HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2016-05-03 #2CITY
0; Meeting Date: May 3, 2016
__ r �f�►I
_ Case Numbers: ED13-060, UP1- , SP13-003
9L FOR�P
Project Planner: Kraig Tamborni 15) 485-3092
Community Development Department - Planning Division �j
Agenda Item: �'
REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SUBJECT: 340 & 360 Third Street (Whole Foods Parking and Signage) — Environmental and Design
Review Permit and Sign Program for expansion, connection and reconfiguration of parking
lots for Whole Foods Market and Sign Program to permit free standing signage on the
adjacent parking lot parcel (corner of Third Street and Mary Street) in addition to an existing
monument sign at Union Street and Third Street and wall sign on the building. A Use Permit is
also required for off-site parking.
APN's: 014-094-21 (57,000 sf Whole Foods Market (WFM) Parcel and Main Parking Lot at
Union Street, Third Street and Fourth Street leased by WFM), 014-091-07, 08 & 09 (Existing
18,400 sf Adjacent Parking Lot Parcels on Mary Street owned by WFM), and 014-091-18
(9,500 sf Proposed Expanded Lot with Adjacent Parcel, a former gas station, at Mary and
Third).
District: C/O Zone; Applicant: Whole Foods Market, Inc.; Owners: 300 Third Street Partners
LP, Whole Foods Market and Outparcel Investment Partners VII LLC; Neighborhood Area'.
Montecito
PROPERTY FACTS
Location
General Plan Designation
Zoning Designation
Existing Land -Use
Project Site:
Retail Office
c/o
Whole Foods Market
North:
Retail Office/High Density Res
PD 1439 / PD 1335
Salvation Army / Apartments
South:
Marine
M -C
Montecito Shopping Center
East:
Public/Quasi Public
P/QP
Fire Station
West:
Retail Office
C/O
Retail / Service
SUMMARY
The project requires Design Review Board (DRB) review and recommendation to the Planning
Commission (PC) for the following:
A. Sign Program, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.19.046 (Sign Programs) to
address a unique property circumstance (i.e., allowing a second monument sign on an adjacent
parcel that is proposed to be leased for parking).
B. Minor Design Review Permit for a new and reconfigured commercial parking lot and related
improvements pursuant to SRMC 14.25.040.B.2.d, and a Use Permit to permit a new remote
(off-site) commercial parking lot.
Concurrent entitlement requests must be forwarded to the highest hearing body. In this case, the
project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission which requires a recommendation from the
DRB.
The 24,316 square foot Whole Foods Market use on the 57,000 square foot site at 340 Third Street
provides 79 parking spaces. A 33 space overflow parking lot has been established on the three
adjacent parcels west of the site, which are accessed from Mary Street (for a total of 112 spaces). The
current proposal would increase the secondary lot to 67 spaces by incorporating the adjacent property
at the corner of Third and Mary, aka 360 Third Street (for a total of 146 spaces). The new monument
sign is proposed to be placed on this lot. The City Parking Ordinance would establish a parking demand
of 97 spaces for the Whole Foods Market (based on 1 space per 250 square feet of gross retail area).
Thus, the additional parking spaces are not required by the City but address the identified needs of
Whole Foods Market for its business.
The applicant had originally proposed to merge and reconfigure all of the parking lots. This concept has
been presented in the DRB packet as Plan B, resulting in 149 spaces. However, the City Traffic
Engineering division identified several safety and traffic concerns with this plan. Therefore, the
applicant has proceeded with a plan to keep the parking lots separated, which addresses the traffic
safety concerns identified by the City Traffic Engineer. The use of the additional lot at Third and Mary
would be secured through a long term lease agreement (i.e., 20 years); concurrent with Whole Foods
Market lease of its building.
City Traffic Engineering Division staff provided an updated review and direction on the two plan
scenarios, and confirms its prior comments. Therefore, staff is seeking DRB review of the primary
proposal. The Plan B solution is presented for further discussion and comment by the DRB, if the
applicant should decide to reconsider and pursue this proposal.
Staff does not have any design concerns with the new monument sign, as it would match existing
architecture of the building. However, staff has design concerns with the primary parking plan to
expand the secondary lot. Specifically, staff's concerned with the lack of landscaping along Third Street
and the proposed temporary closure of the driveway at this location. Further, sidewalk upgrades would
be required for the driveway closures, to comply with ADA. Staff requests DRB comment on the
following:
• Whether landscaping on Third Street should be provided and upgraded with tree planting along
the frontage, for a long term use of the site as a parking lot.
• Whether Third Street driveway closure with bollards could be supported as acceptable. (Note:
The driveway from Third Street to the expanded lot is proposed to be closed with temporary
bollards, in response to the desires of the property owner who is not willing to support the
project with loss of both existing driveways.)
• That the driveway apron at Mary will need to be removed and replaced with curb and sidewalk.
• That the sidewalk along Third Street will need to be modified to comply with ADA by providing a
level walkway around the depressed driveway, or removal and replacement of the driveway with
curb and sidewalk.
• Whether any additional landscape design upgrades should be required for expansion of the
existing parking lot.
• Whether parking space, cart corral and landscape modifications are recommended to address
issues with backup space and cart corral storage at the southeast corner of the site.
• That pre -wiring of electric vehicles and provision of at least 6 CAV spaces is appropriate to meet
minimum standards.
® Recommendations on planting in the bio -retention areas to assure a cohesive planting palette at
the corner of Third Street and within the site would result.
® Comments on the Plan B concept, and any revisions that would be recommended if this option
could be pursued. (Note: Public Works has confirmed that revisions responding to its prior
comments on queuing, safety and traffic congestion concerns at Union Street, Union and Third
intersection, and at the Third Street Driveway need to be provided for review if this concept is to
be considered for approval by the Planning Commission.)
