DRAFT circulation and parking 4management Acknowledgements

City Council Boards and Committees Joan Cox, Mayor Business Advisory Committee Joe Burns, Vice-Mayor Community Safety/Disaster Preparedness Committee Susan Cleveland-Knowles, Councilmember Historic Landmarks Board Jill James Hoffman, Councilmember Hospitality Business Development Committee Ray Withy, Councilmember Parks and Recreation Commission Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Planning Commission Sustainability Commission Janelle Kellman Vicki Nichols Community Morgan Pierce Participating community members/stakeholders Age Friendly Sausalito General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Sausalito Beautiful Joan Cox Friends of Willow Creek John DiRe Chris Gallagher Key City Staff Barbara Geisler Danny Castro, Community Development Director Bruce Huff Lilly Whalen, City Clerk/ Assistant City Manager Charles Kaufman All contributing staff members Janelle Kellman Keith Kennedy Kate Stohr Consultant Team Peter Van Meter M-Group, Lead Bill Werner BKF Engineers, Infrastructure Ray Withy Economic Planning Systems, Economy & Market Pat Zuch FirstCarbon Solutions, Environment & Safety Mott McDonald, Sea Level Rise Parisi Transportation Consulting, Circulation and DRAFT Transportation general plan

DRAFT City of Sausalito General Plan Update

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT (CECR): CHAPTER 4 – CIRCULATION CONDITIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The General Plan Circulation Element sets the City’s objectives, policies, and implementing programs related to transportation issues in Sausalito. The Element encompasses roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian conditions in the City. Chapter 4 summarizes the existing conditions for vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian traffic within the City. The report: • Summarizes the regulatory framework (i.e. plans, regulations, and guiding documents) related to circulation and transportation planning in Sausalito. • Describes the City’s existing roadway system. • Reviews current Level of Service (LOS) policy, and provides existing LOS, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), travel modes, and commute data from the US Census. • Provides existing weekday to weekend, and summertime to non-summer vehicle traffic conditions. • Provides existing pedestrian and bicycle network (including the Bay Trail) summertime vs. non-summertime traffic demands at key locations. • Describes existing bus routes, stops, and ridership on Golden Gate Transit, Marin Transit and tourist buses. • Summarizes existing Golden Gate Transit ferry routes and ridership

Chapter 4 also reviews the following and provides General Plan considerations each item: • Federal and State Regulations, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), AB 1358 California Complete Streets Act (2008), SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (2008), and Plan Bay Area 2040 (2017). • Local Regulations o 1995 General Plan: Circulation and Parking Element o City of Sausalito Complete Streets Policy, 2016 Sausalito ClimateDRAFT Action Plan, 2015 o o City of Sausalito Bicycle / Pedestrian Plan Update (Draft) o City of Sausalito Ordinance No. 1128, 1997 o Marinship Specific Plan, 1989 o City of Sausalito Ordinance No. 1022 Fair Traffic Initiative, 1985 • Local Circulation/Traffic Studies o Age Friendly Sausalito Community Action Plan, 2016 o Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee Report, 2014 o Imagine Sausalito Planning Effort, 2007–2010 o Marinship Improvement District Transportation Study, 1998 o Marinship Assessment District Access and Circulation Study, 1997

CH. 4 - CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | i City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Senate Bill 743 (2013) – Transitioning to Vehicle-Miles-Travelled (VMT) Signed into law 2013, SB 743 required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to update the existing methods for studying transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to achieve the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. In response, OPR established a VMT-based metric for traffic impacts, which represents a significant shift in traffic impact analysis. The policy implications of the VMT transition for Sausalito and the General Plan Update are described beginning on page 11. Several General Plan implications related to the VMT transition are identified, including:

1. The General Plan Update could explore policies that seek to achieve VMT per capita reductions in a manner suitable to the Sausalito context. 2. The General Plan should establish whether and when LOS may be used to analyze traffic impacts if VMT is found to be less appropriate for the city. 3. The General Plan may provide direction on the strategic application of LOS in other circulation-related matters, such as prioritizing roadway improvements.

The following prominent considerations for the General Plan Update are listed on page 48.

• Understand the implications of the transition to VMT and provide policy guidance to ensure Sausalito’s character and community goals are protected. • Identify opportunities for Sausalito City staff and elected officials to more actively participate in regional planning efforts that may affect the community. • Identify more effective strategies to complete path and bicycle connections from Sausalito to Mill Valley, and south to the Golden Gate Bridge. • Improve access to transit and accessibility generally. • Recognize the importance of circulation planning in disasters and provide considerations for maintaining evacuation routes. • Parking management improvements in the Caledonia area may be valuable; improved parking signage should be considered. • Explore policies to DRAFTaddress emerging issues in transportation that are created through new technologies. • Consider whether Objective 6.0: Achieve a High Quality Regional Transportation System is not attainable and not a suitable aspiration for the community. • Explore including Vision Zero strategies into the policies and programs of the General Plan. Several cities in the Bay Area have adopted Vision Zero strategies to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries along city streets. Vison Zero promotes several strategies aimed at reducing the occurrence of collisions: o Lowering speed limits; o Redesigning streets; o Implementing meaningful behavior change campaigns; o Enhancing data-driven traffic enforcement.

CH. 4 - CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | ii general plan

DRAFT

The Circulation Element of the General Plan sets the City’s objectives, policies, and implementing programs related to transportation issues within the City of Sausalito. The Circulation Element encompasses roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian conditions in the City. This memo summarizes the existing conditions for vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian traffic within the City. It includes a summary of transportation data collected along the facilitiesDRAFT providing access to residents and visitors travelling to/from and within Sausalito using any of these modes of travel.

City of Sausalito General Plan Update

This report covers the following key circulation topics:

• Regulatory Framework: The report identifies Federal, State, Regional, and Local regulations and plans that relate to circulation planning in Sausalito to summarize overlapping efforts and policy directions for the General Plan Update. • Roadways: Describes the City’s existing roadway system, roadway classifications, and key traffic signal-controlled locations. • Traffic Circulation: Summarizes current level of service policy and provides existing intersection level of service (LOS), vehicle miles traveled (VMT), travel modes, and commute data from the US Census. • Daily Traffic Volumes: Compares weekday to weekend and summertime to non- summer conditions. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions: Describes the existing pedestrian and bicycle network (including the Bay Trail), and summarizes summertime vs. non-summertime pedestrian and bicycle demands at key locations. • Bus Travel: Summarizes existing bus routes, stops, and ridership on Golden Gate Transit, Marin Transit and tourist buses. • Ferry Travel: Summarizes existing Golden Gate Transit ferry routes and ridership

DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 2 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Table of Contents

Regulatory Framework ...... 4 Federal Regulations ...... 4 Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990...... 6 State Regulations ...... 6 California Bicycle Transportation Act, 1993 ...... 7 Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act, 2006 ...... 7 Assembly Bill 1358 – California Complete Streets Act (2008) ...... 8 Senate Bill 375 – Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2008 ...... 9 Assembly Bill 1493 – Vehicle Emissions: Greenhouse Gases, 2009 ...... 9 Senate Bill 743 – Level of Service Standards, 2013 ...... 9 Senate Bill 226, 2015 ...... 12 Regional Regulations ...... 13 San Francisco Bay Trail Plan, 1989 ...... 13 Marin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2008 ...... 13 Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, 2009 ...... 14 Marin Congestion Management Plan, 2014 ...... 14 Measure “A” Transportation Sales Tax, 2016 ...... 14 Plan Bay Area 2040, 2017 ...... 15 Local Regulations ...... 17 1995 General Plan: Circulation and Parking Element ...... 17 City of Sausalito Complete Streets Policy, 2016 ...... 22 Sausalito Climate Action Plan, 2015 ...... 23 City of Sausalito Bicycle / Pedestrian Plan Update (Draft)...... 24 City of Sausalito Ordinance No. 1128, 1997 ...... 25 Marinship Specific Plan, 1989 ...... 25 City of Sausalito Ordinance No. 1022 Fair Traffic Initiative, 1985 ...... 25 Local Circulation/Traffic Studies ...... 27 Age Friendly Sausalito Community Action Plan, 2016 ...... 27 Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee Report, 2014 ...... 27 Imagine Sausalito Planning Effort, 2007–2010 ...... 28 Marinship Improvement District Transportation Study, 1998 ...... 30 Marinship Assessment DistrictDRAFT Access and Circulation Study, 1997...... 30 Existing Conditions ...... 32 Roadway System ...... 32 Intersection Level of Service ...... 41 Vehicle Miles Traveled ...... 45 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions ...... 48 Transit Conditions ...... 57 Roadway Collision History ...... 62 Travel Modes and Commute Data ...... 62 Trends in Transportation ...... 66 Appendices ...... 67

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 3 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

This section of the report discusses applicable federal, state, regional and agency laws, regulations, and orders that could pertain to updates to the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update. The section covers regulations that have been enacted since the adoption of the 1995 Sausalito General Plan.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS Metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies prepare regional transportation plans in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This cooperation is essential to ensure that regional transportation plans are consistent with Federal law and that jurisdictions in the region with policies that are consistent with adopted regional transportation plans are eligible for federal funding to support transportation improvement projects. The federal government currently operates more than 90 federal-aid programs for transportation projects;1 not all programs are applicable to California or the Sausalito context. The following is a listing of major funding programs—a complete list is provided in the 2017 update to the FHWA’s A Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects:2

• 100% Federal Share for Safety ("G" Matching Ratio) o States may use up to 10 percent of their total Federal-aid apportionments under 23 U.S.C. 104 at a 100 percent Federal share for traffic control signalization, maintaining minimum levels of retro reflectivity of highway signs or pavement markings, traffic circles (also known as 'roundabouts'), safety rest areas, pavement marking, shoulder and centerline rumble strips and stripes, commuter carpooling and vanpooling, rail-highway crossing closure, or installation of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete barrier end treatments, breakaway utility poles, or priority control systems for emergencyDRAFT vehicles or transit vehicles at signalized intersections. • Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways o Funds may be used for the construction of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities and for carrying out non-construction projects related to safe bicycle use. NHPP funds may be used for the construction of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities on land adjacent to any highway on the NHS.

1 The City of Sausalito does not have readily available data on historical awards of grant funds through these programs. 2 Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects.pdf#page=193

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 4 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) o All CMAQ projects must demonstrate the three primary elements of eligibility: transportation identity, emissions reduction, and location in or benefitting a nonattainment or maintenance area. While project eligibilities are continued, there is some modification with new language placing considerable emphasis on select project types including electric and natural gas vehicle infrastructure and diesel retrofits. As in past authorizations of the program, projects must be included in a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP), or the current Statewide TIP in areas that are not part of an MPO. The MPO plans and programs must also have a transportation conformity determination in place, where applicable • Ferry Boat and Ferry Terminal Facilities Program (FBP) o FBD funds may be used for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 129(c) and 147 as applicable. • High Priority Projects (HPPs) Program o A broad fund for priority transportation project. More information is available through Section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. • Safe Routes to School (SRTS) o Funds are made available for infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects, and to administer State-level Safe Routes to School programs that benefit elementary and middle school children in grades K - 8. • Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) o The full scope of eligible activities under TAP is broad and established by Under 23 U.S.C. 213(b). Key improvements that may be funded through TAP include: . On-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-motorized forms of transportation . Improvements to provide safe routes for non-drivers . Community improvement activities . Any environmental mitigation activity . Recreational trails program under section 206 of title 23 . The safeDRAFT routes to school (SRTS) program

The FTA also operates several grant programs that are available at the State and local levels. Key programs that are currently active and relevant to Sausalito include: • Flexible Funding Programs-Surface Transportation Block Grant Program. Provides funding that may be used by states and localities for a wide range of projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance of surface transportation, including highway, transit, intercity bus, bicycle and pedestrian projects. • Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning. Provides funding to local communities to integrate land use and transportation planning with a transit investment that will seek funding through a Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 5 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

• Urbanized Area Formula Grants. Provides funding to public transit systems in Urbanized Areas (UZA) for public transportation capital, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, as well as operating expenses in certain circumstances.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in July 1990. The Act is a critical civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination and guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to participate in their community. The ADA prohibits discrimination in access to jobs, public accommodations, government services, public transportation and telecommunications. The ADA states that a public entity must reasonably modify its policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities. The Act recognizes two forms of accessibility:

• Program Accessibility. Includes Physical Accessibility, but also entails all the policies, practices, and procedures that permit people with disabilities to participate in programs and access important information. • Physical Accessibility. Requires that a facility be barrier-free. Barriers include any obstacles that prevent or restrict the entrance to or use of a facility.

Sausalito is responsible for periodically updating and modifying its policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities. This includes establishing a grievance/complaint procedure that may be used by anyone who wishes to file a complaint alleging discrimination based on disability regarding program or physical accessibility issues.

STATE REGULATIONS Various offices of the State of California set policies, guidelines and legislation that regulate regional and local circulation in and around Sausalito. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for planning, designing, building, operating, and maintaining California’s State Highway System. US Highway 101 and appurtenant on- and off-ramps, frontage roads andDRAFT other components within the state right-of-way and the City Limits are managed by Caltrans as part of the California Freeway and Expressway System. A 1971 Maintenance Agreement between Caltrans and the City partitions some of the maintenance responsibilities for appurtenant roadway segments, lighting and traffic signal operations between the State and the City, but does not address many contemporary issues—for example, storm water management. Below is a summary of statewide legislation that could inform the policies of the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 6 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

CALIFORNIA BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1993 This regulation established the requirement that a "bicycle transportation" or similar plan be adopted by a local jurisdiction under the Streets and Highways Code ("SHC") Section 890-892 in order to be eligible for grants for construction of bicycle-related facilities.

ASSEMBLY BILL 32 – CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, 2006 The regulation requires a statewide reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (amounting to a 15 percent reduction from 2006 GHG levels). The bill requires state and local agencies to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost effective GHG emission reductions. Transportation represents 41 percent of total GHG emissions in California, therefore reductions of transportation-related emissions would help achieve the state achieve this goal. Provisions of the legislation are instructive and implemented by succeeding statewide bills discussed in detail below. Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, AB1493, and Senate Bill (SB) 375 are key bills related to achieving the climate reduction goals of AB 32.

DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 7 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

ASSEMBLY BILL 1358 – CALIFORNIA COMPLETE STREETS ACT (2008) AB 1358 requires that the legislative body of a City or County, upon any substantive revision of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, modify the Circulation Element to plan for a balanced, multi-modal transportation network that meets the needs of all users within the respective rural, suburban, and urban context of the General Plan. The bill defined the “users of streets, roads, and highways” to mean bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. Forty-one percent of trips in urban areas nationwide are two miles or less in length, and 66 percent of these trips that are one mile or less are made by an automobile. The legislature declared that shifting the transportation mode share from single passenger vehicles to public transit, bicycling, and walking must be a significant part of short- and long-term planning efforts if the state is to achieve the reduction in vehicle miles travelled and GHG emissions required by law. The law also required the state to develop advisory guidelines for cities and counties to assist in preparing and maintaining General Plans. These guidelines were published by the Governor’s office of Planning and Research in the Update to the General Plan Guidelines: Complete Streets and the Circulation Element (December 2010). The guidelines identified the following (among others) as potential benefits of complete streets.

• Safety – Designing streets and travel routes that consider safe travel for all modes can reduce the occurrence and severity of vehicular collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists. • Health – Promoting active transportation modes (i.e., walking and bicycling) increases physical activity rates. Frequent exercise is known to reduce obesity rates and lower the risk of heart disease and diabetes. The resulting reductions in vehicle emissions can reduce ailments such as asthma that are associated with poor air quality. • GHG Emission Reduction – Even with the most aggressive state and federal vehicle efficiency standards and the use of alternative fuels, reducing how much the average Californian drives is necessaryDRAFT to achieve the GHG goals set by AB32. • Economic Development and Cost Savings – A network of complete streets can be safer and more appealing to residents and visitors, which can benefit retail and commercial development.

The guidelines also provide suggestions for possible policy areas and data collection considerations that could be used to prepare or amend a Circulation Element.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 8 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

SENATE BILL 375 – SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY, 2008 SB 375 aims to use the regional transportation planning process to direct funding to transportation projects that reduce GHG emissions. It uses CEQA streamlining as an incentive to encourage residential development projects which help achieve AB 32 GHG reduction goals. The bill requires all metropolitan regions in California to complete a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of a Regional Transportation Plan. The SCS governing Sausalito is discussed in the Regional Regulations section below.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1493 – VEHICLE EMISSIONS: GREENHOUSE GASES, 2009 AB 1493 amended the health and safety code to design programs that establish GHG emissions baselines and monitor, estimate, calculate, report, and certify GHG emissions. The law established emission standards for new passenger vehicles and light duty trucks beginning with the 2009 model year. The State of California was granted a waiver by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to preempt the vehicle emission requirements of the Clean Air Act with state-determined emissions standards. The standards are expected to result in an 18% reduction in passenger car emissions by 2020.

SENATE BILL 743 – LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS, 2013 SB 743 requires the Offices of Planning and Research (OPR) to update the existing requirements for studying transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 replaces intersection “level of service” (LOS), which measures auto delay and congestion, with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a measure of project impact significance. Measuring VMT for CEQA-related transportation impacts is expected to encourage developers to propose projects at infill sites, defined as a lot that has been previously developed or a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way that is developed within qualified urban areas. VMT analysis can be particularly useful to highlight the environmental benefits of infill instead of greenfield suburbanDRAFT development, but it does not highlight the localized circulation impacts of a proposed project in the same way that a LOS analysis does. The Notice of Rulemaking to initiate the review and adoption process for updated CEQA Guidelines was issued on January 28, 2018. If adopted by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, the CEQA Guidelines update to establish VMT as the metric for evaluating transportation impacts will take effect following a two-year opt-in period for local governments. Over this two-year period, jurisdictions will have an opportunity to adopt local variants of the recommended CEQA guidelines. Currently, the revised CEQA Guidelines have not been adopted by any jurisdictions in Marin County, but it is expected that VMT will become the standard for evaluating transportation impacts by the time the General Plan Update is complete.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 9 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Another implication of SB 743 is that preceding law required the development, adoption, and updating of a countywide Congestion Management Program (CMP) which would define LOS standards against which new developments were evaluated for transportation impacts. Existing law also defined “Infill Opportunity Zones” that—if adopted locally—could exempt projects on streets and highways within these zones from LOS-based traffic impact standards for CEQA purposes. SB 743 revises the definition of Infill Opportunity Zones to authorize the local designation of an Infill Opportunity Zone within a Transit Priority Area that is identified in an SCS such as Plan Bay Area 2040. A Transit Priority Area is an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. As summarized in Table 6, transit service is provided via the Ferry Landing and at bus stops located along Bridgeway, Alexander Avenue on Ft. Baker, and in the vicinity of US Highway 101 on- and off-ramps along Spencer Avenue. However, Plan Bay Area 2040 identified only one Transit Priority Area in the city, which coincides with the area located within a one-half mile radius of the ferry landing, where ferry service connects with regional and local bus service.

The Transition to VMT SB 743 requires that OPR update the metric that is used in the CEQA project evaluation process to assess traffic impacts in all jurisdictions in California. OPR’s recommended update to the CEQA Guidelines is to establish a VMT-based metric for evaluating traffic impacts. While this represents a significant shift in traffic impact assessment, SB 743 does not prevent local jurisdictions from establishing locally-appropriate metrics as a standard outside of the CEQA process. For example, communities may designate an alternative form of VMT-based traffic impact assessment, or an LOS-based impact assessment standard if that standard is clearly defined in the local General Plan or ordinance. So, while SB 743 will eliminate an LOS standard as the sole basis for traffic impact assessment within the CEQA review process, LOS can still be used outside of CEQA if local jurisdictions find it appropriate.3 It is important to note that State or regional agencies, that may at times function as commenting or responsible agencies during project review at the local level, may operate under a VMT framework for assessing impactsDRAFT to align with State policy. Should local jurisdictions like Sausalito choose to pursue a non-VMT standard, it may be more difficult to align local and regional project reviews. Funding provided through regional or state agencies may also be tied to a VMT-based standard or traffic impacts.

