant and contemplating variation in period of daily demands. " A request for a reduction and
shared parking requires the approval of a Use Permit. The recommendation presented here is to
encourage shared parking but to continue to require a Use Permit. Staff supports this
recommendation. The majority of the CWG supported this recommendation but expressed concern
over the process for additional review by the City (Use Permit requirement) for reciprocal uses of
parking facilities.
4. Revise City Municipal Code Section 14.18.220D (On-site and remote parking) to allow off-
site/remote parking to be a greater distance for uses within the Downtown districts. 1,300-
1,500 feet is recommended. Timing: short-term
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: P17-012
Page 6
Staff comments and CWG Input: The current code provisions allow remote parking to be within
500 feet of the specified use/site and "shall possess direct and convenient pedestrian access. " The
provision for a maximum 500 -foot distance was established 40+ years ago when parking was
encouraged to be as close -as -possible to the use/property it is serving. People are now walking
greater distances between parking and their destination, particularly in a Downtown setting.
Kimley-Horn confirmed that a walking distance of 1,300 to 1,500 feet between parking and
destination points is common and has been accepted by many local jurisdictions for their Downtown
areas. Staff supports this recommendation and the majority of the CWG agrees with this
recommendation.
6. Revise City Municipal Code Section 14.18.120 (Tandem parking prohibited) to allow for
tandem parking and to permit automated parking or other mechanical parking devices (e.g.,
automated parking lifts) in the Downtown Districts. Timing: short-term
Staff comments and CWG Input: The current code provisions prohibit tandem parking citywide,
with several exceptions (e.g., allowed for accessory dwelling units). The recommendation would
allow tandem parking in the Downtown Districts, as well as mechanical or automated parking lifts.
Tandem parking is not uncommon when. a) applied or assigned to uses with low parking turnover;
or b) the two parking spaces are assigned to a single tenant or residential unit. Similarly,
mechanical parking lifts have become popular in urban projects and successfully save space and
cost. Staff supports this recommendation and the majority of the CWG agrees with this
recommendation.
6. Amend City Municipal Code Section 14.18.040 (Parking Requirements) adding language that
approved parking (for Downtown development) may be made available to the public, not
solely for the uses and tenants on the subject property. The intent of this recommendation
is to encourage public use of underutilized private parking facilities. It is recommended that
incentives be provided to the property owners that make their parking supply available for
public use. Timing: medium-term
Staff comments and CWG input: Staff supports this recommendation and the majority of the CWG
agrees with this recommendation. It should be noted that public use of private parking is not
uncommon. However, it may be more suitable and financially feasible for larger development sites
that have larger, private parking facilities. Making private parking available for public use has its
liabilities and typically requires costly insurance coverage, which may not be financially feasible for
the property owners of smaller sites with smaller parking facilities.
7. Consider expanding the Downtown Parking District boundaries based on increased parking
demand. Timing: medium-term
Staff comments and CWG Input: The current Downtown Parking District is described in
recommendation #2, above. The recommendation to "expand" this district initially surfaced with
the Downtown SAP, which focused on the area between Lincoln Avenue and Hetherton Street.
The subject study finds that it is also worthy to assess this expansion for the West End Village
(west of D Street) area. Staff finds that this recommendation has merit. However, it may be found
that separate or distinct parking districts is more appropriate for these areas given different parking
demands, different parking opportunities/challenges for additional parking, and cosbfinancing. The
majority of the CWG agree with this recommendation, but it was determined that expanding the
district (or creating separate districts) will require more extensive study and public input.
8. Simplify parking requirements for the Downtown area, as now provided in City Municipal
Code Section 14.18.040. For Downtown, the study recommends collapsing the 50 land use
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: P17-012
Page 7
types (with varying parking requirements) currently in the City ordinance into five, general
land use categories. Timing: medium-term
Staff comments and CWG Input: A list of 50 land use types and corresponding parking
requirements is not necessary for Downtown. This recommendation to collapse the land use types
into five categories is logical and practical in that: a) the parking standards for similar land use types
do not dramatically vary; and b) most of the Downtown area is served by the Parking District where
parking is routinely waived when there is a change in use. Staff supports this recommendation and
the majority of the CWG agrees with this recommendation.
0. Initiate a pilot program to reduce parking requirements in the Downtown area by 20% from
current levels. Note: this is one of three options presented in the study. This option (caption
2) suggests monitoring the parking supply over time (utilizing the "Park +" parking model
software). The other two options suggest: a) maintaining the current parking standards
with a continued review of requested parking reductions on a case-by-case basis (Option
1); and b) eliminating the parking requirements and allow the developer/property owner to
determine the amount of parking based on market demand (Option 3). Timing: medium-
term
Staff comments and CWG Input: Staff and the CWG did not support Options 1 and 3. For Option
2, Kimley-Horn initially recommended a much more aggressive reduction in the parking
requirements (35%+ reduction), but the reduction was scaled-back to 20% at the request of staff
and the CWG. Staff supports this recommendation as it has merit and is worthy to test. At present,
City staff and the Planning Commission routinely review and approve requests for parking
modifications. Most of these modification requests are to reduce the number of required parking
spaces (often in -excess of a 20% reduction). For the most part, the individual modifications have
not been problematic. The majority of the CWG agrees with this recommendation and did not find
that testing it as a "pilot" is necessary.
10. Establish "exterior and ground floor" design standards for parking garages. Timing:
medium-term
Staff comments and CWG Input. At -grade parking garages often have a significant impact on the
active pedestrian experience because of the interruption of vehicle circulation/access (driveways
and curb -cuts), incompatible architecture and treatment of building scale and frontage. This
recommendation suggests that specific design standards be developed to ensure that at -grade
parking garages are sensitive to the active uses on the ground floor of the street frontage and do
not disrupt the pedestrian experience and flow. Staff and the CWG support this recommendation.
11. Consider revisions to parking dimensional requirements within Downtown parking garages.
Timing: medium-term
Staff comments and CWG Input: This recommendation refers to the current parking facility and
dimension standards that are set forth in City Municipal Code Section 14.18.130. The current
standards in the City code were established in 1992 and are appropriate for suburban development.
More current parking dimensional standards for an urban setting are available and appropriate to
consider for Downtown San Rafael. Staff and the CWG support this recommendation.
12. The City should undertake an effort to develop a shared parking arrangement with owners
of private parking facilities to enter into a shared parking program that is offered to the
public in a common and seamless basis. This action would require amending City Municipal
Code Section 14.18.040 (Parking Requirements) to add language stating that approved
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: P17-012
Page 8
parking for developments may be made available to the public and/or used to satisfy parking
requirements for other developments. Timing: long-term
Staff comments and CWG Input: This recommendation requires establishing a more formal, shared
parking program because it involves multiple properties and development projects sharing parking
at a private parking facility. The advantages of shared parking are that it: a) allows existing
development to deploy underutilized parking spaces to serve/benefit the greater community; b)
allows new development to reach parking demand in the most cost-effective way without adding
parking that may exceed demand; c) allows for flexible management of parking supply; and d)
provides more opportunities for parking groups to meet their needs. Staff supports this
recommendation and the majority of the CWG agrees with this recommendation. However, it
requires detailed study to determine the appropriate administration measures.
13. Provide reductions in the Downtown vehicle parking requirements for developers who
provide bicycle parking. Timing: long-term
Staff comments and CWG Input. The recommendation suggests allowing a reduction of one
vehicle parking space for every five -ten bicycle spaces. Essentially, this recommendation would
shift the priority of parking for vehicles to parking for bicycles, which is a dramatic change. The
examples of cities cited in the study that allow bicycle parking to substitute for vehicle parking are
cities that are: a) larger and more urban than San Rafael; and b) have greater alternative/mass
transit opportunities.2 Staff and the CWG expressed concern about replacing required vehicle
parking spaces with bicycle parking. /t was the consensus that this recommendation needs to be
studied in more detail.
14. Encourage bicycle parking for new, Downtown multi -unit residential development. Timing:
long-term
Staff comments and CWG Input: At present, City Municipal Code Section 94.98.090 (Bicycle
Parking) sets forth bicycle parking requirements (short-term and long-term parking) for non-
residential and public/quasi-public uses. In effect since 9992, the bicycle parking standards do not
apply to residential uses. Amending the City code to include a bicycle parking requirement for
multiple -family residential use is logical and appropriate. Staff and the CWG support this
recommendation.
Ultimately, implementation of the above recommendations will require amendments to the City Municipal
Code Chapter 14.18 (Parking Standards). All code amendments will require noticed public hearings, a
review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and action by the City Council. At this time, it
is unknown when the first phase of code amendments (short-term) will be completed and published for
public review.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
State law (California Environmental Quality Act) requires that this project be reviewed to determine if a
study of potential environmental effects is required. It has been determined that this project will not have
a significant effect on the environment and no environmental review will be completed. This project
qualifies for a Statutory Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines under 14 CRR Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies.
2 Cities that allow bicycle parking to substitute for vehicle parking are Portland OR, Denver CO, San Jose CA, Santa Monica CA,
San Francisco CA and Oakland CA.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: P17-012 Page 9
PUBLIC NOTICING AND OUTREACH
Notice of this meeting was provided to the members of the Parking & Wayfinding Working Group (CWG),
the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Downtown BID, the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, and
the neighborhood associations within and bordering the study area.
As discussed above under the Project Description, the study process included extensive community
outreach and public engagement. This effort included the formation of the CWG to assist in vetting and
directing the study recommendations. During Phase 1 (Information Gathering) of the study, the online
survey promoted to residents and visitors to San Rafael received more than 1,200 responses. The survey
was made available in both Spanish and English, and was distributed both online and in-person at
community meetings and events. In addition, the project team hosted three "pop-up" workshops at the
Downtown Art Walk, BioMarin, and Winter Wonderland events. These workshops gathered additional input
by having attendees mark their feedback on exhibit boards, and this information was added to the data
which informed the draft study.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Accept the Final Draft Report as presented (staff recommendation);
2. Continue the item for additional information to address Commission comments and concerns; or
3. Reject the Final Draft Report.
EXHIBITS
1. Informational Handouts on Draft Parking & Wayfinding Study, November 9, 2017
2. Summary of Staff Recommendations and Community Working Group Input, August 2017
3. Public Meeting Notice
EXHIBIT 1
INFORMATIONAL HANDOUTS ON DRAFT PARKING & WAYFIN®ING STUDY
NOVEMBER 9, 2®17
N
.E
E
0
u
cn
N
Q
0
N
0
u
E
0
c
0
u
w
o
0
�s
c
E
E
u
u
a�
0
� o
c �
a0
rl
c7i
.,.-nom .�
9
0,,
W
�z
OC
r
LL
.J
�l
1 '
Ir
0
N\ijs
S G/A
s' a
/v��
Qn
04UAVE
W
3�
000
co
rL
5 N
O �
0
O
N
cc cr
�z
•
i i
G
O �
i
�
q
jai.
vu
d
g
� �
is
w
H8 +
" � ..
z"-"+rwhdl
At �
I
*
v
1 d
r
� �F•"p,"a°"
cL
A
• 3 f
4 3 a
4
� 8sd�s
Ir
jg� •
co
rL
5 N
O �
0
O
N
cc cr
u
Im
CII a
t t)
E
� � O
(n 4-'
bb
N 3
O ->,
bbZ
Qi
a) so >
a. Ln <
! •
O
o
LO
c0
LO
0n0
U (!
