Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Appeal of Approved 88-Bed Assisted Living Facility - 800 Mission Ave____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR CITY CLERK ONLY Council Meeting: 09/04/2018 Disposition: Resolution No. 14575 Agenda Item No: 7.a Meeting Date: September 4, 2018 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: Paul Jensen, Director Steve Stafford, Senior Planner City Manager Approval: ______________ TOPIC: APPEAL OF APPROVED 88-BED ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY – 800 MISSION AVENUE SUBJECT: DENIAL OF APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JULY 10, 2018 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT (UP17-030) AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 88-BED ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY (AEGIS) AT 800 MISSION AVENUE; CASE # AP18-002 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the Use Permit and the Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a new, 88-bed, assisted living facility. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The project proposes the development of a new, 88-bed, assisted living facility (“Aegis San Rafael”) with garage parking and site improvements on two vacant Downtown parcels. The project includes a request for Parking Modification, to allow the required 42 parking spaces for the project to be reduced to 40 on- site parking spaces. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the project, subject to adding the following conditions of approval: 1) accept the property owner’s voluntary proposal to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee payment, from $318,095.36 to $500,000 (Condition 20, ED17-090); 2) requiring the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), as prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, identifying strategies and recommendations for reducing employee/staff vehicle trips and minimizing parking and traffic impacts (Condition 3, UP17-030); and 3) reserve the City’s right to require additional traffic measures, such as pavement markings and signs, both on-site and off-site, to improve vehicle circulation (Condition 92, ED17-090). Three San Rafael residents have appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. Generally, the appeal points question the appropriateness of the proposed [commercial] use on a residentially-zoned site, the adequacy of the proposed parking, and the adequacy and process in determining the required affordable housing component. Staff finds that the appeal has no merit. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and determined that the project: complies with all applicable General Plan land use polices; the development standards for the High-Density Residential (HR1) District zone; and the required SAN RAFAEL THE CITY WITH A MISSION SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 criteria supporting the Parking Modification. Further, the findings for approval of both the Use Permit and the Environmental and Design Review Permits can be made. In addition, the Planning Commission required additional conditions of approval to further alleviate concerns regarding parking and parking impacts, adequacy of affordable housing and safety. BACKGROUND: History In 2006, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and conditionally approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow construction of a 36-unit multifamily residential condominium building on the site, with landscaping and drainage improvements. In 2007, a building permit was issued for the demolition of the prior historic motor court (formerly 1203 Lincoln Ave.) and the residential building (formerly 1211 Lincoln Ave.) on the site. All improvements on the site were subsequently demolished and the debris removed. In 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016, these project entitlements were extended both automatically by the State legislature (through extension of the approved subdivision map), and by the Planning Commission, and these entitlements just recently expired August 7, 2018. Current Proposed Project – Assisted Living Facility On October 19, 2017, the new owner of the site submitted Use Permit (UP17-030) and Environmental Design Review Permit applications proposing a new project; an 88-bed, assisted living facility with garage parking and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The application included a request for a Parking Modification to reduce the required on-site parking, from 42 to 40 parking spaces. On June 5, 2018, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the proposed building and site design and unanimously recommended approval of the proposed site and building design, including the request for Parking Modification, subject to final review of landscaping, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace details. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved the project and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 18-04 (on a 4-2-1 vote, with Robertson and Schoppert nay and Lubamersky absent), Use Permit (UP17-030), and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17- 090), subject to adding the following as conditions: 1) Accept the property owner’s voluntary offer to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee payment, from $318,095.36 to $500,000; 2) Require the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), as prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, identifying strategies and recommendations for reducing employee/staff vehicle trips and minimizing parking and traffic impacts; and 3) Reserve the right to require additional traffic measures, such as pavement markings and signs, both on-site and off-site, to improve vehicle circulation. The entire 7/10/18 staff report to Planning Commission with exhibits can be found on the City’s website. A copy of the approved project plans are included as part of the 7/10/18 Planning Commission staff report On July 17, 2018, three (3) San Rafael residents collectively filed an appeal (Attachment 2) of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. Generally, the appeal points question the proposed commercial use on a residential-zoned site, the adequacy of the proposed parking, and the adequacy and process in determining the required affordable housing component. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 Video proceedings of both the Board meeting and the Planning Commission hearing can be viewed at www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. ANALYSIS: On July 17, 2018, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project was filed by a group of three (3) residents. Generally, the appeal letter asserts that the project approval is not in accordance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, the appeal lists three (3) points of appeal which are paraphrased by staff below and followed by staff’s response. In addition, the applicant has provided their written response to the appeal letter (Attachment 3). Appeal Point #1 - The project approval is not in accordance with the General Plan and findings required to approve the Use Permit. Response: General Plan consistency is determined by reviewing and weighing the goals and policies of all elements of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. Both the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and case law interpreting general plan requirements recognize that the General Plan is a collection of competing goals and policies, which must be read together and not in isolation. In reviewing a project for consistency with the General Plan, the City is required to ‘balance’ the competing goals and policies. Case law has determined that a project “need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy” and that “no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in the General Plan, and that state law does not impose such a requirement.” (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association vs. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704). The project has been reviewed for consistency with the San Rafael General Plan 2020. A complete analysis of the pertinent policies and programs is presented in the General Plan Consistency Table (Exhibit 4; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet). Overall, while the project has the potential to conflict with one or more General Plan policies, it would be consistent with most of the applicable General Plan policies. The subject property is a choice housing site for any sort of housing due to its close proximity to the Downtown and the project proposes residential development, where residents, guests and staff would re-activate a portion of Lincoln and Mission Aves. and help contribute to the City’s long-term goal of creating ‘alive after 5’ activity in the Downtown and provide economic opportunities to Downtown businesses. The City supports the development of housing, at all levels, to help meet the needs of all San Rafael residents; this includes our older population. The proposed project would assist the City in its goal of providing options for older residents who wish to “age-in-place”. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved the project, including the Use Permit to allow the proposed “large residential care facility” use on the site. At that time, the Planning Commission determined that all findings were adequately met, including consistency with the applicable General Plan policies. A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the findings required for Use Permit approval is presented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet). Appeal Point #2 – The project proposes a commercial use on a residential-zoned site. Response: The site is located within the High Density Residential (HR1) District zoning. All densities of housing are permitted on the site by right. However, residential care facilities, which include assisted living facilities such as this project, are also allowed on the site with a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined the project proposes a commercially-operated residential use (assisted living facility) and is comparable to a hotel use. The proposed facility would provide SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 rooms or suites without individual kitchens and offer ancillary service opportunities to the residents like communal dining options, fitness, barber/salon, cinema and activities areas. None of these services would be available to the public or non-residents. Although a good case could be made that conventional, residential market rate housing in this prime downtown location may be a better use for the City and Downtown, the issue is that the City’s regulations, including both the General Plan 2020 and the Zoning Ordinance, allow for both market rate housing and assisted living facility uses in the High Density Residential General plan land use designation and the High Density Residential Zoning District. This assisted living facility is considered a residential care facility (large) under the Zoning Ordinance. Residential Care Facilities (large) for non-disabled persons are a conditionally permitted use in the Zoning District. Therefore, the use is allowable, and the use permit allows the city to screen for potential impact and apply conditions. Denial of the use solely based on the type of use is not legally permissible. The Commission grappled with this consideration in their deliberations. Ultimately, they did find that although they would rather see market rate housing at this site, the City does not have the authority to deny the use based on the use itself. There is also a need for senior housing throughout the community to allow seniors in need of care to move out of larger single-family homes into smaller units or care facilities, thereby freeing up larger market rate dwellings for families. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved the Use Permit, and the Environmental and Design Review Permit, subject to adding three new conditions, two of which were intended to further mitigate unforeseeable impacts of this commercially-operated residential use. One of these new conditions (Condition 3; UP17-030) requires the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, for identifying strategies and recommendations for reducing employee/staff vehicle trips and minimizing parking and traffic impacts. This TDMP is subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Community Development Department, who reserve the right to require modifications to the TDMP. The applicant also agrees to incorporate all recommendations outlined in the TDMP, including modifications required by the City, during the occupancy of the site by the approved use. In another of these new conditions (Condition 92; ED17-090), the Department of Public Works/City Engineer reserves the right to further review traffic conditions, both on- and off-site circulation patterns generated by the use, and require improvements, such as pavement striping and signage. The applicant also agrees to incorporate these recommended on- and off-site improvements. Appeal Point #3 - The parking proposed by the project is inadequate. Response: The Zoning Ordinance identifies parking requirements for residential care facilities. The adopted parking standards for ‘large’ residential care facilities, like this project, require the following parking: • One (1) parking space for each five (5) clients; plus • One (1) parking space for each staff person or employee on a maximum staffed shift. Of the 88 beds proposed by the project, 63 beds are proposed in the assisted living portion and 25 beds are proposed in the memory care portion. These 63 beds of assisted living would require 13 on- site parking spaces for the residents. The 25 beds of memory care would create no parking demand since memory care residents are prohibited from vehicle ownership due to cognitive difficulties. In addition, 29 on-site parking spaces would be also required for the maximum anticipated staffed shift of 29 employees. The total required parking for the project is 42 on-site parking spaces. The project proposes to provide 40 on-site parking spaces. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 Therefore, the project includes a request for a Parking Modification, through the Use Permit application submittal, to reduce the parking requirement by two (2) parking spaces, from 42 to 40 on- site parking spaces, based on the historic operational needs from other Aegis assisted living facilities similar in size of the project. The project supported this request with a traffic and parking study prepared by Transpogroup, dated May 30, 2018 (Exhibit 6 of 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet). which anticipates peak parking demand of 31 parking spaces for residents, guest and staff, based on a proposed 88-bed assisted living facility. All requests for Parking Modification require the review and recommendation of both the Community Development Director and the City Engineer, and the approval of the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director, through Planning staff, and the City Engineer support this request for Parking Modification, concurring with the analysis and findings in the submitted traffic and parking study, and determining that parking demand would be further reduced by the site’s close proximity to the adjacent SMART Downtown station and the Bettini Transit Center which is located approximately 1,000’ southeast of the site. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved the project, including the Parking Modification request, subject to adding three new conditions that included the requirement that the applicant submit a TDMP, as prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, identifying strategies and recommendations for reducing employee/staff vehicle trips and minimizing parking and traffic impacts and the applicant agrees to incorporate these TDMP recommendations (Condition 3, UP17-030). Appeal Point #4 - The process for determining the affordable housing requirement during the Planning Commission hearing was flawed and the affordable housing requirement itself is inadequate. Response: Section 14.16.030 of San Rafael Municipal Code Title 14 (“the Zoning Ordinance”) requires all that all residential and non-residential development projects comply with the City’s adopted inclusionary (affordable) housing requirement. For residential projects, a certain percentage of the total units are required to be set aside as affordable, with the amount of required affordability ranging from 10%-20%, depending on the size of the development. Section 14.16.030 also requires affordable housing for non-residential project based on the affordable housing need that would be generated by the employment from the new non-residential use. For non-residential developments, the requirement can be satisfied through the creation of on-site units or more commonly, through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Historically, it has been difficult to administer the affordable housing requirement for assisted living facility types of projects, given that, aside from the rent/housing component to the use, there is also a service component (medical, food, care, etc.) of the use which would not be subject to the affordable housing ordinance. For example, if the affordable housing requirement was imposed on a care facility such as this, the rent/housing portion of the unit would be set at affordable rates, but the non-housing services (care/services/medical) would not. That would put residents who qualify for affordable unit in a care facility in a difficult position of having the discounted rent for which they qualify, but not being able to afford the care/medical/service costs. The General Plan includes a policy goal (Housing Policy H-12c) which encourages staff to explore the feasibility of requiring affordable housing units in assisted living facilities as, for example, reduced housing costs uncoupled from and access to market-rate services costs. Since the adoption of the current General Plan, the City has approved a total of two (2) assisted living facilities, both within the past eight (8) months. Until recently, staff has not seen the urgent need to review the affordable housing requirement for assisted living facilities. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 This project proposes an assisted living facility with memory care services, which is subject to the non-residential inclusionary housing requirement. The Zoning Ordinance includes a table (SRMC Table 14.16.030-3) with the number of affordable units required by development type. There are only five development categories listed in the table: 1) office/R&D, 2) retail/restaurant/personal services, 3) manufacturing/light industrial, 4) warehouse or 5) hotel uses. For other uses, the Community Development Director is tasked to determine the number of units based on comparable factors to the uses that are listed in the development categories. The proposed facility would provide rooms or suites without individual kitchens and offer ancillary services to the residents like communal dining options (both indoor and outdoor), fitness, barber/salon, cinema and activities areas, in which some of these services would not be typically found in a hotel. Therefore, it was determined to be appropriate to apply a hybrid rate for determining the affordable housing requirement linkage fee. The proposed facility is 64,054 square feet in size and would employ 73 service employees within a 24-hour period (3 work shifts). Applying both the hotel (0.0075 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) and personal service rates (0.0225 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) identified in Zoning Ordinance Table 14.16.030 – 3, the Community Development Director has determined an average non-residential affordable housing rate of 0.015 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft., which translates to 0.96 low income units or an affordable housing in-lieu fee of approximately $318,095.36 for the project, using the current affordable housing in-lieu fee of $331,070.00 per unit. This was consistent with the rationale and formula used recently for the only other assisted living facility processed since the adoption of this Ordinance in 2005 (Oakmont Senior Living at 3773 Redwood Hwy.) The Planning Commission grappled with this issue during the hearing and struggled with whether assisted living uses should be subject to the residential or non-residential inclusionary housing requirement. Further, the Commission believed that the need for affordable housing units generated by this type of land use should be greater than the 0.96 unit. During the Planning Commission hearing on the project, the property owner voluntarily offered to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee payment, from $318,095.36 to $500,000. At the hearing, staff presented the Planning Commission the option to continue their review of the project so that this offer, and the project’s proposed affordable housing, could be studied further. Instead, using its independent review authority, the Planning Commission approved the project and accepted the property owner’s voluntary offer to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee payment (Condition 20, ED17-090). Staff would like to report that early discussions with the applicant focused on the possibility of providing on-site inclusionary residency for qualifying assisted living residences. This approach was taken with the Aegis of Corte Madera project, but is has been found to be challenging and problematic. While the qualifying assisted living resident would pay a reduced, affordable monthly rent rate, the resident would still pay market-rate for the level of assistance that is needed. An option that wasn’t fully explored by the Planning Commission would be to build several affordable residential units on- site, within the assisted living facility, for qualifying employees (workforce housing). Consistent with our inclusionary housing policies and regulations, these units could be deed restricted for employees of the facility, with a caveat that if no employees utilize or qualify for the units, the affordable units be put into the general affordable housing inventory. Staff has met with the applicant to present this option, but it has not received support. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Since the appeal was filed, staff has met individually with a presentative of both the appellants and the applicant to answer substantive and procedural questions. In addition, staff presented a brief summary of the project to the City Council-Economic Development Subcommittee where representatives of both the appellants and the applicant provided brief statements. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 The project review has included two public hearings before the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Video proceedings from these hearings may be reviewed at the City’s website at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings. All public comments received by staff on the project prior to the Planning Commission hearing are included as Exhibit 8 of the 7/10/18 Planning Commission meeting agenda packet. Notice of all public hearings on the project, including this appeal to the City Council, has been conducted in accordance with the public review period and noticing requirements contained in Chapter 14.29 of the Zoning Ordinance. All notices of public meeting or hearing on the project were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site and the representing neighborhood group (Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association) at least 15 days prior to each meeting or hearing. In addition, notice of each hearing was posted at the site, at the northwest corner of the Lincoln Avenue and Mission Avenue intersection, at least 15 days prior to each hearing. Copies of the public hearing notice and notification map for the City Council hearing is provided (Attachment 4). All correspondence received by staff after the Planning Commission hearing are included as Attachment 5. In general, there has been both comments in support and in opposition to the project throughout the public process. Comments in support wish to see housing, any sort of housing through particularly housing to accommodate seniors, in the Downtown and San Rafael, believe senior housing communities minimize impacts, and like the Mission Revival-like architecture. Comments opposed have focused on generally the same as those outlined in the appeal. FISCAL IMPACT: The review and processing of this project is a private development and would have no direct fiscal impact on the City budget, given that the review, including the appeal, is subject to cost recovery fees paid by the applicant. The project would generate eight (8) new net peak hour vehicle trips, which would be subject to the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $33,968 (8 x $4,246/new peak hour traffic trip) by the applicant to assist in funding needed off-site transportation improvements. All utility connections (sewer, water, gas/electric) will be constructed at the cost of the property owner. Further, all public improvements along the site frontages, both Lincoln and Mission Avenues) will be constructed at the cost of the property owner. The costs associated with processing the planning applications for this project, including this appeal, are borne by the applicant and are subject to 100 percent cost recovery of staff time associated with the review and processing of the project. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the project. 2. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the project with modifications or additions to the conditions of approval. 3. Continue the matter and direct staff to return with additional information to address any comments or concerns of the City Council. 4. Direct staff to return with a revised resolution granting the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission decision, thereby denying the project. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the project and upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the assisted living facility. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission’s Condition Approval 2. Letter of Appeal to City Council from Brandy Wilson, Kay Law and Susan Adler, dated July 16, 2018 3. Letter from applicant in response to appeal, dated August 24, 2018 4. Public Hearing Notice and Notification Map 5. Public Comments since the 7/10/18 Planning Commission hearing ATTACHMENT 1 -1 RESOLUTION NO. 14575 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP18-002) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JULY 10, 2018 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT (UP17-030) AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED17-090) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 88-BED, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH GARAGE PARKING SPACES AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS (GRADING, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING) ON TWO VACANT DOWNTOWN LOTS LOCATED AT 800 MISSION AVE. (FORMERLY 1203 AND 1211 LINCOLN AVE.; APNS: 011-184-08 & -09) WHEREAS, on August 7, 2006, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and conditionally approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow demolition of an historic motor court and construction of a 36-unit multifamily residential condominium building on the project site; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007, a building permit was issued for the demolition of the prior historic motor court at 1203 Lincoln Ave. and the residential building on the adjacent parcel, at 1211 Lincoln Ave., and all improvements on these parcels were subsequently demolished and removed; and WHEREAS, in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016, the project entitlements were extended either automatically by the State legislature, through extension of the approved subdivision map, or by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the approved entitlements on the site expired on August 7, 2018; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2017, the new owners of the site submitted Use Permit (UP17-030) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090) applications, proposing a new project: a new, 88-bed assisted living facility with memory care services, garage parking spaces, landscaping, drainage and vehicle access improvements on the site; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2018, the City of San Rafael Design Review Board (Board) conducted a duly-noticed public meeting and reviewed the proposed new project and unanimously recommended approval conditioned on the project returning to the Board for final review of details on landscaping, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace areas, prior to building permit issuance; and WHEREAS, the proposed project changes have been reviewed with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and staff has found that since the historic motor court was demolished in 2007, the proposed project is now eligible for a categorical exemption to CEQA review (Class 32; In-Fill Development Projects) with the mitigation measures from the original EIR requiring documentation of the prior historic motor court on the project site as a condition to allow the CEQA exemption; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2018, the San Rafael Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held a duly-noticed public hearing on the new project, including a Use Permit (UP17-030) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090), accepted all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department Planning staff, and closed said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-04 (4-2-1 vote; Robertson and Schoppert nay and Lubamersky absent), approving the Use Permit (UP17-030) and the ATTACHMENT 1 -2 Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090) and accepting the CEQA determination, subject to the following additional conditions: 1) Accept the property owner’s voluntary offer to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee payment, from $318,095.36 to $500,000; 2) Require the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), as prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, identifying strategies and recommendations for reducing employee/staff vehicle trips and minimizing parking and traffic impacts; and 3) Reserve the right to require additional traffic measures, such as pavement markings and signs, both on-site and off-site, to improve vehicle circulation; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action was filed by a group of three (3) residents. Generally, the appeal points question the proposed commercial use on a residential-zoned site, the adequacy of the proposed parking, and the adequacy and process in determining the required affordable housing component.; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal (AP18-002), accepting and considering all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department Planning staff; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (AP18-002) finding and determining that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal Point #1 - The project approval is not in accordance with the General Plan and findings required to approve the Use Permit. Response: General Plan consistency is determined by reviewing and weighing the goals and policies of all elements of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. Both the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and case law interpreting general plan requirements recognize that the General Plan is a collection of competing goals and policies, which must be read together and not in isolation. In reviewing a project for consistency with the General Plan, the City is required to ‘balance’ the competing goals and policies. Case law has determined that a project “need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy” and that “no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in the General Plan, and that state law does not impose such a requirement.” (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association vs. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704). The project has been reviewed for consistency with the San Rafael General Plan 2020. A complete analysis of the pertinent policies and programs is presented in the General Plan Consistency Table (Exhibit 4; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet). Overall, while the project has the potential to conflict with one or more General Plan policies, it would be consistent with most of the applicable General Plan policies. The subject property is a choice housing site for any sort of housing due to its close proximity to the Downtown and the project proposes residential development, where residents, guests and staff would re-activate a portion of Lincoln and Mission Aves. and help contribute to the City’s long -term goal of creating ‘alive after 5’ activity in the Downtown and provide economic opportunities to Downtown businesses. The City supports the development of housing, at all levels, to help meet the needs of all San Rafael residents; this includes our older population. The proposed project would assist the City in its goal of providing options for older residents who wish to “age-in-place”. ATTACHMENT 1 -3 On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved the project, including the Use Permit to allow the proposed “large residential care facility” use on the site. At that time, the Planning Commission determined that all findings were adequately met, including consistency with the applicable General Plan policies. A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the findings required for Use Permit approval is presented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet). Appeal Point #2 – The project proposes a commercial use on a residential-zoned site. Response: The site is located within the High Density Residential (HR1) District zoning. All densities of housing are permitted on the site by right. However, residential care facilities, which include assisted living facilities such as this project, are also allowed on the site with a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined the project proposes a commercially-operated residential use (assisted living facility) and is comparable to a hotel use. The proposed facility would provide rooms or suites without individual kitchens and offer ancillary service opportunities to the residents like communal dining options, fitness, barber/salon, cinema and activities areas. None of these services would be available to the public or non-residents. Although a good case could be made that conventional, residential market rate housing in this prime downtown location may be a better use for the City and Downtown, the issue is that the City’s regulations, including both the General Plan 2020 and San Rafael Municipal Code Title 14 (the “Zoning Ordinance”), allow for both market rate housing and assisted living facility uses in the High Density Residential General plan land use designation and the High Density Residential Zoning District. This assisted living facility is considered a residential care facility (large) under the Zoning Ordinance. Residential Care Facilities (large) for non-disabled persons are a conditionally permitted use in the Zoning District. Therefore, the use is allowable, and the use permit allows the city to screen for potential impact and apply conditions. Denial of the use solely based on the type of use is not legally permissible. The Commission grappled with this consideration in their deliberations. Ultimately, they did find that although they would rather see market rate housing at this site, the City does not have the authority to deny the use based on the use itself. There is also a need for senior housing throughout the community to allow seniors in need of care to move out of larger single- family homes into smaller units or care facilities, thereby freeing up larger market rate dwellings for families On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved the Use Permit, and the Environmental and Design Review Permit, subject to adding three new conditions, two of which were intended to further mitigate unforeseeable impacts of this commercially-operated residential use. One of these new conditions (Condition 3; UP17-030) requires the applicant to submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, for identifying strategies and recommendations for reducing employee/staff vehicle trips and minimizing parking and traffic impacts. This TDMP is subject to review and approva l by the Department of Public Works and Community Development Department, who reserve the right to require modifications to the TDMP. The applicant also agrees to incorporate all recommendations outlined in the TDMP, including modifications required by the City, during the occupancy of the site by the approved use. In another of these new conditions (Condition 92; ED17-090), the Department of Public Works/City Engineer reserves the right to further review traffic conditions, both on- and off- site circulation patterns generated by the use, and require improvements, such as pavement striping and signage. The applicant also agrees to incorporate these recommended on- and off-site improvements. Appeal Point #3 - The parking proposed by the project is inadequate. ATTACHMENT 1 -4 Response: The Zoning Ordinance identifies parking requirements for residential care facilities. The adopted parking standards for ‘large’ residential care facilities, like this project, require the following parking: •One (1) parking space for each five (5) clients; plus •One (1) parking space for each staff person or employee on a maximum staffed shift. Of the 88 beds proposed by the project, 63 beds are proposed in the assisted living portion and 25 beds are proposed in the memory care portion. These 63 beds of assisted living would require 13 on-site parking spaces for the residents. The 25 beds of memory care would create no parking demand since memory care residents are prohibited from vehicle ownership due to cognitive difficulties. In addition, 29 on-site parking spaces would be also required for the maximum anticipated staffed shift of 29 employees. The total required parking for the project is 42 on -site parking spaces. The project proposes to provide 40 on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the project includes a request for a Parking Modification, through the Use Permit application submittal, to reduce the parking requirement by two (2) parking spaces, from 42 to 40 on-site parking spaces, based on the historic operational needs from other Aegis assisted living facilities similar in size of the project. The project supported this request with a traffic and parking study prepared by Transpogroup, dated May 30, 2018 (Exhibit 6 of 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet). which anticipates peak parking demand of 31 parking spaces for residents, guest and staff, based on a proposed 88-bed assisted living facility. All requests for Parking Modification require the review and recommendation of both the Community Development Director and the City Engineer, and the approval of the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director, through Planning staff, and the City Engineer support this request for Parking Modification, concurring with the analysis and findings in the submitted traffic and parking study, and determining that parking demand would be further reduced by the site’s close proximity to the adjacent SMART Downtown station and the Bettini Transit Center which is located approximately 1,000’ southeast of the site. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved the project, including the Parking Modification request, subject to adding three new conditions that included the requirement that the applicant submit a TDMP, as prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, identifying strategies and recommendations for reducing employee/staff vehicle trips and minimizing parking and traffic impacts and the applicant agrees to incorporate these TDMP recommendations (Condition 3, UP17-030). Appeal Point #4 - The process for determining the affordable housing requirement during the Planning Commission hearing was flawed and the affordable housing requirement itself is inadequate. Response: The Zoning Ordinance (Section 14.16.030) requires that all residential and non- residential development projects comply with the City’s adopted inclusionary (affordable) housing requirement. For residential projects, a certain percentage of the total units as affordable are required to be set aside as affordable, with the amount of required affordability ranging from 10%- 20%, depending on the size of the development. Section 14.16.030 also requires affordable housing for non-residential project based on the affordable housing need that would be generated by the employment from the new non-residential use. For non-residential developments, the requirement can be satisfied through the creation of on-site units or more commonly, through the payment of an in-lieu fee. ATTACHMENT 1 -5 Historically, it has been difficult to administer the affordable housing requirement fo r assisted living facility types of projects, given that the aside from the rent/housing component to the use, there is also a service component (medical, food, care, etc.) of the use which would not be subject to the affordable housing ordinance. For example, if the affordable housing requirement was imposed on a care facility such as this, the rent/housing portion of the unit would be set at affordable rates, but the non-housing services (care/services/medical) would not. That would put residents who qualify for affordable unit in a care facility in a difficult position of having the discounted rent for which they qualify, but not being able to afford the care/medical/service costs. The General Plan includes a policy goal (Housing Policy H-12c) which encourages staff to explore the feasibility of requiring affordable housing units in assisted living facilities as, for example, reduced housing costs uncoupled from and access to market-rate services costs. Since the adoption of the current General Plan, the City has approved a total of two (2) assisted living facilities, both within the past eight (8) months. Until recently, staff has not seen the urgent need to review the affordable housing requirement for assisted living facilities. This project proposes an assisted living facility with memory care services, which is subject to the non-residential inclusionary housing requirement. The Zoning Ordinance includes a table (SRMC Table 14.16.030-3) with the number of affordable units required by development type. There are only five development categories listed in the table: 1) office/R&D, 2) retail/restaurant/personal services, 3) manufacturing/light industrial, 4) warehouse or 5) hotel uses. For other uses, the Community Development Director is tasked to determine the number of units based on comparable factors to the uses that are listed in the development categories. The proposed facility would provide rooms or suites without individual kitchens and offer ancillary services to the residents like communal dining options (both indoor and outdoor), fitness, barber/salon, cinema and activities areas, in which some of these services would not be typically found in a hotel. Therefore, it was determined to be appropriate to apply a hybrid rate for determining the affordable housing requirement linkage fee. The proposed facility is 64,054 square feet in size and would employ 73 service employees within a 24-hour period (3 work shifts). Applying both the hotel (0.0075 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) and personal service rates (0.0225 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) identified in Table 14.16.030 – 3, the Community Development Director has determined an average non-residential affordable housing rate of 0.015 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft., which translates to 0.96 low income units or an affordable housing in-lieu fee of approximately $318,095.36 for the project, using the current affordable housing in-lieu fee of $331,070.00 per unit. This was consistent with the rationale and formula used recently for the only other assisted living facility processed since the adoption of this Ordinance in 2005 (Oakmont Senior Living at 3773 Redwood Hwy.). The Commission grappled with this issue during their hearing and struggled with whether assisted living uses should be subject to the residential or non-residential inclusionary housing requirement. They also believed that need for affordable housing units that would be generated by this sort of use should be greater than the 0.96 unit. During the Planning Commission hearing on the project, the property owner voluntarily offered to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee payment, from $318,095.36 to $500,000. At the hearing, staff presented the Planning Commission the option to continue their review of the project so that this offer, and the project’s proposed affordable housing, could be studied further. Instead, using its independent review authority. the Planning Commission approved the project and accepting the property owner’s voluntary offer to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee payment (Condition 20, ED17-090. ATTACHMENT 1 -6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council upholds the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP17-030) and the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090), which allows the construction of a new 88-bed, assisted living facility with garage parking and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on two vacant Downtown parcels located at 800 Mission Ave., based on the following findings: Use Permit (UP17-030) Findings A.The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the Multifamily Residential-High Density (HR1) District in which the project site is located in, given that: 1.As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table (Exhibit 4; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet), the project will be consistent with all pertinent General Plan policies with the exception of Housing Policy H-9 (Special Needs), which is intended to encourage providing mix of housing options for San Rafael’s most vulnerable residents: Housing Policy H-9 (Special Needs). Encourage a mix of housing unit types throughout San Rafael, including very low- and low-income housing for families with children, single parents, students, young families, lower income seniors, homeless and the disabled. Accessible units shall be provided in multi-family developments, consistent with State and Federal law. In 2006, the City Council approved a project on the site to allow construction of a 36-unit multifamily residential condominium building on the site with six (6) BMR (Below Market Rate) units (4 units at the low-income household level and 2 units at the moderate-income household level). The project was never constructed, and the Planning entitlements have expired. The new property owner of the site proposed a new project. The project now proposes to provide residential housing for seniors, though at market-rate rather than low-income household levels. Neighborhoods Policy NH-17 (Competing Concerns) states that, in reviewing and making decisions on projects, competing economic, housing, environmental and design concerns must be balanced. No one factor should dominate, though economic and housing development are high priorities to the health of Downtown. Through multiple Housing Policies, such as H-13 (Senior Housing), the City supports the development of housing to help meet the needs of all San Rafael residents, including seniors. The proposed project assists in the City’s goal of providing options for older residents who wish to “age-in-place”. Overall, while the project has the potential to conflict with one or more General Plan policies, it would be consistent with most of the applicable San Rafael General Plan 2020 policies. The project site is a choice housing site due to its close proximity to the Downtown and the project proposes residential development, where residents, guests and staff would re-activate a portion of Lincoln and Mission Avenues and help contribute to the City’s long-term goal of creating ‘Alive after 5’ activity in the Downtown and provide economic opportunities to Downtown businesses, particularly restaurants The City supports the development of housing, at all levels, to help meet the needs of all San Rafael residents. This includes our older population. 2.As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet), the proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote and protect the public health safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, given that; ATTACHMENT 1 -7 a.The project will implement and promote the goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, as identified in Finding A1 above; b.The project will reduce or remove negative impacts caused by inappropriate location, use or design of building and improvements, given that; 1) The project design includes aesthetic elements to improve the pedestrian environment, including new street trees, landscaping within the 10-15’ building setback and uncovered ground-floor patio terraces along both the Lincoln and Mission Ave. frontages; 2) The project design also includes safety features to improve the pedestrian environment, including a 85’-long dedicated fire lane pull- out/deceleration turn pocket lane along Mission Ave. with directional controls allowing right turns only in and out of the primary driveway to the project; 3) The Board is recommending approval of the project subject to follow-up review of final details on landscape, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace finishes; and 4) The proposed project changes have been reviewed with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and found; since the historic motor court was demolished in 2007, the proposed project is now eligible for a category exemption to CEQA review (Class 32; In-Fill Development Projects) with the mitigation measures from the original EIR requiring documentation of the prior historic motor court on the project site as a condition to allow the CEQA exemption; c.The project will ensure the adequate provision of light, air space, fire safety and privacy between buildings, given that; 1) the proposed site development will be consistent with the allowable Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) District development standards; and 2) construction of the project is conditioned to be designed and built in accordance with the most current building, fire and seismic codes; d.The project will provide for adequate, safe and effective off-street parking and loading facilities, given that; 1) The project requests a Parking Modification to reduce the required on-site parking for the project, from 42 to 40 parking spaces; 2) The project proposes Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programming into the operation of the assisted living facility. Staffing projections include three (3) separate shifts (6 am- 2 pm; 2 pm – 10 pm; 10 pm – 6 am) which would are all off-peak trip hours; 3) The location of the project site itself has TDM influences since it is located in close proximity to public transit options (less than 1,000’ feet north of both the Downtown SMART station and Bettini transit center; 4) The project supports their requested Parking Modification with a traffic analysis which anticipates that 31 parking spaces are required for similar sized assisted living facilities operated by Aegis Living; 5) On June 5, 2018, the Design Review Board (Board) reviewed the proposed project design and unanimously recommended approval, including the requested Parking Modification, conditioned on the project return to the Board for f inal review of details on landscaping, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace finishes, prior to building permit issuance; and 6) On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission (Commission) reviewed and conditionally approved the Use Permit (UP17-030) with the requested Parking Modification and the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090), subject to the following additional conditions: 1) Accept the property owner’s voluntary offer to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee payment, from $318,095.36 to $500,000; 2) Require the applicant submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), as prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, identifying strategies and recommendations for reducing employee/staff vehicle trips and minimizing parking and traffic impacts; and 3) Reserve the right to require additional traffic measures, such as pavement markings and signs, both on- site and off-site, to improve vehicle circulation; and ATTACHMENT 1 -8 e.The proposed project will promote a safe, effective traffic circulation syste m, and maintain acceptable local circulation system operating condition, given that; 1) The City Engineer has determined the proposed project would not adversely affect the LOS for the nearby intersections, based on the eight (8) new AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the project, and conditioned on the payment of traffic mitigation fees to fund the project’s fair share of local circulation improvement projects by the City; and 2) The proposed project has been conditioned to require all “off-haul” of excavation during off-peak traffic trip hours – between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. – only; f.The proposed project will provide for effective citizen participation in decision-making, given that; the City has provided opportunities for public involvement in the review of the project through the referral of the project to the appropriate neighborhood group (Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association), and the notice of both the Commission hearing and the Board meeting and this City Council hearing in compliance with Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance (Public Notice). Notice of both the Board meeting and this hearing were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site, and the appropriate neighborhood groups, a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the meeting or hearing, and notice was posted on the project site at the northwest corner of the Lincoln and Mission Avenue intersection. Prior to the Commission hearing on the project, 25 public comments were received in support of the project and one (1) verbal comment which is neither in support or opposition of the project but, rather, concerned the proposed on-site parking (40 parking spaces) is inadequate, particularly for visiting family and friends of future residents. After the Commission’s approval of the project, four (4) additional public comments were received; two (2) comments in support; one (1) comment opposed to the affordable housing in-lieu fee; and one (1) comment in support of the proposed use (assisted living facility) though opposed to the proposed operator (Aegis) g.The project has been reviewed by Community Development Department, other appropriate City Departments and non-City agencies and conditions have been created to minimize potential impacts to the public health, safety and welfare; 3.As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet), the proposed project would be consistent with the purposes of the HR1 District, given that: a)The project will help meet the City’s goal of providing a wide variety of housing opportunities in terms of housing types, and neighborhoods with varying densities, lot sizes, and development standards, given that; the project will provide housing options for our older residents who wish to “age-in-place”. b)The project will protect and enhance existing residential neighborhoods through retention of existing land development patterns and retention of their varied design character, given that; 1) The scale and mass of the proposed project would be similar to the project that is approved for the site, which was previously determined to be compatible with the adjacent, four -story residential condominium building immediately to the west of the project site, at 820 Mission Ave. (The two blue-tiled dome towers are proposed to exceed the height allowance as architectural features, which is permitted with an Environmental and Design Review Permit; 2)The proposed project is consistent with the height limits for this site; and 3) The project proposes a Mission Revival-like architecture with predominant design features including large arched windows, whitewashed stucco walls, red clay roof tiles, blue-tiled dome towers, decorative heavy-timber rafter ‘tails’ under the eaves, and decorative wrought iron ATTACHMENT 1 -9 balconies, railings, fencing and gates. This proposed new design is similar to that of the Mission San Rafael Archangel, which is located approximately 1,000’ west of the project site, though unique for the immediate neighborhood. The Board has reviewed the proposed project design and unanimously recommended approval conditioned on the project return to the Board for final review of details on landscaping, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace finishes, prior to building permit issuance. c)The project will provide opportunities for churches, day care facilities, residential care facilities and other uses which are considered to be compatible and desirable land uses within residential neighborhood ; d)The project will provide outdoor recreational amenities for residents and guests, given that; common outdoor areas are proposed on the ground-floor and on the roof deck for the assisted living residents (The project also proposes private outdoor terrace deck area for many of the assisted living residential rooms on the fourth floor). The project also proposes a large common outdoor terrace on the second floor for the memory care residents. If these were residential units with individual kitchens, 7,700 sf of private or common outdoor area would be required (77 residential units x 100 sf outdoor area per unit). Since this is a commercial project proposing 77 residential ‘suites’ with common food service, the 6,032 sf of private or common outdoor area is voluntary; and e)The project will ensure the provision of public services and facilities needed to accommodate planned residential densities , given that; all service providers, including PG&E, Marin Sanitary Service, Marin Municipal Water District, San Rafael Sanitation District, Central Marin Sanitation Agency, and the City’s Traffic Engineer, have review the project and indicated that adequate infrastructure capacity exists for the project. B.The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, given that: 1) The project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments, non-City agencies, the appropriate surrounding neighborhood group (Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association) and the Board; and 2) Conditions of approval have been included to mitigate any potential negative impacts anticipated to be generated by the proposed use and construction to the proposed use; 3) The project would not significantly change the type of use (resdiential development) or the scale and mass of the approved deisgn on the project site; and C.The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet). Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090) Findings A.The project design is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance; in that: 1.As documented in the General Plan 2020 Consistency Table (Exhibit 4; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet), the proposed project will implement and promote the goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, as identified in Finding A1 (Use Permit UP17-030) above; ATTACHMENT 1 -10 2. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet), the proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote and protect the public health safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, as identified in Finding A2 (Use Permit UP17-030) above; 3. As documented in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 5; 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet), the proposed project will be consistent with the purposes of Environmental and Design Review Permits, given that; the project will maintain and improve the quality of, and relationship between, development and the surrounding area to contribute to the attractiveness of the City, as determined during the review of the project by the Board. On June 5, 2018, the Board reviewed the proposed project design and unanimously recommended approval, conditioned on the project return to the Board for final review of details on landscaping, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace finishes, prior to building permit issuance. Staff subsequently formalized the Board’s request to review these final details as a condition (Condition #15; ED17-090) of approval. B. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the HR1 District in which the project site is located, given that; 1. The project design will be consistent with the maximum allowable density for the site, which is 29 units based on 29,885 sq. ft. of total lot area. The project proposes no density, since assisted living facilities are not subject to density standards since they are not considered as units. The project proposes an assisted living facility with memory care services which is comparable to a hotel use. The proposed facility would provide rooms or suites without individual kitchens but, rather, individual ‘wet bar’ amenities and offer ancillary services to the residents like communal food service opportunities; 2. The project will be consistent with the minimum required yard setbacks (15’ front, 10’ street side, 5’ interior side and rear) for the project site; 3. The project will be consistent with the maximum 36’ height allowed for the project site; 4. The project will be consistent with the maximum 60% lot coverage for the project site; 5. The project will be consistent with the minimum 50% landscaping requirement for the front and street side yard setbacks for the project site; 6. The project will be consistent with the parking requirement, subject to the approval of the requested Parking Modification, by reducing the required parking from 42 to 40 parking spaces; 7. The provisions of Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) most recent water conservation and new ‘graywater’ requirements apply to the project, where MMWD approval is required prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit (see Condition 79; ED17-090); 8. The proposed project will be consistent with review criteria for Environmental and Design Review Permits (Chapter 14.25 of the Zoning Ordinance), given that; on June 5, 2018, the Board reviewed the proposed project design and unanimously recommended approval, including the requested Parking Modification, conditioned on the project return to the Board for final review of details on landscaping, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace finishes, prior to building permit issuance (see Condition 15; ED17-090). ATTACHMENT 1 -11 C.The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given that; 1.The 2007 building permit resulted in the demolition of all structures and vegetation on the project site. The project now proposes to remove five (5) exist street trees and replace with three (3) new street trees. The proposed landscape design includes new trees shrubs, grasses and vines, within the 10-15’ building setback. In their review of the project, the Board requested further refinements to the proposed landscape design, including more landscaping generally throughout the project site. Board reviewed the proposed project and unanimously recommended approval, including the preliminary landscape design, conditioned on the project return to the Board for final review of details on the landscaping, exterior lighting and outdoor terrace finishes, prior to building permit issuance. 2.The project design includes storm water retention areas or ‘bioswales’ which will have the effect of creating a ‘no net change’ in the rate of storm water drainage on the project site, as determined by the drainage report submitted on the project and the review and recommendation by the City Engineer; 3.The project site neither contains, nor is immediately contiguous to, recognizable wetlands, creeks or similarly sensitive environmental features, and it has not been identified in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (Exhibit 38 – Threatened and Endangered Species) as a general location were threatened and endangered species have been previously observed or maintain a suitable habitat for their likely presence to be found. 4.In 2006, the City Council certified an EIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and conditionally approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit, Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to allow construction of a 36-unit multifamily residential condominium building on the site, with landscaping and drainage improvements. The EIR was required, essentially, in response to the prior motor court on the project site which was determined to be historic. In 2007, a building permit was issued for the demolition of the historic motor court at 1203 Lincoln Ave. and the single-family residence on the adjacent parcel, at 1211 Lincoln Ave. and all improvements on these parcels were subsequently demolished and removed. While the proposed project is now eligible for a category exemption to CEQA review (Class 32; In-Fill Development Projects), mitigation measures from the original EIR requiring documentation of the prior historic motor court on the project site, is required to allow the CEQA exemption (see Condition 19; ED17-090). D.The project design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City, as identified in Finding B2 (Use Permit UP17-030) above. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Sections 15305(a) (Class 5; Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations) and 15332 (Class 32; In-Fill Development Project) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts: 1) Minor lot line adjustments on lots with an average slope of less than 20%; and 2) In-fill development meeting the following concditions: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation and all applicable General Plan policies and all applicable Zoning Ordinance standards and regulations; b) The proposed development occurs within the San Rafael city limits on a project site of no more than five acres subsantially surrounded by urban uses; c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered , rare or threatened species; d) Approval of the project would not result in any ATTACHMENT 1 -12 signifcant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project will require the consolidation of two separate legal lots, with an average cross-slope of approximately 10%, so that all of the proposed new construction is located within a single parcel. Additionally, the project qualifies for Class 32 In-Fill exemption based on the following: a) The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and the Zoning Ordinance land use designation for the project site and all applicable Zoning Ordiance standards and regulations, as identified in the attached Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (see Exhibit 5 - 7/10/18 Planning Commission Packet); b) The project site is comprised of two adjacent vacant legal lots with a combined area of 29,885 sf (0.69 acre) and is located in an urban area that is immediately surrounded by development (i.e., multifamily residential development immediately to the north and west, Mission Ave. to the south and Lincoln Ave. to the east); c) The project site has no creeks, drainageways, seasonal freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands, or riparian areas that are valued resources as wildlife or plant habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and it is not identified as a general location for threatened and endangered species based on past observations or the presence of suitable habitat per the General Plan 2020 (see Exhibit 38; Conservation Element); d) The additional traffic generated by the project has been deemed insignificant by the City’s Traffic Engineer conditioned on the payment of the appropriate traffic mitigation fee (8 total peak hour trips), any additional noise or impacts to air and water quality created by the project will be temporary and limited to the period of construction period, the new residential uses for the site would generate noise levels that are similar to the other multi -family residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood, and e) All utlility agencies have indicated that they have adequate capacity to provide services to the new development on the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council upholds the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the Use Permit (UP17-030) and the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090), which allows the construction of a new 88-bed, assisted living facility with garage parking and associated site improvements, including minor grading, drainage and landscaping, on two vacant Downtown parcels located at 800 Mission Ave., subject to the following conditions of approval: Use Permit (UP17-030) Conditions of Approval Community Development Department, Planning Division 1. This Use Permit approves an assisted living facility, with memory care services, to operate on the project site with up to 77 residential ‘suites’ and 88-beds of capacity. 2. This Use Permit includes a “Parking Modification” reducing the number of required on-site parking spaces, from 42 to 40 ‘standard’ dimensional garage parking spaces, which has been reviewed and is supported by both the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. 3. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP), prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, identifying strategies and recommendations to reduce employee/staff trips and minimize parking and/or traffic impacts. The TDMP shall be subject to review and approval of the Department of Public Works and Community Development Department, who reserves the right to require modifications to the TDMP. The applicant agrees to incorporate all recommendations outlined in the TDMP, including modifications required by the City, during the occupancy of the site by the approved use. 4. This Use Permit shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that a grading permit or building ATTACHMENT 1 -13 permit is issued by the City and work commenced or a time extension request is submitted to the City’s Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2) years of this approval, or until September 4, 2020. Failure to obtain a grading permit or building permit or submit a time extension request by the specified date will result in the expiration of this Use Permit. Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090) Conditions of Approval General and On-Going Community Development Department, Planning Division 1.The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented to the Planning Commission at their July 10, 2018 hearing, labeled Aegis San Rafael; 800 Mission Avenue; San Rafael, CA 94901, stamped “approved” and on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as required for issuance of all building and grading permits, subject to these conditions. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-making body, the Planning Commission, and may require review and recommendation by the City’s Design Review Board on design-related changes. 2.The approved colors for the project are on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Any future modification to the color palette shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division and those modifications not deemed minor shall be referred to the Design Review Board for review and recommendation prior to approval by the Planning Division. 3.This Environmental and Design Review Permit approves development of an 88-bed, 77-resdential ‘suites’ assisted living facility, with memory care services, on the project site with 40 garage parking spaces and miscellaneous site improvements, including new landscaping, grading and drainage. 4.This Environmental and Design Review Permit approves a ‘wet bar’ in each residential ‘suite’ rather than full kitchens since the project proposes to include common dining areas with the other service amenities for residents and guests. 5.All ‘off-haul’ of excavation and delivery/pick-up of construction equipment shall occur during off- peak weekday hours, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday only. 6.All grading and construction activities shall comply with the City’s adopted noise limits at all times All grading and construction activities shall occur Mondays – Fridays, 7 a.m. – 6 p.m. Low-noise construction, occurring entirely within the interior of the building, may be permissible beyond the allowable construction hours of operation with prior approval by the Planning Division and only after the building is completely enclosed (walls, roof, doors and windows). If requested and approved, Saturday work shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Any work on Sundays and federally-recognized holidays is strictly prohibited. 7.All new landscaping shall be irrigated with an automatic drip system and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris, at all times. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion. ATTACHMENT 1 -14 8.All public streets and sidewalks and on-site streets which are privately owned that are impacted by the grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. The general contractor shall sweep the nearest street and sidewalk adjacent to the site on a daily basis unless conditions require greater frequency of sweeping. 9.All submitted building permit plan sets shall include a plan sheet incorporating these conditions of approval. 10.If archaeological or cultural resources are accidentally discovered during excavation/grading activities, all work will stop within 100 feet of the resource and the qualified archaeologist will be notified immediately. The qualified archaeologist will contact Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Planning Division and coordinate the appropriate evaluation of the find and implement any additional treatment or protection, if required. No work shall occur in the vicinity until approved by the qualified archaeologist, FIGR and Planning staff. Prehistoric resources that may be identified include, but shall not be limited to, concentrations of stone tools and manufacturing debris made of obsidian, basalt and other stone materials, milling equipment such as bedrock mortars, portable mortars and pestles and locally darkened soils (midden) that may contain dietary remains such as shell and bone, as well as human remains. Historic resources that may be identified include, but are not limited to, small cemeteries or burial plots, structural foundations, cabin pads, cans with soldered seams or tops, or bottles or fragments or clear and colored glass 11.If human remains are encountered (or suspended) during any project-related activity, all work will halt within 100 feet of the project and the County Coroner will be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are of Native American origin, the County Coroner shall notify FIGR within 24-hours of such identification who will work with Planning staff to determine the proper treatment of the remains. No work shall occur in the vicinity without approval from Planning staff. 12.This Environmental and Design Review Permit shall run with the land and shall remain valid regardless of any change of ownership of the project site, subject to these conditions, provided that a building or grading permit is issued and construction commenced or a time extension request is submitted to the City’s Community Development Department, Planning Division, within two (2) years of approval, or September 4, 2020. Failure to obtain a building permit or grading permit and construction or grading activities commenced, or failure to obtain a time extension within the two - year period will result in the expiration of this Environmental and Design Review Permit 13.This Environmental and Design Review Permit shall run concurrently with the Use Permit (UP17- 030) approval. If the Environmental and Design Review Permit expires, Use Permit approval shall also expire and become invalid. Prior to Issuance of Grading/Building Permits Community Development Department, Planning Division 14.The project sponsor, or its successor, shall pay all outstanding balances of fees due the City in the review, approval and/or issuance of Planning and/or Building Permits for entitlements on the project site. 15.Details of the proposed site landscaping, the exterior lighting and outdoor terrace finishes, on both the 2nd floor podium and the 4th floor roof level, shall require final review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to building permit issuance. ATTACHMENT 1 -15 16.Final landscape and irrigation plans for the project shall comply with the provisions of Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) most recent water conservation ordinance (District Code Title 13). Construction plans submitted for issuance of building/grading permit shall be pre-approved by MMWD and stamped as approved by MMWD or include a letter from MMWD approving the final landscape and irrigation plans. Modifications to the final landscape and irrigation plans, as required by MMWD, shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division prior to building permit issuance 17.An acoustical analysis is required indicating the internal noise level of the residential rooms or suites and common outdoor terrace areas are consistent with the applicable City’s noise standards. 18.A Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. The CMP shall include, but is not limited to, a projected schedule of work, projected daily construction truck trips, proposed construction truck route, location of material staging areas, location of construction trailers, location of construction worker parking, dust control plan or program, air quality best management practices recommended by project’s air quality analysis (see Illingworth & Rodkin, dated November 30, 2017), a statement that the project shall conform to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code), a statement that no construction truck traffic shall encroach into any of the surrounding residential neighborhood streets at any time, and a statement that the existing roadway conditions on both Lincoln and Mission Avenues shall be memorialized on digital recording format prior to the start of construction and that the project sponsor shall be required to repair any roadway damage created by the additional construction truck traffic. In the event that the CMP is conflicting with any conditions imposed by the grading permit for the project, the more restrictive language or conditions shall prevail. 19.Per Condition #7 of City Council Resolution #12018, the project sponsor, or its successors, shall document the prior buildings at 1203 Lincoln Avenue to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level 3 standards, according to the Outline Format described in the Historic American Buildings Survey Guidelines for Preparing Written Historical Descriptive Data, or equivalent action as determined by a licensed historic architect or architectural historian. Photographic documentation shall follow the Photographic Specifications – Historic American Building Survey, including 15 to 20 archival quality large-format photographs of the exterior and interior of the building and its architectural elements. Construction techniques and architectural details shall be documented, especially noting the measurements of structural members, hardware, and other features that tie the architectural elements to a specific date. A copy of the documentation, with original photo negatives and prints, shall be placed in a historical archive or history collection accessible to the general public. Additionally, the developer shall fund an exhibit of the historical survey at the Marin Historical Society, the Anne T. Kent California Room at the Marin County Library Civic Center Branch. Five copies of the documentation with archival photographs shall be produced for distribution to local and regional repositories. One copy shall be provided to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. 20.The project shall comply with the City’s affordable housing requirement, using a hybrid rate that includes both the hotel rate (0.0075 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) and the personal service rate (0.0225 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft.) as adopted in Table 14.16.030 – 3 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance. The Community Development Director has determined an average nonresidential affordable housing rate of 0.015 affordable units per 1,000 gross sq. ft. shall be required of the project, which translates to 0.96 low income units or an affordable housing in-lieu fee of approximately $318,095.36 for the project, using the current affordable housing in-lieu fee of ATTACHMENT 1 -16 $331,070.00 per unit. However, the applicant has voluntarily offered to increase the affordable housing in-lieu fee to $500,000, which was accepted by the Planning Commission as a condition of project approval and shall be required to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Department of Public Works 21. A grading permit is required for the project from the Department of Public Works Department (111 Morphew St.). 22. Final details, including directional controls (i.e., signage and striping for right turns in and out of the garage) on the driveways, pull outs and turn pockets shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Work prior to building permit issuance. 23. The project proposes over 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface and is a regulated project under MCSTOPPP requirements. Provide a stormwater control plan, which includes a written narrative . A stormwater facility maintenance agreement shall be required. More specific information is available from MCSTOPPP, on the Marin County website. See tools and guidance, and post construction requirements at http://marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/new-and- redevelopment-projects 24. While the preliminary design of the proposed stormwater control plan is acceptable, limited use of pumping and piping through the interior building is recommended. 25. The proposed project results in 15 AM and 19 PM peak hour trips. After crediting the project for the peak hour trips generated by the prior development on the site (13 AM and 13 PM peak hour trips from 24 residential apartments and one single-family residence). The traffic mitigation fee for the resulting increase of eight (8) peak hour trips is $33,968 (8 x $4,246) shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. 26. An encroachment permit is required for any work within the public Right-of-Way (ROW) from the Department of Public Works. Please note that Mission Ave. and a portion of Lincoln Ave., fourth of Mission Ave., are currently moratorium streets. 27. A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance, which is calculated at 1% of the valuation with the first $10,000 of valuation exmpt. Community Development Department, Building Division 28. The proposed project contains several different occupancy types. The existing occupancy types appear to be S-2 whereas the proposed adult day care is an I-2.1, and the senior housing on the upper floors is R-2. Individual occupancies are categorized with different levels of hazard and typically need to be separated from other occupancy types for safety reasons. These separations are required to be a minimum 1- or 2-hour fire resistive construction. Under mixed-occupancy conditions the project architect has available several design methodologies (accessory occupancies, nonseparated occupancies, and separated occupancies) to address the mixed- occupancy concerns. This concern is raised during the Planning Division’s review because these fire separations increase costs. During the Planning Division process, the project architect’s forethought will hopefully prevent issues during the building permit process because a definitive answer will not be available until the Building Permit application’s plan review process occurs. ATTACHMENT 1 -17 29. School fees will be required for the project. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them and proof of payment shall be submitted to the B uilding Division prior to issuance of the building permit. 30. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the current editions of the California Building Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Fire Code, California Energy Code, Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards, California Green Building Standards Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments 31. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four (4) complete sets of construction drawings to include: a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans f) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) g) Structural Calculations h) Truss Calculations i) Soils reports j) CalGreen documentation k) Title-24 energy documentation 32. The occupancy classification (in mixed occupancies-each portion of the building shall be individually classified), construction type and square footage of each use within the building shall be specified on the plans. 33. The building height shall comply with CBC Section 504 and Table 503. On the plan justify the proposed building height. 34. Building areas are limited by CBC Table 503. On the plan justify the proposed building area. For this mixed use, the maximum allowable area will be a “sums of ratios”. Please verify that your building size and construction type are within allowable maximums. 35. The maximum area of unprotected and protected openings permitted in the exterior wall in any story of a building shall not exceed the percentages specified in CBC Table 705.8 “Maximum Area of Exterior Wall Openings Based on Fire Separation Distance and Degree of Opening Protection.” In order to calculate the maximum area of exterior wall openings you must provide the building setback distance from the property lines and then justify the percentage of proposed wall openings and include whether the opening is unprotected or protected. The elevations appear to indicate openings in the areas where rated walls are required. 36. Multiple exit pathways on several floors are thru “lounge” areas. In addition, a kitchen in located in the exit pathway on the first floor. This is problematic, as these areas often have moveable furniture, are often occupied with large numbers of tenants for group activities. Further, based on the nature of the tenants, there are often wheelchairs and walkers strewn about which cause additional obstruction to the path of egress. Please consider a redesign of the exit way. 37. Areas of refuge will be required at stairway vestibules. It appears that they may be adequately sized, but ensure that code required clearances area met. ATTACHMENT 1 -18 38.The elevator will require separation from the corridor/lobby except at the ground floor. 39.All sleeping rooms shall have an egressable window, and a related pathway to the public way. Ensure that all gates, walkways, etc. around the building perimeter meet this requirement. 40.Due to ambient noise from the two arterial roadways that front on the property, sound attenuation will likely be required for those units that face Mission and Lincoln Avenues. An acoustical analysis will be required as part of the building permit submittal. 41.Requirements for the memory care unit are somewhat unique, and will require both approval from the Building and Fire Prevention Divisions for such things as delayed egress, lack of access to egressable windows/balconies, minimum staffing levels to provide assisted egress in the event of a fire or other catastrophic event, and so forth. 