3 This may be desirable in that LOS can be more appropriate for assessing roadway sizing needs, conducting nexus studies for impact fee programs, and prioritizing roadway improvements to address delay/congestion to name a few examples.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 10 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

VMT Transition Implications for Sausalito The process to evaluate projects against a VMT standard for CEQA-based traffic impact assessment is the same as the current process under an LOS-based approach; it involves four basic steps:

1. Define a VMT Baseline. Establish baseline VMT levels based on observed data or regional travel models, such as those developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).4 2. Set Thresholds for Significant Impacts. Set VMT thresholds for project-level and cumulative conditions that define acceptable measures of VMT versus levels that require mitigation pursuant to CEQA. This process is governed by CEQA Section 15064.7. 3. Prepare Traffic Projections. Estimate and forecast project-level and cumulative VMT effects during project review. 4. Evaluate Projects Against Thresholds. Compare project-level and cumulative VMT effects against the established thresholds to determine if a project will result in significant impacts are require mitigation pursuant to CEQA.

With the transition to a VMT standard for CEQA traffic impacts, Sausalito has the following options: 1. Modelling. Rely on existing traffic models or seek to define an alternative VMT baseline. As discussed in the existing conditions section below, there are several models that project VMT baseline conditions consistent with the requirements set forth by OPR for CEQA purposes. As these are regional models, there may be issues with the models’ accuracy and suitability at the local level in Sausalito. The City may consider conducting studies to augment the regional models to establish a more appropriate baseline condition. This undertaking would be quite expensive. 2. Thresholds. Rely on the recommended VMT significance threshold set by OPR or define a Sausalito-specific threshold. Another option is to rely on a county-wide threshold established in coordination with the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). The current DRAFTrecommendation from OPR on the appropriate threshold of significance for VMT impacts for CEQA purposes is 15% below baseline VMT per capita. Developing Sausalito-specific VMT thresholds would involve conducting independent traffic studies to establish a local threshold that still achieves SB 743 objectives to (a) reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation activities, (b) encourage infill, and (c) promote active transportation.

4 For more details on the MTC model for VMT, refer to the Existing Conditions section of this report.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 11 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

3. General Plan Implications. There are several General Plan implications related to the VMT transition: a) The General Plan Update should consider policies that could promote an overall reduction in VMT per capita that are also appropriate for Sausalito. b) The change to VMT from LOS as the CEQA metric for evaluating traffic impacts emphasizes the role of the General Plan in setting an LOS-based standard as the preferred method for project evaluation in the city, if a VMT-based approach is found to be a less desirable methodology. The General Plan Update could retain existing LOS-based traffic impact policies, or provide direction on updating LOS standards, and provide direction on updating the municipal code to establish LOS as the metric for evaluating traffic impacts. c) The General Plan may provide direction on the strategic application of LOS- based traffic impact assessment where it is most appropriate. For example, LOS can be reserved for capital improvements, road sizing, nexus evaluation for impact fees, and congestion-improving projects or programs.

SENATE BILL 226, 2015 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline Section 15183.3 Streamlining for Infill Projects Senate Bill 226 (2015) streamlines the CEQA process by limiting the topics that are subject to CEQA review at the project level when the effects of infill development have already been addressed by applicable development policies or standards. The bill allows for the exemption of projects located in an infill opportunity zone from the CEQA process as it relates to transportation impacts. Infill opportunity zones are detailed under Senate Bill 743 below.

Considerations for the General Plan Update for Federal and State Regulations • At the time of writing, data on the historical use of federal grant programs by the City for transportation purposes is not available. An accounting of past grant receipts could shed light on theDRAFT potential for future opportunities that the City should pursue. • Understand the implications of the transition to VMT and provide policy guidance to ensure Sausalito’s character and community goals are protected. • Explore the parameters of conducting and consider requiring the completion of an ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan if appropriate to address physical accessibility issues related to the circulation network in the community.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 12 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

REGIONAL REGULATIONS

SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL PLAN, 1989 Senate Bill 100, passed into law in 1987, directed the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to develop a plan for a regional trail system, including a specific alignment for a Bay Trail. The Bay Trail Plan was adopted by ABAG in July 1989 and provided a proposed alignment and policies to guide the future selection, design, construction, and financing of route segments. The trail is planned to span approximately 500-miles around San Francisco Bay, and run through all nine Bay Area counties, 47 cities, and across the region’s seven toll bridges. Roughly 350 miles of trail are currently in place. The Trail Plan is non-binding and has implications primarily for the Circulation Element. The Trail Plan recognizes the recommended alignment of the North-South Greenway as the primary pedestrian and bicycle route of relevance to Sausalito.

MARIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN, 2008 Marin County completed an update to its Bicycle Master Plan for unincorporated portions of the County in 2009. The Plan was part of a countywide effort to update all local bicycle master plans. While the plan serves as a coordinating and resource document for the entire County, its focus is on specific recommendations for bicycle improvements in unincorporated areas. The Plan is non-binding on Sausalito and has implications for the Circulation Element. The Plan includes the following programs of relevance to circulation planning in Sausalito: • North-South Greenway. The old Northwestern Pacific Railroad in Marin, along with the natural geography of the county, creates a natural alignment for a bicycle and pedestrian route—the North-South Greenway—that starts at the Golden Gate Bridge and connects through Sausalito to Mill Valley and on to Sonoma County. • Recognizing that the existing pathway connecting the Mill Valley-Sausalito Path with Shoreline Highway at Coyote Creek does not meet Class I standards, the County prioritized an upgradeDRAFT to the existing path to meet Class I standards, address flooding, and extend the path across Shoreline Highway and along Coyote Creek to the Tam Community Center. • The Plan recognized that several pedestrian/cyclist collisions with motorists occurred along major roads between 2001 and 2006. In Sausalito, the Alexander lateral and Mill Valley-Sausalito Path at Pohono Street (Waldo Pt.) were cited as being collision centers at 15 and 4 documented collisions over the study period, respectively. • Bicycle improvements in the unincorporated county adjacent to Sausalito include: o 0.7 miles of paths/improvements connecting the Mill Valley Sausalito Path to Tam Community Center o 0.8 miles of paths/improvements connecting Golden Gate Bridge to Sausalito

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 13 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, 2009 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) developed a regional bicycle master plan in 2001 that largely sought to document conditions and identify needed links in the network. The 2009 Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area is an update to the 2001 plan that seeks to encourage, increase and promote safer bicycling; provide an analysis of bicycle trip‐making and collision data; summarize countywide bicycle planning efforts throughout the Bay Area; and document advances in bicycle parking and other important technologies. The Plan is a component of Transportation 2035, the region’s comprehensive strategy to accommodate future growth, alleviate congestion, improve safety, reduce pollution and ensure mobility for all residents regardless of income. As a component of Transportation 2035, the Regional Bicycle Plan supports individuals who choose to shift from automobile travel to bicycle travel by making investments in the regional bikeway network and other bicycling facilities, and focusing growth in Priority Development Areas (PDAs), which are identified in the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy, known as Plan Bay Area 2040. The Regional Bicycle Plan is non-binding on Sausalito and relates most directly to the Circulation Element. The Plan supports improving pedestrian and bicycle connections between Sausalito and the Golden Gate Bridge but is otherwise silent on improvements of direct relevance to Sausalito.

MARIN CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2014 As the County’s CMA, TAM also maintains the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), which was last updated in 2014. The CMP establishes and classifies a roadway network that allows performance monitoring in terms of established Level of Service standards. The CMP network defines conditions and targets for roadway performance such that impacts arising from development projects and other impacts on the circulation system can be identified, and evaluated. The CMP network was established as part of the State-legislated Transportation Blueprint of DRAFT1990 and became a requirement for CMAs across California. Within Sausalito, the Plan identifies the Bridgeway/Second Street/Alexander Avenue roadway segment as part of the countywide CMP network. As a result, the County monitors level of service conditions along Bridgeway between Gate 5 and Gate 6.

MEASURE “A” TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX, 2016 The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) is a Joint Powers Agency established between Marin County and all cities within the county, including the City of Sausalito, to address Marin-specific transportation issues. As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Marin County. TAM administers the County’s Measure “A” Transportation Sales Tax, a voter- approved 2004 ballot measure providing a one-half cent increase in sales tax be designated to transportation-related expenditures. Measure A requires those local funds be expended

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 14 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

on, "… projects that … consider the needs of all roadway users." The tax is expected to dedicate an estimated $499 million in local sales tax revenues to transportation needs in the County over a 20-year period. The 2004 Sales Tax Expenditure Plan lists projects and programs that are eligible for sales tax funds and establishes the maximum percentage of funds that can be allocated to each strategy. Measure A funding is distributed according to the biennial Measure A Strategic Plan, last updated in 2016.

PLAN BAY AREA 2040, 2017 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC prepares a 25-year Regional Transportation Plan that guides funding priorities for regional mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Pursuant to SB 375, Plan Bay Area 2040 is the SCS that guides planning for the Bay Area. The SCS developed and adopted by MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) integrates transportation policies and strategies to meet GHG targets set by AB 32. The plan has a circulation-related goal and accompanying performance targets that measure the effectiveness of Plan Bay Area 2040 in addressing the major challenges facing the region:

• Increase non-auto mode share by 10% • Eliminate vehicle operating and maintenance costs due to pavement conditions • Reduce per-rider transit delay due to aged infrastructure by 100%

Designations with the Plan Plan Bay Area 2040 identifies Marin City as a Priority Development Area (PDA) as shown in the figure below. PDA’s are existing neighborhoods throughout the Bay Area that are well- served by public transit and are appropriate for additional compact development to address housing shortage concerns. The plan also includes a list of roadway and transit improvement projects and programs aimed at helping the region meet the performance targets outlined above. However, none of these projects are located within Sausalito. In Sausalito, Plan Bay Area 2040DRAFT recognizes one Transit Priority Area (TPA), located within one half-mile of the ferry landing. This designation is not planned within the document; it is established through California Public Resources Code (PRC) 21099, which characterizes TPAs as sites within ½ mile of a Major Transit Stop. The ferry terminal, with its connections to bus service, qualifies under State law as a Major Transit Stop. Within a TPA, the CEQA Class 32 Infill Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332) can be applied to eligible projects.5

5 The class consists of “environmentally benign” infill projects that are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. This class is not intended for projects that would result in significant traffic, noise, air or water quality impacts.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 15 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

DRAFT Within a TPA recognized in a Sustainable Communities Strategy like Plan Bay Area 2040, State law provides that a city may voluntarily designate an Infill Opportunity Zone, pursuant to procedures outlined in California Government Code 65088, that would streamline environmental review for eligible projects within the Zone. TPAs also function as Transit Priority Project Eligible Areas, which include a specific class of developments that may also qualify for CEQA streamlining as outlined in Public Resources Code (PRC) 21155. Sausalito has not elected to pursue designation of an Infill Opportunity Zone.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 16 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

MTC has established criteria for approval of transportation-related grant funding. This includes a requirement that proposed improvements be, "…evaluated for consistency with all local bicycle, pedestrian, transportation, and other plans that affect the right-of-way.”6

Considerations for the General Plan Update for Federal and State Regulations

• Identify opportunities for Sausalito City staff and elected officials to more actively participate in regional planning efforts that may affect the community. • Identify more effective strategies to complete path and bicycle connections from Sausalito to Mill Valley, and south to the Golden Gate Bridge to tie into the regional network.

LOCAL REGULATIONS Since the 1995 General Plan was adopted several planning efforts have been undertaken to inform policies and programs related to the City’s circulation system. Relevant planning efforts, policies and programs recently adopted by the City are highlighted below.

1995 GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION AND PARKING ELEMENT California Government Code §65302 establishes the City's authority over and defines the required scope of a General Plan as well as the overarching components for each required Element. Consistent with the Government Code, Sausalito’s Circulation Element must address infrastructure needs for the circulation of people, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communications. By statute, the Circulation Element must correlate directly with the Land Use Element but must also have direct relationships with all other Elements. Furthermore, Senate Bill 1000, passed in 2016, requires local governments to address environmental justice considerations related to circulation within the General Plan— this includes access to transportation systems, air quality related to transportation, delivery routes and transit options for nutritional food access, and promotion of physical activity. Sausalito elected to call this ElementDRAFT the Circulation and Parking Element in the 1995 General Plan to reflect the importance of parking management in the City’s overall transportation and circulation considerations. A jurisdiction may call the Element a different name, organize its General Plan in any format, including consolidating Elements, so long as all the relevant statutory issues required within prescribed Elements are addressed (Gov. Code § 65301).

6 See, for example, http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Routine_Accommodation_guidance_FINAL.pdf

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 17 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Consistency with State 2017 General Plan Guidelines In accordance with the State of California General Plan Guidelines (updated in 2017), the Circulation Element must plan for a “balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the General Plan.” Where, "…'users of streets, roads, and highways' mean(s) bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors7." More specifically, the State Guidelines suggest that the Circulation Element should have the following characteristics: . Correlate with the Land Use Element to create connected, accessible, and complete networks and ensuring access to opportunities within a community and region; . Identify means and methods to measure; . Identify existing and proposed major thoroughfares; . Identify existing and proposed transportation routes for a variety of modes; including public transportation, bicycles, pedestrians, and automobiles; . Discuss the transportation of commercial goods; . Identify existing and proposed terminals; . Identify military airports and ports; . Identify the location and necessity of public utilities and facilities; . Identify the transportation needs of children, persons with disabilities, and seniors; . Identify funding for infrastructure improvements; . Correlate with regional transportation plans and congestion management plans; . Consider opportunities to integrate measures for reducing vehicle travel to help meet State greenhouse gas reduction goals; and . Address the provision of adequate parking in the community.

The Sausalito General Plan currently addresses many of the above components, but advancements in the field of transportation planning have occurred since the 1995 General Plan was adopted. The General Plan Update will identify policies and programs to ensure that each of the topic areas DRAFTare satisfactorily covered in a manner appropriate to Sausalito.

7 GC §65302(b)(2)(B)

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 18 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Circulation Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the 1995 General Plan The Circulation and Parking Element establishes policies and implementation programs to ensure that the City’s transportation system accommodates the desired mix of land uses, economic activities, and related traffic patterns planned for Sausalito. The community seeks to limit major roadway widening, minimize congestion, prevent development that deteriorates traffic conditions. The Element emphasizes public transit, pedestrian and bicycle ridership, and parking and transportation management programs. In addition to the specific policies, the Element also contains Objectives, which are intended to address issues applicable to the scope of each Element. These Objectives provide guidance for developing Policies, which are implemented through various Programs under each General Plan policy. The Circulation and Parking Element Objectives include: 1.0 Design Changes to the Street Network to Accommodate Future Growth 2.0 Manage Parking Demand 3.0 Maximize Public Transit Service 4.0 Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation 5.0 Explore Funding Methods to Implement Local Improvements 6.0 Achieve a High Quality Regional Transportation System The table below lists all objectives and policies in the Circulation and Parking Element of the 1995 General Plan and the status of each.

POLICY POLICY LANGUAGE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

CP-1.0 DESIGN THE STREET NETWORK TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE GROWTH CP-1.1 Street Network. Emphasize improvements to the street network which will not require construction of major roadway widening. CP-1.2 Level of Service Standard. Maintain a letter grade Level of Suggest adding “Improve lighting, traffic Service of "C" for signalized intersections for the P.M. control devices and other facilities to weekday peak hour except for Bridgeway at Johnson, Bay enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.” and Princess Streets. DRAFTat the end CP-1.3 Local Resident Streets. Discourage the usage of local streets in residential areas as a route of through traffic when gridlock traffic conditions exist on US Highway 101. CP-1.4 Efficient Roadway Circulation. Establish a hierarchy of Suggest adding “including sidewalks, local streets to facilitate traffic in and out of the City as curb ramps and pedestrian-serving shown on the Street System and Parking map GP-10 and lighting.” at the end maximize the safety of the City street network CP-1.5 Encroachments. Manage encroachment on public street rights-of-way by private development.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 19 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

CP-2.0 MANAGE PARKING DEMAND CP-2.1 Parking Standards. Establish parking standards for uses Suggest adding “while ensuring that Citywide that will enhance economic development needs, pedestrian and bicycle uses are also design and historic preservation and safety policies, provided.” at the end. CP-2.2 Commercial Parking. Limit the land area for parking in City owned lots in the Downtown area to the 1990 level provided, however, that the land area now occupied by Municipal Parking Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall not be used for purposes other than public parking lot uses without voter approval. CP-2.3 Cooperation with Local Businesses. Work cooperatively with local business interests in developing programs to reduce traffic and parking impacts. CP-2.4 Residential On-Street Parking. Increase the supply of on- Suggest adding “without major street parking in residential areas in a manner which roadway widening.” at the end. preserves neighborhood character, while giving priority to neighborhood residents, their guests and other Sausalito residents CP-3.0 MAXIMIZE PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE CP-3.1 Public Bus Service. Encourage the maintenance of a safe, efficient and reliable bus service to provide an alternative to driving. CP-3.2 Ferry System. Promote increased patronage of the ferries Suggest changing reference to “Ferry while still protecting the area near the ferry terminal from Landing”. overly intensive use. CP-3.3 Alternative Transportation. Improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system and reduce the reliance on Suggest adding “including pedestrians the private automobile by emphasizing alternative and bicycles.” at the end. transportation modes CP-3.4 Park and Ride. Support limited park and ride areas for Suggest adding “Ensure that existing commuters which maximize safety and limit impacts on facilities are improved to comply with nearby residences or other uses. current standards for pedestrian and bicyclist use and safety.” at the end. CP-4.0 ENHANCE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION CP-4.1 Bicycle Master Plan. Plan, design, implement, and maintain bicycle infrastructure inDRAFT Sausalito. CP-4.2 North-South Bicycle Route System. Identify a combination of short term projects (1-10 years) and long term projects (1- 20 years) to develop a bicycle system from the GGNRA at the south entrance of the City, to the Mill Valley multi-use path

at the north City limits, linking residential neighborhoods, commercial and visitor centers, key transportation areas, scenic shorelines with local and regional destinations (see Map GP-12).

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 20 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

CP-4.3 Bridgeway Bikeway South: Long Term Solutions. Investigate and study long range solutions to either ameliorate or bypass the most constricted and/or congested conditions at Alexander Avenue, South Street, and Bridgeway South of the Downtown. CP-4.4 Bicycle Route Design and Standards. Assure that all existing and proposed bike routes, lanes, paths, and intersections are improved to the most up-to-date standards

to reduce conflicts between bicyclists, vehicles, and pedestrians, promote safety, and encourage the use of non- motorized travel. CP-4.5 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails. Continue to support the San Francisco Bay Trail, and Bay Area Ridge Trail, and other agencies and jurisdictions in their attempts to provide bicycle and pedestrian trails throughout the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. CP-4.6 Pedestrian Trails and Paths. Improve and extend existing public paths for use by residents and establish new pathway

connections to complete the system as shown on map GP- 12. CP-4.7 Pedestrian Safety. Provide a safe walking environment along City streets and pathways.

CP-4.8 Waterfront Trail. Provide access to the waterfront for bicyclists and pedestrians at as many points as possible.

CP-4.9 Handicap Accessibility. Facilitate access for the physically Suggest removing references to disabled to sidewalks and pathways throughout the City physically-disabled. Suggest adding “for persons with impaired mobility and/or other disabilities. Continue to develop and implement Age-Friendly public infrastructure using Universal Design principles.” at the end. CP-5.0 EXPLORE FUNDING METHODS· TO IMPLEMENT LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS CP-5.1 Development Requirements. Assess developers of new and Suggest adding “Ensure that federal redevelopment projects their fair share of the cost of needed development similarly avoids or traffic and transit improvements.DRAFT mitigates the potentially adverse impacts of intensification of use within the City.” at the end.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 21 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

CP 6.0 ACHIEVE A HIGH QUALITY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CP-6.1 Regional Transportation. Support the preparation of a regional transportation plan for the US Highway 101

Corridor which includes projects which divert traffic from Sausalito streets. CP-6.2 Regional Funding. Support regional funding for expanded transportation projects if such a proposal contains adequate growth management controls and mass transit projects. CP-6.3 Caltrans. Continue cooperative review of projects outside Suggest adding “Continue to improve the City with Marin County and the California Department of the terms and conditions of the existing Transportation. maintenance agreement between Caltrans and the City for facilities within the City Limits.” at the end. CP-6.4 Gateway to Sausalito. Provide access to Sausalito from the regional transportation system via the ferry system at the Suggest adding reference to Spencer Downtown ferry terminal, the bus system along Bridgeway, and US 101 and changing name to and by vehicle traffic primarily from the north Marin City “Ferry Landing”. interchange with US Highway 101.