The applicant has spent a considerable amount of time, effort and expense getting the application to
this point and may be reluctant or unable to explore further revisions to Plan B. Thus, after receiving
comments from the DRB, staff would likely proceed with whichever option the applicant elects to
present to the Planning Commission as its primary plan. Plan B will continue to be encouraged as a
superior concept to consolidate lots and comply with parking lot design standards; but ultimately this
may not be able to move forward if the significant traffic constraints identified by Public Works cannot
be successfully resolved.
BACKGROUND
The approximately 57,000 sf property at 340 Third, Union and Fourth Streets which is occupied by
Whole Foods Market has been a supermarket use since the 1960's (aka, Pardini's). The site maintains
access at Third Street, Union Street and Fourth Street with parking on-site. Whole Foods Market
renovated the site and occupied the 24,316 square foot supermarket building in 1996 (ED96-30). At
that time the site had 79 spaces provided resulting in 17 grandfathered parking spaces established for
the use (i.e., 97 spaces deemed required under 1996 standards). A left turn lane on Union Street was
also permitted to be installed. A 4,015 square foot receiving and loading area was maintained at the
corner of Fourth Street and Mary Street.
In 2003, the City approved additional parking on the adjacent property at 14 and 16 Mary Street for
Whole Foods Market (ED03-113). This parking is provided on three separate parcels and is not
connected with the main market parcel at 340 Third Street.
In February and July 2013, the applicant submitted pre -application requests to the City for review and
comment on a proposed consolidation of the existing primary and secondary parking lots and
incorporation of the vacant 9,500 sf lot at Mary and Third Street (former gas station). This property is
currently being used as a temporary parking lot.
In September 2013, the formal application was filed to expand the secondary lot on Mary Street and
incorporate the 9,500 sf vacant parcel at the corner, aka 360 Third Street, (which would be secured
through a long term 20 year lease agreement).
The applicant provided an evaluation of the change in traffic patterns anticipated from the consolidated
parking lot design, which concluded it would not create any adverse impacts (Exhibit 3, Kimley-Horn
Memorandum August 1, 2014). However, Public Works staff remained concerned with this change and
did not recommend the consolidation option (Exhibit 2b, Memorandum dated October 22, 2014).
Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division raised significant concerns that consolidation of the lots
could adversely impact traffic on Union and Third Street, including the following:
9 Potential increase in trips at Union/Third critical intersection if the Union Street driveway is
changed to exit only, which is at capacity in the PM peak hour. The change has been found to
increase the number of vehicles that would use the Union Street exit toward Third and Union,
causing excess delay that would violate the General Plan 2020 policy for a maximum of 70
seconds delay during peak hour. It would also increase AM and Midday congestion.
➢ Third Street driveway could create conflicts from queuing backup onto Third as vehicles wait to
park.
The application remained incomplete pending resolution of site planning and traffic details. Staff
continued to have concerns with the design and layout, while the owner of the corner lot had concerns
with eliminating access at his property on Third Street (recommended by both Public Works and
Planning Staff for the two lot proposal, for safety and design reasons).
The revised concept maintaining two separate parking lots was recommended by the City Traffic
Engineering Division (Exhibit 2a, June 24, 2015 Memorandum). In March, the property owner of 360
Third Street signed the application allowing the project to proceed, with the driveway access at Third
Street blocked with temporary bollards.
Thus, the current proposal maintains two separate parking lots. The alternative, Plan B, consolidating
the lots has also been provided for DRB review. Recommendations are requested on the primary
solution that addresses Public Work concerns, as well as the consolidation option, in the event the
concerns raised by Public Works can be addressed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The primary project plan proposes the following changes to the existing secondary parking lot area:
Expand the existing secondary parking lot onto the 360 Third Street site (former gas station
property at the corner of Third and Mary), with addition of landscape island, perimeter
landscaping including continuation of 6'8" tall vine covered trellises along Mary Street, driveway
removal at Mary Street and "temporary" closure at Third Street with bollards) for traffic safety
reasons, replace/install lighting and a trellis on Mary Street to match existing, and extend
walkway along the interior perimeter (increase from 33 spaces to 67 spaces). No other parking
or driveway changes are proposed to this site or the adjacent lot at 340 Third Street.
2. Install a new 6'8" tall CMU screen wall with 2' trellis cap between the secondary parking lot and
existing loading dock for the market.
3. Install a 6 foot tall monument sign on the 360 Third Street property, at the corner of Mary and
Third Street (20sf sign area). This sign would be in addition to a monument sign at Third and
Union (55.16sf sign area) and the building signage (51.75sf sign area), and help to identify the
secondary parking lot. The sign consist of a metal cabinet with routed push through letters
supported by a fabricated aluminum frame painted to match existing sign and building details.
Total calculated sign area is approximately 127 square feet.
The additional parking is not required for the existing use, nor is it being proposed for an expansion of
the business at this time.
The Plan B alternative which proposed to reconfigure and consolidate the lots providing 149 parking
spaces, upgrade landscaping areas, and provide 11 clean air vehicle spaces, would be compliant with
the Parking Ordinance Design standards. However, based on the review by Public Works, it was
identified that this alternative could conflict with a General Plan 2020 circulation element policy
establishing a level of service standard for Union/Third Street intersection.
4
ANALYSIS
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
Chapter 14.05 — C/O District Standards
The C/O district does not establish any setback or minimum landscape requirements, except for
parking lot landscape standards.
Chapter 14.18 — Parking Standards
Whole Foods Market currently provides 79 parking spaces on-site and 33 spaces in the secondary lot
for a total of 112 spaces. This exceeds the 97 space requirement calculated for the use in 1996 (at 1
space per 250 square feet of retail area).