: CU
�N
w
s_ C
-�
O
0 LOO
�'O
tO�N
-CN
.�
O
J
LO
o
-w O o
M uj
LUa�
C) a
m
a)
m
U)
O c
� d
v
e�
O
n-
CLLR
v
(LU
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
PARKING SERVICES DIVISION
Shifting perceptions and bringing awareness to parking options in downtown San Rafael
IV bl" w
CREATE COLLATERAL 1 $8000
Develop marketing collateral with San
Rafael Chamber, BID and merchants
Digital materials for online ad
campaign (professionally crafted
Downtown map)
Postcard handout -parking programs
highlights, garage parking benefits
® Garage entrance/exit signage w/
Free Weekend Parking message
Facebook ads
® Small scale art for
meters/lots/garages
GARAGE PARKING PROMO 1$42000
GET SOCIAL 1 $1000
® Create social media presence on
Instagram and Facebook
• Network with businesses and create
seasonal promotions to highlight
parking options throughout
downtown
PUBLIC OUTREACH 1 $2500
Hire seasonal. parking ambassador to
connect with merchants and shoppers
and promote parking programs
V% RAc
Jan -2018: 6 -month pilot free parking on
Saturdays to bring more visitors�►�
4
Downtown and to utilize available �, �y
parking space in A St/C St Garages rY WITH f'
VZZZZZZZ4 t � �Z �
z/-Z
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND
COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP INPUT
AUGUST 2017
SAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
Downtown ParkingM/ayfinding Study
Summary of Staff Recommendations & Community Working
Group Input - August 2017
1® Introduction
Key objectives of the Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study (DP/WS) are to identify existing and future
parking needs of the Downtown San Rafael area in response to the opening of SMART, to provide
options for a new Downtown wayfinding program, and to develop future parking
management/operational strategies to maximize the future supply and use of Downtown parking.
2. Process
A. Development of the plan: The DP/WS began with initial data collection in July 2015.
(halt vuireacb; rtrW
Analysts (Deport Draft Nan to Ropwt
Assessrrx�t
hilyMM.- Ja0f r. F eb- Dec S LaOv StalceFtptrler5 tyeFlil
7b [f� �❑t � 21x7
Surrrrtet/I-aN ZUl/
0
-Economic Uevemp-nent
subcommittee
- Chamber
-CAC
- BPAC
- BIC
- Federation of
t4eighborhoods
0
-Design Reziew Board
-PlanningCommissior
-City Council
Community Working Group (CWG): After the initial DP/WS draft report was issued by
Kimley-Horn in 2016, a working group was convened in January 2017 to provide input and help
refine the report recommendations. The CWG met monthly through October, 2017 for over 25
total hours. The group consists of:
• Jerry Belletto: Neighborhood Representative, BPAC
• Dirck Brinkerhoff: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing,
local resident and commercial realtor
• Jeff Brusati: Downtown business owner (T & B Sports)
• Bill Carney: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing,
Sustainable San Rafael
• Adam Dawson: Downtown business (Mike's Bikes)
• Judy Ferguson: Forbes neighborhood resident
• Wick Polite: Developer, Seagate Properties
• Jackie Schmidt: Montecito Area Residents Association
• Roger Smith: Advisory Committee on Economic Development & Affordable Housing
Is Joanne Webster: San Rafael Chamber of Commerce
Chris Squires, P.E of Kimley-Horn attended each meeting to present the recommendations and
answer questions. City staff from Parking Services, Economic Development, Community
Development, Public Works and the City Manager's office also attended the meetings. These
discussions resulted in refinements to the draft report and more 'San Rafael customized'
recommendations that have been incorporated into Kimley-Horn's Final Report (see Appendix
A).
C. Community Working Group Meeting Schedule:
CWG Meeting Date
Brief Description of Items Discussed
1) February 7, 2017
• Background, basics of parking in San Rafael, Parking 101 -Chris Squires, Kimley-Horn
• Parking Management/Pricing-time limits (especially 2 -hr time limit), garage parking,
downtown employee parking incentives, rates, policy for adjusting rates
2) February 28, 2017
• City parking goals & Guiding Principles - customer satisfaction
® Rates policy recommendations:
- "System to routinely review on and off-street rates based on performance
metrics w/out City Council adoption of specific rates"
- Pricing structure that adjusts prices upward or downward - rates ideally
reviewed annually
• Increasing Saturday limit to 3 hours, meter start time of 8am
• SMART: "Monitor long-term SMART parking demand to assess future needs in the
parking supply"
3) Larch 22, 2017
• Marketing: Danielle O'Leary shared experience/ideas from City of Santa Rosa;
include multi -modal marketing; marketing relative to Downtown merchants
e SMART outreach for Day #1 of full -schedule operation
® Garage pricing, dynamic/variable pricing, co -benefits of making Downtown more
inviting - e.g, parklets, bike parking in on -street spaces
® Bike Parking & Pedestrian Network; Transit Center re -design relating to bikes/peds
4) April 18, 2017 - Zoning part 1
• Guiding Principles - who is our priority customer?; CAC letter
• Zoning & Development Standards:
- Guiding Principles & Simplify minimum parking requirements
- Approved parking for developments may be made available to the public
- Expansion of parking district
- Minimum required parking for up to 1.0 FAR of the total square footage of the
building is waived
- Parking requirement for reciprocal uses with shared parking facilities
- Consider revisions to parking dimension requirements within Downtown garages
- Establish design standards (exterior and ground floor) for parking garages
- Allow remote parking a greater distance for uses within Downtown district
- Pilot program to reduce minimum parking requirements Downtown by 20% from
current levels
5) May 16, 2017 - Zoning Part 2
+ Significant recap of previous meeting: parking district expansion & what needs to be
considered during the process; General Plan incorporation
• Automated parking lifts
• Report sections 5.3-5.4: Off -Street Parking Req's & Shared parking agreements
• How will Staff & CWG package recommendations to City Council?
6) June 13, 2017
• Wayfinding report: Concepts, Style & Variable Message Signs (VMS)
9 Idea of re -purposed signage -upgrade current signs for low-cost improvement
3. Kimley-Horn Recommendations
Kimley-Horn's Final Report includes a variety of recommendations for improving conditions related to
parking management, zoning rules, pedestrian system, bicycle parking and signage. Particular focus was
made to the area most directly impacted by the the arrival of the SMART train and the future San Rafael
Transit Center relocation. Appendix B is a chart that includes all of the detailed recommendations.
4. Community Working Group and City Staff Input
All recommendations in the Final Report have been reviewed by City staff from Parking Services,
Community Development, Public Works, Economic Development and the City Manager's office. In most
cases, Kimley-Horn, City staff and the CWG are in alignment in supporting Kimley-Horn's
recommendations.
The Final Report will serve as a supporting document of the General Plan 2040 and the
recommendations agreed upon by staff and City Council will be implemented accordingly. Most of the
Zoning & Development strategies require amendments to the City's Municipal Code, and this process
will be folded into the plan based on the timeframes set forth.
The timeframes being used for implementation are Short -Term (0-2 yearn, Med-Term (2-4 years) and
Long -Term (4+ years). Factors such as the economy can either speed up or slow down these timeline
estimates.
This document breaks down Kimley-Horn's recommendations into high-level summaries and includes
City staff input, CWG input and action items/next steps.
A. Summary of Recommendations related to SMART
® This meeting's top priorities: Blue P signs, signage for all modes, where else can we
A.1 Change the time limit of the 8, on -street metered parking spaces on Tamalpais
expand wayfinding endeavors?
Ave. between 4th St. and Fifth Ave. from 2 to 10 hours.
• Top 2 goals for parking/marketing/wayfinding: perception & awareness
A.2 Conduct public outreach (signage, hardcopy materials and online) as the new
• Andrew Faulkner (AF Studio) presented prototype signs, group gave overall approval
SMART station is opening to inform the public of parking locations and
for prototypes to be installed within 30-60 days; Next steps
7) august 15, 2017 - Summary of
• Group shared suggested edits for Summary: SMART, marketing, parking rates
CWG Part 1 & Marketing
a Marketing handout shared, feedback received
o Free garage parking promotions: group agreed to focus on exploration of free garage
parking on Saturdays
a) October 3, 2011- Summary of
• Group shared suggested edits for Summary doc: Zoning, Bike Parking, Ped Network
CWG P a 2
• Next steps: Send presentations timeline & final Summary doc to group
3. Kimley-Horn Recommendations
Kimley-Horn's Final Report includes a variety of recommendations for improving conditions related to
parking management, zoning rules, pedestrian system, bicycle parking and signage. Particular focus was
made to the area most directly impacted by the the arrival of the SMART train and the future San Rafael
Transit Center relocation. Appendix B is a chart that includes all of the detailed recommendations.
4. Community Working Group and City Staff Input
All recommendations in the Final Report have been reviewed by City staff from Parking Services,
Community Development, Public Works, Economic Development and the City Manager's office. In most
cases, Kimley-Horn, City staff and the CWG are in alignment in supporting Kimley-Horn's
recommendations.
The Final Report will serve as a supporting document of the General Plan 2040 and the
recommendations agreed upon by staff and City Council will be implemented accordingly. Most of the
Zoning & Development strategies require amendments to the City's Municipal Code, and this process
will be folded into the plan based on the timeframes set forth.
The timeframes being used for implementation are Short -Term (0-2 yearn, Med-Term (2-4 years) and
Long -Term (4+ years). Factors such as the economy can either speed up or slow down these timeline
estimates.
This document breaks down Kimley-Horn's recommendations into high-level summaries and includes
City staff input, CWG input and action items/next steps.
A. Summary of Recommendations related to SMART
Kimley-Horn
A.1 Change the time limit of the 8, on -street metered parking spaces on Tamalpais
Recommendations
Ave. between 4th St. and Fifth Ave. from 2 to 10 hours.
A.2 Conduct public outreach (signage, hardcopy materials and online) as the new
SMART station is opening to inform the public of parking locations and
programs, specifically to encourage drivers to use the long-term parking at the
3'd & Lootens parking lot.
2
CWG Input
A.3 Majority of CWG agrees with the group of SMART recommendations.
B.1 Consider temporary marketing and promotional programs targeted at both
A.4 Several noted that northbound ridership is largely unknown, so parking and
businesses and visitors: Make more people aware of the availability of
station connectivity activity should be monitored closely.
parking and the convenience of use of the Downtown garages.
A.5 Some suggested coordinating with transit agencies to share parking
information and provide feeder busses to reduce parking demand.
A.6 One person suggested SMART marketing also tie into general promotion of
our Downtown and coming to the train station by bike, via transit or
"on -foot."
A.7 One person said signage needs to be clear that all -day parking at 3rd/Lootens
is on the upper level and can direct drivers needing to get to upper level from
lower level.
A.8 Some were curious about how it could be determined if the Tamalpais Ave.
on -street meters were utilized by SMART riders.