CITY OF SAUSALITO COMPLETE STREETS POLICY, 2016 Sausalito City Council adopted a Complete Streets Policy on May 23, 2017 that should be incorporated into the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update. The policy was adopted in response to AB 1358 and in conformance with MTC guidance. The policy establishes four principles that guide the planning of infrastructure development in the City:

• Complete Streets Serving all Users. Creating and maintaining complete streets that serve all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families. • Context Sensitivity. Planning and implementing street projects that maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both residential and business districts. • Complete Streets RoutinDRAFTely Addressed by All Departments. Making Complete Streets practices a routine part of everyday operations, approach every relevant project, program, and practice as an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network for all categories of users. • All Projects and Phases. Consider complete street infrastructure Elements to enable reasonably safe travel along and across the right of way for each category of users should be considered in all planning, funding, design, approval, and implementation processes for any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations, alternation, or repair of streets.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 22 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

The City resolved that the next revision of the General Plan Circulation Element incorporate Complete Streets policies and principles consistent with AB 1358. The resolution calls for:

• Consistency with local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, and other plans • Incorporation (as feasible) of complete streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of users. • Referral (at the discretion of the City Manager) of transportation projects for review by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee. • Evaluation of how well the City streets and transportation network are serving each category of users by collecting baseline and follow-up data on a regular basis.

SAUSALITO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, 2015 Compiles strategies that the City’s government and the community can use to address climate change. It focuses on efforts Sausalito can take to reduce its GHG emissions and mitigate, to the extent feasible at the local level, the potential impacts of climate change. The plan supports the following Circulation policies and programs in the existing General Plan: • Policy CP 3-1 Public Bus Service. Encourage the maintenance of a safe, efficient and reliable bus service to provide an alternative to driving. • Policy CP-3.2 Ferry System. Promote increased patronage of the ferries while still protecting the area near the Ferry Landing from overly intensive use. • Policy CP-3.3 Alternative Transportation. Improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system and reduce the reliance on the private automobile by emphasizing alternative transportation modes. • Objective CP-4.0 Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. Enhance bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and programs to reduce the use of motorized vehicles within the City and reduce conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. • Policy CP-4.1 Bicycle Master Plan. Plan, design and maintain bicycle infrastructure in Sausalito. City of Sausalito Climate Action Plan • Policy CP-4.6 Pedestrian Trails and Paths. Improve and extend existing public paths for use by residents andDRAFT establish new pathway connections to complete the system as shown on map GP-12. The plan acknowledges that transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in the community, contributing to 42% of total emissions. The plan recommends 7 community actions and two government operations actions that would reduce GHG reductions by 484 metric tons. These actions are summarized below.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 23 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Climate Action Plan Recommended Community Actions include: • Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Encourage bicycling and walking as a safe and efficient means to travel around Sausalito • School Transportation. Encourage bicycling, walking, carpooling, and taking public transit to school. • Carpooling. Support and promote ride sharing programs • Public Transportation. Support and promote public transit. • Teleworking. Support and encourage employers to implement green commute alternatives including teleworking, as outlined by the Transportation Authority of Marin • Electric Vehicles. Increase ownership of electric vehicles. • Market Price Parking. Establish market price parking at metered parking spaces to eliminate cruising for available spaces. Climate Action Plan Recommended Government Operations Actions include: • High-Efficiency City Vehicles. Purchase or lease low emissions vehicles and the most fuel-efficient models possible for the City fleet, including construction vehicles. • City Employee Commute. Provide employees with incentives to use alternatives to auto commuting, such as transit incentives, bicycle facilities, ridesharing services and subsides, flexible schedules, and telecommuting when practical.

CITY OF SAUSALITO BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN PLAN UPDATE (DRAFT) The City of Sausalito is in the process of updating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Bicycle Master Plan (2008 Update) is the current document that guides the City's policies, programs, and plans that relate to bicycle travel within the city. Elements of the existing and draft Bicycle / Pedestrian Plan Update have been incorporated into the Pedestrian and Bicycle section of this report. The abbreviated nature of the draft Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Update is intended to keep the City compliant with the regulatory requirements for an update to the 2008 Update, while recognizing that the General Plan update will produce a more robust long-term planning frameworkDRAFT to be incorporated into the next revision of the City's Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. In the short term, the Gate 6 Intersection Improvements Project, congestion management Downtown and the continued removal of barriers to accessibility in the public right-of-way are expected to be the City's highest priorities in this plan. Bicycle and pedestrian master plans are intended to complement the Circulation Element of a General Plan. Having a separate document that is focused on bicycle and pedestrian traffic has the added benefit of presenting an in-depth analysis and recommendations that prioritize bicycle and pedestrian traffic and safety.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 24 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

CITY OF SAUSALITO ORDINANCE NO. 1128, 19978 Started as an initiative and then ultimately adopted by the City Council, Ordinance No. 1128 amended the General Plan to regulate the sale, lease, or other disposition of the Plaza Viña del Mar, Gabrielson Park, the Martin Luther King Site or Parking Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 as well as their uses. Voter approval is required for the any of the properties to be used for anything other than certain public purposes specified in the Ordinance. It restricts the use of the sites from redevelopment into a non-public serving use in the absence of voter approval. The Ordinance limits the land area for parking on the City-owned lots Downtown to the 1990 level, and limits Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 to public parking use. It also mandates that public land provided in the Downtown for public parking would not be increased in any amount or decreased by greater than 5 percent from the 1997 levels. Ordinance No. 1128 is binding upon this General Plan Update.

MARINSHIP SPECIFIC PLAN, 1989 The Marinship Specific Plan identifies a circulation plan for the Marinship area. The roadway network improvements that were targeted for the area included proposed improvements along Marinship Way between Easterby and Harbor Drive and the designation of the segment of Marinship Way between Harbor Drive and Marinship Loop Road as a one-way southbound. Developments for properties in the Marinship require consistency with the Marinship Specific Plan.

CITY OF SAUSALITO ORDINANCE NO. 1022 FAIR TRAFFIC INITIATIVE, 19859 An ordinance enacted by the voters and intended to minimize increases in automobile traffic generated by new development by reducing permissible density in commercial and industrial areas. Ordinance No. 1022 was aimed at preserving the maritime character of the City. It reduced the maximum floor area ratio permitted for new developments and prohibited changes to zoning or uses that would result in increased commercial usage or density (thereby increasing vehicle traffic generation). This traffic and parking-based ordinance has resulted in significantDRAFT land use limitations in the Marinship area and other land uses adjacent to the waterfront. Vehicular access to and from the Marinship area is primarily provided by the intersections along Bridgeway between Gate 5 Road and Easterby Street. As discussed elsewhere, these intersections currently operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the morning and evening peak periods. However, during the morning peak hour periodic queuing occurs at the Bridgeway/Marinship Way, Bridgeway/Spring Street, and

8 Ordinance 1128: http://sausalito.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=80&meta_id=9070 9 Ordinance 1022: http://www.sausalito.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=12732

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 25 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Bridgeway/Harbor Street intersections. This queuing is driven by vehicles making left-turns into the Marinship Area. Several local streets facilitate circulation within the Marinship area (Marinship Way, Liberty Ship Way, Harbor Drive, Testa Street, Road 3 and Gate 5 Road). They consist of narrow two- lane roadways that circle around the area and are a mixture of public right-of-way and private property accessible to the public (as shown in the figure below). Initially constructed as part of a shipyard, rather than being planned to facilitate circulation, the roadways are not well-connected. Drivers are forced to travel around entire parcel blocks to access specific parcels. The roadways are designed to accommodate low traffic volumes (500 vehicles or less) throughout the day. Maintenance of these roads is dependent on right-of-way ownership. City-owned roadways (such as Harbor Drive, segments of Marinship Way and Liberty Ship Way) are maintained by the City’s public works department. City maintenance includes but is not limited to the repair of potholes and other street hazards, removal of sidewalk obstructions, and the maintenance of adjacent street trees. When reviewing new development proposals for the area, special attention should be paid to the potential traffic increases at these locations. Given the already constrained left-turn lanes from Bridgeway onto some streets serving Marinship, for example, significant increases in traffic volumes could lead to the intersections operating at unacceptable conditions during the peak hours of the day. Considerations could be made for new developments that generate off-peak hour traffic. Within the Marinship area, there are existing federal land uses exempt from City’s land-use regulator authority i.e., the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Veterans Administration. The intensification of these land uses has the potential to further deteriorate both the operation of key intersections and increase the potential for unsafe conditions on Bridgeway. DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 26 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

LOCAL CIRCULATION/TRAFFIC STUDIES The following documents provide circulation and traffic information but do not constitute adopted policies, regulations, or plans in effect in Sausalito.

AGE FRIENDLY SAUSALITO COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN, 2016 This plan encourages the City to incorporate age-friendly language and goals into General Plan policy. The plan also seeks to ensure consistency between age-friendly policies and other policies in the General Plan such as circulation, safety. Senior citizens are more likely to be pedestrians and travel by public transit. Policies within the Circulation Element should encourage infrastructure improvements that cater to this population.10

MARINSHIP SPECIFIC PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT, 2014 In 2014, the Marinship Specific Plan Steering Committee, with support from PlaceWorks, drafted an evaluation of the 1989 Marinship Specific Plan for the City of Sausalito. The report involved considerable community outreach and interviews with property owners and other stakeholders to understand the issues relevant to the Marinship area and identify recommendations for updating the Marinship Specific Plan. The report documented the following major circulation issues that were identified through a survey of 15 stakeholders:

DRAFT

10 The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) is an association of 62 major North American cities and ten transit agencies formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. The organization is a 501(c)(3) non-profit association, and has been recognized as a leader in identifying best practices and setting new standards for transportation planning and development. NACTO’s mission is to “build cities as places for people, with safe, sustainable, accessible and equitable transportation choices that support a strong economy and vibrant quality of life.” In late 2017, NACTO published Designing for All Ages & Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities (December 2017) as an extension of the organization’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide. The 2017 guidelines set an “All Ages & Abilities” criteria for selecting and implementing bike facilities, which may inform Sausalito’s approach to addressing age-friendly transportation planning.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 27 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

The report identified several goals for the future of the Marinship that are relating to circulation issues: 1. Recognition that infrastructure is failing in the area and in need of maintenance. 2. Sensitivity to the relationship between private property and public resources. 3. Pedestrian and bicycle access with improved safety, signage, and surface upgrades. The report also outlined the following recommendations, with circulation implications, in the Marinship area: • Conduct an infrastructure analysis and identify infrastructure needs. • Identify circulation improvements. • Recognize that infrastructure and circulation improvements cannot be achieved unless landowners are able to attract successful tenants, fill leases, and develop on opportunity sites to offset the costs of these improvements. • Documented that an assessment district may be a feasible approach to funding circulation improvements. • Improving circulation, including water access, bicycle and pedestrian routes and roadway connections was a major opportunity in the Marinship. • Adding one or more segments of a street grid in the central Marinship area to connect identified gaps might address circulation issues in the area.

IMAGINE SAUSALITO PLANNING EFFORT, 2007–2010 Included action committees that took part in a visioning process that developed recommendations for land use and circulation improvements within the City. The three committees that generated transportation-related recommendations included the Waterfront and Marinship Committee (WAM), the Harbor and Downtown Action Committee (HDAC), and the Transportation Action Committee (TRAC), 2010. Below is a summary of the near-term actions that were recommended through the visioning process. • Create a leisurely bicycleDRAFT and pedestrian path (shoreline trail) close to the waterfront from Main Street to the northern City limits, including a downtown bay front promenade (TRAC, HDAC, WAM) • Replace a portion of the asphalt on Parking Lot #1 with a community plaza having small scale amenities and appropriate access. Parking lot #3 can be reconfigured to accommodate the spaces removed from lot #1 (HDAC, WAM) • Provide more and better bicycle parking downtown in conjunction with a comprehensive bicycle management plan with possibly a locker for rental bikes (TRAC, HDAC) • Study and support a water taxi service on Richardson’s Bay with multiple stops in town as well as other destinations (TRAC, WAM, HDAC)

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 28 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

• Replace lot #1 gates with a pay station system, also providing access for ferry passenger pickup (Completed, partially consistent) (HDAC) • Complete several Central District projects, including refurbishing Yee Tock Chee Park, curb bump out at Princess St., pier repair at Horizons, sidewalk and tree improvements on Bridgeway and a lower path along the water north of Horizons (HDAC, TRAC, WAM) The following is a summary of the mid- and long-range actions recommended by the three committees. • In addition to addressing basic infrastructure issues in the Marinship such an environmental contamination, flooding and subsidence, consider additional improvements such as a new loop road, parking structure tucked below Bridgeway. (WAM) • Proceed with studies already underway to provide street car (trolley) service along major roadway corridors in Marin, with service between downtown Sausalito and Mill Valley being priority (TRAC, HDAC) • Working with the GGBHTD, replace the floating ferry dock with a stone quay that would accommodate two ferries, water taxi service and visiting vessels (HDAC, TRAC) • Reconfigure the Municipal Parking Lot 2 (adjacent to the Bank of America branch at Bridgeway and Anchor) to add retail frontage on Bridgeway (HDAC) • Reconfigure streets and sidewalks to improve the tour bus parking and loading area for increased efficiency, safety and quality of visitor experience (HDAC, TRAC) To mitigate traffic congestion at the Harbor Drive and Marinship Way intersection, the Waterfront and Marinship Committee also recommended the eventual development of a short loop road between Marinship Way and Harbor Drive (further east around Mollie Stone’s and the U.S. Post Office). The loop road was embodied in the Marinship Specific Plan and as a result would not need any additional policy changes to implement. The committee qualitatively evaluated two alternative roadway alignments that would improve circulation within the Marinship area. Both alternatives would provide a direct connection between Gate 5DRAFT Road and Marinship way thereby encouraging use away from Harbor Drive and reducing congestion at the Harbor Drive intersection. However, both alternatives would require public street right-of-way acquisition. The alternatives would also require a detailed traffic study to identify any potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed improvements.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 29 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

MARINSHIP IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION STUDY, 1998 This transportation study assessed the conditions and deficiencies of the existing Marinship area roadway system to determine the benefits of potential street system improvements proposed as part of the Transportation Improvements District in the Marinship Area. The then-recommended improvements would realign streets, widen pavements and reduces long motorist delays for northbound traffic on Marinship Way at Harbor Drive. Additionally, two bicycle routes and a complete system of pedestrian sidewalk paths were proposed for the area. The study recommended the maintenance of the cross-section width of the most northerly block of Marinship way and Road 3, rather than narrow the roadway to 20 feet as previously proposed. The study also supported the 1995 General Plan which recommended the provision of two southbound left-turn lanes and an exclusive northbound right-turn lane at the Bridgeway /Harbor Drive intersection.

MARINSHIP ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY, 1997 The circulation study assessed alternative street access, intersection, and circulation improvements to the Marinship area. The study evaluated four alternatives that would include a ramp and vertical transition curve from Bridgeway to Marinship. The four alternatives evaluated included: • Liberty Ship Ramp – Proposed upgrades to the Liberty Ship Ramp with intersection, access ramp width and roadway improvements. Changed the alignment of the road and improved roadway width and added curbs and gutters • New Access Intersection – Proposed moving the south access road about 500 feet south of Easterby Road. • Spring Street Ramp – Proposed moving the South access point from Liberty Ship Ramp, north approximately 300 feet to Spring Street, with a bridge over Marinship way proposed to maintain circulation. • Marinship Way Realignment / Improvements – Restricts northbound traffic on Marinship Way, relocatingDRAFT it to the Gate 3 Roadway which would require an improved connection between Gate 3 and Marinship Way. The study evaluated the right-of-way considerations, roadway alignment, and overall feasibility of the proposed alternatives, and recommended the Marinship Way Realignment as the preferred Project. The alternative was expected to improve pedestrian access and safety, fulfill truck access objectives and maintain access to the buildings owned by the Army Corps of Engineering.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 30 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Considerations for the General Plan Update related to Local Regulations and Plans:

• Improve access to transit and accessibility generally. • Recognize the importance of circulation planning in disasters and provide considerations for maintaining evacuation routes. • Consider opportunities to address cut-through and excessive traffic on Rodeo. • Parking management improvements in the Caledonia area may be valuable; improved parking signage should be considered. • Explore policies to address emerging issues in transportation that are created through new technologies. • Consider whether Objective 6.0: Achieve a High Quality Regional Transportation System is attainable and a suitable aspiration for the community.

DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 31 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

EXISTING CONDITIONS

This report summarizes the existing transportation conditions within the City of Sausalito. It also provides an overview of applicable jurisdictional policy recommendation, laws, and regulations that pertain to transportation within the city. The information presented in this report is intended to support the Sausalito General Plan Update efforts.

ROADWAY SYSTEM The 1995 Sausalito General Plan provided a roadway classification system with a hierarchy of streets that serve different functions in the collection and movement of traffic throughout the city. City streets are characterized by the number of lanes, roadway width, and average daily traffic volumes. In general, pavement width, sight distance and travel speeds increase as one moves from minor streets to collectors and arterials. Street capacity and travel speeds increase as one moves from minor local streets to collectors and arterials. Along local neighborhood streets, steep slopes and rough terrain limit capacity due to narrow pavement width and short sight distance. The primary regional and local access facilities in Sausalito are summarized below: Regional Access

• US Highway 101 is an eight-lane freeway located along the western edge of the City and accommodates regional travel from the North Bay Area to the Golden Gate Bridge. There are four interchanges on US Highway 101 that provide access to Sausalito: Alexander Avenue, Spencer Avenue, Rodeo Avenue (northbound only), and the Marin City interchange which connects with Bridgeway at the Bridge/Gate 6 Road intersection. The Rodeo Avenue interchange is accessible via northbound US Highway 101, all other interchanges are accessible from both the southbound and northbound directions of US Highway 101. Bridgeway Corridor DRAFT • Bridgeway is the major arterial street in Sausalito and is located generally along or near the waterfront from south of Downtown to the north City Limits where it connects with US Highway 101. Between Napa Street and Richardson Street, Bridgeway is classified as a secondary arterial. For about one-half mile to the south and north of Downtown, Bridgeway is a two-lane street (one lane in each direction) with a center mountable median for most of its length. From Napa Street to the northern City Limit Bridgeway is a four-lane divided street with separate left-turn lane pockets provided at most intersections. The speed limit along Bridgeway ranges from 25 to 35 miles per hour (mph).

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 32 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

• Alexander Avenue is a secondary arterial that provides access into Sausalito from the south, through its connection between US Highway 101 and Second Street. Alexander is a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction) with left-turn pockets provided at major intersections along the southern-most segment south of the City Limits. The posted speed limit along Alexander Avenue south of the City Limits is 35 miles per hour (mph) and for northbound traffic (coming into Sausalito) is reduced to 25 mph just south of the City and then 20 mph at the City Limits. From the south City Limits, Alexander drops downhill and turns westerly and becomes South Street, and then South Street turns northerly and becomes Second Street before Second turns easterly and becomes Richardson.

• Richardson Street between Bridgeway and Second Street is a secondary arterial providing access to and from downtown Sausalito. Richardson also runs from West Street to Bridgeway connecting the southern residents of Sausalito with Downtown. Through its intersection with Second Street, Richardson connects to the southern City Limits. West of Second, Richardson is a two-lane street (one lane in each direction) with parking provided on both sides of the street. This portion of Richardson does not have a posted speed limit but is a primarily residential street that experiences lower vehicle speeds. The California Vehicle Code establishes the prima facie (meaning, for example, that a posted limit is not legally required) vehicle speed limit of twenty-five mph on any road in any business or residential district unless a different speed is determined by the local authority11.