The current proposal would extend existing improvements with the addition of bio -retention and six
Clean Air Vehicle (CAV) spaces. The bio -retention and CAV spaces satisfy current code requirements
for the parking lot renovation. The plan also proposes ten additional parking lot trees in new planter
areas, which is compliant with minimum quantity required by parking code standards. However, the
plan continues the existing parking lot design, which results in some plan deficiencies in the following
areas:
® A minimum 6 foot wide landscape planter dimension is required. Landscaping along Third Street
should be provided and meet this standard; whereas a two foot strip is shown.
• Street trees are encouraged along the frontage.
• Bio -retention planting is also proposed at the corner of Mary Street and Third Street, which may
present challenges with creating a uniform palette for the parking lot.
• The two parking spaces at the southeast corner, including a CAV space, do not provide 26 feet
of backup space, and should be removed and replaced with a widened landscaping at this
corner of the site.
• Standard space dimensions are incorrectly called out on plans as 9 x 18; however, these
spaces would be adequate given up to a 2' overhang is allowed. ADA signage would need to be
moved back one foot, and all plant materials would be required to be low growing varieties.
Note: the adjustment for overhang would leave a minimum 4 foot walkway clearance along the
east property boundary which is sufficient.
• The cart corral adjacent to the new parking spaces along Third Street would appear better if
relocated at the ends of the two center CAV spaces; e.g., mirroring the cart corral on the
adjacent end of the center landscape / bio -retention planter. Note: cart storage is designated
and contained with 6 -inch curbing.
• Finger islands are not proposed, which are typically recommended and illustrated in the
ordinance to disperse tree plantings in parking lots. Note: an 8 foot wide planter is required for
all tree planting areas.
• The temporary bollard closure solution of the Third Street driveway is not recommended by staff
for a permanent parking lot. This is not required for emergency vehicle access, according to the
City Fire Inspector.
• Pre -wiring for electric vehicle charging station is required, and would be recommended as a
condition.
Bicycle parking has not been quantified as this is not required for renovation of a parking lot.
Alterative Plan B
The Plan B concept would provide 149 total parking spaces, eliminating the current Whole Foods
Market exit at Third, and using the driveway at 360 Third Street as the sole ingress/egress from this
street. This design addresses all pertinent landscaping and parking lot design standards. However,
there remain traffic safety, queuing and traffic congestion issues as raised by Public Works that would
need to be addressed in order for the consolidated lot concept to be pursued. Mitigation of impacts at
Union and Third would have to be addressed to avoid conflict with the City General Plan (based on the
conclusions of the City Engineer, Traffic Engineering, conclusion that the level of service standard
would be violated).
Chapter 19 — Signs
The subject C/O district permits the following standard signage:
✓ 1 square foot of sign area per primary business frontage
✓ Two signs maximum for each frontage
✓ One six foot max tall, 32 square foot area, monument sign allowed per business frontage of 50
to 75 feet and one 21 foot max tall, 36 square foot area sign per business with frontage over 76
feet
✓ Total maximum sign area that may be permitted for a business or use is 200 square feet.
Each lot exceeds 75 feet in dimension with combined frontage over 274 feet. Whole Foods Market has
a standard building sign of 52 square feet and compliant monument sign of 28 square feet (one -side
counted). The third six foot high and 20 square foot monument sign at Mary Street and Third Street is
proposed to provide identification for the site and the parking area, which may help direct customers.
The total sign area of 127 square feet would not exceed the maximum area that would be allowed for
the business.
Pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.19, a comprehensive sign program may be
pursued to address unique site constraints. The subject site has frontage on three streets. The second
monument sign is proposed at a corner and frontage of Mary and Third Streets, which is an adjacent
parcel leased by the business. A Sign Exception for alternative placement could have been pursued for
alternate placement of an additional monument sign at the subject corner if this property were
consolidated with the Whole Food Market Property. Since the adjacent site is not a part of the Whole
Foods developed parcel, the additional monument sign may only be considered through approval of a
Sign Program. The following criteria apply to review of a Sign Program:
1. All of the signs contained in the program have one or more common design elements such as
placement, colors, architecture, materials, illumination, sign type, sign shape, letter size and letter
type
2. All of the signs contained in the program are in harmony and scale with the materials, architecture, .
and other design features of the buildings and property improvements they identify, and the program
is consistent with the general design standards specified in Section 14.19.054; and
3. The amount and placement of signage contained in the program is in scale with the subject property
and improvements, as well as the immediately surrounding area.
The signs are all high quality and would match in design, color and materials. Staff finds the criteria
would be satisfied to grant a sign program in this case.
Chapter 25 — Environmental and Desian Review Permit
As noted in the Summary above, the parking lot is subject to minor Design Review Permit. This
includes the screen wall for the existing loading area and trellises being extended in the parking area.
The landscaping issues have been addressed in Parking Section above. The loading area wall and
trellises appear to be well designed.
The project includes new lighting to replace existing heads on existing poles and to add four new dual -
head 12 foot LED lamps. Standards would be spaced about every size parking spaces. The lamps
would be replaced with square "box" heads that contain and conceal the LED lamps. The lamp boxes
would match the existing standards in Whole Foods Market main parking lot. Staff has asked Whole
Foods to address whether or not the LED lamps would also match lighting type at the existing market.
The average lumens are approx. 2fc with 17.3 fc maximum "hot spot" under the new pole in center bio-
swale. The new pole at Third Street would also produce about 15fc under the lamp.
Staff has not identified any significant lighting concerns. Lighting would remain subject to a 90 day post
installation review period to assure light sources are adequately concealed, lighting levels do not result
in undue glare or spillover off-site and that the lighting levels match the photometric.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Notice has been mailed to surrounding property owners, residents, occupants and homeowners .
associations within 300 feet of the site, and posted on the property at least 15 days prior to this hearing.