City Staff
A.9 Staff agrees proactive marketing of all -day parking options will help
Recommendations
northbound riders know where to park.
A.10 Additionally, time limit and pricing information should be visible to drivers
and easily accessible online. Most northbound riders will likely park near the
Civic Center station since this is a free parking area.
Action Items /
A.11 Completed Recommendation - The time limit of 8, on -street metered parking
Next Steps
spaces on Tamalpais Ave. between 4th St. and Fifth Ave., have been changed
from 2 to 10 hours.
A.12 Additionally, Parking staff will:
A.12.1 August 2017 - Conduct outreach at the SMART station during the first
few weeks of operation to inform northbound travelers of parking
options through a handout and potentially on -board advertisements
as well as advertise on City website and social media for official
full -schedule opening. Include with SMART parking info that Civic
Center station has free nearby parking
A.12.2 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Through in person observations, Parking staff
will determine if meters are being used by SMART riders.
A.12.3 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) -Monitor time-limited and residential areas to
determine if additional signage is needed, and will monitor meter
usage near the SMART station for duration of stay for any necessary
adjustments.
A.12.4 Long -Term (4+ yrs) - Staff anticipates having to re -visit key
recommendations as SMART ridership grows and the route extends
to Larkspur.
B. Summary of Recommendations related to Marketing
Kimley-Horn
B.1 Consider temporary marketing and promotional programs targeted at both
Recommendations
businesses and visitors: Make more people aware of the availability of
parking and the convenience of use of the Downtown garages.
C. Summary of Recommendations related to Rates
B.2 Implement an integrated program for outreach, information and
promotion. Plan on a multi-year campaign that will improve awareness
over time.
CWG Input
B.3 Majority of CWG agrees and supports the suggestion of comprehensive
outreach to our Downtown merchants, including growing the merchant
validation/incentive program, to engage the Business Improvement District
(BID) in this process and prioritizing an end goal of bringing more visitors
Downtown to shop and dine.
B.4 Majority of CWG agrees that the City should explore free parking in the A
St. and C St. garages on Saturdays.
B.5 One member disagrees with free garage parking on Saturdays, and
suggested focusing on the Frequent Parker program (50% off hourly rate).
B.6 A few expressed it should be easier for merchants to obtain validations,
and one member suggested to make merchant validations more visible at
the point-of-sale, on menus for example as a catching graphic/visual.
B.7 Some expressed the current parking marketing message isn't consistent.
B.8 One member suggested to encourage employers to offer incentives to their
employees who utilize alternate commute options (such as the program
that Mike's Bikes offers), while another member recognized it's difficult for
small businesses to provide such incentives.
B.9 Many group members suggested that a "good deal" should be offered to
induce "2+hour" parkers to the A St./C St. garages, e.g, Downtown
employees. Some said the aesthetic and cleanliness of the garages needs
to be prioritized.
City Staff
B.10 Staff agrees with the marketing and outreach recommendations. These are
Recommendations
essential to create awareness for Downtown visitors and business owners
of the locations, prices and availability of parking. City staff will work
toward developing incentives to aid in the marketing efforts. Staff
recommends an exploration of free parking on Saturdays in the A St. & C
St. garages.
Action Items /
B.11 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff is collaborating together on strategies to
Next Steps
increase knowledge of parking facilities through advertising and other
media outlets, like social media and media ads.
B.12 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - A primary component of this is a campaign to raise
awareness of the locations of City garages and specifically direct more
parkers to use the A St. & C St. garages, where there is significant capacity
all day long.
B.13 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - This campaign involves an exploration of new
incentives for merchants Downtown and our target parking customer, and
will include a multi-year implementation plan.
C. Summary of Recommendations related to Rates
Kimley-Horn
C.1 Establish a formal system within City code that provides a basis for
Recommendations
on -street and off-street rates to be reviewed routinely and adjusted based
on a specified set of performance metrics without having City Council
adopt the specific rates.
C.2 Consider a pricing structure within this framework in which prices are
adjusted upward or downward based on the following target metrics for
the Downtown area: adjustments to reflect changes in the true cost of
parking, managing the overall Downtown area to a typical peak period
occupancy for public parking, of 75% to 85%, and managing individual
facilities to a maximum occupancy of 95%.
CWG Input
C.3 Majority of CWG agrees and supports the concept of City staff, in
conjunction with the City Manager, having the authority to approve rate
adjustments, within specific parameters.
C.4 The group made the suggestion to provide proper, advance notice to the
public before making any changes.
C.5 For most group members, the preferred approach seemed to be having
pre -determined performance metrics/criteria to guide the process. No
more than one (1) adjustment per year is reasonable to most.
C.6 Some group members were in favor of looking at increasing on -street
meter rates permanently, not only as part of a variable pricing structure,
while some supported looking at variable pricing, e.g. on 4th St. only,
during the peak period.
C.7 Most members support the idea of having Parking staff manage parking
time limits on a block -by -block basis.
C.8 One member was concerned that 'parkers' would need to understand
where the higher rates would be in-place and why, and then know where
to park in that moment at a cheaper hourly rate. It was suggested to have
mobile responsive parking rate info accessible if implementing periodic
rate adjustments.
City Staff
C.9 Staff agrees with establishing a formal system for rates to be reviewed
Recommendations
routinely. Having the authority to adjust parking rates, through
pre -approved metrics, will streamline the process.
C.10 As a future pilot project, variable rates could be used to manage the
parking supply by modifying behavior and encouraging patrons who desire
to pay less, to park slightly further from their destination.
C.11 City staff will:
Action Items /
C.11.1 Short -Term (0-2 Mrs) - Draft proposed code revisions in a policy that
Next Steps
defines the criteria and authority for how rates are set, in
coordination with an annual parking review. The routine review
could be more frequent for on -street parking and less frequent for
off-street parking.
C.11.2 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff will include a public noticing
process. This is supplemental to the currently required print
notifications, and include posting online and social media platforms,
e.g. NextDoor.
C.11.3 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Model supply and demand with Park+ (a
parking supply/demand modeling tool), in Spring 2018. Based on
the outcome of the updated demand statistics, staff will re-evaluate
implementation of a variable pricing structure as a pilot project.
Staff will then determine whether such a program should be
implemented throughout Downtown or on certain blocks/areas.
C.11.4 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Establish a monitoring schedule of
Downtown conditions that establishes how the City will
measure/track parking usage on an annual basis.
D. Summary of Recommendations related to Time Limits
Kimley-Worn
13.1 Maintain the existing 2 -hour time limit for metered parking on weekdays.
Recommendations
D.2 Monitor the free, time-limited on -street parking east of Highway 101 and
on Lincoln Ave. north of Fifth Ave., as well as the unrestricted on -street
parking in Montecito, Lincoln/San Rafael Hill, and Dominican/Black Canyon
neighborhoods.
13.3 Consider stricter enforcement of time limits, and initiate dialogue with
neighborhoods about a residential permit parking program, if it is observed
that vehicles use these areas for SMART parking.
CWG Input
D.4 The majority of the group agrees with the existing 2 -hour time limit,
however, a few members said some businesses believe 2 hours isn't long
enough and that customers are being cited because of this.
D.S Majority supported a conversion of eleven (11) 2 -hour meters to
20 -minute meters to help free -up strategic parking spaces for quick stops.
D.6 The group asked to keep records of date and rationale for the meter
conversion so that when a business turns over, the information is available
should the parking need change.
D.7 The majority of the group agrees that the City's current residential permit
parking program has difficult milestones and sizeable costs and needs to
be revisited.
City Staff
D.8 Staff agrees with the existing 2 -hour time limit. In the online user survey,
Recommendations
most respondents said that two hours is right for our Downtown.
D.9 Staff agrees that monitoring parking in neighborhoods will help determine
whether residential parking permits are needed to ensure parking spaces
are available for local uses, as intended; however, the implementation of a
new residential parking permit program will require additional analysis and
community input.
Action Items /
D.10 Completed Recommendation - In Spring 2017, Parking staff and two
Next Steps
members of the CWG identified and converted eleven (11) meters from a
2 -hour to 20 -minute time limit.
D.11 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - In response to the discussion of meter feeding on
Saturdays, each Spring, Parking staff will monitor occupancy data and
perform an annual review. This will include creation of an annual work
9
plan for execution on any applicable recommendations. The next review
will be in February 2018.
D.12 Med-Term (2-4 yrs( - In response to the discussions of monitoring demand
for SMART parking, Parking staff will:
D.12.1 Through observation and traffic counts, determine if identified
neighborhoods are affected by SMART riders parking all -day.
D.12.2 Review City's Residential Permit Policy to determine applicability
under current conditions.
D.12.3 Meet with affected neighborhood groups to identify solutions, if
all -day parking in neighborhoods increases due to SMART.
E. Summary of Recommendations related to Enforcement
Kimley-born
E.1 Seek enforcement of parking regulations at Caltrans Park & Ride lots.
Recommendations
facilities to enter into a shared parking program that is offered to the
CWG Input
E.2 The majority agree that if some portions of these lots are leased to private
entities (e.g. French Quarter), then SMART and/or the City should consider
asking for potential lease options as well. There are concerns that moving
parkers out of these lots (that may not be true of Park & Ride parkers) may
cause overflow into neighborhoods.
City Staff
E.3 Staff does not agree with the City enforcing the parking regulations at the
Recommendations
Park & Ride lots, however the City will explore the possibility of leasing
spaces from Caltrans to provide additional parking for SMART riders/transit
riders.
Action Items /
E.4 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - After monitoring SMART parking demand, if
Next Steps
necessary, City staff will develop a plan to explore leasing options in the
Park & Ride lots.
F. Summary of Recommendations related to Parking Supply
Kimley-Horn
F.1 Develop a shared parking arrangement with owners of private parking
Recommendations
facilities to enter into a shared parking program that is offered to the
public. This includes the need to amend City code 14.18.040 to add
language stating that approved parking for developments may be made
available to the public and/or used to satisfy parking requirements for
other developments.
F.2 Initiate dialogue with operators and managers of privately held parking
facilities in an effort to create shared parking opportunities in the future,
such as the use of parking at San Rafael Corporate Center for SMART/SRTC
parking.
7
CWG Input
F.3 Majority agrees the shared parking arrangement recommendation is
G.1 Re -stripe limit lines separately from crosswalk striping at these
worthy of consideration and that the City should initiate such agreements.
intersections: 2nd/Lincoln, 2nd/Lindaro, 3rd/Lincoln, 3rd/Lindaro,
F.4 A few members expressed an opinion that this will not be successful here
3rd/Netherton, 3rd/Tamalpais for increased pedestrian visibility.
in San Rafael, while another member is concerned about situations where
G.2 Install warning signs or barriers in the vicinity of 3rd St. and Lindaro St to
businesses agrees to supply public parking, and then what happens if that
encourage crossing of 3rd St. only in the marked crosswalk.
business is sold/closed?
G.3 Install curb bulb -outs where feasible to reduce pedestrian crossing
F.5 The Chamber of Commerce and the BID is willing to work on shared
distances.
parking as a possible endeavor with City staff.