• Second Street is a secondary arterial that serves as a connection into the greater Sausalito area from the southern City Limits. Second Street runs from South Street to Richardson Street. It is a two-lane street (one lane in each direction) with a posted speed limit of 25 mph, parking is prohibited along both sides of the street.

• South Street is a secondary arterial street that connects Alexander Avenue to Second Street and serves as a gateway to Sausalito from the southern City Limits. South Street is a two-lane roadwayDRAFT (one lane in each direction) less than 1,000 feet in length that runs in the east-west direction. On-street parking is provided along the north side of the street. The street has 20 mph posted speed limit but lower speeds (15 mph) are advised due to the downhill slope and blind curve leading to and from Alexander Avenue.

11 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=22352.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 33 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

US Highway 101 Gateway Roadways

• Monte Mar Drive is a minor collector that provides access to the center of Sausalito’s residential area. Monte Mar Drive runs from US Highway 101 via the Spencer Avenue/Monte Mar Drive exits from both northbound and southbound to Currey Avenue / Platt Avenue. Monte Mar Drive is a two-lane street (one lane in each direction) with a posted speed limit of 35 mph along the US 101 frontage and 25 mph once it enters residential Sausalito.

• Rodeo Avenue is a major collector street that provides City access to and from northbound US Highway 101. Rodeo Avenue runs from US Highway 101 in the west, connecting to Bridgeway via Nevada Street. It is a two-lane narrow roadway (one lane in each direction) that winds downhill from the highway. Rodeo Avenue has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.

• Spencer Avenue is a major collector street that provides access to and from US Highway 101 in both northbound and southbound directions. From US 101, Spencer Avenue winds downhill to Sausalito Boulevard, Miller Avenue and connects to Bridgeway via San Carlos. It is a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction) with a speed limit of 25 mph.

• Nevada Street is a major collector street that runs east from Rodeo Avenue to Bridgeway. It provides access to local neighborhood traffic and vehicular traffic from US Highway 101 through its connection to Rodeo Avenue. Nevada Street is a two-lane street (one lane in each direction) with a speed limit of 25 mph. Parking is permitted along the southern side of the street west of Nevada's intersection with Buchanan and on both sides between Buchanan and Bridgeway.

Table 1 details key characteristics of these and other local streets that make up the Sausalito circulation system. DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 34 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

TABLE 1 - CITY OF SAUSALITO STREETS AND HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM STREETS AND HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CATEGORY TYPICAL STANDARDS FOR TYPE OF STREET FUNCTIONS STREETS / SEGMENTS Number of Lanes: 2 Provide City Streets not classified otherwise Right of Way Width: 40 feet or less access to below. LOCAL STREET property and 500 vehicles or Daily Traffic: carry local less traffic Number of Lanes: 2 Monte Mar Drive (US 101 to Currey Right of Way Width: 40 to 60 feet Avenue) Provide Currey Avenue (Monte Mar Drive to MINOR access to Glen Drive) COLLECTOR property and Glen Drive (Currey Avenue to STREET 500 – 2,000 carry traffic to Daily Traffic: Johnson Street) vehicles arterials Johnson Street (Glen Drive to Bridgeway) Number of Lanes: 2 Rodeo Avenue (US 101 to Nevada Right of Way Width: 40 to 60 feet Street) Nevada Street (Rodeo Avenue to Carry local MAJOR Bridgeway) traffic to the COLLECTOR Spencer Avenue (Monte arterial STREET 2,000 – 5,000 Mar/Spencer Frontage to San Daily Traffic: system vehicles Carlos) – private road west of 101 San Carlos Avenue (Spencer Avenue to Bridgeway) Number of Lanes: 2 or more Bridgeway (Napa to Richardson Right of Way Width: 60 feet or more Street) Richardson Street (Bridgeway to Connect Second Street) major activity SECONDARY Second Street (Richardson to South centers and ARTERIAL STREET Street) 5,000 – 20,000 important Daily Traffic: South Street (Second Street to vehicles traffic routes Alexander Avenue) Alexander Avenue (Second Street to City Limit)’ Number of Lanes: 4 or more Bridgeway (Gate 6 to Napa) Connect the Right of Way Width: 60 feet or more most PRIMARY 20,000 – 50,000 Daily Traffic: DRAFTimportant ARTERIAL STREET vehicles activities and Requires limits on driveways, separate travel routes turning lanes and are usually divided

Number of Lanes: 4 or more Carry US Highway 101 Right of Way Width: 100 feet or more regional, FREEWAY 50,000 – 100,000 interurban Daily Traffic: vehicles and interstate Limited access, divided roadways traffic Source: Sausalito General Plan, Circulation and Parking Element, 1995

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 35 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Vehicular Traffic Volumes To assess the existing roadway conditions in Sausalito, roadway segment motor vehicle traffic volumes were collected over a seven-day period in September 2017. The counts were collected under fair-weather conditions when local schools were in session and no special events were taking place. They include both weekday and weekend traffic volume data. The counts were collected by placing pneumatic tube counters in the travelled lanes along the following roadway segments that serve as gateways into and out of Sausalito:

• Bridgeway – between Gate 6 Road and Gate 5 Road; • Rodeo Avenue – east of the US Highway 101 interchange; • Monte Mar Avenue – east of the US Highway 101 interchange; • Spencer Avenue - east of Monte Mar/Spencer Frontage; and, • Alexander Avenue – north of Edwards Avenue.

The weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were determined after reviewing the mid- week (Tuesday through Thursday) traffic data collected during the count period. Figure 1 and Figure 2 summarize the City-wide ADT volumes for all motor vehicles (bicycle and pedestrian traffic was not counted) traveling into and out of Sausalito via the five gateways, a detailed summary by street is included in Appendix A. On an average weekday morning (based on the counts), the City experiences a peak total ADT volume of approximately 3,000 vehicles (1,700 inbound and 1,300 outbound) between 8:00 and 9:00 AM at the five City gateways. During the evening, the peak total volume occurs between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM with approximately 2,900 vehicles (1,300 inbound and 1,600 outbound). The difference in the inbound and outbound volumes shows the average number of people visiting the City either for work or recreation during an average weekday. Average daily traffic during the weekends is based on a two-day average of traffic volumes collected on the Saturday and Sunday that fell within the count period. A summary of the average weekend volumes for all inbound and outbound vehicles travelling to and from Sausalito is presented in Figure 1 and a detailed summary by street segment is provided in Appendix A of this report. DRAFT During a non-event weekend, the City experiences a peak inbound and outbound traffic volume of 3,000 vehicles (1,400 inbound and 1,600 outbound), this peak occurs in the early afternoon, between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM. Figure 3 and Figure 4 depict the total ADT volumes at the five gateways into Sausalito. These counts would be considered representative of average motor vehicle traffic volumes during the early fall when the counts were collected. During the spring and summer, the City may experience higher traffic volumes from increased tourist activity. There are also several special events that occur throughout the year that generate higher traffic volumes. For example, the Sausalito Art Festival held during Labor Day weekend generates significantly higher traffic volumes.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 36 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Comparison with Historic Traffic Volumes At the time the 1995 General Plan was developed, Sausalito residents and workers generated about 45,000 vehicle trips per weekday. The 1995 General Plan does not specify when the counts were taken or if the trip numbers refer to both intercity and intracity trips. Since then, there has not been an apparent increase in daily motor vehicle trips. As evidenced by the traffic counts summarized in Figure 3, motor vehicle traffic volumes have slightly decreased over the last 22 years.

FIGURE 1 City of Sausalito Average Daily Traffic - Weekday 3,500 3,000 Daily Total 2,500 39,000 Vehicles 2,000 1,500 1,000 Traffic Volume Traffic 500 0

Time of Day

Outbound Inbound Total

FIGURE 2 City of Sausalito Average Daily Traffic - Weekend 3,500 3,000 Daily Total 2,500 35,400 Vehicles 2,000 1,500

Time Time of Day 1,000 DRAFT 500 0

Time of Day

Outbound Inbound Total

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 37

dR 6 etaG

d

Total: 26, 5 00 Inbound: 13, 1 00 R Capacity: 50,000 Outbound: 13, 4 00

5

e

t a

G Coloma St

City of Sausalit o T otal ADT T otal: 3 9 , 0 00 Inbound: 19, 5 00 Outbound: 19, 5 00 Harbor Dr

Nevada St Study Intersection turning movement counts location Study Intersection turning movement location Counts 24-hour ADT LEGEND ve A Rod eo BRIDGEWAY Capacity: 5,000 Total: 1, 8 00 Inbound: 1,200 Outbound: 600

Spring St

t

S

y

b r

e

t

s

a

E Napa St Napa

raffic Volumes T raffic Total: 1,700 Total: Inbound: 800 Outbound: 900 Capacity: 2,000 1995 General Plan .

r Y

D r WA Monte Ma

BRIDGE DRAFT

h o n J s

o

r Av n e

c e S Sp e n t

Capacity: 5,000 Total: 3,200 Total: Inbound: 1,700 Outbound: 1,500 Bay St Bay

CITY OF SAUSALITO

t

S

s

s

e

c

P r i n Richardson St Richardson

Second St South St South Total: 5,800 Total: Inbound: 2,700 Outbound: 3,100 Capacity: 20,000

e Av er nd xa le A Figure 3: Existing Conditions - Average Daily (Weekday) City of Sausalito General Plan Update Note: “Capacity” = roadway design capacity (maximum daily vehicles) as provided in the

dR 6 etaG

d

Total: 21,100 Total: Inbound: 1 0 , 00 R Capacity: 50,000 Outbound: 1 , 00

5

o T otal ADT

e

t a

G Coloma St

City of Sausalit T otal: 35,400 Inbound: 1 7 ,700 Outbound: 1 7 ,700 Harbor Dr

Nevada St Study Intersection turning movement counts location Study Intersection turning movement location Counts 24-hour ADT LEGEND ve A Rod eo BRIDGEWAY Capacity: 5,000 Total: 1,800 Total: Inbound: 1,300 Outbound: 500

Spring St

t

S

y

b r

e

t

s

a

E Napa St Napa

raffic Volumes T raffic Total: 1,500 Total: Inbound: 600 Outbound: 900 Capacity: 2,000 1995 General Plan .

r Y

D r WA Monte Ma

BRIDGE DRAFT

h o n J s

o

r Av n e

c e S Sp e n t

Capacity: 5,000 Total: 3,100 Total: Inbound: 1,600 Outbound: 1,500 Bay St Bay

CITY OF SAUSALITO

t

S

s

s

e

c

P r i n Richardson St Richardson

Second St South St South Total: 7,900 Total: Inbound: 4, 2 00 Outbound: 3, 7 00 Capacity: 20,000

e Av er nd xa le A Figure 4: Existing Conditions - Average Daily (Weekend) City of Sausalito General Plan Update Note: “Capacity” = roadway design capacity (maximum daily vehicles) as provided in the City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Bridgeway Traffic Volumes Bridgeway is a primary arterial street designed to accommodate 20,000 in its two-lane segment and 50,000 daily vehicle trips in its four-lane segment. The majority of motor vehicle traffic coming into and going out of Sausalito use the Bridgeway/Gate 6 Road intersection. The segment of Bridgeway just south of Gate 6 road, experiences average daily traffic of 26,400 motor vehicles. At this location, the morning peak hour generally occurs between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM with a total volume of 2,050 vehicles. The evening peak hour generally occurs between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM with a total 2,000 vehicles. The daily peak occurs between 2:45 PM and 3:45 PM with a total of 2,150 vehicles. During an average weekend day, this segment of Bridgeway carries about 21,100 vehicles. The daily peak occurs between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM with a total of 1,750 vehicles.

Alexander Traffic Volumes Alexander is a secondary arterial street designed to accommodate 5,000 to 20,000 daily vehicle trips. During an average weekday Alexander Avenue experiences average daily traffic of about 5,800 total motor vehicles on weekdays in Sausalito. The weekday morning peak hour occurs between 8:15 AM and 9:15 AM with an average of 400 vehicles. The evening peak hour occurs between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM with an average of 500 vehicles. The evening peak hour also coincides with the daily peak hour of traffic volumes. On weekends, Alexander Avenue experiences an average daily traffic volume of about 7,900 vehicles.

US Highway 101 Off-Ramp Traffic Volumes Average motor vehicle traffic volumes at the three off-ramp locations from US Highway 101 (i.e., Rodeo Avenue from NB US 101, and Monte Mar Avenue and Spencer Avenue from both northbound and southbound US 101) are much lower than the volume along Bridgeway and Alexander Avenue.DRAFT The three gateways experience a total average weekday traffic volume of 6,700 motor vehicles. The morning peak for the total volume at all three locations occurs between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM with 600 vehicles. The evening peak hour occurs between 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM with 500 vehicles. On an average weekend day during the counting period, total traffic volume at the three off- ramps was approximately 6,400 motor vehicles.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 40 City of Sausalito General Plan Update INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE This section summarizes a review of traffic operations at major intersections within Sausalito.

Existing City Policy The 1995 General Plan evaluated intersection traffic operations based on the motor vehicle volume to capacity (V/C) ratio for each of the signalized intersections in Sausalito. The V/C ratio measures the relation of the volume of traffic on each intersection movement to the capacity of the intersection serving that traffic. At the time the 1995 General Plan was developed V/C ratio was the standard used in evaluating intersection operating conditions. However, as described below, the industry standard has since shifted to the evaluation of motorist delay at intersections. The 1995 General Plan established level of service (LOS) C as the desired level of service for intersections along Bridgeway. LOS C corresponds to conditions in which there is stable flow, but speed and maneuverability is restricted by higher traffic volumes. A LOS C definition using the V/C ratio is consistent with LOS definitions based on existing intersection analysis methodology (described in detail below).

Level of Service Definitions Signalized intersection level of service is defined in terms of the average total motor vehicle delay for all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. Specifically, level of service criteria is stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified period. Vehicle delay is based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e., the order of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Unsignalized intersection level of service criteria can be further reduced to three intersection types: all-way STOP-controlled, two-way STOP-controlled, and one-way STOP-controlled. All- way STOP -controlled intersectionDRAFT level of service is expressed in terms of the average vehicle delay of all the movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way and one-way STOP-controlled intersection level of service is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay for individual movement(s). This is because the performance of the STOP-controlled approach is more closely reflected in terms of its specific movements, rather than its performance overall. Intersection average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a one-way and two-way STOP-controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion. Table 2 lists the criteria used to define level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 41 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

It should be noted that Senate Bill 743 does not preclude using LOS as a performance measure for planning purposes, however VMT will be the metric for evaluating traffic impacts of new projects under CEQA.

TABLE 2 - HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR INTERSECTION CONTROL DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE SERVICE DESCRIPTION (SECONDS) SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 Free flow B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15 Stable flow (slight delays) C > 20 – 35 >1 5 – 25 Stable flow (slight delays) Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35 occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F > 80 > 50 Forced flow (jammed) Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000.

Intersection Level of Service Intersection level of service analysis was conducted at 12 key intersections within Sausalito. Motor vehicle turning movement counts were conducted at the 12 locations during the evening peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) and at two study intersections (Bridgeway / Harbor Drive and Bridgeway / Spring Street) during the morning peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM). The two morning intersections were included to evaluate delays and subsequent left-turn queuing from Bridgeway that occurs in the morning at these intersections. The counts were collected in mid-September when area schools were in session. The counts captured school-related motor vehicle traffic as well as tourist-related motor vehicle traffic because the month of September still lies within the peak tourist season for the City. The counts were conducted on a fair-weather mid-week day (September 14, 2017). Upon review of the collected counts, traffic volumes for a peak one-hour period (four consecutive 15-minute periodsDRAFT with the highest traffic volume) were defined for use in this analysis. The peak hour volumes could be considered representative of the highest intersection volumes experienced at each intersection on an average weekday. The study intersections and peak hour turning movement counts are summarized in Figure 5.

Intersection performance was evaluated for the study intersections. The evaluation estimates motorist delay experienced under existing conditions at each intersection. The evaluation provides a LOS grade for each intersection in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual LOS Methodology and analyzed using Trafficware Synchro 10 software. The intersection LOS at each of these intersections is summarized in Table 3.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 42 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

As discussed elsewhere, increased density of use on US Government property and any other increased motor vehicle traffic utilizing this intersection, warrants improvements to ensure a safe and adequate level of service for the intersection.

The Highway Capacity Manual LOS methodology, developed by the Transportation Research Board, is currently the most widely used and accepted techinque for analyzing traffic operations. The methodology is best-suited for analyzing the performance of isolated facilities with relatively moderate congestion problems such as the Sausalito roadways which have no more than two lanes in each direction.

DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 43 41 6 57 9 2 3 Princess St Princess Bridgeway Johnson St

17 13 24 2 228 409 309 398 6 29

2nd St Bridgeway Bridgeway Bay St 8 41 14 45 101 Richardson St Richardson 3 1 68 2 2 99 29 (40) 5 (24) 3 (45) 23 29 Napa St Spring St Nevada St Nevada Easterby St Easterby

111 2 4 3 28 (23) 33 63 442 (11) 28 12 48 467 554 (493) 607 576 23 (356) 537 664 685 6 30 (92) 6 (43) 23 5

Bridgeway Bridgeway Bridgeway Bridgeway 4 2 15 10 (7) 51 (40) 94 (31) Marinship Way 3 (4) 11 (5) 1 3 (27) 1 2 0 75 7 3 39 794 73 235 Harbor Dr Coloma St Coloma Ebbtide Rd

63 (4) 9 27 (14) 23 13 35 253 100 713 (420) 567 482 (678) 742 878 785 843 74 27 (126) 132 182 (276) 4 25 72 42 14 43 Bridgeway DRAFTBridgeway Bridgeway Bridgeway Gate 5 Rd Gate 6 Rd 3 2 1 0 27 42 31 33 42 150 (2) 4 (40) 108 (79) 275

LEGEND: (xx) AM Peak xx PM Peak Signal Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Intersection

Notes: AM Peak = Peak one hour (consecutive four 15-minute periods) between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM PM Peak = Peak one hour (consecutive four 15-minute periods) between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM Speci c peak hours vary by intersection location. City of Sausalito General Plan Update Figure 5: Existing Conditions – Vehicle Trips City of Sausalito General Plan Update

TABLE 3 - INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY – EXISTING CONDITIONS (PM PEAK HOUR) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (PM PEAK HOUR) INTERSECTION CONTROL PM PEAK HOUR DELAY LOS (SECONDS / VEHICLE) BRIDGEWAY / GATE 5 RD / EBBTIDE RD Signal A 9.9 BRIDGEWAY / COLOMA ST Signal B 10.8 BRIDGEWAY / HARBOR DR Signal C 21.3 BRIDGEWAY / NEVADA ST Signal A 6.9 BRIDGEWAY / SPRING ST Signal A 9.6 BRIDGEWAY / EASTERBY ST / MARINSHIP WAY Signal B 14.0 BRIDGEWAY / NAPA ST TWSC A 8.0 BRIDGEWAY / JOHNSON ST Signal C 21.5 BRIDGEWAY / BAY ST Signal A 6.7 BRIDGEWAY / PRINCESS ST Signal B 17.7 RICHARDSON / 2ND ST OWSC A < 5.0 Notes: TWSC = Two-Way Stop-Controlled, OWSC=One-Way Stop-Controlled. Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. Source: Parisi Transportation Consulting, 2017

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

VMT as a Performance Measure Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a performance measure that relates motor vehicle trip mobility to the performance of traffic facilities within a predefined location. While VMT only includes vehicle trip counts, the metric inherently accounts for the benefits of transit and active transportation trips that reduce motor vehicle travel. Transportation decision makers can use VMT data to track the effects of implemented policies and strategies on the reduction of traffic on local roadways. VMT data can also help in evaluating policies and strategiesDRAFT that support improved public health outcomes related to air quality, road traffic injuries and fatalities, and physical activity from transportation. As previously mentioned, the 1995 General Plan evaluated traffic operations based on a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio, a measure of the volume of traffic to overall capacity at each intersection movement. Since then, the industry standard has shifted to using Level of Service (LOS) a standard based on the average motorist delay at intersections. VMT differs from V/C and LOS in that, the former focuses on reducing overall congestion systemwide, whereas the latter focus on reducing congestion at individual intersections and movements. By focusing on individual intersection performance, LOS inadvertently rewards projects that reduce congestion and delays by increasing roadway / intersection capacity.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 45 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

The use of VMT as a performance measure allows for the evaluation of traffic impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions. It can be measured as a total or on a per-capita basis and can be used to estimate fuel consumption by motor vehicles for distances traveled. Increase in VMT for gasoline-powered vehicles would cause an increase in the GHG emissions from vehicles making these trips.