No comments have been received.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the DRB review staff's comments in this report and provide its recommendation on
the proposed parking lot and sign program to the Planning Commission. If desired, details may be
returned to the Board for review prior to issuance of permits.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Public Works Memorandum
a. June 24, 2015
b. October 22, 2014
3. Kimley-Horn August 1, 2014 Draft Traffic Evaluation .
4. Reduced Sign Program Plans
5. Reduced Primary Parking Plan Proposal — Expansion of Secondary Lot on Mary St
6. Reduced Plan B Plan — Consolidated Parking Lot Concept
Full-sized and reduced plans have been provided to the DRB members only.
7
1 ip
Oft,
ir
4r 9F
Amf
mrr.-,l
&4E
Ohio
EXHIBIT 2.A
1Zoview. Conunents: 140 Third S1
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
LD 15-081
TO: RAFFI BOLOYAN DATE: JUNE 24, 2015
PLANNING MANAGER
FROM: KEVIN MCGOWAN (j&FILE NO: 13.02.20
ACTING PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORICITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: 340 Third St (Whole Foods Parking and Sign — Kraig Tambornini Project
Planner)
ED13-060, UP13-038&37, SP13-003
We have reviewed the referenced planning referral and find the submittal complete, with the following
comments to be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit:
1,0 Access
1.1 The driveway on Third Street is not necessary for emergency access, according to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Additionally, the southern driveway on Mary Street and western
driveway on Third Street will no longer be used. Therefore, these three driveways shall
be removed.
Removal of emergency access driveway provides additional space to extend the
accessible path to Third Street. Currently the only accessible path from the Right -of -Way
is from Union Street. Also this allows for an improved parking configuration for easier
stall access, and improvement to the drainage features,
1.2 The sidewalks along the block perimeter shall be upgraded where necessary to meet
accessibility requirements throughout. The existing driveways for the loading dock and
eastern Third Street entrance are the most likely to require improvements.
It is recommended that the curb ramps at the intersection of Fourth and Mary be
upgraded to meet accessibility requirements; however all of the curb ramps at this
intersection require improvement at the same time. At this time, the existing curb ramp at
this corner may remain.
1.3 Show the width of the sidewalks, and vehicle overhang or wheel stop setback. A
minimum of 4' is required for sidewalk and accessible path width. Vehicle overhang of
wheel stops and curbs extends 2' and shall be configured to maintain the minimum
required widths..
2.0 Parking
2.1 Standard parking spaces are 9' by 19' as highlighted on Sheet A0.1. The standard parking
spaces shown on the plan are 18', but have vehicle overhang. Overhang shall be clear for
2' beyond the curb or wheel stop and provide a minimum of 19' total length. For example
the overhang shall be clear of signs, light poles, cart stalls or other elevated landscaping
mpartment ol' Public Works Page 1 of, 2 City of,'San 1tflI`(IeI
Review Comments: 310 'Third fit
15'083
features. Vehicles that overhang the curb in the center parking island are at risk of being
damaged by carts entering and exiting the cart stall. Also revise Detail 7 on Sheet C4.1.
3.0 Grading and Drainage
3.1 Soil erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any stock piling or soil
disturbance and maintained throughout the project regardless of the season.
3.2 Projects that include over 5000 square feet of impervious area created or replaced are
regulated projects under the MCSTOPPP requirements. For the purposes of paving,
surface repaving is not considered replacement, but is considered replacement if base
material is removed or added. Provide clarification on the paving, showing the area of
impervious replacement/creation versus resurfacing.
For a regulated project, provide a stormwater control plan, which includes a written
document, in addition to the erosion control plan shown on the planset. More specific
information is available from MCSTOPPP, hosted on the Marin County Website. See
tools and guidance, and post construction requirements at:
http://www.marincouniy.org/depts/pw/divisions/Mcstoppp/development/tiew-and-redevelopment-proiects
3.3 Provide the proposed quantity of earth movement, both cut and fill; Projects with over 50
cubic yards of earthwork require a grading permit from the Department of Public Works,
located at 111 Morphew St.
4.0 Encroachment
4.1 An encroachment permit shall be required for work within the Right -of -Way, from the
Department of Public Works, located at 111 Morphew St.
4.2 Detail 7 on Sheet C4.2, and Details 1 and 4 on Sheet L4.01 show dowels and rebar in the
curb, sidewalk and concrete paving. Please note that rebar is not permitted within the
Right -of -Way, but may be used onsite.
4.3 The proposed trellis is located in close proximity to the Right -of -Way, but the extents of
the trellis in relation to the property line were not clearly shown. These improvements
shall be limited to onsite.
4.4 The sidewalk and curb line have an abrupt change along Third Street near the coiner of
Mary Street. Adjust the plan to reduce the hazard, for example by tapering or rounding
the curb. A similar condition is shown at the emergency access driveway, which may be
addressed by removal of the driveway (see comment 1.1).
Department ol, Public Works Page 2 01 2 Citi' of'San Ral'ael
EXHIBIT 2.B
Review Comments: 340 3' Street
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
LD 14-124
TO: RAFFI BOLOYAN DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2014
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
FILE NO: 13.02.18
FROM: KEVIN MCGOWAN
ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: 340 Third Street (Whole Foods Pre -application — Sarjit Dhaliwal Project
Planner)
We have reviewed the referenced application and find the application incomplete.
1.0 General
The DRAFT traffic evaluation provided as part of this application, dated August 1, 2014, is based
on the Union Street driveway as a two-way driveway with both ingress and egress. The traffic
evaluation mentions the option to make the Union Street driveway an exit only. The plan of the
proposed parking lot shows the Union Street driveway as an exit only. Therefore, since the
proposed plan indicates that the Union Street driveway is exit only, the review of the traffic
evaluation only looked at the exit only option. In,general, the conversion of the Union Street
driveway to exit only will decrease impacts at the driveway location, but will shift the impacts to
the critical intersection of Third/Union.