City Staff
F.6 Staff agrees; a shared parking program could increase the supply of
Recommendations
available parking and allow for future growth. This is a valuable concept to
G.5 Improve pedestrian access between Caltrans Park & Ride lots and the
pursue, however it will be a very detailed, multi -faceted, longer-term effort
Bettini Transit Center.
in order to find feasible partnerships. A similar initiative is being
G.6 Provide a pedestrian path east of Lincoln Ave. San Rafael Corporate Center
undertaken for the East San Rafael Parking Study.
Action Items /
F.7 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) -City staff will:
Next Steps
F.7.1 Research shared parking successes in similar -sized municipalities as
G.8 All members are concerned about pedestrian safety and most suggested
well as the logistical and liability issues faced. Then, create a list of
the City prioritize pedestrian safety over e.g. wayfinding or new signs.
potential facilities, reach out to property owners to gauge interest,
Most group members support idea of a complete assessment of Tamalpais
and develop agreements for shared -parking with interested parties.
Ave., emphasizing pedestrian safety.
F.7.2 Explore ways to incentivize property owners to "open up" spaces.
F.7.3 Monitor effectiveness from the East San Rafael Study.
G. Summary of Recommendations related to the Pedestrian Network:
Crosswalks & Sidewalks/Paths
Kimley-Horn
G.1 Re -stripe limit lines separately from crosswalk striping at these
Recommendations
intersections: 2nd/Lincoln, 2nd/Lindaro, 3rd/Lincoln, 3rd/Lindaro,
3rd/Netherton, 3rd/Tamalpais for increased pedestrian visibility.
G.2 Install warning signs or barriers in the vicinity of 3rd St. and Lindaro St to
encourage crossing of 3rd St. only in the marked crosswalk.
G.3 Install curb bulb -outs where feasible to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances.
G.4 Widen and repair sidewalks along West Tamalpais Ave between 3rd St. and
4th St.
G.5 Improve pedestrian access between Caltrans Park & Ride lots and the
Bettini Transit Center.
G.6 Provide a pedestrian path east of Lincoln Ave. San Rafael Corporate Center
parking garage that connects Lincoln Ave. to 2nd St.
CWG Input
G.7 The majority agree and support all pedestrian recommendations.
G.8 All members are concerned about pedestrian safety and most suggested
the City prioritize pedestrian safety over e.g. wayfinding or new signs.
Most group members support idea of a complete assessment of Tamalpais
Ave., emphasizing pedestrian safety.
H. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development
Standards: Parking District
G.9 The consultant reiterated that this wasn't a transportation study, nor was it
a safety study. The experience of pedestrians from when/where they park
their cars and to their destinations is what's primarily being considered for
making these recommendations. Group members understood this. Group
members encouraged staff to place their suggestions and concerns in the
appropriate context.
G.10 Additionally, the group asked to incorporate recommendations from the
future 3rd & Heatherton safety study as well as to be familiarized with the
content of the 2012 SMART Station Area Plan.
City Staff
G.11 Staff agrees that restriping crosswalks would improve visibility, pedestrian
Recommendations
safety and experience. The City Traffic Engineer recommends an upgrade
from the current basic transverse crosswalks to higher -visibility staggered
continental crosswalks that require less maintenance.
G.12 Staff recommends additional warning devices that are in compliance with
MUTCD standards to discourage jaywalking across the unmarked
crosswalks at 2nd and Yd Streets. The City Traffic Engineer recommends the
installation of "No Pedestrian Crossing Use Crosswalk" signs on pedestrian
crossing barricades at these locations.
G.13 Staff recommends shortening crosswalk lengths in areas that do not
exacerbate other access issues for vehicles (emergency vehicles or other
modes of travel). Bulb -outs and other improvements are being considered.
G.14 Staff recommends working closely with all interested parties during design
and development of the new Transit Center to incorporate wider sidewalks
into the design of any improvements to enhance pedestrian safety.
Action Items /
G.15 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Currently, Parking staff is working with DPW on
Next Steps
prioritization of all pedestrian network recommendations of the DP/WS.
DPW is: doing an analysis of the recommendations for safety, cost and
feasibility, BPAC review, and will determine an implementation plan in
conjunction with MUTCD standards. DPW and Community Development
will identify opportunities for wider pedestrian areas in compliance with
the City's Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan currently being developed.
G.16 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Parking staff will participate in the development of
the City's Bicycle Pedestrian Master plan currently being developed
through DPW to ensure that recommendations are aligned.
G.17 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Community Development and DPW staff will confirm
conditions of approval w/ BioMarin for pedestrian pathway between
Lincoln Avenue and 2nd St.
G.18 Short -Term (0-2 yrsj - Staff to coordinate with SMART to prioritize safety at
intersection crossings, for bicyclists and for pedestrians as part of the
transit center relocation.
H. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development
Standards: Parking District
Kimley-Horn
Recommendations
H.1 Modify the Downtown Parking Assessment section of the Municipal Code
14.18.060A. Consider expanding Downtown Parking district boundaries.
H.2 Clarify the Downtown Parking Assessment District section of the Municipal
Code 14.18.060A. Waiver of first 1.0 of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) does not
imply that City facilities are intended to accommodate the waived demand.
H.3 Amend Municipal Code section 14.18.040 - Add language stating that
approved parking for developments may be made available to the public
(and not just users of the subject land use) to encourage that all parking
approved under that section be made available to the public.
H.4. Revise the On-site and remote parking section of the Municipal Code
14.18.220 B - On-site and remote parking: Allow remote parking to be a
greater distance for uses within the Downtown parking district
CWG Input
H.5 Majority of CWG agrees these are good concepts to explore and study, yet
to explore with caution.
H.6 Some members are concerned about the perception that surplus parking
exists in the district. CWG members want it to be highlighted that the
surplus primarily exists in the garages and certain private lots. Many
members are concerned with the consultant's position that there is surplus
parking downtown. Many expressed that the data from this study is not
sufficient to argue in favor of a surplus.
H.i One member reminded the group that the City discussed the Downtown
parking district in the vision document of 2012 -the Downtown Station Area
Plan, and that the recommendation here aligns with that vision and should
be looked at in the shorter -term. The zoning of the station area should be
prioritized.
H.8 Some were intrigued by an idea of a STATION AREA DISTRICT, with its own
unique criteria specific to a transit center dynamic. Some agreed that land
uses need to be looked at in the modeling process.
H.9 Majority agrees with the suggestion to add language to the code that says
approved parking for developments may be made available to the public.
One group member expressed concern of potential liability that could be
incurred by private lot owners, and another suggested that incentives be
considered for private lot owners.
H.10 Regarding on-site and remote parking, majority of CWG agrees and
supports considering an even greater distance for employee parking.
H.11 Some CWG members think that the City should consider pursuing a
location for a parking garage in the station area as a long-term
recommendation. These members asked if there is enough parking in this
area to accommodate and invite future development.
City Staff
H.12 Staff agrees conceptually to consider expanding the Parking District
Recommendations
boundaries, if the City were to be able to realize the benefits that an
expansion should provide.
H.13 Specifically, staff agrees that we should explore the possibility of a new
parking district east of Lincoln Ave. to Hetherton (contingent upon
adequate parking supply becoming available, and the types of land -use we
are interested in pursuing) as suggested in the Station Area Plan. This will
10
I. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development
include consideration of what an expansion to the east and west of the
Kimley-Horn
current parking district would look like and the potential of creating mini
Recommendations
districts. Staff agrees with CWG input that modeling of any new district will
take into account unique features for that specific area and include supply
& demand analysis of each area.
H.14 For the short-term, Staff agrees with amending code to include language
stating that approved parking may be made available to all public rather
than limited to users of the specific land This will increase the supply
available to the public by providing incentives to private parking facility
owners. This is not to imply that the City will require this, rather may
encourage it as an option.
H.15 For the short-term, Staff agrees with the recommendation to allow remote
parking to be a greater distance. This could be beneficial in the future if
the City pursues shared "district" parking facilities, and would emphasize
the importance of transit, bike, and walk linkages that could extend
beyond 500 feet up to within 1300 feet of the specified use.
Action Items /
H.16 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - City staff will develop and study a model, using Park+
Next Steps
software, of a potential new district, with distinct areas or sub -districts,
(including a West -end, Middle and East -end) each having different criteria.
The model will utilize current data to understand impacts of SMART at the
station area, and the parking lot closure at Fifth/D St. This will also
consider what an expansion to the east and west of the current parking
district would look like, and include an analysis of supply & demand data of
the areas of interest. After proposed district changes and criteria are
established, staff will reconvene with this CWG to discuss and evaluate.
H.17 Short -Term (0-2 yrsl - City staff will take steps to initiate Code language
change of 14.18.060A and section 14.18.040: Develop draft code
amendments, conduct outreach & bring forward for City Council
consideration.
H.18 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff will reach out to other cities to research
similar practices to determine proper distances for all parking types. Once
appropriate remote parking distances are established, City staff will take
steps to initiate Code language change of 14.18.2206: Develop draft code
amendments, conduct outreach & bring forward for City Council
consideration.
H.19 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Incorporate these parking district endeavors into
the General Plan update of 2040, and map out the timeline.
I. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development
Standards: Parking Requirements
Kimley-Horn
1.1 Clarify Municipal Code 14.18.080 — Parking requirement for reciprocal uses
Recommendations
with shared parking facilities.
1.2 Initiate a pilot program to reduce minimum parking requirements
Downtown by 20% from current levels.
11
CWG Input
1.3 Regarding the recommendation to "clarify parking requirement for
Kimley-Horn
reciprocal uses with shared parking facilities", the CWG majority does not
Recommendations
agree with the level of permit review recommended for this change. Some
who disagreed are concerned that this would be burdensome for the
permit review process and would require a consultant be hired every time
a shared use reduction is on the table. Others stated that this change could
be helpful in the case of disputes.
1.4 Regarding a pilot program to reduce minimum parking requirements by
20%, the majority of the group agrees. The few reluctant to support the
recommendation fully, were concerned about applying the standards to
the entire study area and want consideration of micro areas for this
recommendation (Lincoln Ave. to C St., A St. to C St. and D St. to Miracle
Mile). Some members suggested that the City bypass a pilot program, and
instead draft a resolution to allow projects to be submitted with 20%
reductions in parking requirements. An exception would be if some
developments are too large.
City Staff
1.5 Staff agrees; A revision to the current language will clean up our code as it
Recommendations
exists and encourage developers to pursue more shared use parking
applications, in turn, maximizing the use of parking spaces.
1.6 Staff agrees with the CWG recommendation to bypass a pilot a program to
reduce minimum parking requirements by 20%, and instead align with the
General plan, a resolution to allow for projects to be submitted with the
20% reduction in parking requirements with a monitoring provision. On a
case-by-case basis, with multi -tenant developments, a contingency should
be implemented. This provision will allow new developments in
Downtown to construct less parking than previously, if that is desired, and
this will help prevent the excess capacity that currently exists.
Action Items /
1.7 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - City staff will develop draft code amendments once
Next Steps
the final Downtown Parking and Wayfinding Study is accepted by the City
Council and will then bring forward the code to the Planning Commission
and City Council.