VMT Model Estimates VMT is typically estimated from travel demand models and is calculated based on the number of motor vehicles multiplied by the distance traveled by each vehicle. There are various methodologies available for the creation of VMT models, with each methodology providing a distinct perspective on VMT generation. For instance, an “activity-based model” focuses on individual-level trips made throughout the day, whereas a “trip-based model” focuses on an aggregation of the various trip types generated by a specific land use. Within each methodology there are additional options for estimating vehicle miles traveled. These include but are not limited to: • VMT per Capita – Vehicle miles generated by people who live in or work in a specified zone. • Origin-Destination VMT – Vehicle miles generated by trips that start or end in a zone, regardless of residency of the trip-maker i.e., can include trips made by employees and other visitors to the zone. • Boundary Method – Vehicle miles traveled for trips generated within a specified boundary Jurisdictions can choose to use one or more of the available methodologies to estimate their current and future VMT. The City of Sausalito, and other cities in Marin County, do not currently have local VMT models or any associated thresholds for VMT analysis. Therefore, estimates of existing VMT data for the City of Sausalito is limited to VMT models developed at the regional and statewideDRAFT level. Statewide Model The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed a statewide travel demand model with VMT estimates for pre-defined Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) for jurisdictions throughout California. The City of Sausalito is part of Caltrans TAZ #904 which includes the Manzanita portion of unincorporated Marin County (located north of Gate 6 Road and east of US Highway 101). The outputs include “Home-Based” VMT which models the average VMT for trips that start or end at a residence i.e., homes based in Sausalito. The second output includes a “Work- Based” VMT which estimates estimate VMT for home-based work trips which outline VMT generated by employees that work within the selected TAZ.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 46 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Existing statewide estimates for the City of Sausalito are displayed in Table 4 and Table 5.

TABLE 4 – AVERAGE HOME-BASED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER CAPITA (YEAR 2015) HOME-BASED TRIPS BY RESIDENTS AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH POPULATION TOTAL MILES AVERAGE TRAVELED WORK SHOPPING OTHER VMT 7,646 83,661 10.13 5.44 0.44 10.94 Source: Caltrans Travel Demand Model, California Department of Transportation, 2018. Note: The data above is presented for the City of Sausalito and a portion of unincorporated Marin County (Manzanita).

TABLE 5 – AVERAGE HOME-BASED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER CAPITA (YEAR 2015) WORK-BASED TRIPS BY EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES HOME-BASED WORK TRIPS TOTAL EMPLOYEE TRIPS TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL AVERAGE 7,122 84,117 13.04 152,093 21.36 Source: Caltrans Travel Demand Model, California Department of Transportation, 2018. Note: The data above is presented for the City of Sausalito and a portion of unincorporated Marin County (Manzanita).

As shown, the statewide model estimates that Sausalito residents (and those in surrounding areas) on average generate about 10.94 vehicle miles traveled. Employees of the area, including those with residences outside of the area generate about 21.36 vehicle miles traveled.

Regional Model The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has developed a model to estimate regional VMT. The model simulates regional transportation activities based on numerous factors related to travel patterns. Factors include household location, location of employment, peak commute times, travel modes, and travel routes.

Estimates are provided as average vehicle miles traveled per capita based on a simulation of these factors for each jurisdiction. The model includes VMT estimates for past years (2005 and 2010) and has predictions for future forecast years (2020 and 2040) based on projected land uses changes in the region.DRAFT The most recent publicly-available VMT data is summarized in Table 4 below. The VMT data is provided for the transportation analysis zone that encompasses the City of Sausalito.

TABLE 6 - AVERAGE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER CAPITA (YEAR 2015) AVERAGE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PLACE OF PLACE OF WORK MARIN COUNTY SAUSALITO RESIDENCE TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL AVERAGE Work in Area 1,080,438 16.52 7,824 11.93 LIVE IN Work Out of Area 2,198,850 34.69 180,620 25.76 AREA Non-Worker 1,387,323 10.93 41,803 12.09 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2018. Note: The data above is presented for the City of Sausalito and the unincorporated area of Marin County in Marin City.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 47 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

VMT for residents is highest for those that live in the area but work outside of it. On average, these residents travel 28.5 vehicle miles on their way to and from work. Residents that live and work within the same area have a lower VMT of 11.68 vehicle miles traveled. There are people that commute in to San Francisco for work. These people travel the furthest distance with an average of 36.83 vehicle miles traveled.

Considerations for the General Plan Update:

• Consider travel/traffic/commute factors that are unique to Sausalito that should be factored into the future conditions traffic analysis or assessment of VMT.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONDITIONS This section provides an overview of pedestrian and bicycle conditions within Sausalito. It summarizes existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities and evaluates traffic along those facilities. Regional pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the City of Sausalito occurs via three main gateways: • Mill Valley – Sausalito Path (via Bridgeway / Gate 6 intersection); • Alexander Avenue (to and from Ft. Baker and the Golden Gate Bridge); and, • Ferry Landing (via Ferry Service). Within Sausalito, there are several facilities that accommodate local bicycle and pedestrian travel. Existing bikeways in the city can be classified by according to three different bicycle facility types: • Class I: Dedicated off-street paths or trails. These facilities are usually, but not always, paved and may be designated either for the exclusive use of bicyclists or shared with pedestrians. • Class II: Dedicated road space in the paved right-of-way. These include marked bicycle lanes in Sausalito andDRAFT include cycle tracks, or other facilities that may feature a variety of treatments such as a raised pavement or curbs, high-visibility paint, or protective barriers in other jurisdictions. • Class III: Shared road space in the paved right-of-way, operating in mixed flow with other vehicles (cars, buses, trucks etc.) Along South Street, Second Street, and Bridgeway there is a Class III (shared) bicycle route that connects the downtown area to the Golden Gate Bridge via Alexander Avenue. Bicyclists travelling along this path share the roadway with vehicular traffic. The remaining section of Bridgeway (i.e., between Princess Street and Gate 6 Road) includes segments Class I (off-street), Class II (on-street) bicycle lane designated with intermittent bicycle markings and signage along the roadway, and Class III (shared) facilities.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 48 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Along the east side of Bridgeway between Johnson Street and Napa Street there is a multi- use pathway that runs parallel to Bridgeway. Landscaping along the pathways separates it from a paved sidewalk adjacent to the street. The pathway serves as a connection to the Mill- Valley Sausalito multi-use pathway (Class I) which is accessible from Napa Street via several routes. The pathway is separated from Bridgeway traffic and serves as an alternative path for bicyclists travelling between the northern and southern half of the city. About 300 feet east of Napa street, the pathway diverges to two paths, one providing access to the waterfront and another running parallel to Bridgeway but at a lower elevation. Along Bridgeway, in addition to a sidewalk, there are several points that provide access to off-street pathways at points where the pathway is below-Bridgeway grade; A staircase located about 250 feet south of the Nevada Street intersection, a downward sloping pathway at the Marinship Way intersection, and a staircase located about 300 feet north of the Napa Street intersection are examples of these connections.

Bicycle Conditions Sausalito’s bicycle network encompasses approximately 3.6 miles of bikeways. Sausalito’s bikeways serve as a southern gateway to Marin by connecting to popular bicycle destinations countywide. Throughout the City, the bicycle network runs almost exclusively in a north- south direction. Bridgeway is a major bicycle route for commuters, tourist cyclists and recreational cyclists. Bicycle facilities along Bridgeway connect the three bicycle access points discussed above. Many of the neighborhood streets west of Bridgeway and east of US Highway 101 are extremely narrow and lack dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bicyclists and pedestrians wishing to travel along these streets are forced to share the roadway with motor vehicles. Regional pedestrian and bicycle access to and from Sausalito is provided via the Mill-Valley Sausalito multi-use pathway that runs parallel to US Highway 101 north of Sausalito. The path connects to Sausalito atDRAFT the Bridgeway / Gate 6 Road intersection. Regional Bicycle Traffic As part of the existing conditions analysis, pedestrian and bicycle counts were collected at the Gate 6 pathway. The counts were collected during one mid-week day and one weekend day in September. Within the same timeframe as the vehicular traffic counts. The counts are representative of local, commuter and tourist bicycle traffic. Bicycle traffic data was also collected along the South Gateway corridor which carries pedestrian and bicycle traffic to and from Downtown Sausalito. The data were collected as part of the South Gateway Complete Street Study (January 2016). The counts were collected at the intersection of South Street and Second Street in Spring 2015. The bicycle traffic data from both gateways is presented in Figures 6 through Figure 9.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 49 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

On an average weekday, the Gate 6 pathway carries about 750 total daily bicyclists. The weekday peak of bicyclist travel occurs between 7:15 AM and 8:15 AM with about 100 bicycle trips. During the weekend, the pathway carries about 2,500 bicycle trips. The daily weekend peak hour occurs between 10:30 AM and 11:30 AM with about 350 trips. The South Gateway corridor is popular with bicyclists and serves commuters, local recreational users and tourists. The 2015 South Gateway study found that the corridor carries between 2,330 and 2,400 total daily bicyclists on an average Spring weekday and about 3,000 total daily bicyclists on an average summer weekday. The majority (70 to 75 percent) of bicyclist travel is in the northbound direction. With many visitors travelling in to Sausalito by bicycle and returning to San Francisco by Ferry. Bicyclist traffic is substantially higher during weekends (Saturdays) both in the Spring and Summer months. In the Spring the corridor carries between 4,500 and 4,600 bicyclists and in the Summer the number rose to about 5,500 bicyclists. On an average weekday, the corridor carries between 200 to 250 pedestrians in the Spring and between 250 to 300 pedestrians in the Winter. The data presented in this section is reflective of bicycle conditions in mid-September. However, bicycle traffic varies throughout the year. During the summer peak, bicycle traffic at the South Gateway averages about 7,200 weekday riders and 8,500 weekend riders. Comparing bicycle traffic at the two pathways, it is evident that most bicycle traffic coming into and out of Sausalito is concentrated around the South Gateway corridor. During the non-Summer months, about two-thirds of the traffic is carried along the South Gateway corridor.

FIGURE 6 - AVERAGE BICYCLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT GATE 6 PATHWAY – WEEKDAY

Gate 6 Pathway Weekday Bicycle Volumes 350 300 Daily Total

250 700 Bicycles 200 150 100

Bicycle Volume DRAFT 50 0

Time of Day

Weekday NB Weekday SB Weekday Total

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 50 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

FIGURE 7 - AVERAGE BICYCLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT GATE 6 PATHWAY – WEEKEND

Gate 6 Pathway Weekend Bicycle Volumes 350 300 Daily Total 250 2,500 Bicycles 200 150 100

Bicycle Volume 50 0

Time of Day

Weekend NB Weekend SB Weekend Total

South Gateway Bicycle Volumes - Weekday 800 700 Daily Total 600 2,400 Bicycles 500 400 300

Hourly Volume 200 100 0 DRAFT 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Time Starting

Northbound Southbound Total

FIGURE 8 - AVERAGE BICYCLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SOUTH GATEWAY – WEEKDAY

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 51 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

South Gateway Bicycle Volumes - Saturday 800 700 Daily Total

600 5,500 Bicycles 500 400 300

Hourly Volume 200 100 0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Time Starting

Northbound Southbound Total

FIGURE 9 - AVERAGE BICYCLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT SOUTH GATEWAY – WEEKEND NOTES: THE GRAPHS HERE REPRESENT BICYCLE TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTED IN MID-SEPTEMBER. BICYCLE TRAFFIC TRENDS VARY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. DURING THE SUMMER PEAK, THE SOUTH GATEWAY AVERAGES DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES OF ABOUT 7,200 WEEKDAY AND 8,500 WEEKEND DAILY BICYCLE TRIPS.

Bicycle User Trends The South Gateway Complete Street Project study completed in January 2016 examined bicycle user behavior along the South Gateway corridor. The study found that, people who bicycle through the South Gateway corridor represent a diverse ridership base. They range from regular commuters between Marin and San Francisco, occasional and regular recreational riders, residents, and tourists making the ride across the Golden Gate Bridge. Because of their varying abilities and comfort levels, bicyclist behavior on the South Gateway corridor also varies. Between spring and summer, the majority of bicyclist traffic was in the northbound / downhill direction (70–75 percent). Tourist bicycles represented between 40 and 50 percent of the observedDRAFT bicycle traffic. Bicycle traffic was substantially higher during the Saturdays observed in spring and summer 2015. In general, weekend (Saturday) bicycle volume tend to be nearly double the weekday count. There were more recreational bicyclists observed during the weekend counts than during the week, resulting in a near 50-50 split between tourists and recreational bicyclists.

Bicycle Parking Steady increases in bicycle tourism has led to a demand for bicycle parking that exceeded the Downtown supply. Bicycle visitors (many of whom arrive from San Francisco via the Golden Gate Bridge) tend to haphazardly park their bicycles by attaching them to / leaning them against items not intended for bicycle parking e.g., street sign poles, parking meters, trees etc. The prevalence of this practice results in hindered pedestrian access along City

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 52 City of Sausalito General Plan Update sidewalks and has resulted in legislation and increased bicycle parking regulation enforcement under both the Vehicle Code12 and Sausalito Municipal Code. Various strategies have been implemented across the City to manage bicycle parking. During peak months over the last few years, Tracy Way (which runs parallel to Bridgeway between El Portal Street and Anchor Street) is closed to vehicular traffic and converted to a bicycle parking area. The parking is free to Marin County residents and provided at a fee (most recently $3.00) for tourists. The fee is intended to cover some or all of the cost of providing supervised, secure parking of bicycles while riders become pedestrians Downtown. Revenue generated by the bicycle parking fee is used to help fund the Bicycle Ambassador Program, created to support the management and safety of bicycles and pedestrians in Sausalito during the peak tourist season. In addition to City-provided bicycle parking, several commercial properties provide bicycle parking for their customers. Parking is provided via bicycle racks along the sidewalk or on individual property parcels accessible from Sausalito’s roadways. In July 2014, the City passed Ordinance 1222 (2014) that authorizes the City to impound bicycles that are improperly parked and charge a Bicycle Release Fee for release of impounded bicycles.

Pedestrian Conditions Pedestrian access within Sausalito is facilitated via sidewalks and multi-use pathways adjacent to major roadways in the City. Along Bridgeway and Caledonia, sidewalks of varying widths and cross-slopes are provided along both sides of the street as are curb ramps to facilitate accessibility for persons with impaired mobility or using a stroller or other wheeled device. The South Gateway corridor serves a variety of pedestrian trips including residents walking to / from Downtown, neighborhood traffic, and tourists walking across the Golden Gate Bridge. The South Gateway Complete Street Study reported between 200 and 250 pedestrian trips in per day in the SpringDRAFT. During Summer, the volumes reported increased to between 250 and 300 pedestrians per day. Most pedestrians in that segment travel northbound into the City from the Golden Gate Bridge. During the weekend (Saturday) counts, pedestrian traffic was nearly double that counted during the weekday. There were between 500 and 600 pedestrians counted along the corridor on the peak weekend days. Counts were also taken at the Gate 6 multi-use pathway as part of this existing conditions analysis. During the weekday, the Gate 6 pathway carried about 125 pedestrians. The daily peak hour for pedestrian volumes occurred between 8:45 AM and 9:45 AM with 25 pedestrian trips. During the weekend, the pathway carried about 225 pedestrians. The peak

12 Cal Veh Code §21211 et seq.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 53 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

hour during the weekend generally occurs between 8:30 AM and 9:30 AM and consists of about 50 pedestrians along the pathway. Pedestrian traffic at the Gate 6 pathway is about half that in the South Gateway corridor.

Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic As part of the intersection turning movement counts conducted at the 12 study intersections, bicycle and pedestrian traffic at these intersections were also collected. Data were collected at 12 intersections during the evening peak period, and at two intersections (Bridgeway / Harbor Drive and Bridgeway / Spring Street / Easterby Street) during the morning peak period. A review of the two-hour counts identified the pedestrian and bicycle traffic during the peak hour (four consecutive 15-minute intervals with the highest traffic volumes); these are summarized in Figure 10. As previously discussed, the south end of Sausalito is a popular tourist destination with many visitors arriving from the City of San Francisco either by Ferry or via the Golden Gate Bridge. These trips are generally made on foot or by bicycle and visitors continue to walk and ride Downtown. Other visitors are observed to access the multi-use path along the waterway and ride along the waterfront to and from the Gate 6 pathway. The heaviest pedestrian volumes are experienced at intersections at the southern portion of the City. The Bridgeway / Princess Street intersection carries an average of about 525 pedestrians during the PM peak, compared to the Bridgeway / Coloma Street intersection which has an evening peak hour volume of about 20 pedestrians. Bicycle counts are also higher at intersections along the southern end of Bridgeway. The Bridgeway / Princess Street intersection carries approximately 275 bicyclists during the PM peak hour while Coloma Street carried about 85 bicyclists. Bicycle volumes were substantially higher than pedestrian volumes at all the intersections north of Bay Street. The intersections of Bridgeway at Bay Street and Princess Street, are adjacent to bicycle parking facilities and experience higher pedestrian volumes as people explore the Downtown shopping area.

Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements The City of Sausalito is currentlyDRAFT revising its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. A document that sets policies, programs, and priorities that relate to the maintenance and improvement of bicycle and pedestrian access within the City. There are several improvement projects that are documented in the draft plan. These projects incorporate recommendations from previous studies and plans on facilities in the City. Below is a summary of some of the improvements proposed in the 2008 Plan or the draft update:

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 54 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

• School Access. The Marin County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program proposes several projects that would improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and from local schools (i.e., Lycèe Français de San Francisco, New Village School, Willow Creek Academy, and Montessori Sparrow Creek School). The projects would be funded through the SR2S Safe Pathways Grant program which provides small grants for developing infrastructure improvements around schools. Proposed projects include:

o Ebbtide pedestrian refuge improvements o Coloma Street sidewalk, Bridgeway pedestrian crossing, and NB Bridgeway bus stop relocation with pullout o Improvements to provide an all-weather pedestrian path linking Coloma with Tomales and across MLK to Ebbtide o Nevada Street sidewalk improvements o Nevada Street / Buchanan Drive pedestrian intersection improvements • Walkways. Proposed projects that would improve access for pedestrians along Sausalito’s walkways include:

o Sidewalk Gap. Widen the existing sidewalk along Alexander Avenue to allow for pedestrian travel.

o Vista Point Trail Improvements. initial design includes a 15-foot wide trail that would provide a safer alternative for bicyclists than the Alexander Avenue route. Other suggestions include wayfinding signage on the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge.

DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 55 12 1 9 2 3 0 0 8 Princess St Princess Bridgeway Johnson St

24 211 34

0 0 3 2 0 0 0 30 0 192 137 174 63 73 66 60 69 65 20 12 70 150 0 4 1 0

151 57 2nd St Bridgeway Bridgeway Bay St 9 0 2 1 3 1 4 52 Richardson St Richardson 2 1 0 2 4 Napa St Spring St Nevada St Nevada Easterby St Easterby

5 2 0 2 1 1 0 67 14 39 41 33 23 8 0 3 23 Bridgeway Bridgeway Bridgeway Bridgeway 5 1 0 Marinship Way 9 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 Harbor Dr Coloma St Coloma Ebbtide Rd

1 6

0 1 1 0 2 0 2 49 5 23 38 7 6 17 51 19 11 0 0 0 0 8 0 16 29 Bridgeway DRAFTBridgeway Bridgeway Bridgeway Gate 5 Rd Gate 6 Rd 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0

LEGEND: (xx) Bicycle xx Pedestrian Signal Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Intersection

SAUSALITO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

figure 10 - Bicycle and Pedestrian traffic counts GR OUP City of Sausalito General Plan Update

TRANSIT CONDITIONS Public transit service in Sausalito is provided by Golden Gate Transit which provides bus and Ferry service between the City of Sausalito and San Francisco, and Marin Transit which provides both local and regional bus service within the County of Marin. Marin Transit also operates the seasonally-variable Muir Woods Shuttle with a stop in Sausalito.