Existing AM, Midday and PM traffic counts (collected in October 2013) were provided to the
City by the Whole Foods traffic engineering consultant (Kimley-Horn). Review of the proposed
layout and traffic evaluation was performed utilizing the consultant provided counts.
The nearby intersection of Third & Union is at capacity during the PM peak period. Based on the
City's baseline volumes and the applicants driveway counts for the Union Street driveway,
redistribution of the vehicular trips due to the exit only configuration of the Union Street
driveway will increase the PM peak period delay at the intersection of 3rd/Union by
approximately 8.5 seconds for a total intersection delay in excess of 75 seconds. The proposed
parking lot layout would cause a significant impact to the roadway network and would be in
violation of the City's General Plan 2020 policy which states that Third/Union may have a
"maximum of 70 seconds of delay during peak hours".
In addition to the significant PM peak period impact, the redistribution of trips would also
increase intersection delay during the AM and Midday periods, contributing to the congestion at
this critical intersection.
The following are items which need to be addressed in the FINAL traffic evaluation:
1. The City's approved and calibrated level of service methodology is Synchro. The City
does not utilize Highway Capacity Manual methodology for level of service analysis.
The City's Synchro model has been calibrated to match as closely as possible the actual
intersection and approach delays, queues, flow rates, etc. Please conduct the analysis
utilizing Synchro LOS printouts for intersection capacity, delay, and level of service.
Department of Public Works Page 1 of 4 City of San Rafael
Review Comments: 340 3rd Street LD 14-124
2. The traffic evaluation was conducted utilizing an ideal saturation now rate of 1900
vehicles per hour per lane at the intersection of Third/Union. The City's model has been
calibrated to match actual observed saturation flow rates and is much less than 1900
vehicles per hour per lane. Based on historic observations conducted by City staff, most
movements at this intersection operate with an ideal saturation flow rate of 1600-1700
vehicles per hour per lane.
3. Converting the Union Street driveway to exit only will increase the number of eastbound
U -turning vehicles (this is based on the trip distribution maps provided in the report).
Our observations of this intersection have indicated that larger vehicles have a difficult
time making the eastbound u -turn maneuver given the tight geometric layout of the
intersection. In addition, the eastbound u -turning vehicles are in conflict with the
southbound right turning vehicles making a right on red. With an increase in eastbound
u -turning vehicles it is likely that the southbound right turn movement would need to be
posted "no right on red" which would result in an increase in intersection delay at
Third/Union as well as increase the southbound queue length on Union Street (impacting
public safety as there is a fire station located on Union Street). Furthermore, an increase
in the number of u -turning vehicles may reduce intersection capacity and saturation flow
rates having additional intersection operational impacts and contribute to an increased
overall intersection delay above what has currently been analyzed.
4. More information regarding the assumptions and how the trip distribution percentages
were developed for both existing, with project and with the closure of the union street
ingress is needed.
After our meeting with the applicant earlier this year, the Department of Public Works staff
expressed concern regarding conflict points within the parking lot, located immediately adjacent
to several of the driveways and the impacts those conflicts may have on the adjacent roadway
network. The report did not address any concerns within the parking lot. Specifically, our
concerns included:
1. Conflicts near the Third Street - driveway including turning maneuvers, parking
maneuvers, and vehicles waiting to park, will spill over onto Third Street causing the
eastern through lane on westbound Third Street to be completely shut down during peak
periods. This will also result in an increase of queues for the southbound right and
eastbound left/u-turning vehicles as the receiving lanes for these movements will queued
with vehicles. This poses an operational concern as the most critical times in which these
lanes are needed is during the peals periods. This also poses a safety concern as vehicles
stopped in the westbound through lane may result in an increase in rear -end collisions.
2. Conflicts near the Union Street driveway including turning maneuvers, parking
maneuvers, and vehicles waiting to park is not a concern if the Union Street driveway is
converted to exit only. However, if the applicant pursues ingress on Union Street as part
of a subsequent submittal, we would still be concerned with these conflicts.
We support installation of the 90 degree parking layout and reconstruction to meet current City
code. We believe this will be a great improvement to the site. However, the proposed parking
layout as submitted raises the following concerns:
1. We support the additional parking and connecting the two parking lots on Mary Street.
However, we do not concur with the connection of the two new lots with the store front
lot. Our field observations have indicated that the impact of the two parking lots on
Mary Street have been minimal.
2. Direct access between Mary Street and Union Street will generate additional southbound
right turns at the intersection of Third & Union. The addition of trips at this intersection
Department of Public Works Page 2 of 4 City of San Rafael
Review Comments: 340 3rd Street
LD14-124
is strictly prohibited. The addition of these trips was not taken into consideration when
calculating the increased intersection delay discussed previously.
On October 20, 2014, I spoke with Matt Weir of Kimley-Horn to discuss some of the issues
above. At this time we do not recommend approval. Please have the applicant revise the parking
layout and address the issues discussed above for our next review.
The other comments in our previous correspondence are summarized below:
2.0 Roads
2.1 An Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works is required for
the work in the roadway. This specific roadway has recently been resurfaced such that
the applicant shall be required to fully grind one lane for a minimum of 10 feet outside of
the trench width. The applicant shall apply for the necessary Encroachment Permit
before the start of any construction on the site.
2.2 We are currently looking into the need for frontage improvements on both Third
Street and Mary Street. The existing sidewalks and driveways are not compliant with
Federal ADA regulations and reconstruction of the parking lot may necessitate
repair/replacement of these facilities.
3.0 Driveways
3.1 Plans must show the driveway profile, cross-section, slope, and drainage.
4.0 Parking
4.3 Provide a sight distance analysis for the new sign at the corner of 3rd Street and
Mary.
4.5
this area. in addit'e-n the compact spaces should be redistributed throughout the entire
parking area for Whole Foods and not concentrated in one lot.