42.The address for structures is determined by the Chief Building Official. The tentative address for the proposed project is 800 Mission Avenue. This address will be legalized as we approach completion of the project construction. A written request from the property owner should be sent to the Chief Building Official. Each page of the plan’s title block and all permit application documents must show the proposed building’s address identification information. 43.If proposed fencing/gates exceed 7' in height, a building permit is required. 44.A grading permit is required for any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement. Provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In particular, the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. 45.Prior to building permit issuance for the construction of each building, geotechnical and civil pad certifications are to be submitted. Property lines must be staked for inspection of foundations. 46.Property lines shown through proposed buildings must be eliminated by consolidation or buildings must be relocated or redesigned to fall within property line boundaries. Parcels 011-184-09 & 011- 184-08 must be consolidated, and new map recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 47.Based on the distance to the property line (and/or adjacent buildings on the same parcel), the building elements shall have a fire resistive rating not less than that specified in CBC Table 601 and exterior walls shall have a fire resistive rating not less than that specified in CBC Table 602. 48.Cornices, eaves overhangs, exterior balconies and similar projections extending beyond the floor area shall conform to the requirements of CBC 705.2. Projections shall not extend beyond the distance determined by the following two methods, whichever results in the lesser projection: a.A point one-third the distance from the exterior face of the wall to the lot line where protected openings or a combination of protected openings and unprotected openings are required in the exterior wall. b.A point one-half the distance from the exterior face of the wall to the lot line where all openings in the exterior wall are permitted to be unprotected or the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. ATTACHMENT 1 -19 c.More than 12 inches into areas where openings are prohibited. 49.Walls separating sleeping rooms from each other and other occupancies continguious must be a minimum of 1-hour construction. 50.All site signage as well as wall signs require a separate permit and application (excluding address numbering). 51.Any monument sign(s) shall have address numbers posted prominently on the monument sign. 52.It appears that at least the lower level of parking in the parking garage will require mechanical ventilation capable of exhausting a minimum of .75 cubic feet per minute per square foot of gross floor area CMC Table 403.7. 53.In the parking garage, in areas where motor vehicles are stored, floor surfaces shall be of noncombustible, nonabsorbent materials. Floors shall drain to an approved oil separator or trap discharging to sewers in accordance with the Plumbing Code and SWIPP. 54.The parking garage ceiling height shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 8’ 2” where required for accessible parking. 55.Minimum elevator car size shall meet CBC 11A and 11B for accessibility. 56.This project shall provide not less than one medical emergency service elevator. The medical emergency service elevator shall accommodate the loading and transport of an ambulance gurney or stretcher. 57.In the service areas, mechanical ventilation will be required capable of exhausting a minimum of 1.5 cubic feet per minute per square foot of gross floor area. Connecting offices, waiting rooms, restrooms, and retail areas shall be supplied with conditioned air under positive pressure. 58.The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the requirements of Title-24, California Code of Regulations. For existing buildings and facilities when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made, accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities may be required. Improvements shall be made, but are not limited to, the following accessible features: a.Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival b.Routes of travel between buildings c.Accessible parking d.Ramps e.Primary entrances f.Sanitary facilities (restrooms) g.Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided) h.Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements 59.The site development of items such as common sidewalks, parking areas, stairs, ramps, common facilities, etc. are subject to compliance with the accessibility standards contained in Title -24, California Code of Regulations. Pedestrian access provisions should provide a minimum 48" wide unobstructed paved surface to and along all accessible routes. Items such as signs, meter pedestals, light standards, trash receptacles, etc., shall not encroach on this 4' minimum width. ATTACHMENT 1 -20 Also, note that sidewalk slopes and side slopes shall not exceed published minimums per California Title 24, Part 2. The civil, grading and landscape plans shall address these requirements to the extent possible. 60.Multifamily dwelling and apartment accessible parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum rate of 2 percent (2%) of the covered multifamily dwelling units. At least one space of each type of parking facility shall be made accessible even if the total number exceeds 2 percent (2%). 61.When parking is provided for multifamily dwellings and is not assigned to a resident or a group of residents, at least 5 percent (5%) of the parking spaces shall be accessible and provide access to grade-level entrances of multifamily dwellings and facilities (e.g. swimming pools, club houses, recreation areas and laundry rooms) that serve the dwellings. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route to an accessible building, or dwelling unit entrance. 62.Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according the following table and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site: Total Number of Parking Spaces Provided Minimum Required Number of H/C Spaces 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 501 to 1,000 Two percent of total 1,001 and over Twenty, plus one for each 100 or fraction thereof over 1,001 63.At least one disabled parking space must be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and 8 feet wide off- load area, or 17’ wide overall. Additionally, one in every eight required handicap spaces must be van accessible. 64.This project will need to meet CalGreen building standards for new construction and in addition, will be subject to Tier 1 requirements. San Rafael Sanitation District 65.The building permit plans shall include Civil/Utility drawings which shows the sewer lateral design in compliance with the San Rafael Sanitation District Standard Specifications, including pipe information (pipe type, pipe size, inverts and slope) and a backflow preventer near the building. 66.Please add the following note to the Utility Plans: Notify the San Rafael Sanitation District Inspector, Rolando Calvo (415.485.3194 or Rolando.calvo@cityofsanrafel.org), 72 hours prior to start of sanitary sewer construction. ATTACHMENT 1 -21 San Rafael Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau 67. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the current editions of the California Fire Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 68. Deferred submittals for the following fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval and permitting prior to installation of the systems: a) Fire sprinkler plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) b) Fire standpipe system plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) c) Fire Alarm system plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) d) Fire Underground plan (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) e) Kitchen Hood Automatic Fire-Extinguishing System plans (Deferred submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau). 69. A Fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for this project. The fire apparatus plans shall show the location of the following: a) Designated fire apparatus access roads. b) Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs. c) Onsite fire hydrants. d) Fire Department Connection (FDC). e) Double detector check valve. f) Street address sign. g) Recessed Knox Box h) Fire Alarm annunciator panel. i) NFPA 704 placards j) Note the designated fire apparatus access roads and fire hydrant shall be installed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior construction of the building. 70. A Know Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. A recessed mounted Knox Box #3275 Series is required for his project. The Knox Box shall be clearly visible upon approach to the main entrance from the fire lane. Note that the Know Box must be installed between 72-78” above finished grade. Please show the location of the Knox Box on the plans. 71. If the garages will be gate controlled, the project must provide a Knox key gate control. Please show the location of the key gate control on the plans. 72. When a building is fully sprinklered all portions of the exterior building perimeter must be located within 250-feet of an approved fire apparatus access road: a) The minimum width of the fire apparatus access road is 20-feet. b) The minimum inside turning radius for a fire apparatus access road is 28-feet. c) The fire apparatus access road serving this building is more than 150-feet in length so an approved turn-around is required. 73. As the building is over 30 feet in height, an aerial fire apparatus access roadway is required parallel to one entire side of the building: a) The Aerial apparatus access roadway shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building. b) The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26-feet.. ATTACHMENT 1 -22 c) Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway, or between the roadway and the building. 74. Fire lanes must be designated with curbs painted red and contrasting white lettering stating “No Parking Fire Lane” and signs shall be posted in accordance CFC 503.3. 75. Hazardous Materials Placards shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704. 76. Provide a Hazardous Materials Management Plan to be submitted to the Marin County Department of Public Works, CUPA. 77. Ensure that elevators are gurney accessible. 78. Fire extinguishers are required as per CFC provisions. 79. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for MMWD to provide adequate water supply service for the required fire protection system. During Construction Marin Municipal Water District 80. District records indicate that the property’s current annual water entitlement is insufficient to meet the water demand for the project and the purchase of additional water entitlement will be required. Additional water entitlement will be available upon request and fulfillment of the following requirements: a) Pay the appropriate fees and charges. b) Comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation. Indoor plumbing fixtures shall meet specific efficiency requirements. Landscape, irrigation, grading and fixture plans shall be submitted to the District for review and approval. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 – Water Conservation should be directed to the District’s Water Conservation Department at (415) 945-1497. You may also find information on the District’s water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.org. c) Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the Districts review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1558. d) Use of recycled water is required, where available, for all approved uses, including irrigation and the flushing of toilets and urinals. Questions regarding the use of recycled water should be directed to (415) 945-1558. e) Installation of gray water recycling systems is required when practicable. Pacific Gas & Electric 81. Electric and gas service to the project site will be provided in accordance with the applicable extension rules, which are available on PG&E’s website at http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/other/newconstruction or contact (800) PGE-5000. It is highly recommended that PG&E be contacted as soon as possible so that there is adequate time to engineer all required improvements and to schedule any site work. 82. The cost of relocating any existing PG&E facilities or conversion of existing overhead facilities to underground shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant or property owner. ATTACHMENT 1 -23 83.Prior to the start excavation or construction, the general contractor shall call Underground Service Alert (USA) at (800) 227-2600 to have the location of any existing underground facilities marked in the field. Community Development Department, Planning Division 84.The project shall minimize the potential air quality impacts to adjacent residences during all grading and construction activities by implementing best management practices (BMPs), as identified the air quality analysis submitted with the project application (Illingworth & Rodkin, dated November 30, 2017, Page 3). Prior to Occupancy Community Development Department, Planning Division 85.The project sponsor, or its successor, shall submit a lighting plan with photometric study, showing compliance with the City’s adopted lighting standards. 86.Final inspection of the project by the Community Development Department, Planning Division, is required. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection upon completion of the project. The final inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 87.All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to occupancy. 88.The landscape architect for the project shall submit a letter to the Planning Division, confirming the landscaping has been installed in compliance with the approved project plans and the irrigation is fully functioning. 89.All ground- and rooftop-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view. 90.All trash enclosures shall be fully screened from public view. After Occupancy Community Development Department, Planning Division 91.Following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all new exterior lighting shall be subject to a 90-day lighting level review period by the City to ensure that all lighting sources provide safety for the building occupants while not creating a glare or hazard on adjacent streets or be annoying to adjacent residents. During this lighting review period, the City may require adjustments in the direction or intensity of the lighting, if necessary. All exterior lighting shall include a master photoelectric cell with an automatic timer system, where the intensity of illumination shall be turned off during daylight. 92.Following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City reserves the right to review traffic conditions, both on-site and off-site circulation patterns generated by this use and any conflicts that arise with existing traffic patterns on city streets, and the applicant agrees to incorporate all recommended improvements, including, but not limited to, pavement striping and signage, both on and off site, as determined by the Department of Public Works/City Engineer. I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Tuesday, the 4th day of September 2018, by the following vote, to wit: ATTACHMENT 1 -24 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None ______________________________ LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk July 16, 2018 City of San Rafael, Attn.: Mayor Gary 0. Phillips Vice Mayor John Gamblin City Councilmembers: Kate Colin, Maribeth Bushey, and Andrew McCullough 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission decision for 800 Mission Avenue Dear City Council, ------------~ IDJ [§ © [g a w [§ fm m1 JUL 1 7 2018 l_ll) CllY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter is to serve as a formal request to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on July 10, 2018 that voted 4-2 to approve the conditional use permit for an 88-bed Residential Care Facility Project ("Project") at 800 Mission Avenue. As per the City Code, the purpose of a conditional use review is to allow (14.22.010), "special consideration in their design, operation or layout to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses." This appeal is based on city code 14.22.080 (excerpt below) and the fact that the Commission did not consider and ensure: I. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; II. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city; /JI. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. I. The Project is not in accordance with the City's General Plan 2020, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. a. The City's General Plan calls for High Density Residential on this development. Any such project would also include the appropriate affordable housing units. The General Plan 2020 (NH-17) states "economic and housing development are high priorities to the health of Downtown", focusing on "designing units that take advantage of Downtown's views, proximity to shopping and services, and transit" (NH-22c). In the City Staff Report "the Project is comparable to a hotel by proposing to provide rooms or suites for residents without individual kitchens and with communal dining and entertainment and personal services." The operator, Aegis, acknowledged that residents are unlikely to leave the building and therefore would not take advantage of this site's proximity to shopping, services, or transit. Additionally, the General Plan (H-13) calls to "encourage housing that meets the needs of San Rafael's older population, particularly affordable units and affordable care facilities that foster aging within the community." The Project does not include affordable units or, as the Commissioners acknowledged, pay a sufficient in-lieu-of fee. b. The zoning of the two parcels is HR-1, which reiterates the call for housing to be put in this location. The City Staff Report to the Planning Commission varied on the categorization of the Project. In various places in the City Staff Report it was termed either residential, nonresidential, a hotel, or a personal service business. If the Project maintained the label of residential, it would be subject to the 20% density of Affordable Units and therefore include 15 units with that designation. c. The Project is located in the Fifth/Mission District, a critical component to the fabric of Downtown. The Project offers no contribution to the "Alive after Five" goal of Downtown as conceded by the operator, Aegis. II. Proposed Project is detrimental to the general welfare of the city. a. lmP-act O!l City Affordable Housing. As noted by the Commission at the July 10, 2018 meeting as well as the Planning Commission Meeting held on January 23, 2018, to consider the Oakmont Senior Living at 3773 Redwood Highway Project ("Oakmont"), in- lieu-of fees were calculated based on a blended rate for hotels and personal service businesses. These fees are intended to compensate the City for the affordable housing element needed to accommodate the employees of such an operation. The in-lieu-of fee for the Project does not sufficiently compensate the City, nor does it include the dual purpose of the Project by also including the senior residents. The assumption and acceptance of such an an-lieu-of fee further cements the fact that this is an operating commercial business. It should not, therefore, be considered residential and in turn should not be allowed at this zoned location. b. Impact on tax revenue. San Rafael's opportunity cost of moving forward with the Project is staggering and unquantifiable from an economic perspective. Loss of consumption from residents that could be living on that site is a loss of revenue to businesses, property taxes, decreased public transit usage, and increased carbon footprint. This Project and Oakmont use an in-lieu-of fee intended for commercial businesses that also contribute other tax revenue back to the City. For example, the applicant argues the Project operates like a hotel; as such a 12% hotel tax should be imposed and would yield the City and estimated $760,320 per year in tax revenue. III. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. a. Parking. The project is subject to the Downtown Parking Code of requiring guest parking for multifamily residential within 200 feet of its residential neighbors. However, the Project evades the requirement by relying on the Parking Code for a hotel. While it makes sense that hotels do not require visitor parking, this Project is expected to have visitors, such as family, friends and medical staff; thus, the adequacy of the parking provision is questioned. Furthermore, the Project states that "parking demand would be further reduced by the site's close proximity to the adjacent SMART Downtown Station and the Bettini Transit Center." However, the Operator cited that few employees would use such transit options. Additionally, the shift schedule submitted by the operator states that staff changes would occur at "non-peak commute hours". A simple review of the public transportation timetables will show that the timing and frequency of these transitions will not allow for the use of public transportation for the employees. For example, the shift change at 10pm provides no tenable options for departing or arriving employees. b. Commercial Uses. Building proposes an onsite juice bar, pub, bistro, fitness gym, a barber /salon, and cinema-all commercial uses and noncom pliant with the zoning ordinance for HR-1. The commercial traffic generated by food service delivery trucks to service these components of the Project is a sensitivity that should be properly considered when adding a commercial business to a residential neighborhood. Page 2 Furthermore, the Planning Commission based their approval on the established precedent of the similar Oakmont project approved in January 2018. However, there is a stark difference: 3773 Redwood Highway is zoned General Commercial for both zoning and the General Plan. Oakmont complied with the nonresidential in-lieu-of fee as it was calculated. As a commercial zoned lot and a commercial project, the in-lieu-of fee is more in the spirit of the proposed guidelines because it was never expected that housing units would be built in a commercially zoned location. However, even in this situation the Commission recognized the calculation multiplier as being inadequate. Commissioner Paul stated, "there is something wrong with these numbers," but downplayed the urgency to escalate the issue because "assisted living don't come down the pipe very often." Accepting inadequate in-lieu-of fees on both projects compounds financial losses for the City. In the case of the Project affordable housing units are also lost. On July 10th , at the Planning Commission meeting, an ad-hoc financial judgement of affordability housing requirements was made by the Commissioners because they accepted an on-the-spot amendment to the submitted plan potentially setting another precedent of an on-the-spot negotiation to obtain an approval for other projects. A Commissioner called for "a short continuance on this to allow the applicant to come up with a proposal." However, the Developer continued to press for a vote and voluntarily offered to increase the fee to $500,000. Then the negotiation continued as the Operator offered to "do the three (affordable) units on site if that's what it would take to get the approval this evening." Effectively declining the offer for affordable units, the Commission accepted the increased in-lieu-of fee and set a policy exceeding its authority. This Commission should have called for a continuance or referred the Project to the Council. In lieu of proper assessment by the Planning Commission we therefore appeal the approval granted on July 10, 2018. KayLaw~ Susan Adler Page 3 August 24, 2018 Hon. Gary 0. Phillips, Mayor and City Council Members City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Ave. San Rafael, CA 94901 ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC 1101 Fifth Avenue #300 San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission's July 10, 2018 Approval of Conditional Use Permit/Resolution #18-04 for 800 Mission Avenue (Vacant site at Northwest Corner of Mission & Lincoln Avenues). Dear Mayor Phillips and Council Members, This letter is in response to the appeal of the 77-unit senior assisted living project ("Project") that was approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2018. As the Project Owner and Applicant, we believe the approved Project provides substantial benefits to San Rafael by creating much-needed housing, and bringing services to Downtown. The Project minimizes impacts to the surrounding neighborhood while stimulating economic activity in the Downtown area. In response to the appeal, we submit that the Project is a conditionally permitted use according to the City's zoning ordinance, and compliant with the General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. Furthermore, the Project complies with all development standards, and, in the opinion of the Design Review Board, is beautifully designed to enhance the character of the community. The Project will pay all fees as required by City Code, as set forth by the Planning Commission as a condition of approval. The Project is a tremendous source of revenue for the City, and in fact, has been endorsed by the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Project as originally approved. Project Approvals On June 5, 2018, the Design Review Board unanimously approved the Project. On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission approved the Project. The Commission made all of the necessary findings, including: (1) the Project conforms to the General Plan; and, (2) the Project is appropriate for a use permit in satisfying the Zoning Ordinance and purpose of the Zoning District, and these findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Commission approved the Project as detailed in Resolution 18-04, which is attached for reference (Exhibit #7). The Project does not require any height or density bonuses and conforms to the City's land use and planning standards. The Planning Commission further found, "the project is in close proximity to Downtown, where the residents, guests and staff would re-activate a portion of Lincoln and Mission Avenues, aid in the 'Live after 5' initiative, and provide economic benefit to Downtown businesses." The Project achieves many of the City's General Plan Goals including allowing seniors to "age-in-place," as there are no residential care 1 ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC 1101 Fifth Avenue #300 San Rafael, CA 94901 facilities operating in Downtown San Rafael. Senior Housing accommodations in other neighborhoods and surrounding jurisdictions are full, many with waiting lists, and none are of new construction. Project Summary: The Project satisfies numerous General Plan policies in which to provide housing to a demographic in need, and reactive Downtown San Rafael. The Project provides a significant economic stimulus to San Rafael. The housing supply made available annually within the City provides housing for younger generations, and is a reoccurring supply of newly available housing in the community. The Project also pays an in-lieu fee of $500k to further address affordable housing in the City of San Rafael. The Project redevelops a long-vacant iconic site with a gorgeous building of exceptional architectural design and detail. Project Benefits 1. Jobs: The Project creates over 75 jobs in close proximity to public transportation. Aegis Living will operate the property, and is recognized by Glassdoor as one of the top 50 best places to work by vote of employees. 2. Economic Stimulus: Dr. Robert Eyler of the Marin Economic Forum analyzed the positive economic impact to the Downtown and concluded that the Project generates 6 times the economic benefit compared to a conventional multi-family housing project over a five-year period. The Project creates a significant economic engine that will fuel a substantial amount of local businesses, vendors, and services. This study is attached as Exhibit# 1. In addition, the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has voted to endorse the project based on its merits, and economic impact on the City. 3. Provides Housing: As noted in the July 10 Planning Commission Staff Report, the Project provides housing for a population in need of proper care and accommodation. Both the City's Housing Element and 201 7-2018 Marin County Civil Grand Jury report, Marin is Aging: Are we Ready? (April 27, 2018) identify the senior population as drastically underserved regarding available housing. 4. Satisfies General Plan Goals and Objectives: The Project provides housing for an identified Senior population-in-need, who will also re-activate a portion of Downtown, and makes a significant contribution to San Rafael's affordable housing efforts. 