1.8 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - To look at a reduction of minimum parking
requirements Downtown by 20%, City staff will need to identify micro
areas, conduct outreach, present to City council for approval. Staff will
draft a resolution allowing projects to be submitted with a 20% reduction
in parking requirements with a monitoring provision.
J. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development
Standards: Miscellaneous Zoning
Kimley-Horn
J.1 Adopt clear and strategic Guiding Principles as formal policies for the
Recommendations
operation and management of public parking, as stated in City code
chapter 14.18.010.
12
13
J.2 Simplify minimum parking requirements for the Downtown area, as now
provided in Chapter 14.18.040. It is recommended that parking
requirements for the Downtown area be reduced from the current fifty
(50) designations to five (5) use types for the Downtown area.
J.3 Revise 14.18.120 to add an additional exemption to tandem parking to
allow for implementation of automated parking or other mechanical
parking devices.
J.4 Establish design standards (exterior and ground floor) for parking garages.
CWG Input
J.5 The CWG discussed this group of recommendations and the majority
agrees. The group wants to see what specific Guiding Principles might be
developed and made suggestions about what to consider: 1) to identify the
City's target parking customer 2) to prioritize the integration of parking
with other modes of transportation downtown.
J.6 A few members were reluctant to agree with reducing the use types for the
Downtown area due to concern that staff time may be required for
significant data collection and analysis.
J.7 Regarding the exemption to tandem parking, some members questioned
costs, functionality and convenience.
J.8 Only some members had opinions about establishing parking garage design
standards. One group memberthinks the language has value, while
another group member thinks it could get in the way and/or slow down
certain projects if all are subject to these design standards.
City Staff
J.9 Staff agrees that adopting strategic Guiding Principles will help the City
Recommendations
achieve its parking goals in a consistent manner and should be the first of
the Zoning recommendations to implement.
J.10 Staff agrees that reducing the use types for the Downtown area will
simplify the application and understanding of parking rates as well as
provide parking standards based on actual peak parking demand.
J.11 Staff agrees that allowing for automated/mechanical parking devices will
make way for innovative parking solutions that will maximize on valuable
public parking space.
J.12 Staff agrees conceptually with design standards for parking garages,
however they should be subject to the Design review board process. This
strategy would be most feasible for the Downtown if it were applied to
certain streets only. For example, 3rd Street projects could benefit from
ground floor retail, whereas along major commercial corridors and the
areas toward parking district boundaries, this would not be beneficial.
Current design guidelines do already address this topic. Future garage
projects should involve a design review process with emphasis on the
pedestrian experience.
Action Items /
J.13 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Parking staff will work with Economic Development
Next Steps
and Community Development to begin creation of Guiding Principles.
J.14 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Consider research of past developments, and
analyze how a five (5) use type/standard may have affected (for better or
worse) the project process and/or the current situations.
13
J.15 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Develop draft code amendments, conduct outreach,
bring forward for City Council consideration and complete municipal code
amendments.
J.16 Med-Term (2-4_yrs - City staff will meet to discuss this recommendation,
including the alternative option (recommended by K -H), to look at current
design guidelines and to identify areas lacking . Identify streets, if any,
where guidelines would be advantageous, draft guidelines, conduct
outreach, present to City Council for consideration.
K. Summary of Recommendations related to Zoning & Development
Standards: Bicycle Parking Requirements
Kimley-Horn
K.1 Encourage bicycle parking for new, multi -unit residential developments.
Recommendations
CWG Input
K.2 Majority agreed that this should be discussed further. The CWG was split
website or text -message maps to enhance wayfinding in the Downtown, if
with their support of this recommendation. Those in favor asked about
cost-effective.
incentivizing developers as an option & maybe moreso with affordable
L.3 Majority agreement was not met on any specific signage option as
housing developments. A few who were reluctant to support the
presented in the consultant report, however the majority supports the
recommendation fully were concerned with the concept of replacing car
recommendation for updated wayfinding Downtown.
parking with bicycle parking.
City Staff
K.3 Staff agrees that bike parking should be factored into multi -unit residential
Recommendations
developments. One concern is about a higher density credit in exchange
for bike parking, Thus, further analysis should occur before making a
decision on this recommendation.
Action Items /
K.4 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - City Staff will meet to discuss this recommendation,
Next Steps
including the alternatives, and any potential next steps. Staff will conduct
research of other cities and results of programs, survey property owners
and conduct further discussions with developers.
L. Summary of Recommendations related to Wayfinding
Kimley-Horn
L.1 Implement the proposed signage improvements in the Downtown.
Recommendations
L.2 Consider implementing end-user technologies, such as a mobile -responsive
website or text -message maps to enhance wayfinding in the Downtown, if
cost-effective.
CWG Input
L.3 Majority agreement was not met on any specific signage option as
presented in the consultant report, however the majority supports the
recommendation for updated wayfinding Downtown.
14
15
L.4 Majority supports pursuing the interim endeavor to refresh a group of
current parking signs, and mostly agreed with the preliminary designs
presented on 6/13/17 by AF Studio, a local graphic design firm that
designed the newer City of San Rafael logo.
L.5 Some members like the gateway concept in the K -H report, some do not.
One member was very vocal that if large (gateway) signs are installed, they
should not be modern.
L.6 A few members agree that signs should have parking direction only — more
than one "thing" on a sign becomes too busy — especially those in the high
mph areas.
L.7 A few members believe that our true wayfinding needs right now are
limited; that people know where the transit center is and where parking is
generally and believe that we should not clog up our sidewalks with signs
but frequent signage directing to parking is worthwhile to pursue.
L.8 A few members support the suggestion of ped -scale signs at garage
entries/exits. A few members said maps on signs aren't necessary with
exception of the Transit Center signs. One member thinks that maps at the
garages would be helpful.
L.9 The majority of CWG members supports the recommendation to consider
implementing end-user technologies, if cost-effective. Some have
concerns about how safe it is to encourage drivers to use mobile devices to
get around Downtown.
City Staff
L.10 Staff agrees that the Downtown needs an updated wayfinding program.
Recommendations
Staff recommends some modifications to the proposal, including additional
signage. Staff has identified gaps where additional signage must be
incorporated so that visitors are directed to the proper areas. In addition,
staff recommends incorporating updated universal blue "P" parking signs
at entrances to all parking lots and existing traffic signal -level signage.
Replacements made generically on current poles/fixtures are easier to
install vs. creating custom signs, per DPW.
L.11 Staff agrees that technologies could improve how well visitors to
Downtown know where available, convenient parking is and what the costs
are to park. Improved technology will be dependent on available funding.
Action Items /
L.12 Short -Term (0-2 yrs), - City staff will determine what interactive
Next Steps
technologies are available, their cost-effectiveness and feasibility.
L.13 Long -Term (4+ Mrs) - Modify current plan to include new signage locations
in the West End and other designated areas in compliance with DPW and
MUTCD standards. AF Studio is currently developing customized signage
options for an interim signage program as a cost-effective solution that will
be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to implementation.
L.14 Long -Term (4+ yrs) - After implementation of the interim parking signage
designed by AF Studio, City staff to draft proposed Phase 2 for signage
updates. This phase should incorporate group input as well as the
multi -modal considerations.
L.15 Long -Term (4+ yrs) - Conduct observations/analysis of static wayfinding
signs (Phase 1) for effectiveness before VMS signs consideration. Explore
15
the feasibility of implementing a VMS -based parking guidance system
Downtown
M. Summary of Recommendations related to Bicycle Parking
Kimley-Horn
M.1 Along 4th Street, install single inverted U-shaped bike racks in feasible
Recommendations
locations where they are not currently available. New bicycle parking
should not block the pedestrian movement on the sidewalks.
1M.2 Install a bicycle corral on 4th Street adjacent to City Plaza.
M.3 Install bicycle rooms/cages near SMART/SRTC and major employment
centers.
M.4 Evaluate proposed bike share station locations as part of Bay Area Bike
Share via TAM. Station locations are proposed at San Rafael Transit Center,
City Plaza and the West End.
CWG Input
M.5 The majority of CWG members support the recommendation of bike racks
since they would be installed on sidewalks (vs. removing car parking spaces
for on -street corrals) and may be spread out along 4th St. The majority
agree that bicyclists want to park near their destinations (due to lack of
security) and bike racks would meet this desire.
M.6 CWG members disagree with the recommendation to install a bike corral
on 4th St. if it would be installed on -street. A few were in favor of
on -street corrals as being appealing if they had a creative "look and feel"
and if the design was a good fit for our City. Most members were
concerned about using on -street parking spaces for corrals. These
members don't think they will be used since bicyclists want to park where
they can see their bikes. Those in support of a corral agreed that the plaza
should be the primary location (off-street) to consider since there are
usually many people gathered there and could deter theft; bikes would be
less vulnerable. Security is a major concern for members. Some suggested
placement of additional bike parking at Lauren Place, which is also
off-street.
M.7 The majority of CWG members supports installing bicycle rooms/cages
near SMART/SRTC and major employment centers and to consider
installation at A St. or C St. garage, if financially feasible. The group also
agrees with K -H's alternative option to consider bike lockers at the
relocated Transit Center, since they are highly secure, if it can be
determined that they are cost-effective and would be utilized.
M.8 One group member believes we should consider a policy to require
developers to provide bike infrastructure near their new developments.
M.9 The majority of CWG members agree with the recommendation to
evaluate a Bike Share program, and that Bike Share wayfinding is important
to establish for safety.
Mo
City Staff
M.10 Staff agrees the Downtown is in need of more bike racks placed
Recommendations
strategically that allow for bicyclists to park as close to their destinations
as possible.
M.11 Staff supports the installation of a bicycle corral system pending
examination of the details associated with the infrastructure installed.
However a bike corral should be considered secondary to adding more
bike parking options along 4th St. It's more desirable to install smaller
parking options in more distributed locations so cyclists can park as close
to their destination as possible.
M.12 Staff supports the installation of a secure bicycle parking area, especially
for commuters. This recommendation can be further analyzed in the new
Transit Center planning efforts.
M.13 Staff recommends evaluating the concept of a bike share program. Bike
share could improve non -automobile movement throughout the City.
Action Items /
M.14 In order to plan out and implement the Bike Parking recommendations
Next Steps
made, City staff will:
M.14.1 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Research a proposal for bike racks that are
secure, financially feasible and visually pleasing.
M.14.2 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Work DPW and BPAC to develop a pilot
program for installation of more bike racks on 4th Street.
M.14.3 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Monitor demand after additional U-shaped
bike racks are installed for one-year. If demand is shown, develop
cost and design options for a bicycle corral.
M.14.4 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Monitor usage of bicycle racks and lockers
installed by SMART; if insufficient, determine optimal locations
for additional rooms/cages and develop a cost analysis. Staff to
consult with BPAC on location of cages.
M.14.5 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Develop a "wish list" for future Transit
Center plans & design.
M.14.6 Short -Term (0-2 yrs) - Meet with all interested parties including
TAM to discuss Bike Share program implementation plan in
anticipation of receiving grant. The grant application was
submitted by TAM on 6/30/17; Plan should include Bike Share
wayfinding.
M.14.7 Med-Term (2-4 yrs) - Work with other agencies to develop cost
and design for cages in preferred location identified by the BPAC,
if a bicycle cage system is deemed viable.