4.6 Clarify what type of vehicle is allowed to park in the clean air vehicle parking
area. Show all signage provide the legal backup material allowing this type of parking.
Clarify if this is an electric vehicle charging station.
5.0 Surface Runoff Water Quality
5.1 Include and make part of the project plans, the sheet "Pollution Prevention - It's
part of the plan" See Attached
6.0 Drainage
6.1 Provide a site plan showing all site drainage existing and proposed. Show all
roof drains and drainage systems on the plan.
7.0 Floodplain Management
7.1 Site plan must show Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Flood Zone designation
and Base Flood Elevation (BFE) using the North American Vertical Datum -1988. All
elevation data on plans shall use NAVD88. Revise topographic survey to show
NAVD88.
Department of Public Works Page 3 of 4 City of San Rafael
Review Comments: 340 3 Street
LD14-124
7.2 The applicant shall be aware that this property is within FEMA flood area AE
requiring new structures to be at base flood elevation 9.0 NGVD.
Department of Public Works Page 4 of 4 City of San Rafael
EXHIBIT 3
MWey>)) Horn
Memorandum'
t To: Christen Soares
From: Matt Weir, P.E., T.E., PTOE
Re: DRAFT Traffic Evaluation
Whole Foods — San Rafael, California
Date: August 1, 2014
Per your request we have prepared this traffic evaluation for the Whole Foods project in San Rafael. The
following is a discussion of each of the tropic areas for which this memorandum has been prepared.
Proiect Understandinji
Kimley-Horn understands that Whole Foods desires to modify the existing parking lot configuration by
eliminating the physical lot boundaries thereby creating a single, cohesive parking field for the site. The
site currently uses three distinct, separated parking lots. The existing configuration has been observed to
create additional patron circulation and on- and off-site inefficiencies as a result of the lack of on-site
connectivity. The proposed project is understood to include only the reconfiguration of the three,
parking lots into a single, cohesive parking area, as well as the removal of tables/seats associated with
the store's cafa.
Because the reconfiguration of the parking lots is anticipated to result in a shift of patron traffic
between site driveways, the purpose of this study is to quantify the effect of this shift on the
surrounding intersections.
Figure 1 depicts the project location, study intersections, lane geometries, and existing traffic control.
The project site plan is provided as Figure 2.
Assessment of Proposed Proiect
The number of trips anticipated to be generated by a proposed project are typically approximated using
Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Because
the proposed project is understood to include only the reconfiguration of the three parking lots into a
single, cohesive parking area, no new trips are anticipated to be generated by the site. It is important to
note that, although the proposed project includes the removal of tables/seats associated with the
store's cafe presumably resulting in a low trip generation rate, no reduction in site trips was used to
account for this change in site characteristics.
Although no new trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed project, the consolidation of the
parking lots and the reconfiguration of site driveways are anticipated to result in the redistribution of
site traffic between site driveways. The overall trip distribution pattern is not anticipated to be affected
by the proposed project. However, a shift of driveway utilization and, as a result, a change of volumes at
the surrounding intersections, is expected as patrons' travel patterns inevitably make more efficient use
of the access locations and enhanced, predominant circulation patterns.
The inbound and outbound project trip distribution percentages associated with each of the site
driveways are illustrated in in Figures 3 -14.
Whole Foods — San Rafael Page 1 of 5
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation August 1, 2014
K In -11 ee o))> H 0 r R
Traffic Evaluation Parameters
As requested by the City, this traffic evaluation focuses on the weekday AM, Mid-day, and PM -peak hour
operations at the following intersections:
1. 3rd Street @ Union Street
2. 3rd Street @ Mary Street
.3. 4th Street @ Mary Street
4. 4th Street @ Union Street
5. Union Street @ Site Driveway
Intersection levels of service were determined for the following analysis scenarios:
Existing (2013) Conditions
Reflect existing, year 2013 geometry and volumes. New weekday AM, Mid-day, and PM peak -
period intersection turning movement counts were conducted in October 2013. The traffic
count data sheets are provided in Appendix A.
Existing (2013) plus Background Traffic plus Proposed Project Conditions
Reflect the addition of traffic associated with pending development projects in the general
projects area and traffic from the proposed project to Existing (2013) Conditions. The
background traffic was provided by the City' for the AM and PM peak -hours for one of the study
intersections (3rd Street @ Union Street).
Traffic Evaluation Methodology
Analysis of transportation facility significant environmental impacts is based on the concept of Level of
Service (LOS). The LOS of a facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS
ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a
facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of Service for this study were
determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 (HCM), using appropriate
traffic analysis software.
The HCM includes procedures for analyzing side -street stop controlled (SSSC), all -way stop controlled
(AWSC), and signalized intersections. The SSSC procedure defines LOS as a function of average control
delay for each minor street approach movement. Conversely, the AWSC and signalized intersection
procedures define LOS as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole.
Table 1 presents intersection LOS definitions as defined in the HCM.
Table 1— Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service
(LOS)
Un -Signalized
Signalized
Average Control
Delay* (sec/veh)
Control Delay per
Vehicle (sec/veh)
A
<_ 10
<_ 10
B
>10-15
>10-20
C
>15-25
>20-35
D
>25-35
>35-55
E
>35-50
>55-80
F
> 50
>80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010
Applied to the worst lane/lane group(s) for SSSC
1 Email from Leslie Blomquist, City of San Rafael, to Adam Smith, Whole Foods Market, May 20, 2014.
Whole Foods —San Rafael Page 2 of 5
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation August 1, 2014
KhAe,y)>> H arn
Traffic Evaluation Results
Intersection peak -hour levels of service were determined for each of the study intersections for each of
the three peak -hours. These operational results are presented in Table 2. In addition to the two
aforementioned analysis scenarios, the traffic evaluation also considered the effect of a change of
access at the Union Street driveway (Intersection #5) to exit only. Traffic adjustments made for the
access changes at Intersection #5 are provided in Appendix D. It is important to note that the
information provided in Appendix B relates only to the inbound traffic at the project's Union Street
driveway (Intersection #5). Accordingly, the percentages shown on the Appendix B figures depict the
origin of vehicles destined to enter that specific driveway (Union Street). Conversely, the other project
trip distribution figures (Figures 3 -14) represent the origins and destinations of traffic related to the
site as a whole.