5. "Unlocks" Housing Units: As noted by Dr. Eyler, upon commencement of operations, senior residents will leave their current residences and move into the newly constructed Project. Many of the Project's new residents are expected to come from homes located within 3 miles of the Project site. This will allow the Seniors' 2 ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC 1101 FifthAvenue#300 San Rafael, CA 94901 current home to be re-introduced into the City's available housing supply and allows other families to move into the vacated residences. This housing supply is recurring in perpetuity and the Project is expected to "unlock" approximately 400 residential units in the first ten years of operation. In addition, it is reasonably anticipated that up to 25% of these unlocked homes will apply for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's); thereby creating approximately 100 new dwelling units within the first ten year period. See both the report by Dr. Eyler (Exhibit #1), and Exhibit #2. 6. Affordable Housing: In addition to unlocking new homes for the market and generating an anticipated 100 new ADU s, which are designed as more affordable housing due to size constraints; the Project, as conditionally approved, contributes $500,000 to the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Fund (Fund 243). This fee imposed on the Project is 57% greater than the fee as structured under the Municipal Code. Similar approved projects have used a similar Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. Both the Staff Report, and previously approved projects, calculated the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee to be .015 units/1,000 GSF x Building GSF x $331, 700/unit. Most recently, the Oakmont Project (UPI 7-012, January 23, 2018) was approved using this methodology for the In-Lieu Fee. Pursuant to General Plan Policy H-6a, monies in Fund 243 shall be paired with debt, and utilized for the purchase and rehabilitation of existing housing supply and the creation of new units to provide affordable housing within the community. The project's contribution of $500,000, along with the current fund balance of$ I.3M, will bring the current balance to $1.8M. These monies, and contributions from other San Rafael projects, will be paired with debt, and aid the City in the creation of affordable housing units. 7. 'Open Campus': Residents, visitors and staff frequently go out, and utilize the services and opportunities offered in the Downtown area, and greater community. The Operator provides transportation to residents and encourages outings, field trips and excursions to the local community. The Operator regularly offers its common spaces to the greater community to host local group meetings such as local charities, educational gatherings, support groups, election centers, Lions Club, among others. Residents interact with local entertainment, educational speakers, youth theater plays, and intergenerational programs such as school reading and art events. A summary of these programs is attached from the Operator in Exhibit #3. 8. Redevelopment of a Vacant Lot: The Property has been vacant for twelve years and contains numerous police records of homeless encampments, trespassing, graffiti and vandalism. The previously-approved 36 unit project is not financially feasible, as noted by both Noah Reischmann of CBRE (Exhibit #4), and by Dr. Robert Eyler. At the July 10 hearing, Commissioner Jack Robertson also noted his firm had previously analyzed the project, and it "did not go anywhere," eluding to the multi-family project being infeasible. 3 Minimal Impacts 1. Traffic: ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC 110 I Fifth A venue #300 San Rafael, CA 94901 The Project's off-peak shift changes result in lowering traffic impacts since staff is not arriving or departing during peak commute hours. A traffic impacts analysis was approved by DPW, which notes the Project has fewer impacts than a conventional 36-unit multifamily project. The addition of a below-grade parking level further improves traffic circulation at the site. 2. Public Transportation: As noted by Linda Jackson of the Aging Action Initiative, the Project's location in close proximity to multi-model public transportation is optimal for staff, residents and visitors. The Operator has benefits in place to encourage public transportation use. This utilization of public transportation further reduces the traffic impacts in and around Downtown. A review of public transp01tation routes notes that routes are available for all shifts, from numerous points of origin in the Bay Area. Attached in Exhibit #5 is a sample of these applicable transit routes. 3. Parking: The Project contains a parking quantity 48.3% in excess of the Operator, Architect and Traffic Engineer's calculated demand. This parking supply accounts for all staff, residents and visitors demand. The inventory of parking will not negatively impact the neighborhood. Gateway Location The Project proposes to turn a prominent gateway location in San Rafael from a currently vacant site into an iconic building. The design pays homage to San Rafael's heritage, and is appropriately located at the entrance of Mission Avenue. The Project's use, design and location perfectly complements the high-density core of Downtown to the South, to the residential neighborhoods to the North. 4 ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC 1101 Fifth Avenue #300 San Rafael, CA 94901 The Appeal is inaccurate and discriminatory. The filed appeal inaccurately represents the Project, incorrectly argues numerous points, and 1s discriminatory in nature against seniors. 1. Use The appeal argues that the Project is not in accordance with the General Plan, does not take advantage of the Downtown, and that Seniors do not contribute to Downtown. The suggestions are incorrect. As identified by Planning Staff, and described under section 14.04.020 of the Municipal Code, this is an allowed use within the HRI zoning district with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff noted, and the Planning Commission found, that the Project complied with the General Plan, and conformed to all development standards for the zoning district. As noted on July 10, it is legally impe1missible to deny an application for a permitted use.due to a desire or preference for a different use. 2. 'Closed Campus' The appeal incorrectly states that this facility is a 'closed-campus' and therefore the residents do not bring any benefit to Downtown San Rafael, and should be housed in a less-desirable area of the City. The statements are incorrect. -As noted by both Linda Jackson of the Aging Action Initiative, and by the Operator, this is truly an 'open-campus.' The residents in these facilities utilize Downtown for dining, shopping, and intergenerational interaction. It is typical for visiting family members to take the residents out for meals, shopping, to Farmers' Markets, San Rafael Film Center, etc. -Additionally, the facility offers community rooms for use by local groups. The Project also employs numerous local professional service providers who visit the building, who will also utilize the Downtown for shopping, dining and events. The Project's walkable Downtown location lends itself well for direct engagement with the Downtown area for staff, residents and visitors. Due to the Downtown location, many local residents and employees will be able to visit their loved ones more frequently. -As noted by Dr. Robert Eyler, The Project results in an economic benefit to San Rafael 6 times greater than that of a conventional multi-family project due to the spending generated,jobs created, and tax revenue. 3. The Appeal is Discriminatory The appeal unfairly seeks to exclude older members of the community from the Downtown Area. Contrary to statements and inferences made in the appeal, we believe seniors, like any other segment of our local population, s.hould have equal access to Downtown and should not be discriminated against. 5 4. Affordable Housing ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC 1101 Fifth Avenue #300 San Rafael, CA 94901 The appeal argues that this Project does not address affordable housing in the City of San Rafael. The statements are incorrect. The Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee is calculated for Assisted Living Facilities using an average between two land uses within the City's Code (Municipal Code 14.16.030): Hotel (.0075 units per 1,000 GSF) and Personal Services (.0225 units per 1,000 GSF) rates. As identified in the July 10 Planning Commission staff report, previously-approved Assisted Living Facilities have utilized this methodology. Accordingly, the 64,054 square foot Project would require an affordable housing in-lieu fee of 0.96 units, or $318,095. During the July 10 Planning Commission Hearing, we offered, in good faith, to contribute an additional amount to the City's Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Fund. We calculated and offered an in-lieu fee of $476,740 based on the higher 'personal services' rate. For ease of discussion during the Commission hearing, we presented the in-lieu fee of $500,000, which was adopted by the Commission as a condition of approval for the Project. It is noted that the appeal views this condition of approval for the additional fee as a bribe. Although we respectfully request that the Council uphold the Commission's decision and deny the appeal, if the Council prefers consistency in application of this fee for like categories of use, then we welcome the opportunity for the Council to amend the condition of approval regarding the fee as originally noted in the Planning Commission's Staff Report ($318,095). The appeal requests high-density housing get built at this site. As the Council may be aware, residential projects in Downtown San Rafael are requesting upwards of 200% density bonuses in which to be financially feasible. A comparable 200% density bonus residential project would result in a significantly less attractive building at this iconic corner, and would result in substantially more traffic, parking and noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. We are advocates for high density transit-oriented housing, but hold the strong opinion that such uses are better suited for the Downtown Core of San Rafael, rather than on the corner of Mission and Lincoln A venues. In addition, we have reached out to affordable housing developers. Their response was that the 36-unit project is infeasible, that it contains too few units, and that they do not have interest in pursuing the project. 5. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance: The appeal argue that the Project does not supply sufficient parking, that it will contain onsite amenities which are not allowed in the zoning district. a) Parking As noted by the Operator who manages nearly thirty urban and suburban communities, the Architect, and the Traffic Engineer, this Project requires a peak demand of 31 parking spaces. 6 ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC 1101 Fifth Avenue #300 San Rafael, CA 94901 The Municipal Code calculates a parking requirement of 42 parking spaces. The Project has 46 parking spaces; 6 of which are operated as tandems to be utilized by staff. See attached parking information (Exhibit#6). b) On-Site Amenities: The appeal has misinterpreted the presence of amenities within the facility as evidence that residents will not utilize Downtown amenities. As noted above, this is not the case. The cited objectionable Project amenities include amenity space that also could be found in a typical multi-family residential common area. Staff has noted these amenities are acceptable. The July 10th Staff Report contained nearly forty letters of support from Downtown merchants, professional services, businesses and restaurants endorsing the use and expressing their excitement for inclusion of a senior population Downtown. Conclusion We respectfully request that the City Council deny this appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission for the reasons noted above. We are excited for this project to come to life so that this much needed housing for seniors in our community can be enjoyed, and the benefits realized by Downtown San Rafael. Sincerely, Geoff Forner ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC Exhibit List: 1. Economic Analysis, Dr. Robert Eyler, Marin Economic Forum 2. Analysis of Unlocked Housing Units 3. 'Open Campus,' John Carpentier, Aegis Living 4. Availability of Financing, Noah Reischmann, CBRE San Francisco 5. Available Public Transportation Services 6. Parking Analysis 7. Planning Commission Resolution 18-04. 7 EXHIBIT 1 MARIN ECONOMIC FORUM 800 Mission Avenue in San Rafael, California: Senior Living Facility An Economic Brief for Aegis Living August 2018 1 About Marin Economic Forum The Marin Economic forum provides information and opportunities to collaborate for improving Marin County's economic vitality, while seeking to increase social equity and protect the environment. Please see www.marineconomicforum.org for more information. Mission Statement The Marin Economic forum enables Marin's economic stakeholders* to collaborate on improving the County's economic vitality, focusing on Marin's targeted industries** while enhancing social equity and protecting the environment. Marin Economic Forum is ... • Connecting Businesses to partners and solutions; • Educating on the importance of business for Marin County's future; • Providing data and information to help businesses and local governments; and • Supporting economic development efforts for sustainable growth of local businesses. Strategic Objectives • Attract, retain, and grow businesses and jobs to continually strengthen Marin County's economy; • Establish periodic forums for the stakeholders to share their visions and goals, to exchange mutually beneficial information and leverage limited resources; • Collect, analyze and disseminate economic data and trends; • Educate Marin County about its economic successes, challenges, and progress; • Improve "economic sustainability" by prescribing economic development that integrates social equity and environmental balance with economic growth; and • Encourage governmental bureaucracy reduction and judicious economic policies to support the local economy and a thriving workforce. The lead author on this work was Robert Eyler, PhD. Robert acts as MEF's chief economist. Dr. Eyler earned a Ph.D. Economics from UC Davis and holds a BA in economics from CSU, Chico. He has been a visiting scholar at both the University of Bologna and Stanford University. 2 Executive Summary 800 Mission Avenue is a 77-unit, 88-bed Senior Housing Project (ALF) recently approved by the San Rafael Planning Commission. The ALF proposes to have 75 daily employees, daily visitors of the residents, and daily professional visitors. This report clarifies the positive difference in potential economic impacts to San Rafael as a result of this ALF being built and operated versus a 36-unit, multi-family complex (example used here is 20 one-bedroom apartments and 16 two-bedroom apartments). Comparing construction impacts: • The ALF is 1.25 times the multi-family impacts on business revenues; and • 1.4 times on jobs supported and state and local taxes. Once the residents arrive and the ALF business operations begin: • The ALF is 3.5 times the business revenues in year one; by year 5 the ALF is 6 times; • 5 times the jobs supported initially and through year 5; and • 3 times the state and local taxes than the multi-family land-use option, by year 5 the ALF is 6 times. The ALF's business revenue, employment and tax benefits for the City of San Rafael are all larger as land-use choice than the 36-unit multi-family complex option. Also, comparing the financial feasibility of the two projects suggests taking the ALF option over the multi-family option based on projected return on capital. The economic impacts come in five ways: 1. Construction Spending: $25M vs 16M; 2. Operating revenues become worker salaries at the ALF: 75 FTE workers averaging $65,000 per year for $4.8M vs 1 FTE worker at the multi-family complex at $40,000 per year; 3. Impacts on San Rafael: new resident, staff and visitor spending, as well as more housing units from alternative dwelling units (ADUs); 4. Revenue to city: fees and tax revenues from operations; and 5. Property Tax increase from transfer to new owners annually. Below is a summary of the economic impacts by category shown in the report. Summary Economic Impacts • Construction Spending o ALF: $25 million of spending supports another $9.6 million in business revenues, 193 jobs during construction and $2.03 million in state and local taxes during construction. o Multi-Family: $16 million of spending supports another $7.7 million in business revenues, 136 jobs during construction and $1.03 million in state and local taxes during construction. • Economic Benefits o ALF • Spending by the 88 residents and 75 staff spending and working in San Rafael supports $17.2 million in new, annual spending throughout San Rafael, which supports approximately 147 workers and $1.7 million annually in new state and local tax revenues (including business and family visitor spending); and • These figures include new households coming into sold home by ALF residents in San Rafael, bringing larger incomes and tax bases to the city, increasing the economic impacts from the ALF residents and staff alone. o Multi-Family • Spending by 62 residents support $4.28 million in spending in San Rafael (including the residents' spending), supporting approximately 28 workers and $322,000 annually in new state and local tax revenues; and • One FTE workers support another 0.6 workers, $287,000 and $271,000 in annual, new business and state/local tax revenue respectively for the multi-family units. 3 The following figures provide a detailed comparison of each phase and set of impacts. $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Construction: Business Revenues, Millions of$ ALF Multi-Family • Construction Spending • Additional Impacts 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Staff and Resident Impacts: Business Revenues, Millions of S • Additional Spending From New Households • Resident Spending • Additional Impacts from Staff • Staff/Operations Construction: Tax Revenues while Building $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 ALF Multi-Family • Other Taxes and Fees • Personal Income • Property taxes • Sales taxes • Employment Taxes Construction: Number of Jobs Supported 250 200 150 100 50 0 ALF Multi-Family • Construction Spending • Additional Impacts 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20. 0 Staff and Resident Impacts: ALF Number of Jobs Supported Multi-Family • Additiona I Spending From New Households • Resident Spending • Additional Impacts from Staff • Staff/Operations Staff and Resident Impacts: Annual Tax Revenues $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 I!!!! ! • other Taxes and Fees • Personal Income • Property taxes specific to land-use choice • Property taxes • Sales taxes • Employment Taxes Note: "Additional Spending from New Households" is the economic effect of new households due to ALF residents selling a home to move into the ALF with a new household purchasing that home. 4 Introduction This report examines the economic impacts of a proposed, assisted living facility (ALF) for seniors at 800 Mission Avenue in San Rafael, California. This study was commissioned by Aegis Living. This project was recently approved by the city's planning commission and an appeal was filed on July 17, 2018. This report clarifies the potential economic impacts to San Rafael from this ALF being built and operating versus a 36-unit, multi-family complex (with 20 one-bedroom apartments and 16 two bedroom apartments). The economic impacts come in two stages with three sources: • Stage 1, Construction: the ALF has a cost of $25 million, while the 36-unit complex has an estimated cost of $16 million in comparison; • Stage 2, Operations and New Residents: the ALF is estimated to have 88 residents based on specific planning when at full capacity; based on the current people per household in San Rafael of 2.53 (2018 estimates from California Department of Finance) for all city households, we assume here there would be 62 residents at full capacity of the 36 units (1.5 people per one-bedroom unit and 2.0 people per two-bedroom unit); and o Workers: both projects are commercial real estate operations • The ALF has both living units and a workplace on-site with approximately 75 daily (seven days a week), full-time equivalent (FTE) workers; while • The multi-family complex has one (1) FTE worker. o Approximately 45 percent of ALF residents turn over annually; 90 percent are estimated to come from San Rafael, and sell a home to make the move to the ALF. • This brings new households into San Rafael that purchase the sold home • Increases in city business revenues, tax revenues and supported jobs come with these new households annually and compound over time due to ALF turnover. We will see that the new residents and staff spending differences result in the ALF producing much higher economic activity than the multi-family, land-use option. In addition, visitors and their spending would likely be much higher from the ALF due to the ALF's residents predominately receiving visitors rather than traveling away from San Rafael. Basic Ideas: Economic Impacts Figure 1: Economic Impacts There are broader effects of building and operating the ALF on San Rafael's economy concerning supported jobs, annual business revenues and new tax receipts. Economic impacts come in three "flavors" starting with the same way ripples come from throwing a rock into a still pond; the rock illustrates the ALF's operations, rippling out into the broader economy as Total Economic Impacts additional economic impacts. Direct effects come from the ALF's daily operations. Indirect effects come from vendor relationships becoming broader spending. For example, the ALF may purchase cleaning services from a company. This vendor spending supports some portion of the cleaning company and its employees. This indirect spending becomes induced effects, including the cleaning company's employees spending their wages on groceries, medical visits, restaurant meals, and various other industries that have nothing to do with the ALF. Figure 1 shows the multiplier effect of these rounds of new spending in theory. 5 Direct Economic Impacts: Construction Spending Commercial real estate construction has a period of time where the economic impacts are from building each facility before daily operations begin. The two project's estimated budgets are: • ALF = $25 million construction cost for 77 units; • Multi-family units = $16 million for 36 units. Assuming these total construction costs are correct, the ALF has more land improvements and thus a larger assessed property value after construction. The IMPLAN® model has estimates of full-time equivalent employment levels on site for both types of projects and also the taxes and business revenues supported by the construction spending. The tables below provide the broader economic effects comparing the ALF to the multi-family unit complex. A glossary in the Appendix provides more explanations of some of the major industries affected below. Figure 2: Employment Impacts, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units, Full-Time Equivalents Supported Industry Direct Indirect Induced Total Multi-Family Construction 134.7 -134.7 83.1 Wholesale trade 5.1 1.2 6.2 3.3 Architectural, engineering, and related services 2.3 0.2 2.6 1.7 Real estate 0.9 1.3 2.3 1.8 Full-service restaurants 0.3 1.9 2.2 1.5 Limited-service restaurants 0.1 1.7 1.9 1.3 Truck transportation 1.3 0.2 1.5 1.1 Individual and family services 1.4 1.4 1.0 Landscape and horticultural services 1.1 0.3 1.4 0.8 Offices of physicians 1.3 1.3 0.9 All Others 11.2 26.8 38.0 39.5 Totals 134.7 22.3 36.3 193.5 136.0 Figure 3: Business Revenue Effects Annually, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units Compared, 2018 Dollars Industry Direct Indirect Induced Total Multi-Family Construction $25,000,000 $0 $0 $25,000,000 $16,000,000 Wholesale trade $0 $1,324,400 $300,900 $1,625,300 $855,300 Owner-occupied dwellings $0 $0 $909,100 $909,100 $619,500 Real estate $0 $217,600 $306,300 $523,900 $409,700 Architectural and related services $0 $387,500 $28,700 $416,200 $279,700 Truck transportation $0 $224,300 $44,100 $268,400 $192,200 Limited-service restaurants $0 $13,200 $195,100 $208,300 $140,200 Offices of physicians $0 $0 $208,100 $208,100 $141,600 Insurance carriers $0 $31,600 $167,200 $198,800 $138,000 Legal services $0 $88,600 $87,600 $176,200 $114,300 All Others $0 $1,834,800 $3,270,300 $5,105,100 $4,871,700 Totals $25,000,000 $4,122,000 $5,517,400 $34,639,400 $23,762,200 Figure 4: State and Local Tax Receipts Annually, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units Compared, 2018 Dollars Tax Employment Taxes Sales taxes (resident, staff, visitor spending) Property taxes Personal Income Other Taxes and Fees Total State and Local taxes ALF $60,700 $900,000 $346,200 $523,600 $196,100 $2,026,600 Multi-Family $40,300 $226,700 $264,800 $355,800 $143,000 $1,030,600 6 Direct Economic Impacts: Spending Profiles Comparison For the ALF, there are an estimated 88 residents with 62 residents in the multi-family complex as a comparison. The key parameter for spending profiles is annual income levels. Given the ALF residents are seniors, we assume these residents are 65 years or older. For the multi-family project, the ages could range from O to 100, most likely under 65 years of age. The American Community Survey (ACS) provides data on the median income levels for different age ranges in Marin County (see http://factfinder.census.gov for more information). For the five-year average between 2012 and 2016 (these are the latest data with the largest sample size), the following data exist for median income by age and then aggregate spending based on the number of living in each example from above: • For ages 65 and older, the median income is $71,604, becoming $6,301,152 annually; and • For all households, the median income in Marin County is $97,098, becoming $6,796,860 annually. Comparing the economic impacts from construction and resident spending once the units are occupied, two differences are apparent. First, household spending only has an "induced" impact, as there are no ripple effects otherwise. Household spending is not employment or investment, thus the only effects are spending and what that spending supports in the local economy, the end of the ripple effects discussed above. Second, there are no data on how many of these new households and residents are going to originate in San Rafael. This analysis, comparing the ALF to the multi-family land-use option, assumes that new residents come from outside San Rafael for the multi-family project (i.e., the spending is new spending for San Rafael), where 55 percent of ALF residents come from outside San Rafael. As a result, new families come to San Rafael as local seniors move from their current homes in San Rafael to the ALF. From this activity, additional economic impacts come to the city economy. • There is a reassessment of properties sold by new ALF residents to be, increasing property tax assessment values and tax revenue collected; • These new households have relatively large incomes to afford the median price of approximately $1,022,000 (Zillow Research median home prices) in San Rafael. o Assuming a 10% down payment on the home purchase and 25 percent of their gross income being spent on mortgage principal, interest, property taxes, and insurance, the household income of new owners would be approximately $251,800. Housing Turnover It is estimated that 45 percent of the 88 ALF beds will turnover annually, and 90 percent of new ALF residents in units that turn over come from local homeowners who sell a home to move on to a facility such as this ALF. Annually, 36 homes in San Rafael are sold as ALF residents make this change, adding 36 new households to the city economy for an initial spending increase of 36 x $251,800 = $9,064,800 annually. There is a net effect for the seniors moving from their current home in San Rafael to the ALF, as their local spending remains local and does not come from the outside. Alternative Dwelling Units (ADUs) are permanent homes established alongside of a main dwelling on a residentially-zoned parcel. Accessory dwelling units may be attached to or detached from the main home. It is estimated that 25 percent of newly-occupied homes will have ADUs on their property. These ADUs provide additional housing supply, and also contribute to the City of San Rafael's regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) numbers. Additional, annual property tax revenue increases also through rising, assessed property values due to these transfers; assuming the average property had a property tax roll basis of 50 percent of its sales price, the· average increase to city property tax revenues generated would be just under $200,000 annually over a 10-year period ($182,000 in year 1 at 2018 median home prices and then escalating 2 percent per year as well as more home sales and assessment value augmentation). Over time, there are positive and compounding effects and change in the age and incomes of San Rafael residents. 