APPENDIX C:
Recommendations made that staff proposes not be implemented:
Wayfinding
KH recommendation
Staff rationale for not
implementing
Group rationale for not
implementing
17
Explore the feasibility of
implementing a VMS -based
parking guidance system in the
Downtown.
KH recommendation
Consider revisions to parking
dimension requirements within
Downtown garages
Provide reductions in parking
requirements for developers
who provide bicycle parking.
KH recommendation
Staff is concerned that costs to
purchase, install and maintain
such a system will outweigh
benefits. Staff recommends that
static signs be installed during
phase one and then analyzed to
determine effectiveness before
proceeding with VMS signs.
Zoning & Development
Staff rationale for not
implementing
Staff does not agree.
Dimensions are too limiting and
flexibility is already built into
our code as there is an
allowance for reduced
dimensions.
Staff does not agree at this
time. Further study should
occur before making a decision
on this recommendation.
Next Step:
Staff will study current code and
implications to modifying vs.
leaving as -is. Ask
ourselves -could this be
coordinated with other actions
to have fewer vehicles
Downtown?; Incorporate into
General Plan if moving forward
Time Limits
Staff rationale for not
implementing
Majority of CWG members were
mostly concerned about the
cost-effectiveness of these
types of signs for the
Downtown.
Group rationale for not
implementing
CWG members agree with staff
that these dimensions are not
right for San Rafael.
• A few group members were
concerned with the concept
of replacing car parking with
bicycle parking.
• One group member urged
Staff to look at current code
requirements and conduct a
thorough study of
implications of providing
reductions vs. leaving the
code as -is.
• One group member believes
less vehicles Downtown is a
good thing (encourage more
bike/ped activity)
Group rationale for not
implementing
On Saturday allow for
Staff does not agree. Different
Majority does not agree. Some
meter -feeding to extend stays
hourly rates for Saturdays -only
group members are concerned
for an additional hour (from 2
will be confusing. Increasing the
about confusing the public with
hours to 3 hours) with the extra
time limits on street will tempt
inconsistent time limits.
hour being charged at a
employees to utilize those
premium rate. An appropriate
spaces to the detriment of
premium rate may be twice the
visitors. It is better to develop
standard hourly rate.
marketing strategies to push the
long term parker to the 2
garages.
19
I&
SAID! RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
EXHIBIT 3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNING COMMISSION
You are invited to attend the Planning Commission hearing on the following proposed project:
PROJECT: DRAFT DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL PARKING & WAYFINDING STUDY — Presentation of the Zoning and Development
Standard recommendations presented in the Draft Downtown San Rafael Parking & Wayfinding Study. This draft study, which was prepared by
the City of San Rafael, provides a comprehensive review of Downtown parking and includes numerous recommendations on parking rates,
wayfinding, SMART, parking policies, marketing and promotion, pedestrian network, bicycle parking, and zoning/development standards. The
Planning Commission review will focus on the recommendations related to zoning and development standards. P17-012.
State law (California Environmental Quality Act) requires that this project be reviewed to determine if a study of potential environmental effects is required. It has
been determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and no environmental review will be completed. This project qualifies for a
Statutory Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under 14 CRR Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies.
MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Tuesday, January 9, 2018, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Paul Jensen, Project Planner at (415) 485-5064 or email at Paul. 0ensenacityofsanrafael.orp. The Draft
Downtown San Rafael Parking and Wayfinding Study is posted and available for review at: hftps://www.cityofsanrafael.oM/downtown-parking-
wayfinding-stud . You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the zoning recommendations of the draft study. The Planning Commission will consider all
public comments. The Planning Commission will also provide comments on the zoning recommendations of the draft study, which will be
forwarded to the City Council.
IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT: You can send written correspondence by email to the address above, or by mail/hand delivery to the
Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, 1400 5th Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901.
At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing
(Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)).
Appeals of decisions by the Planning Commission to the City Council shall be made by filing a notice thereof in writing with the required fee to the Planning Division of the Community
Development Department within 5 working days of a decision involving Title 14 (Zoning) (SRMC Section 14.28.030) or within 10 calendar days of a decision involving Title 15
(Subdivisions) (SRMC 15.56.010).
Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of
documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling
Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain
from wearing scented products.
EXHIBIT 4
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE TO ®ATE
11/7/2016
Citizens Advisory Committee
San Rafael, CA 94901
City of San Rafael
Jim Myhers
Parking Services Manager
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Mr. Myhers,
RECEIVED
JAN 3 2018
Thank you for meeting with the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on September 1 to review
the City's draft Parking and Wayfinding Study. The CAC subsequently discussed the draft in
detail at its October 6 meeting and again at its November 3 meeting. In addition to the minutes
of these meetings, the CAC thought it would be useful to summarize its primary comments on
this important study as follows:
1. Given the central role of the Future Demand projections, some concern was raised about
the methodology used, particularly in establishing the Existing Conditions parking
demands from which the projections proceed. It may be advisable to do additional
sampling before moving forward with any major changes to our parking policies.
Another question was what the 'Park+ Model' assumes as the split among transportation
modalities used by people coming downtown, now and in the future. We suggest a
clearer description of the methodology, substantiating its adequacy. More information
on why 85% is considered an acceptable parking occupancy ceiling would also be
helpful, since this benchmark underlies several key recommendations.
2. Assuming the Study's overall conclusion that future parking demand can be met with
existing supply if that supply is proactively managed, the CAC supports the report's
recommendations to strengthen such parking management, with the following
comments:
a. Regularized, data -based adjustment of parking rates to keep occupancies under 85%
through all downtown areas, in particular the congested Station Area. It was noted that
existing occupancies vary significantly by location (or even by floor, in the case of
parking structures). Even though overall supply may be adequate in the aggregate, the
needs in particular areas might be very different. For example, the eastern part of
downtown may require additional steps.
Citizens Advisory Committee
• • •
b. Considering both operating costs and future capital needs when setting rates. The
committee cautioned that the costs and benefits of various management techniques need
to be considered.
c. Considering parking costs in comparable cities and elsewhere in Marin when setting
rates, so as to keep downtown San Rafael an attractive and convenient destination.
d. Insuring that the public is.included in the rate -setting process.
3. The CAC also supports the proposed Station Area management steps, including:
a. Increased parking enforcement in the vicinity of the SMART station.
b. Establishing residential parking districts in nearby neighborhoods—with the added
recommendation that these be available at less expense to residents.
c. Some additional long-term on -street spaces in the vicinity for SMART riders.
d. Providing permit parking for SMART riders on the Lootens garage upper floor, if
space there can be verified.
e. Negotiation with Caltrans for permit parking in nearby park & ride lots.
f. Negotiation with BioMarin, and others, to provide public parking in private garages.
The committee believes this area will continue to be a management challenge, and these
steps should be seen as an initial approach that may require modification in the face of
future developments.
4. Accordingly, the CAC strongly supports revising the report to recommend expansion of
the Downtown Parking District to Hetherton Street, which is a cornerstone of the
Downtown Station Area Plan strategy for achieving economic vitality and pedestrian -
oriented development. This would first require a projection of the amount of parking
that would need to be accommodated under the rules pertaining to developments
within the expanded area of the parking district. Then a strategy could be devised for
meeting that demand by identifying or providing the necessary parking supply.
Expansion of the Parking District to the east and west ends of 4th Street should also be
considered.
5. The report needs more focus, discussion and proposals on assuring adequate and
affordable short-term parking for shoppers by reducing the need for long-term parking
for employees and commuters, through means such as:
a. Employee incentives for transit ridership and other alternative modes.
b. Increased feeder bus service.
c. Satellite commuter parking outside of downtown, in connection with feeder bus
service.
d. Provision of affordable workforce housing within walking and biking distance of
downtown employers and/or where readily served by local transit.
William Carney • 2
Citizens Advisory Committee
• .
e. Managing City garages to prioritize short-term parking in the most convenient spaces
(for example by putting any long-term commuter or employee parking on upper floors).
6. The Study would be strengthened by providing more examples of how other cities have
implemented one of its key recommendations, the public use of private parking. While
this is an intriguing approach, the CAC suggests that San Rafael build on proven and
successful techniques developed elsewhere. Related code revisions need to be
thoroughly evaluated by the City's planning staff, but the zoning changes proposed to
achieve this objective seem a reasonable start, with some refinements:
a. Section 14.18.040 (F), "Parking approved under this section may be operated to serve
the uses for which the parking was approved and/or shared with other uses ..." should
not be limited to only the Downtown Parking District.
b. Likewise, Section 14.18.230 related to remote parking should not be limited to the
parking district, and for both this section and Section 14.18.080 related to shared
parking, the discretion of the Zoning Administrator to adjust the number of spaces
should not be dependent on the use of a consultant unless the ZA determines that to be
necessary.
c. Section 14.18.060 (A) revisions clarifying the Downtown Parking District are
welcome.
d. The proposed simplification of parking requirements by consolidating land use
categories and calibrating required parking to actual project demand seems to be a
worthy objective, but should be undertaken with careful regard for the rationale
underpinning the current code, as well as for advances in the amount of transit and
other alternative modes serving downtown.
e. The proposed 'Guiding Principlesfor parking would be an excellent addition to the
code, embodying the comprehensive approach to parking that the Study proposes. The
suggested definition of a'priority customer' for public parking, integration of parking
with other modes of transportation, and use of current informational systems are
especially important components.
f. Additional development code and parking management tools included in the
Downtown Station Area Plan should also be included in this Study (or noted with an
explanation of why they are omitted). These include 'unbundling' the cost of parking
spaces from residential units; provision of car -share and bike -share services in public
and private parking facilities; free or discounted memberships in such services for
residents or employees, and/or free or discounted transit passes; the impact of ride -
sharing services and self -driving cars; provisions for electric vehicle charging; setting
parking maximums; and others.
William Carney • 3
Citizens Advisory Committee
..
7. The Committee welcomes the proposed improvements to the downtown pedestrian
network, including widened sidewalks, safer intersections and bulb -outs. Of particular
note:
a. Add improvements for the identified major pedestrian routes under the freeway.
b. Address pedestrian safety throughout the area, and especially along Hetherton and
Irwin.
c. Consider other sidewalks proposed in the Station Area Plan, such as the east side of
Hetherton.
d. Consider special paving treatments to mark key pedestrian intersections.
e. Extend the special treatment of Tamalpais West north to Mission and south to 2nd
Street, with particular attention to creating a visible 'pedestrian and bicycle safe zone'
crossing the heavily trafficked 3rd and 2nd Street intersections and connecting to the
multiuse path along Francisco. Tamalpais as a whole, and this segment in particular,
needs to be designed along the lines recommended in the Station Area Plan as a
significant area amenity for bikes and pedestrians.
f. Consider similar treatments at the Lindaro, A and B Street crossings of 3rd and 2nd
Streets.
8. The CAC recommends careful review of the bicycle parking proposals with the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Some concern was expressed with the appearance
of bike storage facilities, with a definite preference for bike cages or lockers being
located within garages and other buildings, including the new transit center. Cost
impacts on development also need to be considered, factoring in the cost and anticipated
actual usage of both bike and car parking.