Table 2 - Intersection Levels of Service
#
Intersection (Traffic Control)
& Analysis Scenario
AM Peak -Hour
Delay{ LOS
(seconds)
Mid -Day Peak -Hour
PM Peau -Hour
Delay+
(seconds)
LOS
Delay+
(seconds)
LOS
1
3` Street @ Union Street (Signal)
Existing (2013) Conditions
31.4
C
41.4
D
37.9
D
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
38.6
D
53.4
D
54.1
D
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
38.9
DJ
54.8
1 D
58.8
E
2
3`d Street @ Mary Street (SSSC)
Existing (2013) Conditions
15.5
C
16.1
C
15.2
C
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
17.2
C
21.9
C -
17.8
C
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions*
17.2
C
20.7
C
17.8
C
3
4" Street @ Mary Street (AWSC)
Existing (2013) Conditions
10.8
B
9.8
A
10.2
B
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
11.1
B
13.0
B
12.7
B
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions*
11.2
B
13.0
B
12.9
B
4
4th Street @ Union Street (SSSC)
Existing (2013) Conditions
20.0
C
15.3
C
14.7
B
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
20.1
C
27.1
D
24.4
C
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions*
20.0
C
24.2
C
23.6
C
5
Union Street @ Site Driveway (SSSC)
Existing (2013) Conditions
9.0
A
14.8
B
14.3
B
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
12.4
B
14.8
B
12.0
B
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions'
11.6
B
11.3
B
11.7
B
Notes:
# Scenario includes the conversion of Union Street driveway (Int. #5) to exit only. Access change results in redistribution of driveway trips.
+ Delay reported for worst minor approach (worst minor movement) for SSSC
BOLD signifies substandard operating conditions (LOS E or F), LOS E is acceptable at 3`d St/Union St (Int. #1)
SSSC = Side -Street Stop Control, AWSC = All -Way Stop Control
Peak -hour intersection volumes for each of the analysis scenarios are presented in Figure 15, 16, and 17.
Analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Whole Foods - San Rafael Page 3 of 5
DRAFTTraffic Evaluation August 1, 2014
Kimley.,,O Horn
Impacts and Mitigation
Standards of Significance
Project impacts were determined by comparing conditions without the proposed project to those with
the project. Impacts are created when traffic from the proposed project causes the LOS of an
intersection or roadway segment to fall below a specific threshold. The City's standardS2 specify the
following:
"In order to ensure an efficient roadway network, maintain adequate traffic levels of services
(LOS) consistent with standards for signalized intersections in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours as
shown below...
Citywide LOS D
Third and Union Streets LOS E (Maximum 70 seconds of delay during peak hours)"
Impacts and Mitigation
As reflected in Table 2, the study intersections operate at acceptable levels of services both with and
without the proposed project. As such, no mitigations are required.
Intersection Queuing
As requested by the City, this traffic evaluation included focused consideration of vehicle queuing along
Union Street between 3rd Street and the project site driveway. In an effort to document the existing
operating and queuing conditions, field observations were performed in October 2013 of the maximum
observed queues for the northbound left -turn into the project site, and the southbound approach at 3rd
Street during the weekday, Mid-day peak hour. The raw data for this evaluation is provided in Appendix
D. From this evaluation is can,be concluded that a maximum of six vehicles were observed to be queuing
in the northbound left -turn lane into the site (8:15 am, 12:45 pm, and 4:30 pm), and a maximum of 13
vehicles were observed to be queuing along the southbound approach to 3rd Street (12:45 pm). It is
worth noting that southbound vehicle queuing of 8 or more vehicles extend back through the site access
driveway intersection.
In addition, queuing for these three movements were also evaluated using SimTraffic. For this analysis,
each movement's 95th percentile queue was compared against their respective available storage
lengths. As reflected in Table 3, the queuing for all three movements, for all three analysis scenarios are
anticipated to be contained within the available storage lanes. The key result of the SimTraffic queuing
evaluation is that the addition of the proposed project results in a nominal change from the baseline
conditions.
It is worth noting that, although the aforementioned field observations noted maximum observed
queues beyond those distances calculated by SimTraffic, the data sources are still considered to be
complementary. Because the SimTraffic data is using a 60 -minute period and averages the peak -hour's
operating characteristics, it is not surprising that occasional approach queuing exceeds the 95th
percentile queues generated by the model.
2 Section C-5, Page 166. San Rafael 2020 General Plan. January 18, 2013.
Whole Foods — San Rafael Page 4 of 5
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation August 1, 2014
Kh� e y)>> o, Il l! ll
Table 3 — Intersection Queuing Evaluation
#
Intersection / Analysis Scenario
Movement
AM Peak -Hour
Mid -Day Peak -Hour
PM Peak -Hour
Available
Storage
(ft)
95t %
Queue
(ft)
Available
Storage
(ft)
95t %
Queue
(ft)
Available
Storage
(_ft)
95`
Queue
(ft)
1
P Street @ Union Street
SBL
_ _
Existing (2013) Conditions
125
80
125
116
125
114
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
111
116
115
Existing. (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
115
114
112
—
- - -I SBT/R
Existing (2013) Conditions
125
79
125
112
117
125 120
116
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
111
115
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions'
111
112
5
Union Street @ Site Driveway I NBL
Existing (2013) Conditions
125
11
125
64
125
68
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions
38
69
58
Existing (2013) plus Background plus Project Conditions*
--
--
--
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology per SimTraffic` v8.