Bus Transit Service Bus service is provided at several bus stops serving both Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit and located along the span of the Bridgeway Corridor as well as at the freeway off- ramps along the western edge of the City. Table 6 shows the bus stops along Bridgeway and the bus routes serving each stop. 5 and 6 below summarize the routes provided by Golden Gate Transit and Marin Transit serving the City of Sausalito.

TABLE 7 - PUBLIC BUS TRANSIT SERVICE OPERATING IN THE CITY OF SAUSALITO BUS ROUTE STOP LOCATION Golden Gate ID Marin Transit Transit 40091 Bridgeway and Gate 5 Road 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 30, 92 40090 Bridgeway and Ebbtide Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2,4,30, 92 41042 Bridgeway and Coloma Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 30, 92 42103 Bridgeway and West Harbor Drive 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 4, 30, 92 40093 Bridgeway and Nevada Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 4, 30, 92 40092 Bridgeway and Nevada Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 30, 92 41325 Nevada Street and Buchanan Drive 115 - 40094 Bridgeway and Easterby Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 4, 30, 92 40095 Bridgeway and Easterby Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 30, 92 40097 Bridgeway and Napa Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 30, 92 40096 Bridgeway and Napa Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 4, 30, 92 40099 Bridgeway and Turney Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 30, 92 40098 Bridgeway and Pine Street 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 4, 30, 92 40100 Bridgeway and CaledoniaDRAFT Avenue 17, 61, 71X, 115 2, 30, 92 40103 Bay Street and Bridgeway 17, 61, 66, 71X, 115, 66F (seasonal) -

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 57 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

TABLE 8 - PUBLIC BUS TRANSIT SERVICE STOPS IN THE CITY OF SAUSALITO BUS TRANSIT SERVICE IN SAUSALITO ROUTE TYPE Route Description GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT 2 San Francisco – Marin City COMMUTE 4 San Francisco – Mill Valley / Strawberry 92 San Francisco – Marin City 30 San Francisco – San Rafael REGIONAL 70 San Francisco – Novato 101 San Francisco – Novato MARIN TRANSIT 17 San Rafael Transit Center – Sausalito Ferry 61 Fort Baker – Bolinas REGIONAL 66F (seasonal) Muir Woods Shuttle (Seasonal Service) 71X Novato – Sausalito Source: Golden Gate Transit and Marin Transit, 2017.

To better understand transit usage within the City of Sausalito, a review of transit ridership data (boarding’s and alighting’s) provided by Golden Gate Transit and Marin Transit was conducted. The data included the available daily and average ridership data for transit lines operating in the City between June 2016 and July 2017. A summary of the total bus ridership data is provided in the figures below, detailed transit ridership by bus line is provided in Appendix D of this report. As shown, Golden Gate Transit lines average around 32,000 riders every month. Peak ridership occurs during the month of August with about 34,300 riders. Annually, Golden Gate Transit lines carry over 210,000 riders. Marin Transit lines average around 44,000 riders every month. Peak ridership occurs during the month of July with about 71,000 riders. Annually, Marin Transit lines carry over 527,000 riders.

Existing Ferry Ridership DRAFT Ferry service to and from Sausalito is accessible via the Ferry Landing located in Downtown Sausalito. Ferry service at the terminal provides a connection between Sausalito and the City of San Francisco. On Monday through Friday there are nine scheduled departures and arrivals from Sausalito to and from San Francisco. The earliest departure occurs at 7:10 AM and the last departure occurs at 7:20 PM. The earliest arrival occurs at 7:35 AM and the last arrival occurs at 7:50 PM. During the weekends and on holidays there are six scheduled departures and arrivals from the Ferry Landing. The first departure is at 11:20 AM and the last departure occurs at 6:45 AM. The first arrival occurs at 11:50 AM and the final arrival occurs at 7:15 PM.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 58 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Ferry ridership data provided by Golden Gate Transit was also reviewed to better understand ferry ridership patterns within the City. The results of this analysis are provided in Figure 13. The Blue & Gold Fleet also provides Ferry service connecting Sausalito with Pier 41 in San Francisco. As shown, the Golden Gate Transit Ferry carries about 770,000 riders annually. Average ferry ridership is about 64,000 riders per month. Peak ridership occurs in July with about 109,000 monthly riders. During summer months (June to August) average daily ridership is about 92 northbound passengers and 155 southbound passengers. During the non-summer months, these numbers drop to about 70 northbound passengers and 99 southbound passengers. Many ferry passengers take bicycles onto the ferry to provide connections between the Ferry Landing and subsequent destinations. A portion of these bicyclists consist of visitors that ride their bikes to Sausalito and take the ferry back to San Francisco. A summary of the average number of bicycles carried onto the ferry between 2012 and 2016 is provided in the figure below. In 2016, about 170,000 bicycles were carried onto the GG Ferry. During the peak summer months (June to August) the ferry averaged about 25,000 bicycles. This is higher than the four-year average (2012 to 2016) of about 21,000 bicycles during the summer months.

Other Transit Providers The Blue and Gold Ferry service also operates service between the City of San Francisco and Sausalito. Ferry access is provided via the Ferry Landing in downtown Sausalito. Ferry boats depart from Sausalito four times daily during weekdays and five times daily during weekends. On weekdays, the first ferry arrives in Sausalito at 12:25 PM and the last ferry departs at 5:35 PM. On weekends the first ferry arrives at 11:40 PM and departs at 7:55 PM. The Marin Airporter is a private shuttle service that provides access between San Francisco International Airport and Marin County. The Airporter makes two stops in Sausalito, one inbound stop at the Spencer Avenue / US Highway 101 northbound interchange, and one outbound stop at the SpencerDRAFT Avenue / US Highway 101 southbound interchange. Airporter busses operate from 4:10 AM to 11:10 PM and conduct pick-ups / drop-offs at Spencer Avenue every 30 minutes. There are several taxi and rideshare companies that provide both within and to/from Sausalito. During the day, taxis are available within the downtown Sausalito area, where they wait for passengers disembarking from the ferry. Taxi service is also available to residents and visitors who call ahead to schedule a pick-up. Rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft provide on-demand service that is accessible through a mobile app where customers can request a pick-up.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 59 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Golden Gate Transit Bus Ridership 80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000 Total Numberof People 10,000

0

FIGURE 11 - GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT RIDERSHIP BY MONTH OF THE YEAR (FISCAL YEAR 2017) SOURCE: GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT, 2017.

Marin Transit Bus Ridership 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 DRAFT 20000

Total Number of People People Numberof Total 10000 0

FIGURE 12 - MARIN TRANSIT BUS RIDERSHIP BY MONTH OF THE YEAR (FISCAL YEAR 2017) SOURCE: GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT, 2017. NOTE: RIDERSHIP DATA REPRESENTS TOTAL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP FOR BUS LINES SERVING SAUSALITO AND THE SURROUNDING MARIN COUNTY AREA, I.E., INCLUDES BOARDING AND ALIGHTING DATA AT STOPS NORTH OF SAUSALITO, BUT EXCLUDES RIDERSHIP DATA FROM THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 60 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Golden Gate Transit Total Ferry Ridership 120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000 Numbrer of People of Numbrer 20,000

0

FIGURE 13 - GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT FERRY RIDERSHIP BY MONTH OF THE YEAR (FISCAL YEAR 2017) SOURCE: GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT, 2017.

Golden Gate Ferry Ridership - Bicycles 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 DRAFT

NUMBER NUMBER BICYCLES OF 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

2016 2017 AVERAGE (2012 - 2016)

FIGURE 14 – GOLDEN GATE FERRY RIDERSHIP – NUMBER OF BICYCLES SOURCE: CITY OF SAUSALITO, GOLDEN GATE FERRY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP DATA. NOTES: RIDERSHIP DATA REPRESENTS TOTAL PASSENGER BOARDING’S AND ALIGHTING’S AT THE FERRY LANDING IN SAUSALITO.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 61 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

ROADWAY COLLISION HISTORY The California Highway Patrol (CHP) regularly collects local police data on roadway collisions that occur along city roadways. The data is publicly-accessible via their online database, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). A review of the collisions that occurred within the City of Sausalito was conducted. The review included collisions that occurred from June 2012 through June 201713. In the last five years there have been a total of 448 collisions. Of these collisions, about five percent (21 collisions) were pedestrian-related and about 15 percent (65 collisions) were bicycle related. No collision-related fatalities occurred within the review period, however the collisions did result in about 140 injuries of varying severity. Within the five-year period, the largest number of collisions occurred in 2013 with a total of 101 collisions. In the following years the total number dropped to 76 collisions in 2014 and 77 collisions in 2015. However, in 2016 the total number of collisions rose to 97 collisions. On average, bicycle-related collisions constitute about 15 percent of total collisions and pedestrian collisions make up about five percent of collisions. Other collision types involve either two or more vehicles, or a vehicle and a stationary object (i.e., light poles, streetlights etc.). Within the last year of available data (June 2016 to June 2017) about 90 percent of collisions involving bicycles or pedestrians occurred along Bridgeway. The intersections of Bridgeway / Bay Street and Bridgeway / Harbor Street had the highest number of pedestrian/bicycle related collisions i.e., three and two collisions respectively.

TRAVEL MODES AND COMMUTE DATA Existing travel mode share estimates and average vehicle occupancy (AVO) rates for Sausalito work commute trips were developed based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Mode shares and AVO rates were based on the most recently available U.S. Census Bureau five- year estimates of commute DRAFTtrip travel behavior from 2011-2015. The census data provides estimates of the geographical location of Sausalito resident’s places of work i.e., within or outside of Marin County. These estimates are provided for the City of Sausalito in Table 7 and for Marin County in Table 8 below.

13 SWITRS collision data is available for up to seven months prior to the date a request is made. Collision data for the last half of 2017 is considered incomplete and was not included in this analysis.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 62 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

TABLE 9 – CITY OF SAUSALITO EMPLOYMENT LOCATION CENSUS ESTIMATES COMMUTE TO WORK SUMMARY MARIN COUNTY OUTSIDE MARIN OUTSIDE STATE TOTAL OUTSIDE HOME AT HOME COUNTY PERSONS 1,489 644 2,191 55 4,379 SHARE 34% 15% 50% 1% 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-Year estimates, 2017.

TABLE 10 – MARIN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT LOCATION CENSUS ESTIMATES COMMUTE TO WORK SUMMARY MARIN COUNTY OUTSIDE MARIN OUTSIDE STATE TOTAL OUTSIDE HOME AT HOME COUNTY PERSONS 68,646 12,800 45,017 715 127,178 SHARE 54% 10% 35% 1% 100%

Approximately half of Sausalito residents work outside of Marin County, compared to about 35 percent of residents in all of Marin County. Considering Sausalito’s proximity to the City of San Francisco, it is likely that the majority of these residents’ commute to work in San Francisco or locations further south. The next largest share of residents (34 percent) work within Marin County, this could include those that work within Sausalito as well as in other cities and towns in the county. Countywide, about 54 percent of residents work within the county. This could be in their city of residence or in neighboring cities. An additional 15 percent of Sausalito residents work within their homes in Sausalito, about five percent higher than the corresponding countywide share.

Census estimates are also provided for residents that do not work from home and instead commute to work in or around Marin County. These estimates are provided for Sausalito in Table 9 and Marin County in Table 10 below. DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 63 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

TABLE 11 – CITY OF SAUSALITO TRAVEL MODE SUMMARY CENSUS ESTIMATES TRAVEL MODE SUMMARY

VEHICLE TRANSIT BICYCLE WALK OTHER TOTAL PERSONS 2,654 748 189 136 8 3,735 SHARE 71% 20% 5% 4% > 1% 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-Year estimates, 2017.

TABLE 12 – MARIN COUNTY TRAVEL MODE SUMMARY CENSUS ESTIMATES TRAVEL MODE SUMMARY

VEHICLE TRANSIT BICYCLE WALK OTHER TOTAL PERSONS 94,695 12,358 2,096 4,126 1,103 114,378 SHARE 83% 11% 2% 4% 1% 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-Year estimates, 2017.

As shown, the majority of Sausalito commuters (71 percent) and Marin County Commuters (83 percent) travel to work by private vehicle. In Sausalito about 20 percent of commuters travel to work by public transit. At 11 percent, the countywide share of transit commuters is about half of Sausalito’s. Transit service includes bus and ferry services operating within City limits as well as connections to regional rail services. About five percent of Sausalito commuters travel by bicycle, this is more than double the countywide share (two percent) of bicycle commuters. The remaining portion of commuter’s travel by walking (approximately four percent) and by other means (less than one percent in Sausalito and one percent countywide). A review of the commuters that travel by private vehicle was also conducted to estimate the share of commuters that travel via single-occupancy vehicles (one person per vehicle) versus high-occupancy vehicles (two or more persons per vehicle). This review is summarized in Table 11 for Sausalito residents and Table 12 for Marin County residents. As shown, most Sausalito commuters travel by private single-occupancy vehicles (64 percent). This share is about 10 percent lower than the countywide share of single- occupancy vehicle commuters. Approximately seven percent of Sausalito vehicular commuters travel in high-occupancy vehicles. Countywide the share of high-occupancy vehicles is about two percent.DRAFT These vehicles have an average vehicle occupancy rate of 2.17 or 2.18 persons per vehicle in Sausalito and Marin County respectively.

TABLE 13 – CITY OF SAUSALITO VEHICLE OCCUPANCY CENSUS ESTIMATES VEHICULAR TRAVEL MODE SUMMARY SINGLE OCCUPANCY HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLES TOTAL VEHICLES PERSONS 2,386 268 3,735 SHARE 64% 7% 71% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-Year estimates, 2017.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 64 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

TABLE 14 – MARIN COUNTY VEHICLE OCCUPANCY CENSUS ESTIMATES VEHICULAR TRAVEL MODE SUMMARY SINGLE OCCUPANCY HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLES TOTAL VEHICLES PERSONS 83,912 10,783 94,695 SHARE 74% 9% 83% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-Year estimates, 2017.

Similarly, an analysis was conducted of transit ridership estimates to identify the different modes within transit ridership used by commuters. This summary is provided for Sausalito in Table 13 and for all of Marin County in Table 14 below.

TABLE 15 – CITY OF SAUSALITO TRANSIT RIDERSHIP SHARES BY MODE TRANSIT TRAVEL MODE SUMMARY

BUS FERRY RAILROAD TOTAL PERSONS 423 312 13 748 SHARE 11.3% 8.4% 0.3% 20.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-Year estimates, 2017.

TABLE 16 – MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP SHARES BY MODE TRANSIT TRAVEL MODE SUMMARY

BUS FERRY RAILROAD TOTAL PERSONS 7,412 4,720 226 12,358 SHARE 7% 4% <1% 11% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Five-Year estimates, 2017.

As shown, bus transit accounts for the majority of transit use within Marin County. These bus riders could include people travelling on local transit or regional transit lines. About 11 percent of Sausalito commuters travel by bus compared to about seven percent of countywide commuters. Regional transit via the Sausalito Ferry accounts for about eight percent of transit commutes in Sausalito. About four percent of countywide residents travel by Ferry. This includes ferry ridership on service providers at the Sausalito Ferry Landing as well as the Larkspur Ferry Landing. Less than one percent of transit commuters are estimated to travel via railroad.DRAFT As there are no railroad stops located within the Sausalito, this share likely represents people who conduct a portion of their commute by rail from stops located outside of the city. It should be noted that the latest census estimates date back to 2015 and do not include transit ridership with the 2017 introduction of the Sonoma- Marin Rail Transit service to and from the City of San Rafael.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 65 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

TRENDS IN TRANSPORTATION Advances in transportation technology and shifting attitudes towards automobile-centered travel has given rise to new trends in transportation. • The average annual vehicle miles traveled by young people (16- to 34-year old’s) in the U.S. decreased by more than 23 percent over the last 10 to 20 years. • By 2040 the number of hybrid and electric vehicles is expected to increase to about 50 percent of private motor vehicles. • Trends towards autonomous vehicles (i.e., self-driving cars) is expected to continue. In the future cities may need to consider autonomous vehicles when planning infrastructure improvements. • Car-sharing (e.g., Zipcar, GetAround etc.) and ride-sharing (e.g., Uber and Lyft) continue to gain popularity in place of vehicle ownership. • Water taxi companies (e.g., Tideline) offering commuter and recreational travel around the Bay. • Considerations for bicycle and pedestrian travel along major commuter roadways has propelled many commuters to choose walking and bicycling as a preferred mode of travel. • Real-time passenger information systems that track bus and rail arrival times has helped make transit a more attractive travel mode for many users.

Considerations for the General Plan Update:

• Several cities in the Bay Area have adopted Vision Zero strategies to eliminate all traffic fatalities and sever injuries along city streets. Vison Zero promotes several strategies aimed at reducing the occurrence of collisions: o Lowering speed limits; o Redesigning streets;DRAFT o Implementing meaningful behavior change campaigns; o Enhancing data-driven traffic enforcement.

Explore including Vision Zero strategies into the policies and programs of the General Plan.