7 Those that live in the new units may not be the only people that come to downtown San Rafael and spend money. Visitors to the ALF are likely to be coming on a daily basis and taking their relatives or friends to downtown for meals or outings where spending money is part of that travel. Hotel stays may also be increased; in the case of the multi-family units, visitors are also going to come. Because there is not a basis in the data or literature to compare visitor spending to each complex, this study does not estimate that amount specifically; if we think that visitors come on a per-resident basis, the ALF is likely to have more visitors than the multi-family units. The amount of spending depends on the frequency of visitors and also the visitor income levels. According to Aegis Living, assisted living facilities have an average stay of 2 years which provides some stability and some turnover for seniors in San Rafael. Using the IMPLAN® model, certain income levels have typical spending patterns in Marin County. The annual income levels do not include additional spending that may come from episodic changes in wealth. Figures 5 through 7 compare spending and jobs supported by these income levels. Figure 5: Employment Impacts, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units, Full-Time Equivalents Supported Industry ALF Multi-Family Full-service restaurants 2.8 1.6 Limited-service restaurants 2.5 1.4 Individual and family services 2.1 1.1 Real estate 2.1 1.1 Offices of physicians 2.0 1.1 Wholesale trade 1.7 0.9 Retail -Food and beverage stores 1.6 0.9 Retail -General merchandise stores 1.3 0.7 Retail -Internet retailers 1.3 0.7 Home health care services 1.1 0. 7 All Others 34.2 17.9 Totals 52.7 28.1 Figure 6: Business Revenue Effects Annually, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units Compared, 2018 Dollars Industry Total Mul~i-Family Owner-occupied dwellings $1,312,900 $1,275,500 Real estate $456,800 $531,700 Wholesale trade $436,900 $473,800 Offices of physicians $315,000 $361,300 Limited-service restaurants $288,400 $315,700 Insurance carriers $247,200 $267,500 Other financial investment activities $184,500 $239,800 Full-service restaurants $175,200 $191,700 Local government $165,800 $194,600 Hospitals $165,100 $212,200 All Others $4,293,200 $221,400 Totals $8,041,000 $4,285,200 Figure 7: State and Local Tax Receipts Annually, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units Compared, 2018 Dollars Tax ALF Multi-Family Employment Taxes $13,800 $7,400 Sales taxes $181,500 $95,600 Property taxes $409,300 $110,500 Personal Income $119,000 $63,200 Other Taxes and Fees $85,800 $45,300 Total State and Local taxes $809,400 $322,000 The turnover of residents and assumed transfer of real estate to larger income households and larger property tax levels accelerates the AL F's positive effects on the city economy. What also differentiates the annual economic impacts of the ALF from a multi-family housing unit project is the number of daily workers. When adding the staffing levels necessary to operate the ALF, its economic 8 impacts are over 3 times the business revenues and state and local taxes of the multi-family option and over 4 times the jobs supported. Direct Economic Impacts: ALF Staff Levels The ALF acts like a multi-family complex and a business on the same property augmenting the economic impacts. With an average of 75 workers on-site seven days a week, the ALF's economic effects from daily operations far exceeds the multi-family land-use option. Further, the skill sets and wage levels are larger at the ALF, which include professional health-care providers as well as administrative staff. Like the spending profiles above, IMPLAN® estimates the economic impacts on additional business revenues, jobs supported and state and local taxes based on this difference; the totals are summarized in Figures 8 to 10. The multi-family maintenance job does not have any revenue associated (rent is paid under resident spending above. Figure 8: Employment Impacts, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units, Full-Time Equivalents Supported Industry Direct Indirect Induced Total ALF Multi-Family ALF Operations/Multi-family Complex Operations 75.0 0.2 75.2 1 Real estate 1.9 0.5 2.4 0 Full-service restaurants 0.2 0.6 0.9 0 Limited-service restaurants 0.1 0.6 0.7 0 Wholesale trade 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.05 Management consulting services 0.6 0.1 0.7 0 Individual and family services 0.5 0.5 o All other food and drinking places 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 Accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services 0.4 0.1 0.5 0 Offices of physicians 0.4 0.4 0 All Others 4.6 8.7 13.3 0.55 Totals 75.0 8.3 12.4 95.8 1.6 Figure 9: Business Revenue Effects Annually, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units Compared, 2018 Dollars Industry Direct Indirect Induced Total ALF Multi-Family ALF Operations/Multi-family Complex Operations $5,970,600 $0 $17,700 $5,988,200 $0 Real estate $0 $430,400 $106,600 $537,000 $5,220 Owner-occupied dwellings $0 $0 $308,300 $308,300 $7,420 Wholesale trade $0 $75,600 $103,600 $179,200 $10,300 Insurance carriers $0 $56,000 $57,400 $113,500 $1,660 Management consulting services $0 $76,500 $9,300 $85,800 $840 Limited-service restaurants $0 $11,300 $67,100 $78,300 $1,700 Management of companies and enterprises $0 $53,000 $19,400 $72,400 $1,060 Offices of physicians $0 $0 $72,000 $72,000 $1,700 Local government $0 $29,300 $40,100 $69,400 $1,240 All Others $0 $645,500 $1,092,100 $1,737,700 $256,160 Totals $5,970,600 $1,377,600 $1,893,600 $9,241,800 $287,300 Figure 10: State and Local Tax Receipts Annually, ALF and 36 Multi-Family Units, 2018 Dollars Tax ALF Multi-Family Employment Taxes $26,000 $480 Sales taxes 103,900 2,720 Property taxes* 540,400 262,180 Personal Income 162,300 4,260 other Taxes and Fees 66,600 1,720 Total State and Local taxes $899,200 $271,360 * Property taxes include the ongoing amount paid by the property owner under each land-use scenario. The estimated assessed value of the ALF is $41.9 million once completed and the 36-unit multi-family complex is estimated to have an assessed value of $25.9 million. 9 Feasibility of Construction In simple terms, developers want a property's value after construction ends and operations begin to be larger than the construction costs. The post-construction value depends on the cash flows from the property's use to either provide a rate of return to the developer/owner, help pay debt off used to build the structure and perhaps purchase the land, or both. Net operating income helps summarize that value to the operator. In the comparison data below provided by Aegis Living, the ALF is projected to have a value above its construction costs. Notice the line item called "Return on Capital" for each land-use option as the key item; the valuation figure is the ratio of net operating income to a capitalization rate, in this case 5 percent. The multi-family option has negative return, where the ALF is positive; for a developer, the ALF is the obvious choice here. Multi-Family TOTAL COST $24,436,750 TOTAL COST $34,226,900 Valuation, 5.0% Cap rate $21,541,274 Valuation, 5.0% Cap rate $38,050,320 Return on Capital % -12% Return on Capital % +11% Notice that the valuations are based on the same "cap rate" or capitalization rate. The ALF's net operating income at a 5 percent ratio to market value provides a 11 percent return to the developer (signaling the developer has an incentive to build), versus the 12 percent loss of capital in the multi-family land-use scenario at the same ratio versus the construction cost (disincentive to pursue the multi-family option). 10 Conclusions The construction spending and day-to-day operations after construction and occupancy for the assisted living facility (ALF) in San Rafael, California far exceed the economic impacts of a 36-unit, multi-family complex. The ALF economic impacts exceed the multi-family use option by 3 times in year one and over 6 times by year 5. This makes intuitive sense for three reasons: 1. The ALF is an ongoing business, with daily operations and 75 workers versus 1 worker at a multi-family complex of 36 units; 2. New households purchase homes sold by local residents that become ALF residents, increasing economic activity and also increasing assessed property values compounding annually through ALF resident turnover; and 3. The facility is larger and has more needs that has the ALF construction budget at $25 million versus $16 million; a. This difference also means the property tax that are ongoing from the operations are greater for the ALF than the multi-family facility because the assessed value is larger. The spending profile of the 88 ALF residents also slightly exceeds that of the multi-family complex residents; the ALF residents have slightly lower per household income levels, but there are more residents. Below is a summary of the economic impacts by°category shown in the report; in short, the ALF has larger economic impacts on San Rafael's economy during both construction and operations. Summary Economic Impacts • Construction Spending o ALF: $25 million of spending supports another $9.6 million in business revenues, 193 jobs during construction and $2.03 million in state and local taxes during construction. o Multi-Family: $16 million of spending supports another $7.7 million in business revenues, 136 jobs during construction and $1.03 million in state and local taxes during construction. • Economic Benefits o ALF • Spending by the 88 residents and 75 staff spending and working in San Rafael supports $17.2 million in new, annual spending throughout San Rafael, which supports approximately 147 workers and $1.7 million annually in new state and local tax revenues (including business and family visitor spending); and • These figures include new households coming into sold home by ALF residents in San Rafael, bringing larger incomes and tax bases to the city, increasing the economic impacts from the ALF residents and staff alone and compounding annually through turnover at the ALF. o Multi-Family • Spending by 62 residents support $4.28 million in spending in San Rafael (including the residents' spending), supporting approximately 28 workers and $322,000 annually in new state and local tax revenues; and • One FTE workers support another 0.6 workers, $287,000 and $271,000 in annual, new business and state/local tax revenue respectively for the multi-family units. The ALF's tax benefits for the City of San Rafael are larger also due to larger construction, resident spending and ALF staffing levels as a land-use choice. The sale of homes to new households as current residents move to the ALF provides even more economic benefits to San Rafael and the city government not there with the multi-family land-use choice. The compounding effect is another reason why the ALF's economic effects are much larger than the multi-family project. Comparing the two projects' financial feasibility points to a developer taking the ALF option over the multi-family option based on projected return on capital. 11 References and Glossary Data on the ALF construction budget, resident and employment levels were provided by Aegis Living; the estimates for the multi-family units' construction budget was also provided by Aegis Living. Aegis Living also provided estimates of resident turnover, ADU volume after home sales, local home sales that result from new residents coming to the ALF, and the proforma data for feasibility of construction and subsequent valuations of each example use of land. Zillow Research provides median home prices data for San Rafael, please see https://www.zillow.com/research/data/ for more. Data on people per household is from the California Department of Finance's estimates on housing and population as of January 1, 2018 (the latest data available as of August 5, 2018). For the data, see http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demoqraphics/Estimates/E-5/documents/E-5 2018InternetVersion.xls Median household income data come from the American Community Survey (ACS) through 2016. See http://factfinder.census.gov for more information. The following definitions pertain to line items referenced here. Many of these definitions come from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Please see www.bls.gov for further details. • All other food and drinking places: All additional restaurants not captured in limited-or full-service restaurants, including food trucks. • Full-service restaurants: Establishments primarily engaged in providing food service to patrons who order and are served while seated, and pay after eating. These establishments may sell alcoholic beverages, provide take-out services, operate a bar or present live entertainment, in addition to serving food and beverages. • Individual and family services: Establishments primarily engaged in providing one or more of a wide variety of individual and family social, counseling, welfare, or referral services, including refugee, disaster, and temporary relief services. This industry includes offices of specialists providing counseling, referral, and other social services. • Insurance carriers: insurance 9gents and businesses • Limited-service restaurants: any establishments whose patrons generally order or select items and pay before eating. Food and drink may be consumed on premises, taken out, or delivered to customers' locations. • Management consulting services: businesses hired as consultants to help with company operations, decisions, and other aspects of running a business. • Management of companies and enterprises: This sector comprises establishments primarily engaged in managing companies and enterprises and/or holding the securities or financial assets of companies and enterprises, for the purpose of owning a controlling interest in them and/or influencing their management decisions. • Medical offices: health care outside hospitals, based on outpatient general care outside of rehabilitation or skilled nursing and residential health facilities. • Owner-Occupied Dwellings: The income made by owners of homes they occupy, through rent payments or other savings due to home ownership. • Other financial investment activities: This industry comprises establishments, not classified to any other industry, primarily engaged in providing, on a contract or fee basis, miscellaneous financial investment services, such as trust, fiduciary and custody services, and other investment services. • Retail -Internet Retailers; These retail businesses do not have a storefront, but are locally headquartered and sell their goods and services through the internet or catalogs. • Wholesale Trade: Businesses that connect goods producers to retailers, classic distribution and wholesale businesses, including Costco. 12 EXHIBIT#2 Senior Housing "Unlocks" Existing Housing Supply • As residents move into the new project, existing inventory is opened up for new residents, "unlocking inventory." • 40% of San Rafael homes are occupied by residents 65 and older • 40% of these households are single occupant • 90% of these residents own the home and have low (Prop. 13) property tax basis and considerable locked up equity • Average San Rafael Home values are over $1,000,000 • New home owners purchase the vacated home establishing a liquidity event for Seniors and increasing property tax base at new market value. (This increases the City's property tax base.) • New residents make improvements to home employing various trades. Redecorating and upgrades are made with local merchants and suppliers. • Approximately 40% to 45% of resident at Aegis Communities will turnover each year. • It is estimated 25% of newly transacted homes will offer ADU's as additional housing units. In 10 Years, an estimated: • 394 Homes will be 'unlocked.' • 101 new ADU's will be created 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 so 0 Cumulative 'Unlocked' Housing Units ~ ~ I I • .. j rit. ,·.:i-,; •'·, 'I : -., ·' ' Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 r Unlocked Housing Units • Newly Created ADU's On average, 45% of the 88 residents turnover annually. Approximately 90% own their home. 25% of newly transacted homes will create ADU's EXHIBIT 3 , Aegis Living ASSISTED LIVING & MEMORY CARE August 20, 2018 San Rafael City Council City Hall 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Aegis Living in San Rafael -appeal hearing Members of the San Rafael City Council, My name is John Carpentier, Executive VP of Operations for Aegis. I was previously the General Manager of Aegis Corte Madera, and am familiar with the aging population of Marin County. I've been asked to provide some data as to how the residents, families, staff and visiting professionals contribute to the vitality of the neighborhoods where Aegis Senior Living communities are located. • Residents' involvement with the community o This building is an 'open campus,' in which residents frequently visit, utilize and interact with the community. o Residents frequently interact with, and visit, schools and other events in which to share their life experiences. o As part of our standard operation, we provide multiple group outings (shuttle) each week. We regularly go on local shopping trips, dining at local restaurants, attending local events, engaging with the community, visiting local tourist attractions, and group walks in the local area. o We offer our residents private transportation services for supporting our residents to medical appointments, private outing for shopping, dining, entertainment, visiting friends, etc. o When families come to visit our residents they very often take them shopping and out to have a nice local meal. Further, we find that some of our family members come from outside the local area and stay at local hotels. o This Project's Downtown location lends itself well to numerous Downtown residents and employees visiting their loved ones more frequently. For example, Downtown employees can walk over to the facility and take their loved one out for lunch, students can walk to visit their loved ones, etc. • Community Rooms: o We provide key amenities inside the community, such as a theater-like movie room, activity room, dining room and salon. This is a convenience for residents, but most still enjoy visiting nearby services, eateries and shops with their visiting families and friends. o However our door is not just for exiting, it's an also an entrance. Our communities are designed as places where family and friends will want to visit. In addition to residents and family members enjoying these spaces, we regularly offer these spaces to the greater Community to host local group meeting (realtor groups, Lions Club, kid's reading club, local charities, educational gatherings, support groups, hosting as an election center, Condominium Association, etc.). We are a meaningful part of the community's vitality and diversity. o We have scores of events open to the greater public that involve the local Community ranging from entertainment and educators to hosting local groups that want to support our residents (concerts by local groups (high school, Girl Scouts), plays, school art intergenerational programs, reading programs, etc.). Recently we had a group of school children visit our Issaquah community for a family reading program. The topic was courage, and there were three WWII vets who had much wisdom to share with the children about the complexities of courage. • Staff: o We are recognized as a top 50 best place to work as voted by our employees in Glassdoor and are the only people in our industry to attain such a milestone. o Staff often use their workplace as a focal point for shopping for their personal needs. They regularly go out to eat in local restaurants or cafes. o In addition to the staff, we have a lot of professional services in the Community that bring in professionals to work with our residents. In any given weekday, it is not uncommon to see numerous local professionals visit our Community throughout each day. This professionals range from Massage Therapist, Medical Doctors, Home Health Agencies, hair stylist, hospice agencies, etc. These individuals typically have meals at local restaurants, etc. o Employee first -Our company is an "employee first" company. We believe happy employees will result in an enjoyable culture and excellent care for residents. Our most recent initiative is to provide financial contribution for employee transportation. This will be companywide, and will be rolled out soon (well before San Rafael opens). Details are being hammered out, but it will be meaningful as this is a recognized need for many Aegis employees. Many have ideas of assisted living communities that belong in the 19th and 20th centuries. Our clientele demands and deserves better, and that starts with providing them with a location that serves their desire to remain engaged in the communities they helped build. It also serves the community better, which will benefit from the diversity and civic energy inherent to a community brimming with individuals dedicated to living fully. One's pace of walking does not equate to one's contribution to community. I trust you'll agree that the downtown can be a place for many uses and people, including a great place for seniors. We at Aegis look forward to operating the Aegis of San Rafael in the beautiful new community designed specifically for your community on the outside, and for quality life experiences to occur on the inside. Warmly and respectfully, John Carpentier Executive VP of Operations Aegis SeniorCommunities EXHIBIT 4 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES Noah M. Reischmann Vice President CBRE HMF Inc. Capital Markets Debt & Structured Finance I Multifamily & Healthcare August 24, 2018 Steve Stafford City of San Rafael -Planning Department 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, 94091 CBRE l 01 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415 772 0287 Tel 415 772 0459 Fax 415 309 9761 Cell noah. reischma nn@cbre.com www.cbre.com/fha Re: Proposed Aegis Senior Housing Development -Financing Availability Letter Mission Avenue & Lincoln Avenue, San Rafael, CA Dear Mr. Stafford: CBRE Capital markets specializes in senior housing finance, and we are providing this letter as confirmation that construction financing and permanent financing are indeed available for the proposed senior housing development located at the corner of Mission avenue and Lincoln avenue, in downtown San Rafael. CBRE finances many senior projects nationwide which mirror the proposed development scope. The Aegis Senior Community has been well designed for the market in San Rafael. There is considerable demand and the senior market is expanding rapidly. Currently in San Rafael, there is inadequate supply of senior housing while the population is aging and in need of professional health services. Financing for the Aegis development is readily available from institutional lenders. We understand the development site was originally slated for 36 multifamily units. Due to the inefficient design, and high development costs in the region, we do not believe the multifamily project is economically feasible and the cost to build the project greatly exceeds the market value. The typical lending criteria and limitations on construction financing would prevent developers from moving forward with this project. Based on all considerations above we would not recommend a 36-unit multifamily project at this development site. Best Regards Noah M. Reischmann Vice President CBRE HMF, INC. EXHIBIT#S Public Transportation Schedule-800 Mission Avenue San Rafael The anticipated employee shift schedule was provided to Planning Staff. A simple review of the public transportation time tables show that timing and frequency of these shift schedules are accommodated by numerous modes and routes of public transportation, departing and arriving within a few blocks of the project: SMART Train: First Southbound Train arrives in San Rafael at 5:26AM Last Northbound Train departs San Rafael at 8:35PM Golden Gate Transit: Highway 101 Corridor First GGT bus from Santa Rosa arrives in San Rafael at 5: 1 0AM Last northbound bus departs San Rafael at 1: l 5AM Golden Gate Transit: East Bay Corridor (Route 40) First GGT bus from El Cerrito arrives in San Rafael at 6:25AM Last Route 40 bus departs San Rafael at 10:00PM These off-peak shift changes reduce traffic volumes, and can be serviced by numerous modes of public transportation. EXHIBIT 6 PARKING DEMAND-800 Mission Avenue The Project does not use the hotel parking code as noted in the appeal letter. Both The Operator, who operates nearly thirty urban and suburban communities, and the Traffic Engineer, noted that this project only requires a peak demand of 31 parking spaces. The submitted parking study surveyed parking demand of similar assisted facilities, and resulted in a parking demand of 31 parking spaces based on this project's unit count. The demand for 31 parking spaces includes all user groups: residents, staff, visitors, and visiting doctors, etc. The qualitative analysis of the parking demand for this project results in an even lower parking demand due to the prevalent amount of public transportation in close proximity to the site. Planning Staff misspoke at the July 10th hearing, noting that the project generates a demand for 31 parking spaces, and that the 9 net spaces would be for visitors. As noted above the demand of 31 spaces includes all user groups. The Municipal Code calculates a parking requirement of 42 parking spaces. The building has 46 parking spaces; 6 of which are operated as tandems to be utilized by staff. Current City Code does not allow for tandems, therefore the shown parking of 40 spaces required a parking modification to be requested (See attached Parking Graphic). Recent discussions with the Community Development Director and Planning Staff, note the parking code is expected to change in the near future, and will allow for tandem parking spaces to be permitted by Municipal Code. Thus, the project will have 46 parking spaces, well in excess of the building's demand and the City's requirement. LOWER LEVEL PLAN 6 Additional Parking Spaces highlighted in yellow -,1=::$:::=======R===!:1. .. -.-.i __ .__l __ . __ L .. k •• -1. ~ 1· / I I. .. t--+~1.--11··--.--;--:·r·-. . . . ,-i--::-. --r----i-i--t i· i . I r ---t I ~ I· l-+--4---1 I ~ i r··'::)_,: -' _J_., ..• ~ ..... _ ...... _____ __,___l----l l~ 1 ~~~, I ;: I \ ! ,/ ______ (\·:• , .. · -1 0 ... .... -·-•·•-~H,Utld, ff-'I. UT Allen Matkins August 29, 2018 Hon. Gary 0. Phillips, Mayor and City Council Members City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth A venue, Room 203 San Rafael, CA 94901 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Malloiy & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor I San Francisco, CA 9411 1-4074 Telephone: 415.837.1515 I Facsimile: 415.837.1516 www.alleru:natkins.com David H. Blackwell E-mail: Direct Dial: File Number: 235898-00048/SF108808! .0I Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's July 10 Approval 800 Mission Avenue September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting Dear Mayor Phillips and Council Members: This firm represents project applicant ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC, and submits this correspondence on its behalf with regard to the above-referenced appeal. The appeal challenges the Planning Commission's approval of a Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of a 77-unit senior facility with a garage parking on a vacant site in downtown San Rafael (Project). Rather than addressing the deficiencies in the legal and factual arguments raised by appellants, which should be addressed in the Staff Report, this correspondence addresses two statutes that this Council should carefully consider when hearing the appeal. I. Housing Accountability Act The state Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code § 65589.5), which is frequently referred to as the "Anti-NIMBY Law," is intended to limit the ability of local governments to reject or make infeasible housing developments without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action. Gov. Code§ 65589.5(6). Under the HAA, in order for a local agency to disapprove a housing development project, it must base its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record, none of which apply here. Gov. Code § 65589.50)(1). The phrase "disapprove a housing development project" includes disapproving a project application, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. Gov. Code § 65589 .5(h )(5). Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law City Council August 29, 2018 Page 2 The Project constitutes a housing development project within the meaning of Section 65589.S(h) of the HAA, thus the City Council has a mandatory duty to comply with the HAA in reviewing and taking action on the Project. Subdivision (j) of the HAA severely restricts the ability of a local agency to deny a qualified housing project: When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1 ), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. Gov. Code§ 65589.S(j). Clearly, none of these findings can be made with regard to the Project, nor is there any evidence in the record demonstrating a specific adverse impact on the public health or safety that would meet the criteria of Section 65589.S(j)(l). If a court determines that the local agency violated subdivision (j), the court: may direct the local agency to comply with the HAA; may direct it to approve the project if it determines the agency acted in bad faith; shall award attorneys' fees and costs; and may impose fines and multiply those fines under certain circumstances. Gov. Code§ 65589.S(k)(l)(A). Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law City Council August 29, 2018 Page 3 II. Fair Employment and Housing Act The state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code §§12900 et seq.) makes it unlawful to "otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling based on discrimination because ofrace, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, or national origin." Gov. Code §12955(k). Government Code section 12955(1) provides that it shall be unlawful: To discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations because ofrace, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, national origin, source of income, or ancestry. Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, restrictive covenants, zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law (Title 7 (commencing with Section 65000)), that make housing opportunities unavailable. Although appellants refer to various development standards and fees, the crux of their appeal is that the property should not be made available to seniors because they would not promote the downtown as well as younger persons. Therefore, granting the appeal would constitute discrimination against seniors and would "make housing opportunities unavailable" to seniors, in violation of Section 12955(1). The judicial remedies for housing discrimination may include actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Gov. Code § 12980 et seq. In sum, should this Council ignore City Staff and the Planning Commission and grant the appeal, thereby preventing the development of a long-vacant lot into an important facility for the City's senior population, such an action would contravene state law and expose the City to legal challenges and consequences. Very truly yours, David H. Blackwell cc: Rob Epstein, City Attorney Legal No. Marin Independent Journal 4000 Civic Center Drive, Suite 301 San Rafael, CA 94903 415-382-7335 legals@marinij.com I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Marin, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Marin, State of California, under date of FEBRUARY 7, 1955, CASE NUMBER 25566; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: 08/17/2018 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 17th day of August, 2018. PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Marin Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION 0006206305 2070419 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CITY CLERK, ROOM 209 1400 FIFTH AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915-1560 r.BP7-11/10/16 1 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project: DATE/TIME/PLACE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:00 P.M. City Hal l Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafae l, CA 94901 PROJECT: 800 Mission Ave. (formerly 1203 and 1211 Lincoln Ave.) -Appeal of the Planning Com- mission's July 10, 2018 Conditional Approval of a Use Permit (UP17-030) and an Environm ental and Design Review Permit (EDl 7-090) al lowing the construction of a new, 88-bed, assisted liv- ing facility with garage parking and associated site improvements on two vacant Downtown parcels; APN: 011-184-08 & -09 ; Multifamily Residential -High Dens ity (HRl) District; ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC , owner; Geoff Forner, applicant, Bra ndy Wilson, Kay Law and Susan Adler, appellants; File No.: AP18-002 . State law (Ca lifornia Env ironmental Quality Act) requires that this project be reviewed to determine if a study of potential environmen- tal effects is required. It has been determined that this project will no t have a significant ef- fect on the envi ronment and no environmental review will be completed. Thi s project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from the provi- sions of the California Environm ental Quality Act Guidelines und er 14 CRR Section 15305 (a) (Class 5; Minor Alterations to Land Use Limita- tions), 15332 (Class 32; In-Fill Deve lopm ent Project). If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally-sensitive area, further study may be required. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You may comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to grant or deny the appeal of the project approvals. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You may send a letter to Lindsay Lara, City Clerk, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You may also hand de- liv er a letter to the City Clerk prior to the meet- ing. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Steve Stafford, Project Planner at (415) 458·5048 or steve.stafford@cityofsan rafael.org. You may also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the fil e for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, Tu es day and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday and Friday . You can also view the staff repo rt after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meeting~ SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL /s/ Lindsay Lara Lindsay Lara CITY CLERK NO. 1090 AUGUST 17, 2018 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING – CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 800 Mission Ave. (formerly 1203 and 1211 Lincoln Ave.) - Appeal of the Planning Commission’s July 10, 2018 Conditional Approval of a Use Permit (UP17-030) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED17-090) allowing the construction of a new, 88-bed, assisted living facility with garage parking and associated site improvements on two vacant Downtown parcels; APN: 011-184-08 & -09; Multifamily Residential – High Density (HR1) District; ML Seven Capital Partners, LLC, owner; Geoff Forner, applicant; Brandy Wilson, Kay Law and Susan Adler, appellants; File No.: AP18-002. State law (California Environmental Quality Act) requires that this project be reviewed to determine if a study of potential environmental effects is required. It has been determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and no environmental review will be completed. This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines under 14 CRR Section 15305 (a) (Class 5; Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations), 15332; (Class 32; In-Fill Development Project). If the City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally-sensitive area, further study may be required. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Steve Stafford, Project Planner at (415) 458-5048 or steve.stafford@cityofsanrafael.org. You may also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday and Friday. You may also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You may comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to grant of deny the appeal of the project approvals. IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT: You may send written correspondence Lindsay Lara, City Clerk, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You may also hand deliver a letter to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all written correspondence received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date of the Council’s decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para-transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. ~SAN RAFAEL ~ THECITYWITHAMISSIO N 8/21/2018 800 Mission -300' Appeal Mailing Notice r~ I While we strive to produce maps with good accuracy and with current accompanying • • 3 0 0 ' A [ M • t • N t • data , the accuracy of the information herein cannot be guaranteed. This map was 800 M1ss 1on -ppea a1 1 ng O 1ce prepared using programetric computer aided drafting techniques, and it does not I represent legal boundary survey data. 0 47 94 141 188 235 f1 http ://gis.cityofsanrafael.org/sanrafael/fusion/widgets/Print/printpage_ms .php?mapfile=C%3A%2FOSGeo4W%2Ftmp%2Fsess_5b7c3615b6426%2FSanRafael .map&mapname=SanRafael&centerxy=59... 1/1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 11:20 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 11:19 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Kathryn Gaviglio Kenney Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 11:34 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 · Mobile: (4 1 5) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no -reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 11:24 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Stephen Kenney Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:34 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:03 AM To: Lindsay Lara <lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Leslie Ruhland Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 M issi on Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Wednesday, August 29 , 2018 10:34 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office : (41 5) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:33 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsan rafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Paula Beritzhoff Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Greetings- Paula B. Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:50 AM Lindsay Lara; Steve Stafford 800 Mission Avenue I am writing to indicate my support for the proposed senior housing project at 800 Mission Avenue in San Rafael. My office is just up the street {1368 Lincoln Avenue), so I have been driving by the empty (and unattractive) lot almost every day for years -and I think it would be a terrific location for senior housing. The proposed project is beautiful and would add a much-needed upgrade to the appearance of that area, while providing much-needed additional senior housing for our aging Marin population . In fact, if the project is approved, I hope to have my mother live there one day! How nice for seniors to be able to walk to downtown San Rafael to enjoy restaurants, shopping, Thursday farmers markets, SMART train access, and all that San Rafael has to offer. Thanks for listening, and please know that you have my support and that of my family. Paula Beritzhoff Paula Beritzhoff I nitespecs® & chefspecs ® Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobi le: (41 5) 847-8546 From: Paula B. Lindsay Lara Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:51 AM Steve Stafford FW: 800 Mission Avenue Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:50 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org>; Steve Stafford <Steve.Stafford@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: 800 Mission Avenue Greetings- I am writing to ind icate my support for the proposed senior housing project at 800 Mission Avenue in San Rafael. My office is just up the street (1368 Lincoln Avenue), so I have been driving by the empty (and unattractive) lot almost every day for years -and I think it would be a terrific location for senior housing. The proposed project is beautiful and would add a much-needed upgrade to the appearance of that area, while providing much-needed additional senior housing for our aging Marin population. In fact, if the project is approved, I hope to have my mother live there one day! How nice for seniors to be able to walk to downtown San Rafael to enjoy restaurants, shopping, Thursday farmers markets, SMART train access, and all that San Rafael has to offer. Thanks for listening, and please know that you have my support and that of my family. Paula Beritzhoff Paula Beritzhoff I nitespecs• & chefspecs• 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:24 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415 ) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:23 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Lori Byer Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:54 PM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Downtown Senior Housing Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mob i le: (415) 847-8546 From: John R Gaulding Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:50 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Downtown Senior Housing To the members of the San Rafael City Council: As a relatively recent resident of Aegis Living in Corte Madera, I can speak with some authority to the issue of organ iz ed seniors embedded in downtown environments. The first reaction of the newly transferred senior is isolation. Most seniors at the early part of the age curve have led active and contributing lives with families, friends, and increasingly colleagues as our elders experience the need or the pleasure of working into their 70's and even 80's. For these individuals, there is not only experience but desire and genuine expertise and mentorship that is freely given and received with gratitude by their new "extended family." For those who doubt or discredit such contributions, I can only speculate that they have never had the experience of sudden dislocation, loss of close friends and family relationships, and the pure joy of doing something valuable and appreciated by the senior and extended communities. I strongly urge the City Council to spend some time on the ground of senior co mmunities in the area and try to extrapolate to the point of empathy before bringing their collective judgement to bear on this important issue. As an aside, Ii have spent over 25 years in service to Dom in ican University as a trustee and now as Chairman Emeritus . We have an embedded community with our Nuns who tend to be senior in their demographics. The contributions they make throughout the County and with thousands of young people is immeasurable. Their spiritual leadership makes us all better members of society, and their mentorship in the area of productive and valuable senior living is without peer. A meaningful model I would think for those of us who seek new ways to contribute from the vantage point of our new assisted living perch. Please take care as you make choices that affect so many of us. John R. Gaulding 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 5:05 PM Steve Stafford Subject: FW : Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:58 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Lawrence Higgins Email Address Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown . (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 FAMILY -CON STRU CT I ON I N C- Dear City Council, I am writing in regards to the 800 Mission Avenue Project. As I am the most impacted neighbor; owning the large house just north of the project (1215 Lincoln), I wanted to reach out to state my strong support of the project being appealed. This is a gorgeous building at an iconic corner within the City. It is not suitable for the high-density housing being requested by the appeal. Please deny this appeal and direct the appellants to focus their efforts to advocate for 6 -story mu lti -family housing in the Downtown Core. NOT ON MISSION A VENUE! Thank you, David Grabham CEO G Family Construction Design & Build Firm• Gfamilyconstruction.com (WebSite) · License #893848 Mary Higgins I MaryHiggins webdesign San Rafael, CA 94903 ••-1 August 28, 2018 Dear San Rafael City Council, I am a resident of San Rafael and a San Rafael business owner. I am writing to note my support of the proposed Assisted Senior Housing project. I was raised In Lucas Valley and then I raised my own family here too. My parents have lived here for over 60 years and they recently moved Into assisted living. This opened my eyes to the serious shortage and issue of waltllsts for senior care In the area. It is SO important for seniors, especially those who have lived here for most of their lives, to have a place to grow old and be taken care of In their own neighborhood. Seniors would be a great benefit to local business. When we spend time with my parents we go shopping, out to lunch, get our nails done, and I am confident that these seniors would do this in the downtown area. I feel the proposed Assisted Senior Housing Project is needed in Downtown, and this site would be an ideal location. This building design is beautiful and supports San Rafael's Mission Culture. It also provides a nice gateway to Downtown on Mission Ave. Senior housing communities minimizes traffic, noise and parking-issues, so It is an Ideal use. Downtown San Rafael businesses, restaurants, and other local services will provide great amenities to the senior residents and their families. Please deny the appeal and support this project Senior Housing ls a great benefit to our community and we need It now! ~.tl-·. Mary Higgin;-~~ Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:30 PM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobi le: (41 5) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no -reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:29 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Schyler Ruhland Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 M ission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 1:41 PM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415 ) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:57 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Remi Zimmerman Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:02 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobi le: (41 5) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace .info> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:44 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Steve Montz Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 Lindsay Lara Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:02 AM Steve Stafford FW: Form Submission -Support From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace .info> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 7:07 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafae l.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Michael Hicks Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:01 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 10:04 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Kavita Bester Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: DAVID JAMES Lindsay Lara Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:02 AM Steve Stafford FW: 800 Mission Avenue Support Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:30 AM To: Lindsay Lara <lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: 800 Mission Avenue Support Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown . As the owner of DAVID JAMES. we are already beyond busy with clients, so this has no bearing of potential financial gain, and all to do with the fact that we have a serious lack of senior housing, and I believe that Aegis is a quality company that runs a great program. Thanks.for your time, David Karvasales DAVID JAMES. 600 Fillmore f treet I San r ancisco 11 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:16 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:12 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Eva Wilson Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Counci l, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:16 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office : (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace .info> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:21 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Phil Kranenburg Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay La ra Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:23 AM Steve St afford Subject: FW : Senior Housing Proposa l -800 Mission Av. Lindsay Lara Office : (415) 48 5-306 5 Mobile: (41 5) 8 47-8546 From: Michael Mille Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 6:19 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Senior Housing Proposal -800 Mission Av . Hi, My office has been situated at the corner of M ission Av & Lincoln since 1991. Over the last 25+ years the property at 800 Mission has been a dilapidated low-income apartment complex then a vacant lot for our many homeless to enjoy. The new senior housing community proposal would be the best possible land use for th is gateway corner into our city . This facility would provide much needed senior care in Marin county . I am very supportive for the counci l's approval for this neighboring properties' development. Please take ca re of our Seniors! Sincerely, R. Michael Miller P rot ecting our client s since 1977 Please visit our website to req uest an insurance certificate or quotation on line. www.michaelmil lerinsurance.com 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:52 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From : Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:32 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name : Naia Vermuelen Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:52 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (41 5) 847 -8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace .info> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:35 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Lauren Alvarado Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:52 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:42 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Matthew Ranaudo Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Lindsay Lara Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:36 PM Steve Stafford Subject: Fwd : Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara's iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Date: August 26, 2018 at 9:34:42 PM PDT To: lindsay.lara@cityofsanrafae l.org Subject: Form Submission -Support Reply-To: Name: David Berkompas Email Address Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appea l and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Lindsay Lara Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:36 PM Steve Stafford Subject: Fwd: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara's iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Squarespace <no-reply@sguarespace.info> Date: August 26, 2018 at 12:32:20 PM PDT To: lindsay.lara@cityofsanrafael.org Subject: Form Submission -Support Reply-To: Name: Rob Terheyden Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Lindsay Lara Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:36 PM Steve Stafford Subject: Fwd: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara's iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Squarespace <no-reply@sguarespace.info> Date: August 26, 2018 at 12:31:07 PM PDT To: lindsay.lara@cityofsanrafael.org Subject: Form Submission -Support Reply-To: Name: Ryan Ewert Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Lindsay Lara Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:36 PM Steve Stafford Subject: Fwd: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara's iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Date: August 26, 2018 at 12:27:57 PM PDT To: lindsay.lara@cityofsanrafael.org Subject: Form Submission -Support Reply-To: Name: Alex Salai Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 Lindsay Lara Monday, August 27, 2018 9:01 AM Steve Stafford FW: Form Submission -Support From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 8:44 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Leo Castro Email Address Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Monday, August 27, 2018 9:01 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW : Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (4 15) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 8:49 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submiss ion -Support Name: Seima Moloi Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:28 PM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:18 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Susan Miller Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Office: (4 15} 48 5-3065 M o bile: (415) 847 -8546 From: Sue Miller Lindsay La ra Monday, August 27, 2018 3:29 PM Steve Stafford FW: New Sen ior housi ng project 800 Missi on in San Rafael Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3 :29 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@c ityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: New Senior housing project 800 Miss ion in San Rafael Dear Lindsay, I wanted to send my support for the proposed senior housing facility at 800 Mission in San Rafael. Our office is across the street at 817 Mission Avenue, which we have been at for 28 years. This lot has been an eyesore for too many years. This project is perfect for San Rafael by providing for our seniors . So many people talk about "affordable housing" and seniors are the forgotten victims . Aegis living is a leader in the senior living industry. This is a big win for San Rafael. We are looking forward to our new "senior neighbors"! Sue Miller Customer Service Representative Prot ecting our cli ent s since 1977 Please visit our website to request an insurance certificate or quotation online. www.michaelmillerinsurance .com 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:46 PM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Senior Housing Project, 800 Mission Avenue -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Patti Cook Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:15 PM To: Lindsay Lara <lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Senior Housing Project, 800 Mission Avenue -Support SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT 800 MISSION AVENUE We are writing to advise the San Rafael City Council of our support of the proposed 800 Mission Avenue project for our Seniors. The majority of recent downtown projects seem to have met the current need for high-density, workforce housing. This Senior citizens project would be a great addition to the needs of the div erse demographics of our City. I feel it would b e an asset to d owntown San Rafael, and would provide much needed housing for our Seniors. Please approve this proposed Senior Housing Project. Patti and Tom Cook San Rafael, CA 94901 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, August 24, 2018 12:57 PM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 12:46 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Thomas Willis Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Donna Cohen Lindsay Lara Friday, August 24, 2018 11:21 AM Steve Stafford FW: Support of 800 Mission Ave . Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 11:08 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Support of 800 Mission Ave. Hello- I wish to express my support for the development of senior housing at the lot on Mission/Lincoln Avenues. Donna Cohen Certi ed Public Accountant 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, August 24, 2018 11:22 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847 -8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 11:15 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Emilie Weiss Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project . Please deny the appeal and uphold approval ofThe Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, August 24, 2018 10:07 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no -reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 9:05 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Anthony Pedersen Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, August 24, 2018 10:13 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485 -3065 Mobile: (4 1 5) 847-8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace .info> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 10:13 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Abby McLaughlin Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, August 24, 2018 10:14 AM Steve Stafford Subject: FW: Form Submission -Support Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (415) 847 -8546 From: Squarespace <no-reply@squarespace.info> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 10:14 AM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: Form Submission -Support Name: Annie Sullivan Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 1 From: Kraemer Winslow Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:34 AM To : Kate Colin Subject: 800 Mission Hi Kate , I can't make it to the September 4 meeting so wanted to write my thoughts about the proposed development at 800 Mission. While I'm thrilled that finally something is going in there, I don't like the idea of the facility that is planned. I live on Laurel Place -two blocks from the location. I have a house with a garage so parking isn't an issue for me. But, I hesitate to invite g uests because street parking is so d ifficu lt. A lso, for workers, it's difficult for them to find parking in th is neighborhood so they often double park and even worse, leave their engines idling . With all the workers (3 different shifts , I understand) it will be even worse: (We already have many peop le who work downtown, parking on our street -I see it all 1 the time!) I doubt the building will provide parking for all workers? If they will, I'm not as concerned but I doubt that they can do that. Also, I am concerned about our flailing downtown. Already the merchants and shopkeepers are challenged . Unlike condos at that location, where people could walk to town to eat and shop and help make it more vibrant, plus walk to public transportation, this will be all self-contained. What's the point of having a great downtown location when nobody leaves it? Finally, I understand the builder gave San Rafael a $SOOK incentive to be able to build here. Given how much money this place will be bringing in, it seems the city should get at least double that. Of course, I don't know all the circumstances but these are my thoughts for the moment. Thanks for considering these ideas . I appreciate your amplifying our voices! Warmest regards, Kraemer 'Kraemer Winsfow Make Your Point -Achieve Your Goals Make Your Point Communications, Inc. 2 Steve Stafford From: Sent: To: Subject: From: Jeff Prose Steve Stafford Thursday, August 23, 2018 4:04 PM Steve Stafford FW: 800 Mission Ave Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 3:28 'PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Tom Monahan Geoff Forne r Subject: 800 Mission Ave Lindsay, ; Jeff Prose I am writing in support of 800 Mission Avenue. As a multifamily architect and property owner in San Rafael, this project is needed forthe community. Senior citizens are a key element of the urban fabric, and will be welcome neighbors and patrons to downtown businesses. The project is well designed will be a welcome addition to the city's richness. Housing opportunities are becoming increasingly dire, for all ages and income brackets in the bay area. Delays and procrastinations on this long-empty site should come to an end with an approval for this project. I strongly encourage the City Council to approve this project without hesitation. Regards, Jeff Prose Jeff Prose AIA LEED GA Managing Principal Ian Birchall + Associates Architects 1 Steve Stafford From: Paul Jensen Sent: To: Monday, August 06, 2018 6:33 PM Steve Stafford; Raffi Boloyan Subject: FW: Elder Care Residence article See comments below and please add Tisha Shaw to the noticing list. Thanks, Paul From: Jim Schutz Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 5:35 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org>; Paul Jensen <Paul.Jensen@cityofsanrafael.org> Subject: FW: Elder Care Residence article This came in early on when I was on vacation. Not sure if she followed up subsequently with anyone else when she got my out of office message. We should add this person to our notification list for when the appeal comes forward to the Council. Thanks, Jim From : Tisha Shaw Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 10:53 AM To: Jim Schutz <Jim.Schutz@cityofsanrafael.org>; Keri Brenner Subject: Re: Elder Care Residence article Thank you Keri! Jim Schultz -I was appalled to see that this Senior Home facility wasn't following the ordinance for t hat location, which you know is for AFFORDABLE housing. Having a Senior Home is a great project -now lets make it AFFORDABLE!! II Let's not let the sway of GREED for more tax money to spend sway us as a community . . I have owned MANY properties in Marin County, 3 in San Rafael. I currently live off Lincoln on Coleman Drive. I drive by this new project site multip le times a day. Let's support our community Jim, not the 1 %. Isn't that part of your job description -to follow, protect and honor the ORDINANCEs?? Do your job. Help the elderly Jim. And you don't have to really do anything. You just have to follow what's already in place. Right! How easy. Step up Jim . You got this. I'm here to support you. I will start Informing my network of what's happening to our affordable housing projects and drum up more support. Also, please put me on the mailer to be notified of the next city counsel. -Thank you! Tisha Shaw I Mortgage Brok er TAYLOR MADE F INANC IAL 1 On Monday, Ju ly 23 , 2018, 10:23:43 AM PDT , Keri Brenner wrote: Hi Tisha: Thanks for your nice note. You could check at the city website at cityofsanrafael.org and get on their mailing list to be alerted of upcoming meetings. I've copied the city manager Jim Schutz who could advise you on how to get on the mailing list. Hope that helps Keri On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Tisha Shaw <tishashaw@ymail.com> wrote: Hi Kerl, Thank you for your article! I own a home off of Lincoln and drive by the site throughout the day. I want to present at the next city hearing to support the Objectors. We are in desperate need for affordable housing for Seniors. How do I find out when that will be? Thank you! Tisha Shaw I Mortgage Broker TAYLOR MADE FINANCIAL 2 GROTJAHN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. A REAL .,.ATE INVUTM.ENT, TAX AND FINANCIAL PLANNING FIRM July 26, 2018 Dear Mr. Stafford, I received notice about the senior assisted living facility proposed for the vacant site on the corner of Mission Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. I strongly support the senior housing project at . this location. ' The beautiful building will add to the neighborhood, and to Downtown. We need more Senior Housing Downtown. Assisted Living and Memory Care services are much needed · in our aging community. Very truly yours, ---r-. f onk·v.-· -~~ot--h-n-r P-r-e---si--d;~t CFP,RFP,RFC,ATP,ATA,CRB,CRS 7075 REDWOOD BLVD. • EXECUTIVE SUITE • NOVATO, CA 94945 MARIN (415) 897-1760 E•FAX (415) 901-4881 TOLL FREE (800) 897-1760 f ROMULUS City of San Rafael Service Req uest -- ID: 1 Title: I Description: Form Submission: SubJect Message Location Attachment Current Status: Followers: Created At: Last Updated: ,-· ··--- : i ,.~ SR-0073447 Aegis comment Contact the City Council form subm ission Aegis Desp ite the fact that an Aegis center is located a block from my current home in Corte Madera, included In my will and trust is the request that Aegis not be considered as a resource for my care, should such care be warranted. The lack of attention to its residents from the staff at Aegis that I observed when vis iti ng fairly regularly a former hiking partner suffering from Alzheimer's, not to mention its higher-than-average-cost, may be a factor for the Council to consider as a site for the city. Having an assisted living center at that location is a promising addition to the city, even though the respected Aldersly facility is nearby, since ou r co unty sen ior population is increasing . Fo r the sake of our county citizens , I ask your consideration . Also, I recall a few years ago seeing an ad requesting information from anyone who had had any adverse situation with Aegis. I did not respond to that ad, assuming it was from a legal entity, and that was negligent of me , I recognize . I hope this letter to you makes ame nds. Corte Madera, CA 94925 Request Received Anne Derrick July 25th , 2018 at 9:43 AM July 25th, 2018 at 9:43 AM l if • Ill .,, A: LOCATION ! l; Sp!ndrlrtPse Pa radis e.Or l' • L -.. 0 ~--l J "' ., ~~ Corte Madera CA 94925-2056 . -\ ~ ;i . ()-.,_ i ®~b,,,;ll I ,_ --------- Associated Constituent 1 Dorsey McTaggart .. C-1043128, added on July 23rd , 2018 at 6:27 AM a: -=-ti "' ·c a; -. Phone Numbers: Email Addresses: Locations: None Conversation: First Name: Dorsey Last Name: McTaggart Email Address: Phone Number: - Subject: Aegis Message: Despite the fact that an Aegis center is located a block from my current home in Corte Madera, included in my will and trust is the request that Aegis not be considered as a resource for my care, should such care be warranted. The lack of attention to its residents from the staff at Aegis that I observed when visiting fairly regularly a former hiking partner suffering from Alzheimer's, not to mention its higher-than-average cost, may be a factor for the Council to consider as a site for the city. Having an assisted living center at that location is a promising addition to the city, even though the respected Aldersly facility is nearby, since our county senior population is increasing. For the sake of our county citizens, I ask your consideration. Also, I recall a few years ago seeing an ad requesting information from anyone who had had any adverse situation with Aegis. I did not respor:id to that ad , assuming it was from a legal entity, and that was negligent of me, I recognize. I hope this letter to you makes amends. Inbound form submission from Dorsey McTaggart to Contact the City Council on July 23rd , 2018 at 6:27 AM Thank you for your message. We value your input and strive to respond to any questions or concerns within 2 business days. Thank you, City of San Rafael 1. Automated message sent to Dorsey McTaggart via ~ity_ Manager's Office on July 23rd, 2018 at 6:27 AM _ 0 ·p T O M E T R C . City of San R'afae l · Planning Department, Attn: Steve Stafford 1400 Fifth Avenue · San Rafael, California 94901 July 20, 2018 RE: Lincoln Avenue Proposed Assisted Living Facility Dear Steve; . My name is Jeffrey Rich. I am a resident of San Rafael and live in The Peacock Gap Neighborhood; I am writing to note my support o~ the project. I feel the proposed Assisted Senjor-Housing Project is ne·eded in Downtown, and this site would be an ideal location. This building design is be~utiful and supports San Rafael's Mission Culture. It also provides a nice gateway to Downtown on Mission Ave. Senior housing communities minimizes traffic, noise, and parking issues, so it is an _ideal use . . Downtown San Rafael businesses, restaurants, and other local services will provide great amenities to the senior residents and their families. Please approve the p·roject and fast-track its construction. Senior Housing is a great benefit to Downtown. \ ·•, · RECEIVED JUL 2 3 _?.01 8 PLANNING Steve Stafford From: Lindsay Lara Sent: To: Friday, August 24, 2018 2:46 PM Steve Stafford Subject: FW : 800 Lincoln Ave Aegis Living project Importance: Lindsay Lara Office: (415) 485-3065 Mobile: (41 5) 847-8546 From: Lila Friday High Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 2:38 PM To: Lindsay Lara <Lindsay.Lara@cityofsanrafael.org> Cc: Subject: 800 Lincoln Ave Aegis Living project Importance: High Ms. Lindsay, I am in full support of the proposed Senior Housing project in San Rafael. I feel the much needed facility for the aging population in San Rafael will benefit from this facility as well as merchants in the area. Seniors are vital citizens and many are very active ... their families will use the resources in down town San Rafael . The building is attractive and will add to the neighborhood . Please vote yes on the passing of this needed facility. Lila A. Friday Friday and Associates Lila Friday, ASIO, CCID 1 HOUSING CRISIS ACTION GROUP ...To Create, Build, and Preserve Much -Needed Housing in Ma rin h | hcagmarin.org September 4, 2018 City of San Rafael City Council 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Appeal of Approved 88-Bed Assisted Living Facility (800 Mission Avenue) Dear Mayor Phillips and City Council Members, As a group of business leaders, city planners, union workers, environmental advocates, public servants, retireees, and educators, living and working in Marin, we support the 800 Mission Avenue senior housing development. The Housing Crisis Action Group (HCAG) is a coalition of over 15 diverse organizations with over 375 members working to tackle the housing crisis in Marin County. Marin’s housing production has not kept pace our aging demographics and current housing demand, so we must seize each opportunity to address our dire need for housing. We agree with the planning commission’s conditional approval of this project and the city staff’s recommendation to move forward with the 88-bed assisted living facility. Seniors are vital to our social fabric and we as a community are vital to them. According to a recent survey by AARP, 80% of adults over 45 agreed that "what I'd really like to do is remain in my local community." This project would enable our aging population to thrive and remain part of community, being in the heart of downtown near fresh food, culture, and transit. This project will also bring new jobs and an overall positive economic impact. As noted in the economic study by the Marin Economic Forum, the folks moving into this facility will additionally ‘free-up’ a significant amount of housing stock that can be utilized by families and ‘recycled’ to help address our housing shortage. We support creating and preserving housing to ensure the ability of our older residents to age-in-community. We support the 800 Mission Avenue development and urge you to deny the appeal. Sincerely, Lisel Blash Diana Conti Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative Southern Marin Activist Linda Jackson Aging Action Initiative Larry Kennings Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative Cynthia Murray North Bay Leadership Council Kris Organ California Alliance for Retired Americans COALITION MEMBERS Coalition for a Livable Marin Community Land Trust Association of Marin EAH Housing Homeward Bound of Marin League of Women Voters of Marin Legal Aid of Marin Lilypad Homes Marin County Young Democrats Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative Marin Kids Michael Barber Architects North Bay Leadership Council San Geronimo Affordable Housing Association San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Sustainable Marin Sustainable San Rafael United Education Association for Affordable Housing From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 3:45:37 PM Name: Audrey Meyer Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 3:53:07 PM Name: Bill Meyer Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 10:38:40 AM Name: Chelsea Faulkner Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) IL DAVIDE CUCINA ITALIANA 901 A STREET SAN RAFAEL CA www.ildavide.net Steve Stafford San Rafael Planning Commission 1400 Fifth Avenue- San Rafael, California 94901 Dear Steve: I am writing to urge you to support the development of the proposed senior housing project at the corner of Mission and Lincoln Avenues. This new project will provide the necessary housing that is critical to the support of our aging San Rafael community. There is an Aegis facility (same operator) on Paradise Drive in Corte Madera that has a great reputation as being a top -notch facility in the county of Marin. As a restaurant owner for the past 33 years, Chamber and B.I.D. member and resident of San Rafael for the past 20 years, I have seen this community grow and improve and I believe this housing project would be an asset to the city. Our senior community would have access to the support they need in order to live independent and healthy lives, most importantly a first class assisted living facility and access to the best memory support care that is available. The facility will also have the added benefit of supporting the community by adding much needed jobs and increasing economic activity, benefitting all our local merchants and community members. Please reject the appeal and uphold the approval for this project. We need to move forward and welcome the new project to our community! Sincerely, David Haydon Il Davide Chef/Owner I IL DAV IDE l ..,.~ From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Thursday, August 30, 2018 10:04:07 AM Name: Deanne LaRue Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Michael Fraley To:Lindsay Lara Cc: Subject:Support for the Senior Housing/Lincoln Ave Project Date:Thursday, August 30, 2018 8:43:33 PM Dear Ms. Lara: I am writing to urge the City Council’s support of the senior housing facility that is being proposed at the corner on Lincoln and Mission Avenue. As a stylist for over forty years and San Rafael business owner for over twelve years, I have the opportunity to frequently engage in retirement and senior living conversations with my clients. The proposed senior living project is discussed in very favorable terms because not only will it provide a much needed resources to our ever growing senior population, but it is extremely desirable location that will provide easy access to restaurants, shopping, the Farmer’s Market, and healthcare. Most importantly, a local housing resource will provide comfort to families knowing that their loved ones are in close proximity to their work and home. In addition to the benefits afforded the residents on this new facility, the construction activity will have a positive economic impact of the community by providing local jobs and capital infusion to all businesses supporting the construction work in the area Ms. Lara, thank you in advance for your help to urge the City Council to approve the proposed senior housing project. I believe the project will provide both short term and long term economic benefits and fill an ever growing need in our community to provide top quality, local, senior living and care to our residents. Warm regards, Gale Fraley Heroes and Hairoines Salon 914 Fourth Street San Rafael, California   From:JACK BAZLER To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Senior Housing Project Date:Thursday, August 30, 2018 5:24:27 PM Ladies and Gentlemen: The objections to seniors living downtown do not take into account the rising numbers of people who carry this label; it is a well known fact that numbers are rising and this is just downright selfish on the part of a few people in San Rafael who are objecting. Do not give any weight to these objections, as seniors are no different than others only that they have different needs, such as easier shopping and medical needs more frequently. As a senior myself along with my wife, this just represents an attitude that has no place in our community. I hope City Council sets these objections aside and votes to allow this project move ahead and provide housing for those who are in need for various reasons. Thank you, Jack and Diane Bazler 99 Los Ranchitos Road, San Rafael. From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 2:06:01 PM Name: Jeffrey Rich Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Marcia Kaplan To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Proposed Senior Housing Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 7:37:05 AM SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT 800 MISSION AVENUE I am writing to advise the San Rafael City Council of our support of the proposed 800 Mission Avenue project for our Seniors. The majority of recent downtown projects seem to have met the current need for high-density, workforce housing. This Senior citizens project would be a great addition to the needs of the diverse demographics of our City. I feel it would be an asset to downtown San Rafael, and would provide much needed housing for our Seniors. Please approve this proposed Senior Housing Project. Marcia Kaplan 20Montecito Road San Rafael, Ca 94901 Sent from my iPhone From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Thursday, August 30, 2018 7:02:54 AM Name: Nathan Abrams Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) 817 Mission Avenue - San Rafael, CA 94901 - (415) - www.srchamber.com August 31, 2018 P a g e | 1 City of San Rafael City Council 1400 5th Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Denial of the Appeal of Approved 88- Bed Assisted Living Facility (ALF) at 800 Mission Avenue Dear Mayor Phillips and City Council Members: On behalf of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, which represents 625 Marin County businesses with over 26,000 employees, I write to express our support for the senior assisted living facility proposed at 800 Mission Avenue. The San Rafael Chamber agrees with city staff’s recommendation that the appeal should be denied and City Council should vote to uphold the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the Use Permit and the Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow construction of a new 88-bed assisted living facility at 800 Mission Avenue. This support does not come easy. As you are well aware, the Chamber has a long standing policy to support workforce housing. It is of our belief that, “without more workforce housing, we will be subject to a shrinking middle class, a struggling economy, loss of tax revenue, and less options for goods and services while paying more and more for what we need” in Marin. So, it does not come easy for us to support something other than workforce housing on this site. Many factors played into our decision; the need for the Chamber to support a full range of housing including housing for our aging population; the fact that we could not find anywhere within city code that states the parcel must be workforce housing only; and the fact that this project is consistent with the values of the general plan. The Chamber leadership met with both the appellant and the applicant and they both have very compelling stories. Each proposal has merit but the Chamber believes that the current property owner followed proper processes, voluntarily offered to increase the affordable in-lieu housing fee and it is within the property owner’s right to build an assisted living facility at this location. In addition, we received information from the care operator, Aegis Living that their residents and guests are very active on a regular basis and participate in outings visiting local shops, restaurants and other attractions. The project will create 75 new jobs and employ several other outside vendors all contributing to our local economy. In an economic impact brief produced by Marin Economic Forum it was concluded that the spending by the residents, staff and visitors would support millions in new spending dollars annually in San Rafael. The lot at 800 Mission Avenue has sat vacant for several years and we now have an operator ready to build a much needed ALF for our aging seniors that will provide economic benefits to our downtown businesses. The San Rafael Chamber of Commerce supports this project and respectfully asks City Council to deny the appeal. Sincerely, Joanne Webster, President and CEO cc via email: Chamber Board of Directors San Rafael Ii Chamber ---- From:Ann Arabian To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Support for the Senior Housing Project Date:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 3:45:14 PM Dear San Rafael City Council, I am writing in support of the Senior Housing Project on the corner of Mission and Lincoln Avenues. Not only is it eye candy for all those who enter San Rafael, but senior housing provides wonderful economic benefits to Downtown. I encourage you to give a final approval to this well thought out Project. Thank you! Ann Arabian- From:Chuck Grieve To:Lindsay Lara Subject:800 Mission Date:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 2:42:46 PM Lindsay, I am a local business man and CEO with offices in downtown San Rafael. I understand that a senior housing project has been proposed for 800 Mission in San Rafael. I believe this would be an excellent project for the City as it will provide additional and much needed senior housing in Marin. The project also sounds like it will have minimal impact on traffic in the area. I am in full support of this project. Sincerely, Chuck Grieve From:Elaine DiPalma To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Mission and Lincoln Housing Project Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 10:19:03 AM For: San Rafael City Council I strongly urge the San Rafael City Council to give final approval to the Senior Housing project proposed for the corner of Mission and Lincoln. I feel this project would provide a positive impact on downtown San Rafael and the challenge being made to this project is misguided. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Elaine DiPalma San Rafael, CA From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:02:31 PM Name: Greg O'Donnell Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Jeanette Hill To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Senior Residential complex Date:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 6:17:42 PM Please register my vote to accept the planned Ageis Facility at Lincoln and Mission in San Rafael. That is an ideal location for such a senior home. I’ve lived in San Rafael since 1962 and love our city. The present residential facilities for Seniors are not placed so the residences can walk to any activities. Please vote to allow this wonderful Senior Residence to be built. Jeanette Hill Sent from my iPad From:John Beritzhoff To:Lindsay Lara Subject:800 Mission Ave-Senior Housing downtown. Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 11:49:33 AM Lindsay:   I was disappointed to hear that the approved 800 Mission Ave Senior Housing project was challenged by a few San Rafael residents.   I am e-mailing you to reaffirm my strong interest and support to see this project cleared for development.   As we all know, there is a great need for senior housing. The approved plan has been thought out well and is indeed a perfect fit for the city of San Rafael and county.   Best regards,   John   John A. Beritzhoff Vice President, Advanced Visual Environments T  | C  101 Glacier Point Road, Suite B, San Rafael, Ca. 94901  |  www.diversifiedus.com   This email, including any attachments or previous messages, may contain material that is confidential or proprietary to Diversified and its associates. It is meant solely for use by the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution of such material by others, or forwarding of such material without express permission, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies.     From:Keith Conroy To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Senior Housing Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 10:09:37 AM Lara,      I wanted to drop you a quick note regarding the Senior Housing proposal in downtown San Rafael. My wife and I are in full support of this project. What a great thought for that empty space, not to mention a beautiful building. Taking care of our Seniors is EXTREMELY important and at times I feel does not get enough attention. This project has too many positive outcomes to turn away from.  Please help this come to fruition.     Thank you—   Keith and Susan Conroy          Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. reviews and archives outgoing and incoming e-mail. Such may be produced at the request of regulators and/or in connection with judicial/arbitral proceedings. Sender accepts no liability for any errors or omissions arising as a result of transmission. Use by other than intended recipients is prohibited. This transmission is neither an offer nor a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities. Opinions or estimates constitute Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc.'s best judgment at this time and are subject to change without notice. Information upon which the material contained in this transmission is based was obtained from sources believed to be reliable but has not been verified. Additional information is available upon request. Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., its affiliates and respective directors, officers and employees may buy or sell securities mentioned herein as agent or principal. Ladenburg does not give any representation or warranty as to the reliability, accuracy or completeness of any third party material, nor does Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. accept any responsibility arising in anyway ( including negligence) for errors in, or omissions from such third party material. The fact that third party information was provided through Ladenburg does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship, or affiliation by Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., its owners, or its employees. ******************************************************************************************* ­­ From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:03:04 PM Name: Liz O'Donnell Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) Begin forwarded message: From: Ppkcd Subject: Senior Housing in San Rafael Oat PDT To: Lara: hope this finds you well, and enjoying another beautiful day in Marin County. As a 20+ year resident of San Rafael (Lucas Valley area), I have nothing but fond memories of raising our two children there. But, life has changed, as those youngsters have moved on and are enjoying there lives/careers/starting families,ect. It is my feeling that Senior Housing for the Downtown SAn Rafael Corridor makes perfect sense .... as I and many of our former neighbors would love to enjoy a simple lifestyle based on everything this wonderful area has to offer. The chance to enjoy a walk down 4th Street ... jump on the train .... ride our bikes to the grocery store .... soak in the beautiful weather .... take the bus to SF .... on and on. Look forward to hearing how you and your team made a great decision on this important subject!! Best Regards Pat Dugan 415 971 0259 Ppkcd From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:04:02 PM Name: Payton O'Donnell Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 11:13:39 AM Name: Richard Rockwell Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Placak Administration To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Support for 800 Mission Date:Friday, August 31, 2018 3:10:45 PM Dear City Council, My office, Robert C. Placak & Associates Insurance Services, has been situated at the corner of Mission Avenue and Lincoln (790 Mission) for many years. I have been made aware of the details of the Senior Housing Project and benefits it will bring to San Rafael. I support the council’s approval for this neighboring properties’ development. Sincerely, Robert C. Placak   From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Tuesday, September 04, 2018 10:39:08 AM Name: Ruth Baney Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:03:35 PM Name: Spencer O'Donnell Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Steve Pence To:Lindsay Lara Subject:800 Mission Senior Housing Date:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 7:32:48 AM Dear Lindsay – I’m a business owner on B Street in San Rafael. I’m completely in support of this project and hope it moves forward. Thanks, SP Steve Pence President US Sports Camps | Nike Sports Camps | San Rafael, CA 94901 o: | f: www.USSportsCamps.com From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Saturday, September 01, 2018 11:40:48 AM Name: Susan Berlin Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue) From:Squarespace To:Lindsay Lara Subject:Form Submission - Support Date:Thursday, August 30, 2018 8:31:29 PM Name: Teresa Hammond Email Address: Support: Dear San Rafael City Council, I support the 800 Mission Avenue Senior Housing Project. Please deny the appeal and uphold approval of The Project. Senior Housing is much needed in our aging community and is a great addition to our Downtown. (Sent via 800 Mission Avenue)