{ Scenario includes the conversion of Union Street driveway Int. #5 to exit only. Access change results in redistribution of drivewayy trips.
The addition of the proposed project is not anticipated to adversely affect traffic operations at the
surrounding intersections or along the Union Street frontage. As documented in this evaluation, the
peak -hour intersection delay and level of service analysis revealed acceptable conditions for the three
analysis scenarios considered. Furthermore, vehicle queuing along Union Street between the site access
driveway and 3rd Street is not anticipated to be noticeably different with the addition of the project.
The proposed project's consolidation of the site's parking lots is anticipated to improve on-site safety
and operations. These on-site improvements are anticipated to have little -to -no effect on the off-site
transportation facilities analyzed in this evaluation.
Attachments:
Figure 1- Study Intersections, Lane Geometry, and Traffic Control
Figure 2 - Project Site Plan
Figures 3 -14 - Project Trip Distribution
Figures 15, 16, 17 - Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes
AppendixA- Traffic Count Data Sheets
Appendix B - Union Street Driveway as Exit Only Traffic Adjustments
Appendix C - Analysis Worksheets
Appendix D - Queuing Worksheets
Whole Foods — San Rafael Page 5 of 5
DRAFT Traffic Evaluation August 1, 2014
EXHIBIT 4
.moi
a
cn
L
OE;
�
�u1 M N N
Q zG
Ld
QW LL
Q J Of
LL
2
0
N
PAAs
m
0
C?
m
c rn d
E
z @ Q
Z ca U c
QZ �OQmo
a cf) A
`5.c;comm
F w c o c C
U5EL Cno
T
Zc( CO
F n�
J E J N
� 0Co
rn n
L
N
p MUNU�
U' m
�QN N LLn.
z
0
MINE
qr
0
@
!3f`�
8j8j 5�
x
8
b
5
s 4�
S�
�f E�
a�
gm 4
r- N CO d-
N
N
n�
Iu�
W
vC/1
.
a
�
LJ tt ^^
f vJ
Z
Y
W (n Z
F— (D
Z Z Z
_
o 2
09.
0 U)
U QU)C)
W w
J L �
rrn
L- W
U O
OOZ cn
O
LU —,
e LL
m z o
o ms
- Q(Dx�
�cnwa
pmg
o Pmm"g
a
G.1
1332US NOW
17
� � I{ry /�� f �� 1 � y � �� I � 6� aK
0
oo
o,! 6W
IW
z
U)
Lj..
-I -r-TT77T-n
I T
LU
LU
LL
04
!A�
T77
J J
LH I LLL
A'
------------- -- ---- ------J
0
MARY STREET
4 z CO
0.0
31DIH3A
afv
O 0 ,/' O
E#Mg
LO (0 C) 0
CD
as -
LO CD N
LO LO CN v -
N
0 U)
LLJ W
Q Ch
cn U)
QSr
LO
a
ss
In
q
N
Iy
T
1,
N
d
CL
co
v
�
�
y a Z Z M
n•
$
g-
g8
^ M
f
$yE
2
fi u
�x
=y
x
g
19
d
c
o u" E'°
G `t
O
RI CSI
Z N
C L L N
S m m
IRE
m
LU
E 3 3 c
j E
T
a>
s.
r Z m
CC
cc
CIA.-
8
e v Y
__ ..
II
G1
H Q
e 'E S
m
C
i+
W
}.
W
N
W
li
I
ami ami � ami
1
M
N M M M M
En
C M N
L f
ol O
°O
V
Y
�•
4
to
a m
N
T
LO
N m
OW
LL ti
m l
_
F
O x
1�
r
dot t
00N
o p? k
Z o
0 n
s
0
O
N °
'.2
Ur c
Z -2Y
E E
C d C
03
d
2
3 E o 3£ E o
pgl e
iia}
CA 3
CT
rt�_+
E5 Vj
y M
T N L
F M M O Z M V7 M
o±
LL��3
'q
=
'm
z
_
0
Z
gg
e o 0
11
� t
(~n .0
p m ` C N G
3u n E
�S
p/Aryry
V
C
W
tom,
S" E
LL H rT H
'i' �`
• •�
N
Womel I.npv4Pul----p-n
$�
111 m
8
��
_ 'S
C
C
er
O1 01
Ili •In tM0 N
N
"e U
.X
t; U
U w v
C
`
N
N 2 12 nn��
ii
EEli
5${3
G Q �p
1p
^0 L .0 O L
-$
• i S
A S
j.
C
�
V V u
m m
C C
C C
c N d W
N
n
°
iG
—2
u0 a a a
—2 m m m
¢,
g€i
g$
Z
O=
In Z a
6 d
d M > > i
II
$
U 4
a >
$S€
LL zo
U
W
� 3
o LL
N A� :5
s
wa
C
O
O` N N
a2
$o
W v
L6 pl
Y_
3>I
Zmbs
i0
tp v
og@:RB
ON
� gE
Cl)
C O
C
a
U O
N
O
N
d
N
,O
6 $
N
C W
Y •G
E
—
N
a
Q. O
N
3
g
I I �
Q 6
r
O
N
N
x
M
U)
Q
l
Q
ov
• Oy0
W
b
J L �
�}tYiN
II
FSI
O
n
to lnV
� x
§2
a4$ A
oa Pa
•1
u in
^' N
C N
l'n
O m
Ohm
Z
iLL
0
c Ca
cn
E N
Dela
-
-
a)
w
®
(— 119-1Z
O R
!s
a.-19
GAS
EXHIBIT 5
F HE
"s.;2-$$
R
ri
P4
a)
V
r
O
V
W
a
04
a
E
H
m
H
x
w
1 aa�4 1 c nininin
� 1332J1S A�Ib'W v
C.