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 66 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

APPENDICES

A. Vehicular Traffic Analysis B. Pedestrian Volumes C. Bicycle Volumes D. Transit Volumes E. Census Data

DRAFT

COMPREHENSIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: CH. 4 CIRCULATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT | 67 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

APPENDIX A - VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

DRAFT

Average Daily Traffic Volumes

DRAFT

City of Sausalito General Plan Update

Weekday Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Bridgeway

2500

2000

1500

1000

500 Traffic Volume Traffic 0

Time of Day

Weekday Average NB Weekday Average SB Weekday Average Total

Weekday ADT: 26,349 Vehicles

Weekend Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Bridgeway

2500

2000

1500

1000

500 Traffic Volume Traffic 0 DRAFT

Time of Day

Weekend Average NB Weekend Average SB Weekend Average Total

Weekend ADT: 21,014 Vehicles

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions Weekday Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Spencer Avenue

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Traffic Volume Traffic 100 0

Time of Day

Weekday Average EB Weekday Average WB Weekday Average Total

Weekday ADT: 3,169 Vehicles

Weekend Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Spencer Avenue

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Traffic Volume Traffic 100 0 DRAFT

Time of Day

Weekend Average EB Weekend Average WB Weekend Average Total

Weekend ADT: 3,140 Vehicles

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions Weekday Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Monte Mar Avenue

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Traffic Volume Traffic 100 0

Time of Day

Weekday Average EB Weekday Average WB Weekday Average Total

Weekday ADT: 1,732 Vehicles

Weekend Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Monte Mar Avenue

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Traffic Volume Traffic 100 0 DRAFT

Time of Day

Weekend Average EB Weekend Average WB Weekend Average Total

Weekend ADT: 1,496 Vehicles

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

Weekday Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Rodeo Avenue

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Traffic Volume Traffic 100 0

Time of Day

Weekday Average EB Weekday Average WB Weekday Average Total

Weekday ADT: 1,882 Vehicles

Weekend Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Rodeo Avenue

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Traffic Volume Traffic 100 0 DRAFT

Time of Day

Weekend Average EB Weekend Average WB Weekend Average Total

Weekend ADT: 1,788 Vehicles

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions Weekday Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Alexander Avenue

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Traffic Volume Traffic 100 0

Time of Day

Weekday Average NB Weekday Average SB Weekday Average Total

Weekday ADT: 5,801 Vehicles

Weekend Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Alexander Avenue

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Traffic Volume Traffic 100 0 DRAFT

Time of Day

Weekend Average NB Weekend Average SB Weekend Average Total

Weekend ADT: 7,880 Vehicles

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

Intersection Level of Service Analysis

DRAFT

City of Sausalito General Plan Update

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bridgeway & N. Bridge Blvd/Gate 6 Rd 11/30/2017 2: Bridgeway & Ebbtide Ave/Gate 5 Rd 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 235 73 794 31 33 42 253 843 42 14 74 100 Traffic Volume (vph) 39 3 7 27 3 150 13 878 25 72 785 35 Future Volume (vph) 235 73 794 31 33 42 253 843 42 14 74 100 Future Volume (vph) 39 3 7 27 3 150 13 878 25 72 785 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1723 2787 1818 1583 1770 3514 1770 3539 1583 Satd. Flow (prot) 1780 1583 1783 1583 1770 3525 1770 3517 Flt Permitted 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.24 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1243 1415 2787 1518 1583 1770 3514 549 3539 1583 Satd. Flow (perm) 1331 1583 1372 1583 1770 3525 448 3517 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.80 0.80 0.80 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 245 76 827 41 43 55 278 926 46 18 92 125 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 4 9 34 4 190 14 954 27 77 835 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 606 0 0 400500092 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00800165010020 Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 164 221 0 84 15 278 967 0 18 93 33 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 55 1 0 38 25 14 980 0 77 870 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Split NA Perm NA Perm Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.2 49.6 57.5 52.7 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.2 49.6 57.5 52.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.64 0.74 0.68 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 331 377 743 404 422 472 937 146 943 422 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 5.5 2.0 5.5 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.28 0.03 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 204 177 204 27 2258 414 2394 v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.01 c0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.28 c0.01 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.44 0.30 0.21 0.03 0.59 1.03 0.12 0.10 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 20.5 19.7 19.2 18.3 21.5 24.8 18.8 18.6 18.5 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.01 0.21 0.12 0.52 0.43 0.19 0.36 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay, d1 30.6 29.4 30.2 29.8 37.8 6.9 3.3 5.2 Incremental Delay, d2 4.8 3.6 1.0 1.2 0.2 5.3 37.9 1.7 0.2 0.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay (s) 25.6 24.2 20.7 20.4 18.5 26.8 62.6 20.5 18.8 18.9 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.2 15.8 0.6 0.1 0.4 Level of Service CCC CBCE CBB Delay (s) 31.4 29.4 30.6 30.0 53.6 7.5 3.4 5.7 Approach Delay (s) 21.9 19.6 54.7 19.0 Level of Service CC CCDA AA Approach LOS C B D B Approach Delay (s) 31.1 30.1 8.2 5.5 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A c Critical Lane Group Analysis Period (min) 15 DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bridgeway & Coloma St 11/30/2017 3: Bridgeway & Coloma St 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Movement SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 75 0 12 10 2 42 23 742 4 43 27 713 Traffic Volume (vph) 63 Future Volume (vph) 75 0 12 10 2 42 23 742 4 43 27 713 Future Volume (vph) 63 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Lane Util. Factor Frt 0.98 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt Flt Protected 0.96 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 1753 1652 1770 3537 1770 3496 Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted 0.75 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 1366 1572 1770 3537 1770 3496 Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.97 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 103 0 16 13 3 56 25 798 4 44 28 735 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 44 0 0 44 0010005 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 75 0 0 28 0 25 801 0 0 72 795 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Turn Type Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Protected Phases Permitted Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 11.3 1.8 25.8 4.1 28.1 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 11.3 1.8 25.8 4.1 28.1 Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.48 0.08 0.52 Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) 284 327 58 1683 133 1812 Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.23 c0.04 c0.23 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.27 0.08 0.43 0.48 0.54 0.44 v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 18.0 17.3 25.7 9.6 24.1 8.1 Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.1 2.4 0.1 Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) 18.2 17.3 27.6 9.7 26.5 8.2 Delay (s) Level of Service B B CA CA Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 18.2 17.3 10.2 9.7 Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS B B B A Approach LOS Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Bridgeway & Harbor Dr 11/30/2017 5: Bridgeway & Nevada St 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 27 5 4 40 2 79 4 420 126 276 678 14 Traffic Volume (vph) 68 31 33 607 576 63 Future Volume (vph) 27 5 4 40 2 79 4 420 126 276 678 14 Future Volume (vph) 68 31 33 607 576 63 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1788 1583 1681 1469 1504 1770 3417 1770 3529 Satd. Flow (prot) 1725 1770 3539 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1788 1583 1681 1469 1504 1770 3417 1770 3529 Satd. Flow (perm) 1725 626 3539 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 7 5 47 2 92 5 477 143 300 737 15 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 33 35 653 670 73 RTOR Reduction (vph) 005037420150000 RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 000033 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 43 0 42 13 7 5 605 0 300 752 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 90 0 35 653 670 40 Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Perm Protected Phases 7 7 3 3 5 2 1 6 Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 7 3 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.2 6.2 12.5 12.5 12.5 0.8 29.8 21.0 50.5 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 36.5 36.5 30.6 30.6 Effective Green, g (s) 6.2 6.2 12.5 12.5 12.5 0.8 29.8 21.0 50.5 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 36.5 36.5 30.6 30.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.34 0.24 0.58 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.65 0.65 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.5 1.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 127 112 241 211 216 16 1170 427 2048 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 335 442 2286 1916 857 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.02 0.01 0.00 c0.18 c0.17 0.21 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.00 c0.18 c0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.00 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.31 0.52 0.70 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.08 0.29 0.35 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 38.4 37.5 32.7 32.2 32.0 42.8 22.9 30.1 9.7 Uniform Delay, d1 19.3 3.9 4.3 7.3 6.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 4.0 0.9 5.2 0.3 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 39.0 37.5 33.0 32.3 32.1 46.9 23.7 35.3 10.0 Delay (s) 19.5 4.0 4.5 7.6 6.1 Level of Service DDCCCDC DB Level of Service B AAAA Approach Delay (s) 38.9 32.5 23.9 17.2 Approach Delay (s) 19.5 4.5 7.4 Approach LOS D C C B Approach LOS B AA Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Bridgeway & Spring St 11/30/2017 7: Bridgeway & Easterby St/Marinship Way 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 28 30 19 427 631 32 Traffic Volume (vph) 45 24 40 31 7 40 11 356 43 92 493 23 Future Volume (vph) 28 30 19 427 631 32 Future Volume (vph) 45 24 40 31 7 40 11 356 43 92 493 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1693 1770 3539 3514 Satd. Flow (prot) 1735 1790 1583 1770 3482 1770 3516 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 Flt Permitted 0.86 0.76 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1693 1770 3539 3514 Satd. Flow (perm) 1523 1407 1583 1770 3482 1770 3516 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.76 0.76 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.76 0.92 0.92 Growth Factor (vph) 100% 100% 89% 89% 100% 100% Adj. Flow (vph) 58 31 51 35 8 45 12 391 47 121 536 25 Adj. Flow (vph) 37 39 18 396 671 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 0 37070020 RTOR Reduction (vph) 32 00020 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 116 0 0 43 8 12 431 0 121 559 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 0 18 396 703 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 2 Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 17.6 17.6 3.2 56.4 10.0 63.2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 3.2 56.4 63.2 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 17.6 17.6 3.2 56.4 10.0 63.2 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 3.2 56.4 63.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.03 0.58 0.10 0.65 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.03 0.58 0.65 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.5 1.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 276 255 287 58 2024 182 2290 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 307 58 2057 2289 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.12 c0.07 c0.16 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.01 0.11 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.03 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.42 0.17 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.66 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.31 0.19 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 33.5 32.7 45.7 9.7 41.9 7.0 Uniform Delay, d1 33.4 45.8 9.6 7.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.47 0.44 Progression Factor 1.00 1.16 0.61 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 6.7 0.2 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 35.6 33.6 32.7 46.3 9.9 68.3 3.4 Delay (s) 33.4 54.3 6.0 7.7 Level of Service D CCDA EA Level of Service C DAA Approach Delay (s) 35.6 33.1 10.9 14.9 Approach Delay (s) 33.4 8.1 7.7 Approach LOS D C B B Approach LOS C AA Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group c Critical Lane Group DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Bridgeway & Johnson St 11/30/2017 10: Bay St & Bridgeway 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 57 6 41 14 8 45 13 309 6 29 398 24 Traffic Volume (vph) 41 101 228 0 0 409 Future Volume (vph) 57 6 41 14 8 45 13 309 6 29 398 24 Future Volume (vph) 41 101 228 0 0 409 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1782 1583 1806 1583 1770 1857 1770 1847 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1863 Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.54 1.00 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1413 1583 1611 1583 511 1857 1012 1847 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 7 49 17 10 54 15 359 7 33 452 27 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 105 268 0 0 435 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 37 0 0 40 000020 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 80 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 75 12 0 27 14 15 366 0 33 477 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 25 268 0 0 435 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Turn Type Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 4 5 2 1 6 Protected Phases 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 65.6 57.7 45.5 41.6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 18.9 18.9 Effective Green, g (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 65.6 57.7 45.5 41.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 8.5 18.9 18.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.66 0.58 0.46 0.42 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 354 397 404 397 589 1075 491 771 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 425 380 994 994 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.20 c0.00 c0.26 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.34 0.07 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.07 0.27 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 28.2 28.4 28.2 7.9 11.0 15.0 22.8 Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 10.4 4.5 5.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 3.7 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 Delay (s) 30.9 28.3 28.7 28.3 8.0 11.8 15.0 26.5 Delay (s) 10.5 10.4 5.1 6.3 Level of Service CC CCAB BC Level of Service BBA A Approach Delay (s) 29.9 28.5 11.7 25.7 Approach Delay (s) 10.4 5.1 6.3 Approach LOS C C B C Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 35.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Bridgeway & Princess St 11/30/2017 60: Pine St & Bridgeway 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 29 24 17 229 340 32 Traffic Volume (vph) 000000000000 Future Volume (vph) 29 24 17 229 340 32 Future Volume (vph) 000000000000 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Util. Factor Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 1702 1770 1863 1841 Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted 0.97 0.41 1.00 1.00 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 1702 755 1863 1841 Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 29 19 254 354 33 Adj. Flow (vph) 000000000000 RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 00040 RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 0 19 254 383 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 000000000000 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Turn Type Protected Phases 4 2 6 Protected Phases4826 Permitted Phases 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.43 Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) 789 322 796 787 Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.14 c0.21 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.32 0.49 v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 12.3 13.9 15.7 17.2 Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.4 1.1 2.1 Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) 12.4 14.3 16.8 19.3 Delay (s) Level of Service B BBB Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 12.4 16.6 19.3 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B BB Approach LOS AAAA Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.7% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 82: 11/30/2017 1: Bridgeway & N. Bridge Blvd/Gate 6 Rd 11/30/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 000000 Traffic Volume (vph) 235 73 794 31 33 42 253 843 42 14 74 100 Future Volume (vph) 000000 Future Volume (vph) 235 73 794 31 33 42 253 843 42 14 74 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) Satd. Flow (prot) 1681 1723 2787 1818 1583 1770 3514 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted Flt Permitted 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) Satd. Flow (perm) 1243 1415 2787 1518 1583 1770 3514 549 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 000000 Adj. Flow (vph) 245 76 827 41 43 55 278 926 46 18 92 125 RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 606 0 0 40 0500092 Lane Group Flow (vph) 000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 164 221 0 84 15 278 967 0 18 93 33 Turn Type Prot Perm Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Split NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 8 Protected Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) Lane Grp Cap (vph) 331 377 743 404 422 472 937 146 943 422 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.28 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.01 c0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio v/c Ratio 0.47 0.44 0.30 0.21 0.03 0.59 1.03 0.12 0.10 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 20.5 19.7 19.2 18.3 21.5 24.8 18.8 18.6 18.5 Progression Factor Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 Incremental Delay, d2 4.8 3.6 1.0 1.2 0.2 5.3 37.9 1.7 0.2 0.4 Delay (s) Delay (s) 25.6 24.2 20.7 20.4 18.5 26.8 62.6 20.5 18.8 18.9 Level of Service Level of Service CCC CBCE CBB Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach Delay (s) 21.9 19.6 54.7 19.0 Approach LOS A A A Approach LOS C B D B Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 22.5 Sum of lost time (s) 4.5 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Bridgeway & Ebbtide Ave/Gate 5 Rd 11/30/2017 3: Bridgeway & Coloma St 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 39 3 7 27 3 150 13 878 25 72 785 35 Traffic Volume (vph) 75 0 12 10 2 42 23 742 4 43 27 713 Future Volume (vph) 39 3 7 27 3 150 13 878 25 72 785 35 Future Volume (vph) 75 0 12 10 2 42 23 742 4 43 27 713 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.98 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1780 1583 1783 1583 1770 3525 1770 3517 Satd. Flow (prot) 1753 1652 1770 3537 1770 3496 Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.24 1.00 Flt Permitted 0.75 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1331 1583 1372 1583 1770 3525 448 3517 Satd. Flow (perm) 1366 1572 1770 3537 1770 3496 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 4 9 34 4 190 14 954 27 77 835 37 Adj. Flow (vph) 103 0 16 13 3 56 25 798 4 44 28 735 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00800165010020 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 44 0 0 44 0010005 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 55 1 0 38 25 14 980 0 77 870 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 75 0 0 28 0 25 801 0 0 72 795 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot NA pm+pt NA Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 2 Protected Phases 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 2 Permitted Phases 7 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.2 49.6 57.5 52.7 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 11.3 1.8 25.8 4.1 28.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.2 49.6 57.5 52.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 11.3 1.8 25.8 4.1 28.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.64 0.74 0.68 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.48 0.08 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 5.5 2.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 204 177 204 27 2258 414 2394 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 284 327 58 1683 133 1812 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.28 c0.01 0.25 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.23 c0.04 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.01 0.21 0.12 0.52 0.43 0.19 0.36 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.08 0.43 0.48 0.54 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 30.6 29.4 30.2 29.8 37.8 6.9 3.3 5.2 Uniform Delay, d1 18.0 17.3 25.7 9.6 24.1 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.2 15.8 0.6 0.1 0.4 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.1 2.4 0.1 Delay (s) 31.4 29.4 30.6 30.0 53.6 7.5 3.4 5.7 Delay (s) 18.2 17.3 27.6 9.7 26.5 8.2 Level of Service CC CCDA AA Level of Service B B CA CA Approach Delay (s) 31.1 30.1 8.2 5.5 Approach Delay (s) 18.2 17.3 10.2 9.7 Approach LOS C C A A Approach LOS B B B A Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.2 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Bridgeway & Coloma St 11/30/2017 4: Bridgeway & Harbor Dr 11/30/2017

Movement SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 63 Traffic Volume (vph) 13 11 3 108 4 275 9 567 132 182 482 27 Future Volume (vph) 63 Future Volume (vph) 13 11 3 108 4 275 9 567 132 182 482 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.86 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) Satd. Flow (prot) 1815 1583 1681 1461 1504 1770 3439 1770 3511 Flt Permitted Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) Satd. Flow (perm) 1815 1583 1681 1461 1504 1770 3439 1770 3511 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 15 4 110 4 281 9 585 136 194 513 29 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 00401131220100020 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 32 0 99 37 24 9 711 0 194 540 0 Turn Type Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases Protected Phases 7 7 3 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Permitted Phases 7 3 Actuated Green, G (s) Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 4.2 13.8 13.8 13.8 0.9 32.6 16.1 48.3 Effective Green, g (s) Effective Green, g (s) 4.2 4.2 13.8 13.8 13.8 0.9 32.6 16.1 48.3 Actuated g/C Ratio Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.39 0.19 0.57 Clearance Time (s) Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) Vehicle Extension (s) 1.5 1.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) Lane Grp Cap (vph) 90 78 275 239 246 18 1331 338 2014 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.06 0.03 0.01 c0.21 c0.11 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio v/c Ratio 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.16 0.10 0.50 0.53 0.57 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 38.0 31.3 30.2 29.9 41.4 19.9 30.9 9.0 Progression Factor Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 7.7 0.9 2.4 0.2 Delay (s) Delay (s) 39.6 38.0 32.0 30.5 30.1 49.2 20.8 33.3 9.2 Level of Service Level of Service DDCCCDC CA Approach Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) 39.4 30.7 21.2 15.6 Approach LOS Approach LOS D C C B Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 84.2 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Bridgeway & Nevada St 11/30/2017 6: Bridgeway & Spring St 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 68 31 33 607 576 63 Traffic Volume (vph) 29 23 4 12 644 685 48 Future Volume (vph) 68 31 33 607 576 63 Future Volume (vph) 29 23 4 12 644 685 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1725 1770 3539 3539 1583 Satd. Flow (prot) 1705 1770 3539 3505 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.53 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1725 626 3539 3539 1583 Satd. Flow (perm) 1705 980 3539 3505 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 33 35 653 670 73 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 28 4 12 671 729 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 000033 RTOR Reduction (vph) 23 000040 Lane Group Flow (vph) 90 0 35 653 670 40 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 0 0 17 671 776 0 Turn Type Prot pm+pt NA NA Perm Turn Type Prot custom Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 36.5 36.5 30.6 30.6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 7.6 57.8 58.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 36.5 36.5 30.6 30.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 7.6 57.8 58.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.65 0.65 0.54 0.54 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.08 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 335 442 2286 1916 857 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 316 76 2108 2110 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.00 c0.18 c0.19 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.19 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.08 0.29 0.35 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.22 0.32 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 19.3 3.9 4.3 7.3 6.1 Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 41.9 9.8 9.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor 1.00 1.39 0.49 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.5 Delay (s) 19.5 4.0 4.5 7.6 6.1 Delay (s) 33.0 58.9 5.2 10.4 Level of Service B AAAA Level of Service C EAB Approach Delay (s) 19.5 4.5 7.4 Approach Delay (s) 33.0 6.5 10.4 Approach LOS B AA Approach LOS C AB Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Bridgeway & Easterby St/Marinship Way 11/30/2017 7: Bridgeway & Easterby St/Marinship Way 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 33 5 29 94 10 51 2 28 537 23 5 30 Traffic Volume (vph) 554 28 Future Volume (vph) 33 5 29 94 10 51 2 28 537 23 5 30 Future Volume (vph) 554 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.94 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.99 Flt Protected 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1712 1782 1583 1770 3517 1770 Satd. Flow (prot) 3514 Flt Permitted 0.81 0.64 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.49 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1415 1198 1583 980 3517 909 Satd. Flow (perm) 3514 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 59 9 52 102 11 55 2 30 584 25 5 32 Adj. Flow (vph) 583 29 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 0 0 0 45 002000 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 89 0 0 113 10 0 32 607 0 0 37 Lane Group Flow (vph) 609 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm custom Prot NA custom Prot Turn Type NA Protected Phases 8 4 1 6 5 Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 1 5 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 7.6 57.8 8.2 Actuated Green, G (s) 58.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 7.6 57.8 8.2 Effective Green, g (s) 58.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.60 0.08 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.5 1.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 222 293 76 2095 76 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2115 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.09 0.01 0.03 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.34 0.51 0.03 0.42 0.29 0.49 v/c Ratio 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 34.3 35.5 32.4 42.6 9.6 42.4 Uniform Delay, d1 9.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.46 Progression Factor 0.37 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.3 1.7 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 34.6 36.2 32.4 44.0 9.9 63.4 Delay (s) 3.8 Level of Service C DC DA E Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 34.6 35.0 11.6 Approach Delay (s) 7.2 Approach LOS C C B Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 97.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Bridgeway & Johnson St 11/30/2017 10: Bay St & Bridgeway 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 57 6 41 14 8 45 13 309 6 29 398 24 Traffic Volume (vph) 41 101 228 0 0 409 Future Volume (vph) 57 6 41 14 8 45 13 309 6 29 398 24 Future Volume (vph) 41 101 228 0 0 409 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1782 1583 1806 1583 1770 1857 1770 1847 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1863 1863 Flt Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.54 1.00 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1413 1583 1611 1583 511 1857 1012 1847 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1863 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 68 7 49 17 10 54 15 359 7 33 452 27 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 105 268 0 0 435 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 37 0 0 40 000020 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 80 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 75 12 0 27 14 15 366 0 33 477 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 25 268 0 0 435 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Turn Type Perm Perm NA NA Protected Phases 8 4 5 2 1 6 Protected Phases 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 4 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 65.6 57.7 45.5 41.6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 18.9 18.9 Effective Green, g (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 65.6 57.7 45.5 41.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 8.5 18.9 18.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.66 0.58 0.46 0.42 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 8.0 8.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 354 397 404 397 589 1075 491 771 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 425 380 994 994 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.20 c0.00 c0.26 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.34 0.07 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.07 0.27 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 28.2 28.4 28.2 7.9 11.0 15.0 22.8 Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 10.4 4.5 5.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 3.7 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 Delay (s) 30.9 28.3 28.7 28.3 8.0 11.8 15.0 26.5 Delay (s) 10.5 10.4 5.1 6.3 Level of Service CC CCAB BC Level of Service BBA A Approach Delay (s) 29.9 28.5 11.7 25.7 Approach Delay (s) 10.4 5.1 6.3 Approach LOS C C B C Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 35.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Bridgeway & Princess St 11/30/2017 60: Pine St & Bridgeway 11/30/2017