9. With respect to the signage concepts, the CAC would prefer California standard
parking signs as found in other communities, so signs are easy to interpret. Identity
signage at the entry to downtown should be distinctive to San Rafael. The CAC also
thought that the large scale of many of the signs shown seemed out of character with
San Rafael's pedestrian downtown.
In summary, the CAC commends the City's efforts to address the parking, pedestrian, bicycle
and wayfinding needs of our downtown, and we trust that our comments will prove useful in
finalizing this important study.
Respectfully,
William Carney, CAC Chair
William Carney • 4
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: Annual Meeting of Planning Commission for 2018 to include: a) election of officers; and
b) review of Planning Commission "Rules and Procedures"; and c) selection of liaisons
to DRB meetings
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission is required to elect the Chair and Vice Chair officers for
the calendar year. The Annual Meeting also provides the Commission an opportunity to review and
consider adoption of revisions to the Planning Commission's "Rules and Procedures." The Rules and
Procedures were last amended by the .Commission at their January 2009 annual meeting. This year,
both the Commission and staff have identified one change to the Rules, specifically to modify the timing
of Commission questions during a hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action:
a) Elect a new Chair and Vice Chair for 2018; and
b) Accept the proposed change to the Planning Commission "Rules and Procedures;" related to
the timing of Commission questions during a hearing.
c) Select Planning Commission liaisons to the DRB for 2018
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Election of Officers:
Section ILE of the Planning Commission "Rules and Procedures" requires that the Planning Commission
conduct an annual meeting to select officers (Chair and Vice Chair) for the calendar year. The Annual
Meeting is defined as the "first meeting of the calendar year," which for this year is January 9, 2018.
The office of the Chair and Vice Chair is rotational, with selection based on seniority or tenure of service.
Per the Rules and Procedures, generally, a Commissioner shall not serve as a Chair more than once in
seven consecutive years. See attached Exhibit 1, which lists the appointment dates and past service as
chair by each of the Commission members.
Based on the rotation criteria, Vice Chair Paul is next -in-line to serve as Chair, as he served as Vice
Chair for a part of this past year (from July 2017 on) and previously served as Chair in 2005 and 2013. It
is important to note that when Commissioner Paul was elected to Vice Chair in mid 2017, it was due to a
mid year vacancy. The rules state that the Commission is to elect a new Vice Chair to serve the
unexpired term and that selection is to be based on seniority. The rules do not specify that the seniority
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2
has the same limitation as the annual election (most senior tenure who has not served as an officer in
the past 7 years). The rules simply state that selection shall be based on seniority. Using this criteria, the
most senior Commissioner was Commissioner Paul.
In order to determine the next Vice Chair, the same rules and procedures for Chair apply to Vice Chair.
There are two Commissioners who have not served as Chair or Vice Chair in the past 7 years
(Commissioner's Loughran and Schoppert). Commissioner Loughran has the most tenure of the two.
Therefore, the Commissioner with the most tenure of service that is also eligible to serve as Vice Chair
(will not have served more than once as chair in past seven years) is Commissioner Loughran and would
be the next eligible Vice Chair for 2018.
However, this year brings an interesting dilemma related to the election of officers. In 2017, the Chair
whom was elected at the annual meeting in January 2017 was not reappointed to the Planning
Commission when their 4 year term expired in June 2017. Therefore, the Vice Chair (Commissioner
Davidson) assumed duties of Chair in July 2017. Accordingly, a new Vice Chair was also elected
(Commissioner Paul) in July 2017 as both only served in their roles for 6 months.
Section 1.13.1.c of the Rules and procedures does acknowledge such a situation and states "The Chair
and Vice -Chair may not succeed themselves. However, in the event that the current Chair or Vice -Chair
has served less than a year, the Commission may choose to re-elect her/him for an additional term. "
Given the current officers have only served in their capacity for approximately 6 months, a good case can
be made for the Commission to allow the two officers to complete 2018 to get at least a full year of
service as an officer.
Therefore, the Commission has a decision to consider; whether to:
• Elect the next Commissioners in line (Commissioner Paul as Chair and Commissioner
Loughran as Vice Chair); or
• Re-elect the current Chair (Commissioner Davidson) and Vice Chair (Commissioner Paul) to
serve as officers in 2018 given that they have served less than a year in their terms; or
• Elect different officers if any of the slated officers are not interested in serving
Consideration of Revisions to Planning Commission "Rules and Procedures":
As noted above, the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures were last modified at the 2009 annual
meeting (1/27/09). The Rules and Procedures were reviewed by the Commission annually, between
2010 and 2017, and no changes were made.
When the current Rules and Procedures were distributed to the Commission for review on December 12,
2017, there was a suggestion by staff that the Commission may need to update their Rules and
Procedures to reflect the manner and timing of how the Commission asks questions. The current rules
state that the Commission is to hold all their questions until after all presentations and public comment.
However, it seems that questions would be more appropriately asked at the end of each appropriate
segment, ie asking staff questions after the staff presentation or asking the applicant questions after their
presentation. On multiple occasions, the Commission has asked their questions after each segment, so
staff suggests that the Commission update their Rules and Procedures to reflect this change
The Rules and Procedures are attached (Exhibit 2) and the applicable section to amend is Section
11.1.2.c.5, which states "The Commission may obtain final facts or clarification from staff, the applicant or
the public." and the questioning is listed to occur after all the presentations. Therefore, staff has prepared
a proposed edit to Section 11.1.2.c.5 to note that questions can be asked after each segment, as follows:
"The Commission may ask questions or obtains final facts or clarification from staff, the applicant or the
public, after each segment of the agenda. "
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3
If there are additional changes that the Commission would like to consider, these can be discussed at the
annual meeting and if the majority of the Commission would like to make the changes, staff can return
with the appropriate revisions at a subsequent meeting.
Selection of Commissioners for DRB Liaison:
The annual meeting also provides an opportunity to select Commissioners to serve as a liaison at the
Design Review Board meetings for the calendar year. Commissioners (with the exception of the new
Chair) are requested to serve as liaison in two month increments, which involve attendance at up to four,
regular DRB meetings during the two selected months of service. Therefore, the Commission, except for
the new Chair, should select a 2 month block to serve as liaison. A copy of the assignments is attached
(Exhibit 3).
OPTIONS
Regarding the "Rules and Procedures," the Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Update the current "Rules and Procedures" as adopted on January 27, 2009 to modify the timing
of Commission questions (staff recommendation); or
2. Identify areas for further study and direct staff to return with recommended revisions to the "Rules
and Procedures" for action at a future meeting; or
3. Modify the "Rules and Procedures" for review and direct staff to return with revised document for
consideration at a future meeting.
EXHIBITS
1. Table Listing Planning Commissioners, Tenure and Chairpersonship
2. Current Planning Commission "Rules and Procedures," adopted January 27, 2009 with proposed
edits
3. Planning Commission liaison assignment to DRB meetings, 2018
WPlanninglPLANNING COMMISSIONIRules and Procedures12018 (P17-014)IStaff Report - Annual Mtg - Election
of Officers and Review of Rules and Procedures 01.09.18. doc
EXHIBIT 1
San Rafael Planning Commission
History of Tenure and Chairpersonship
Commissioner
First Appointed to
Commission
Years Served as
Chairperson
Years Served as
Vice Chair
Mark Lubamersky
10/2012
Chair 2016
Vice Chair 2015
Larry Paul
7/2002
Chair 2005
Chair 2013
Vice Chair 2004
Vice Chair 2012
Vice Chair 2017*
Berenice Davidson
6/2015
Chair 2017
Vice Chair 2017 (part)
Jack Robertson
7/2011
Chair 2014
Vice Chair 2013
Barrett Schaefer
8/2012
Chair 2015
Vice Chair 2014
Sarah Loughran
11/2016
None
None
Jeff Schoppert
7/2017
None
None
*Assumed position mid year
W:\Planning\PLANNING COMMISSION\Rules and Procedures\2018 (P17-014)\PC Tenure and
chairpersonship Table__12.1217.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES
CITY OF SAN RAFAlEL
Revisions Adopted at Annual Planning Commission Meeting of January 9-2-7, 201809
I. Organization and Officers
A. Organization
1. The Planning Commission shall consist of seven regular members appointed by
the Mayor with the approval of the City Council and shall be organized and
exercise such powers as prescribed by the City Charter and by the San Rafael
Municipal Code (City Code).
2. The term of the Commission members is four years with a staggered expiration
schedule.
3. Vacancies on the Commission for other than expiration will be filled by
appointment for the un -expired portion of the term.
4. If any Commissioner should have three consecutive, unexplained absences from
regular meetings of the Planning Commission as shown in the roll call of the
official minutes, the Chair may recommend to the City Council that the seat be
relinquished.
5. If any Commissioner wishes to request a leave of absence for three to six
consecutive meetings, the request shall be made to and approved by the Chair. A
request for a leave of absence for more than six consecutive meetings shall be
made to and approved by the City Council.
B. Officers
1. Selection
a. A Chair and Vice -Chair shall be elected from among the Commission's
membership at the Annual Meeting held the first meeting of the calendar year,
to serve for a one year period. It is intended that the Chair and Vice -Chair be
rotated among the Commissioners based on tenure, as defined by total years
of service. In the event the years of service are identical, tenure will be
determined in alphabetical order. It is the general rule that a Commissioner
shall not serve as Chair more than once in seven consecutive years. However,
in the event that: 1) a position is vacated; 2) a Commissioner is not interested
in serving as an officer; or 3) there is limited tenure among the other
Commissioners, then a Commissioner can be appointed as an officer more
than once in seven years.
b. The Vice -Chair shall serve as Chair in the following year.
EXHIBIT 2
c. The Chair and Vice -Chair may not succeed themselves. However, in the event
that the current Chair or Vice -Chair has served less than a year, the
Commission may choose to re-elect her/him for an additional term.
d. The Vice -Chair shall succeed the Chair if he/she vacates the office, and shall
serve the un -expired term of the Chair. The Commission shall elect a new
Vice -Chair to serve the un -expired term of that office. Selection shall be based
on seniority.
e. In the absence of the Chair and Vice -Chair, the member of the Commission
with the longest tenure, as defined by total years of service, shall preside over
the meeting. In the event that the years of service are identical, seniority will
be determined by alphabetical order.
2. Responsibilities
The responsibilities and powers of the officers of the Planning Commission shall
be as follows:
a. Chair
- Preside at all meetings of the Commission.
- Call special meetings of the Commission in accordance with legal
requirements and the Rules of Procedure.
- Sign documents of the Commission.
- See that all actions of the Commission are properly taken.
- Assist staff in determining agenda items.
- The Chair shall be ani ex officio member of all committees with voice but not
vote.
b. Vice -Chair
During the absence, disability or disqualification of the Chair, the Vice -Chair
shall exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the responsibilities
of the Chair.
C. Duties and Powers
1. The Planning Commission shall have the power to recommend to the City
Council, after conducting a public hearing, the adoption, the amendment or the
repeal of a General Plan, a Neighborhood or Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance
of the City Code, or a site-specific master plan for a Planned Development (PD)
District, or any part thereof, for the physical development of the City.