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 29 24 17 229 340 32 Traffic Volume (vph) 000000000000 Future Volume (vph) 29 24 17 229 340 32 Future Volume (vph) 000000000000 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Util. Factor Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) 1702 1770 1863 1841 Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted 0.97 0.41 1.00 1.00 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 1702 755 1863 1841 Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 29 19 254 354 33 Adj. Flow (vph) 000000000000 RTOR Reduction (vph) 16 00040 RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 0 19 254 383 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 000000000000 Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Turn Type Protected Phases 4 2 6 Protected Phases4826 Permitted Phases 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) 38.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.43 Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) 789 322 796 787 Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.14 c0.21 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.32 0.49 v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 12.3 13.9 15.7 17.2 Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.4 1.1 2.1 Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) 12.4 14.3 16.8 19.3 Delay (s) Level of Service B BBB Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 12.4 16.6 19.3 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B BB Approach LOS AAAA Intersection Summary Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.7% ICU Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFTc Critical Lane Group

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Queues 82: 11/30/2017 1: Bridgeway & N. Bridge Blvd/Gate 6 Rd 11/30/2017

Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 164 827 84 55 278 972 18 93 125 Traffic Volume (vph) 000000 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.44 0.61 0.21 0.11 0.59 1.03 0.12 0.10 0.24 Future Volume (vph) 000000 Control Delay 26.5 24.9 4.0 20.9 2.2 27.5 64.7 21.4 19.0 5.7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost time (s) Total Delay 26.5 24.9 4.0 20.9 2.2 27.5 64.7 21.4 19.0 5.7 Lane Util. Factor Queue Length 50th (ft) 56 58 0 27 0 100 ~232 6 15 0 Frt Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 113 42 49 4 172 #346 18 27 26 Flt Protected Internal Link Dist (ft) 270 355 818 348 Satd. Flow (prot) Turn Bay Length (ft) 400 Flt Permitted Base Capacity (vph) 331 377 1349 404 493 472 942 146 943 513 Satd. Flow (perm) Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Adj. Flow (vph) 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 RTOR Reduction (vph) 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.44 0.61 0.21 0.11 0.59 1.03 0.12 0.10 0.24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 000000 Intersection Summary Turn Type Prot Perm ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Protected Phases 8 Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Permitted Phases 8 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Actuated Green, G (s) Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 22.5 Sum of lost time (s) 4.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 Page 1 Queues Queues 2: Bridgeway & Ebbtide Ave/Gate 5 Rd 11/30/2017 3: Bridgeway & Coloma St 11/30/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 9 38 190 14 981 77 872 Lane Group Flow (vph) 119 72 25 802 72 800 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.03 0.21 0.50 0.09 0.44 0.18 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.16 0.11 0.43 0.25 0.39 Control Delay 31.7 0.3 29.2 9.3 35.3 9.6 4.7 6.6 Control Delay 12.8 8.2 33.3 15.5 30.5 12.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.7 0.3 29.2 9.3 35.3 9.6 4.7 6.6 Total Delay 12.8 8.2 33.3 15.5 30.5 12.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 0 15 0 6 99 5 44 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 4 7 82 19 37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 0 35 31 26 254 31 221 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 23 36 242 75 223 Internal Link Dist (ft) 328 269 952 818 Internal Link Dist (ft) 207 387 630 952 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 275 Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 125 Base Capacity (vph) 473 608 488 686 472 2229 700 2514 Base Capacity (vph) 944 1084 938 3090 938 3057 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.28 0.03 0.44 0.11 0.35 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.26 0.08 0.26 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Page 3 Queues Queues 4: Bridgeway & Harbor Dr 11/30/2017 5: Bridgeway & Nevada St 11/30/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 5 42 50 49 5 620 300 752 Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 35 653 670 73 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.02 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.05 0.57 0.67 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.06 0.28 0.32 0.07 Control Delay 43.4 0.2 38.9 16.9 3.1 45.5 26.2 37.5 9.3 Control Delay 15.9 7.2 7.3 11.3 4.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 43.4 0.2 38.9 16.9 3.1 45.5 26.2 37.5 9.3 Total Delay 15.9 7.2 7.3 11.3 4.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 0 21 3 0 3 138 148 94 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 2 29 30 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 0 60 40 7 16 221 255 170 Queue Length 95th (ft) 65 19 121 160 21 Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 620 520 630 Internal Link Dist (ft) 419 1503 520 Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 100 300 Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 Base Capacity (vph) 696 671 654 598 640 355 2367 900 3234 Base Capacity (vph) 828 912 3535 3133 1410 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.26 0.33 0.23 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.04 0.18 0.21 0.05 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Page 5 Queues Queues 6: Bridgeway & Spring St 11/30/2017 7: Bridgeway & Easterby St/Marinship Way 11/30/2017

Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 18 396 705 Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 43 45 12 438 121 561 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.30 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.17 0.13 0.14 0.22 0.66 0.24 Control Delay 17.8 56.5 7.5 9.3 Control Delay 30.7 30.9 4.3 47.2 11.9 77.4 4.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.8 56.5 7.5 9.3 Total Delay 30.7 30.9 4.3 47.2 11.9 77.4 4.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 12 34 115 Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 20 0 7 73 81 27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 m36 50 161 Queue Length 95th (ft) 90 48 15 25 115 118 37 Internal Link Dist (ft) 394 373 1503 Internal Link Dist (ft) 296 604 1171 373 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 60 Base Capacity (vph) 465 273 2058 2352 Base Capacity (vph) 414 362 457 273 2032 273 2352 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.07 0.19 0.30 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.22 0.44 0.24 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Page 7 Queues Queues 9: Bridgeway & Johnson St 11/30/2017 10: Bay St & Bridgeway 11/30/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 75 49 27 54 15 366 33 479 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 105 268 435 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.33 0.06 0.63 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.19 0.22 0.36 Control Delay 30.7 4.9 28.3 6.0 5.8 12.3 7.6 27.6 Control Delay 13.4 4.4 7.2 8.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 30.7 4.9 28.3 6.0 5.8 12.3 7.6 27.6 Total Delay 13.4 4.4 7.2 8.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 0 13 0 3 120 6 231 Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 0 15 28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 16 32 19 9 175 16 329 Queue Length 95th (ft) 29 27 88 162 Internal Link Dist (ft) 694 671 697 681 Internal Link Dist (ft) 416 991 697 Turn Bay Length (ft) 52 75 125 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 360 453 410 453 596 1093 784 756 Base Capacity (vph) 1545 1395 1525 1525 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.33 0.04 0.63 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.08 0.18 0.29 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Page 9 Queues Queues 11: Bridgeway & Princess St 11/30/2017 60: Pine St & Bridgeway 11/30/2017

Lane Group Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 19 254 387 v/c Ratio v/c Ratio 0.08 0.06 0.32 0.49 Control Delay Control Delay 8.2 14.8 17.2 19.5 Queue Delay Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay Total Delay 8.2 14.8 17.2 19.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 6 85 138 Queue Length 95th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 18 140 217 Internal Link Dist (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) 532 1319 991 Turn Bay Length (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) Base Capacity (vph) 805 322 796 790 Starvation Cap Reductn Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 Spillback Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn 0000 Storage Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn 0000 Reduced v/c Ratio Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.06 0.32 0.49 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 Page 11 Queues Queues 82: 11/30/2017 1: Bridgeway & N. Bridge Blvd/Gate 6 Rd 11/30/2017

Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR v/c Ratio Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 164 827 84 55 278 972 18 93 125 Control Delay v/c Ratio 0.47 0.44 0.61 0.21 0.11 0.59 1.03 0.12 0.10 0.24 Queue Delay Control Delay 26.5 24.9 4.0 20.9 2.2 27.5 64.7 21.4 19.0 5.7 Total Delay Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) Total Delay 26.5 24.9 4.0 20.9 2.2 27.5 64.7 21.4 19.0 5.7 Queue Length 95th (ft) Queue Length 50th (ft) 56 58 0 27 0 100 ~232 6 15 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) 113 113 42 49 4 172 #346 18 27 26 Turn Bay Length (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) 270 355 818 348 Base Capacity (vph) Turn Bay Length (ft) 400 Starvation Cap Reductn Base Capacity (vph) 331 377 1349 404 493 472 942 146 943 513 Spillback Cap Reductn Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000 Intersection Summary Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.44 0.61 0.21 0.11 0.59 1.03 0.12 0.10 0.24 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 Page 1 Queues Queues 2: Bridgeway & Ebbtide Ave/Gate 5 Rd 11/30/2017 3: Bridgeway & Coloma St 11/30/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 9 38 190 14 981 77 872 Lane Group Flow (vph) 119 72 25 802 72 800 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.03 0.21 0.50 0.09 0.44 0.18 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.16 0.11 0.43 0.25 0.39 Control Delay 31.7 0.3 29.2 9.3 35.3 9.6 4.7 6.6 Control Delay 12.8 8.2 33.3 15.5 30.5 12.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 31.7 0.3 29.2 9.3 35.3 9.6 4.7 6.6 Total Delay 12.8 8.2 33.3 15.5 30.5 12.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 0 15 0 6 99 5 44 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 4 7 82 19 37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 0 35 31 26 254 31 221 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 23 36 242 75 223 Internal Link Dist (ft) 328 269 952 818 Internal Link Dist (ft) 207 387 630 952 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 275 Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 125 Base Capacity (vph) 473 608 488 686 472 2229 700 2514 Base Capacity (vph) 944 1084 938 3090 938 3057 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.28 0.03 0.44 0.11 0.35 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.26 0.08 0.26 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Page 3 Queues Queues 4: Bridgeway & Harbor Dr 11/30/2017 5: Bridgeway & Nevada St 11/30/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 4 99 150 146 9 721 194 542 Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 35 653 670 73 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.02 0.34 0.41 0.38 0.08 0.57 0.54 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.06 0.28 0.32 0.07 Control Delay 42.3 0.0 38.2 12.8 10.0 45.7 23.3 37.2 8.8 Control Delay 15.9 7.2 7.3 11.3 4.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 42.3 0.0 38.2 12.8 10.0 45.7 23.3 37.2 8.8 Total Delay 15.9 7.2 7.3 11.3 4.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 0 50 7 0 5 153 93 62 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 2 29 30 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 0 117 72 56 23 264 187 134 Queue Length 95th (ft) 65 19 121 160 21 Internal Link Dist (ft) 414 620 520 630 Internal Link Dist (ft) 419 1503 520 Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 100 300 Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 Base Capacity (vph) 749 706 694 682 707 377 2516 955 3240 Base Capacity (vph) 828 912 3535 3133 1410 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000 Storage Cap Reductn 000000000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.14 0.22 0.21 0.02 0.29 0.20 0.17 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.04 0.18 0.21 0.05 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 Page 5 Queues Queues 6: Bridgeway & Spring St 11/30/2017 7: Bridgeway & Easterby St/Marinship Way 11/30/2017

Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT Lane Group EBT WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 17 671 780 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 113 55 32 609 37 612 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.18 0.31 0.36 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.51 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.38 0.28 Control Delay 19.6 56.1 6.6 13.0 Control Delay 25.5 41.2 6.7 47.7 12.7 66.5 4.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 19.6 56.1 6.6 13.0 Total Delay 25.5 41.2 6.7 47.7 12.7 66.5 4.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 11 48 150 Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 57 0 19 114 25 28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 33 67 222 Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 109 23 46 167 58 37 Internal Link Dist (ft) 394 373 1503 Internal Link Dist (ft) 296 604 1171 373 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 60 Base Capacity (vph) 460 151 2167 2171 Base Capacity (vph) 392 308 457 151 2156 140 2176 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.11 0.31 0.36 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.37 0.12 0.21 0.28 0.26 0.28 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 Page 7 Queues Queues 9: Bridgeway & Johnson St 11/30/2017 10: Bay St & Bridgeway 11/30/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 75 49 27 54 15 366 33 479 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 105 268 435 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.33 0.06 0.63 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.19 0.22 0.36 Control Delay 30.7 4.9 28.3 6.0 5.8 12.3 7.6 27.6 Control Delay 13.4 4.4 7.2 8.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 30.7 4.9 28.3 6.0 5.8 12.3 7.6 27.6 Total Delay 13.4 4.4 7.2 8.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 0 13 0 3 120 6 231 Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 0 15 28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 16 32 19 9 175 16 329 Queue Length 95th (ft) 29 27 88 162 Internal Link Dist (ft) 694 671 697 681 Internal Link Dist (ft) 416 991 697 Turn Bay Length (ft) 52 75 125 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 360 453 410 453 596 1093 784 756 Base Capacity (vph) 1545 1395 1525 1525 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn 0000 Storage Cap Reductn 00000000 Storage Cap Reductn 0000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.33 0.04 0.63 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.08 0.18 0.29 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 Page 9 Queues Queues 11: Bridgeway & Princess St 11/30/2017 60: Pine St & Bridgeway 11/30/2017

Lane Group Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 19 254 387 v/c Ratio v/c Ratio 0.08 0.06 0.32 0.49 Control Delay Control Delay 8.2 14.8 17.2 19.5 Queue Delay Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay Total Delay 8.2 14.8 17.2 19.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 6 85 138 Queue Length 95th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 18 140 217 Internal Link Dist (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) 532 1319 991 Turn Bay Length (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) Base Capacity (vph) 805 322 796 790 Starvation Cap Reductn Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 Spillback Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn 0000 Storage Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn 0000 Reduced v/c Ratio Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.06 0.32 0.49 Intersection Summary Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 Page 11 Queues 82: 11/30/2017

Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary

DRAFT

Sausalito General Plan Update 5:00 pm 10/04/2017 Existing Conditions - PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 City of Sausalito General Plan Update

APPENDIX B - PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES

DRAFT

Weekday Average Daily Pedestrian Volumes - Gate 6 Pathway

60

50

40

30

20

10

Pedestrian Volume 0

Time of Day

Weekday NB Weekday SB Weekday Total

Weekday ADT: 129 Pedestrians

Weekend Average Daily Pedestrian Volumes - Gate 6 Pathway

60

50

40

30

20

10 Pedestrian Volumes 0 DRAFT

Time of Day

Weekend NB Weekend SB Weekend Total

Weekend ADT: 215 Pedestrians

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

City of Sausalito General Plan Update

APPENDIX C - BICYCLE VOLUMES

DRAFT

Weekday Average Daily Bicycle Volumes - Gate 6 Pathway

350 300 250 200 150 100

Bicycle Volume 50 0

Time of Day

Weekday NB Weekday SB Weekday Total

Weekday ADT: 669 Bicycles

Weekend Average Daily Bicycle Volumes - Gate 6 Pathway

350 300 250 200 150 100

Bicycle Volume 50 0 DRAFT

Time of Day

Weekend NB Weekend SB Weekend Total

Weekend ADT: 2,477 Bicycles

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

Spring 2015 Weekday Bicycle Volumes

800

700

600

500

400

300

Hourly Volume 200

100

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Time Starting

Northbound Southbound Total

Spring 2015 Saturday Bicycle Volumes

800

700

600

500

400 300 DRAFT

Hourly Volume 200

100

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Time Starting

Northbound Southbound Total

City of Sausalito General Plan Update

APPENDIX D - TRANSIT VOLUMES

DRAFT

Golden Gate Transit Ferry Ridership - Weekday

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000 Total Number Total Number of People

0

Northbound Southbound Total

Golden Gate Transit Ferry Ridership - Saturday

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000 DRAFT

5,000 Total Number Total Number of People

0

Northbound Southbound Total

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

Golden Gate Transit Ferry Ridership - Sunday

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 Total Number Total Number of People

0

Northbound Southbound Total

Golden Gate Transit Ferry Ridership - Weekday

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 DRAFT 60 40 20

Average Number People Number of Average 0

Northbound Southbound

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

Golden Gate Transit Ferry Ridership - Saturday

300

250

200

150

100

50

Average Number People Number of Average 0

Northbound Southbound

Golden Gate Transit Ferry Ridership - Sunday

300

250

200 150 DRAFT 100

50

Average Number People Number of Average 0

Northbound Southbound

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

Golden Gate Transit - Weekday by Route

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

Total Number Total Number of People 2,000

0

Route 2 Route 30 Route 92

Marin Transit Ridership - Weekday

20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 DRAFT 6,000 4,000

Total Number Total Number of People 2,000 0

Route 17 Route 61 Route 66/66F (Seasonal) Route 71X Route 17

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

Weekend Bus Transit Ridership - Saturday

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

Total Number Total Number of People 2,000

0

Marin Transit - Route 61 Marin Transit - Route 66/66F Marin Transit - Route 17

Weekend Bus Transit Ridership - Sunday

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000 6,000 DRAFT 4,000

2,000 Total Number Total Number of People

0

Marin Transit - Route 61 Marin Transit - Route 66/66F Golden Gate Transit - Route 30

Sausalito General Plan Update – Existing Conditions

City of Sausalito General Plan Update

APPENDIX E - CENSUS DATA

DRAFT

B08130 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK BY PLACE OF WORK--STATE AND COUNTY LEVEL Universe: Workers 16 years and over 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section.

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.

Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

Sausalito city, California Estimate Margin of Error Total: 4,379 +/-296 Worked in state of residence: 4,324 +/-277 Worked in county of residence 2,133 +/-263 Worked outside county of residence 2,191 +/-306 Worked outside state of residence 55 +/-74 Car, truck, or van - drove alone: 2,386 +/-291 Worked in state of residence: 2,376 +/-292 Worked in county of residence 1,047 +/-208 Worked outside county of residence 1,329 +/-259 Worked outside state of residence 10 +/-15 Car, truck, or van - carpooled: 268 +/-109 Worked in state of residence: 268 +/-109 Worked in county of residence 99 +/-83 Worked outside county of residence 169 +/-83 Worked outside state of residence 0 +/-17 Public transportation (excluding taxicab): DRAFT748 +/-182 Worked in state of residence: 748 +/-182 Worked in county of residence 145 +/-102 Worked outside county of residence 603 +/-184 Worked outside state of residence 0 +/-17 Walked: 136 +/-78 Worked in state of residence: 136 +/-78 Worked in county of residence 136 +/-78 Worked outside county of residence 0 +/-17 Worked outside state of residence 0 +/-17 Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means: 197 +/-105 Worked in state of residence: 152 +/-78 Worked in county of residence 62 +/-52 Worked outside county of residence 90 +/-60 Worked outside state of residence 45 +/-72 Worked at home 644 +/-185

1 of 2 09/22/2017 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

Workers include members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week.

While the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.

DRAFT

2 of 2 09/22/2017 B08301 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK Universe: Workers 16 years and over 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section.

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.

Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

Sausalito city, California Estimate Margin of Error Total: 4,379 +/-296 Car, truck, or van: 2,654 +/-330 Drove alone 2,386 +/-291 Carpooled: 268 +/-109 In 2-person carpool 222 +/-105 In 3-person carpool 46 +/-27 In 4-person carpool 0 +/-17 In 5- or 6-person carpool 0 +/-17 In 7-or-more-person carpool 0 +/-17 Public transportation (excluding taxicab): 748 +/-182 Bus or trolley bus 423 +/-175 Streetcar or trolley car (carro publico in Puerto Rico) 0 +/-17

Subway or elevated 0 +/-17 Railroad 13 +/-21 Ferryboat 312 +/-139 Taxicab DRAFT0 +/-17 Motorcycle 0 +/-17 Bicycle 189 +/-105 Walked 136 +/-78 Other means 8 +/-15 Worked at home 644 +/-185

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

Workers include members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week.

While the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget

1 of 2 09/22/2017 (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.

Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Explanation of Symbols:

1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.

DRAFT DRAFT CITY OF SAUSALITO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CONDTIONSDRAFT REPORT