2. The Planning Commission shall exercise such functions with respect to
environmental review, land subdivisions, land use and planning, design review,
and zoning, as may be prescribed by City Code, City resolution, and State law.
3. The Commission shall advise the City Council on those matters falling within its
charged responsibilities in a manner reflecting concern for the overall
development and environment of the City as a setting for human activities.
EXHIBIT 2 2
D. Rules of Order
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules of Procedure, "Roberts Rules of Order,
Newly Revised" shall be used as a guide to the conduct of the meetings of the
Planning Commission, provided, however, that a failure of the Commission to
conform- to said rules of order shall not, in any instance, be deemed to invalidate the
action taken.
II. Meetings
A. Public Meetings
All meetings shall be held in full compliance with the provisions of state law,
ordinances of the City and these Rules of Procedure.
B. Regular Meetings
1. Regular meetings shall be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays following the
first Monday in each month, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall, unless otherwise determined by the Commission. All regular meetings must
be held within the city limits of San Rafael.
2. Whenever a regular meeting falls on a public holiday, no regular meeting shall be
held on that day. Such regular meeting may be rescheduled to another business
day, or canceled by motion adopted by the Planning Commission. All meetings
must be held within the city limits of San Rafael.
3. A meeting of the Commission may be canceled by the Chair for lack of a quorum,
no pending business, or any other valid reason. Such cancellation may be made at
any time prior to the scheduled meeting. All efforts shall be made by the
Community Development Department staff to notify those involved at the earliest
possible time. Prior to the scheduled meeting, the Community Development staff
shall post a cancellation notice on the City of San Rafael public hearing board, the
City website and at the prescribed location of the meeting.
C. Adjourned Meetings
In the event it is the wish of the Planning Commission to adjourn its meeting to a
certain hour on another day, a specified date, time, and place must be set by a
majority vote of the Commissioners present, prior to the regular motion to adjourn.
D. Special Meetings
Special meetings of the Planning Commission may be held at any time upon the call
of the Chair or by a majority of the voting members of the Commission or upon
request of the City Council following at least 24 hours notice to each member of the
Commission and to the press. The time and place of the special meeting shall be
determined by the convening authority. At least 24 hours prior to the scheduled
I Mve fl09 to
special meeting, the Community Development staff shall post a notice of the meeting
on the City of San Rafael public hearing board, the City website and at the prescribed
location of the meeting.
E. Annual Meeting
The Annual Meeting of the Planning Commission will be held at the first meeting of
the calendar year. The meeting will be devoted to the election of a Chair and
Vice -Chair for the ensuing year and any other business scheduled by the
Commission.
F. Study Sessions/Workshops
1. The Commission may be convened as a whole or as a committee of the whole in
the same manner as prescribed for the calling of a special meeting for the purpose
of holding a study session, provided that no official action shall be taken and no
quorum shall be required.
2. Such meetings shall be open to the public.
G. Notification
Public Hearings and Discussion Items - Notice of the time, place/ items to be
considered and action pending shall be given in accordance with the requirements of
the City Code and State Law.
H. Agenda
1. An agenda for each meeting of the Commission shall be prepared by the
Community Development Director or staff in consultation with the Chair.
2. A staff report shall be prepared for each item and -distributed to the Planning
Commission and made available to the public a minimum of 72 hours prior to a
regular meeting.
3. A copy of the agenda shall be posted in City Hall 72 hours before a regular
meeting.
4. Items not appearing on the agenda cannot be acted upon or discussed by the
Commission. However, the Commission may take. action under the following
circumstances:
a. If the Commission finds, by majority vote, that an emergency situation must be
addressed. An "emergency situation" is limited to work stoppages and
crippling disasters;
b. If by a two-thirds vote (or a unanimous vote if two-thirds of the members are
not present), there is a need to take immediate action and the need for action
came to the attention of the Commission and staff after the agenda was posted.
Prior to discussing such items, the Commission shall publicly identify the item
and shall provide the public an opportunity to provide comment on the item.
EXHIBIT 2 4
5. Members of the public may address the Commission on any agenda item, and
may, at the beginning of the meeting, address the Commission on any issue that is
not listed on the agenda, provided that the issue is within the jurisdiction and
powers of the Planning Commission.
I. Order of Meetings
1. The Order of business shall be as follows:
a. The Chair shall take the chair at the hour appointed for the meeting and shall
immediately call the meeting to order.
b. The Chair shall lead a pledge of allegiance.
c. Members present and absent shall be recorded.
d. The order of the agenda shall be approved as submitted or revised by a
majority vote of the Commissioners present.
e. The public shall be advised of the procedures to be followed in the meeting
including the protocol and time frames for public comment.
f Any member of the audience may comment on any matter which is not listed
on the agenda.
g. The minutes of any preceding meeting shall be submitted for review and
approval by a majority vote of the Commissioners present at that preceding
meeting.
h. The Commission shall then hear and act upon those proposals scheduled for
consideration or public hearing.
i. Director's Report.
j. Commission Communications.
k. Adjournment.
2. Presentation or Hearing of Proposals
The following shall be the order of procedure for hearings/discussion items
concerning planning and zoning matters:
a. The Chair shall announce the subject of the public hearing/discussion item, as
noticed.
b. If a request is made for continuance, a motion may be made and voted upon to
continue the public hearing to a definite time and date (noticing not required)
or a time and date to be determined (re -noticing required).
c. Order of Speaking.
The order of speaking shall be as follows:
1. Staff provides a report on the project and summarizes its compliance with
San Rafael's General Plan, compliance with State laws and the City Code,
the status of environmental review, and the staff recommendation for
action(s) by the Commission.
EXHIBIT 2 5
2. The public hearing is opened.
3. The applicant makes a presentation to the Commission.
4. The public speaks to the Commission.
5. The Commission may ask questions or obtains #=mal --facts or clarification
from staff, the applicant or the public after each segment of the agenda.
6. The public hearing is closed.
7. The matter is returned to the Commission for discussion and action.
d. Rules of Testimony
The rules of testimony shall be as follows:
1. Upon opening the public hearing, the Chair shall invite the public to speak
by inviting each speaker (one -at -a -time) to approach the podium. On large
or controversial projects where many people wish to provide public
testimony, the Chair may request that speaker cards be filled -out and
submitted.
2. Persons presenting testimony to the Commission are requested to identify
themselves by name and place of residence.
3. Persons presenting testimony to the Commission shall be limited to three
(3) minutes for their presentation. An extension of this time limit may be
granted at the Chair's discretion.
4. If there are numerous people in the audience who wish to participate on
the issue and it is known that all represent the same opinion, a
spokesperson should be selected to speak for the entire group. At the
Chair's discretion, the spokesperson may be granted additional time
beyond the three (3) minute limit for his or her presentation.
5. To avoid unnecessary repetitive evidence, the Chair may limit the number
of speakers or the time on a particular issue.
6. Irrelevant, defamatory, or disruptive comments will be ruled out of order.
7. No person shall address the Commission without first securing the
permission of the Chair.
8. All comments shall be addressed to the Commission. All questions shall
be made or directed through the Chair.
e. Applicant Presentations
Applicant presentations shall comply with the guidelines developed by the
Planning Commission. Applicants shall be limited to a maximum of ten (10)
minutes for their presentation, inclusive of all members of the applicant's
team (if applicable). An extension of this time limit may be granted at the
Chair's discretion.
J. Motions
1. A motion to adjourn shall always be in order except during roll call.
EXHIBIT 2 6
2. The Chair of the Commission, or other presiding officer, may make and
second motions and debate from the Chair subject only to such limitations of
debate as are imposed on all members of the Commission.
K. Voting
1. Voting Requirements
a. A quorum shall consist of four members
b. The affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum present is necessary for
the Commission to take action on all matters other than those listed_ under
Section c below.
c. Certain votes of the Commission require a majority vote of the entire
Commission (4 votes) to carry. These are:
■ Adoption or amendment of a General Plan or any part thereof.
■ Adoption or amendment to any Neighborhood or Specific Plan or any
part thereof.
■ Adoption or amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City Code or
amendment thereto.
■ Adoption or amendment to a site-specific master plan for a Planned
Development (PD) District.
Other actions as required under federal or state law. (These will be
dealt with as they arise.) .
d. When a member of the Commission abstains from voting on any matter
before it because of a potential conflict of interest, because the
Commissioner does not believe he/she can be objective, or because the
Commissioner was absent at any previous hearing on an item, said vote
shall not constitute nor be considered as either a vote in favor of or
opposition to the matter being considered. Abstentions shall not be
allowed for any other reason.
e. A tie vote shall be recorded as a failure of action to pass. A tie vote on a
motion defeats the motion.
2. Roll Call Vote
Any Commissioner, the applicant or an appellant can request a roll call vote.
3. Recording of Votes
The minutes of the Commission's proceedings shall show the vote of each
member, including whether they were absent, abstained from voting, or failed
to vote on a matter considered.
4. Disqualification from Voting
A member shall disqualify himself/herself from voting in accordance with the
State Political Reform Act and other applicable state law. When a member is
disqualified, he/she shall state, prior to the considerations of such matter by
EXHIBIT 2 7
the Commission that the member is disqualifying himself/herself due to a
possible conflict of interest and shall then leave the voting area.
III. Review and Amendments Procedure
A. These Rules of Procedure shall be reviewed at the Annual Meeting of each year. On
an ad hoc basis, the chair may appoint a subcommittee to review these rules prior to
the meeting. The review subcommittee shall present their recommendations for
amending or not amending these rules. Minor changes may be brought forward by
staff for the Commission's consideration.
B. In addition, these Rules of Procedure may be amended at any meeting of the Planning
Commission by a majority of the membership of the Commission provided that notice
of the proposed amendment is received by each Commissioner not less than 5 days
prior to said meeting.
(Approved May 9, 2000. Revised February 26, 2002, December 14, 2004, May 29, 2007, January 27, 2009)
w:\Planning\PLANNTNG COMMISSION\Rules and Procedures\2018 (P17 -014)41C Rules and Procedures -Draft Revisions
Rule-, and Procedure,, Adopted Revisions, 1 27 09.doe
01.09.17.t1ocR—:\E�tt�-i3e��;1o13�r�e-at--1�e-�>tk3��1?]tning\P-',�^,n.i �Cn;��r�ti;;�ie+>a;1�-ul�ancl._1'roceclt+rtx\20(}9-I��v-i�w=\1'E'
EXHIBIT 2 8
- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS —
2018 PLANNING COMMISON LIAISON
Months
Commission Liaison
January 3 (Wednesday) & 17 (Wednesday)
February 6 & 21 (Wednesday)
March 6 & 20
April 3 & 17
May 8 & 22
June 5 & 19
July 3 & 17
August 7 & 21
September 5 (Wednesday) & 18
October 2 & 16
November 7 (Wednesday) & 20
December 4 & 18
Notes:
• Chair does not serve as liaison
• All DRB meetings are the 1St and Yd Tuesday of each month,
starting with the first full week (a week includes a Monday).
• All dates above are Tuesday's except as noted. If there is a
holiday on Monday, the DRB meeting gets pushed to
Wednesday for that week.
EXHIBIT 3