Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2015-02-24 #2ciryor
ff_r
Community Development Department— Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085(FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: February 24, 2015
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers: CDR14-009
Project Planner: Kraig Tamborni(n 4115)_485-3092
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 930 Tamalpais Avenue (Whistiestop Project Conceptual Review) — Conceptual Design
Review of Whistlestop/Marin Senior Services building and site redevelopment with a new
five -story building containing 48 low income senior housing units, re-establishment of
existing cafe and senior center facility uses, and 'provision of 21 ground floor parking
spaces on the 14,889 square foot rectangular parcel. APN: 011-277-01; Netherton Office
(HO) District; Marin Senior Coordinating Council, owner/applicant; Eden Housing, agent.
File No: CDR14-009
Whistlestop/Marin Senior Services have partnered with Eden Housing to redevelop 930 Tamalpais
Avenue and construct a new senior services facility with affordable senior housing on the upper floors. A
pre -application was submitted for City staff review in early 2014, and a Neighborhood Meeting was
conducted for the project in January 2015. This conceptual application has been submitted to request
Design Review Board (DRB) review and a Planning Commission study session of the conceptual
proposal, prior to submittal of formal applications to provide early feedback on the project design and
potential concerns. The DRB conceptual review meeting was held February 18th, and summarized in this
report. Staff recommends that the Commission consider addressing the following topics
➢ Design. Recommendations on whether any specific design style or preferences would be
recommended to provide a unique and well -design building at this "gateway" location to
Downtown San Rafael in the Netherton office district.
➢ Frontage Improvements. Comments on elimination of parking spaces on Tamalpais Avenue in
order to provide a six-foot sidewalk entirely within the right of way. Staff recommends that
alternative street improvement solutions may be explored to provide adequate walkways and
maintain existing street parking (such as revising the site development pattern and/or revising
street improvements).
➢ Parking. Adequacy of parking proposed for the senior services and restaurant uses, and
recommendation on a request to waive all code required parking .for the senior housing portion
(being requested as a density bonus concession which requires financial pro formal from the
applicant and approval by the City Council) based on proposed commitment to rent to seniors
that will not own a vehicle. The applicant submitted a preliminary parking and traffic analysis,
which was further updated after conduct of a staff level pre -application review (Exhibits 7c & d)
and proposes annual re -certifications of car ownership as part of its routine reporting required.
r Where the applicant is requesting the modification or waiver of a development standard or a zoning or architectural
design requirement, the applicant shall submit evidence demonstrating that the application of the subject standard or
requirement would preclude construction of the project at the densities provided for in California Government Code
Section 65915 and that the waiver or modification is necessary to make development of the project financially feasible.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009
Page 2
Staff has advised the applicant that a revised parking study submitted with formal applications
would need to discuss the anticipated parking demand generated by senior housing for visitors,
caregivers and other service providers. This analysis should include a data comparing success of
parking reduction and demand generated by similar senior housing projects. The preliminary
analysis considers parking based on peak anticipated demand for the center, mode of
Whistlestop visitors, relocation of employees and demand by time of day for various users.
➢ Density. Request for 100% density bonus as an additional concession, which also requires that
the applicant submit a financial pro -forma.
➢ Historic/Local Resource Considerations. Concerns with the loss of the locally significant San
Rafael Depot structure, which is considered to contribute to the hometown character and has
historical significance to the community. An evaluation of the building as an historic resource
pursuant to State criteria has been provided that concludes the project would not be an historic
resource pursuant to the requirements for environmental review (i.e., California Environmental
Quality Act - CEQA) (Exhibit 7a).
➢ Air Quality. Assessment of a placing a sensitive residential use for seniors near potentially
substantial pollution concentrations (i.e., within 500 feet of Highway 101, as well as contiguous to
SMART Station and Transit Center and diesel -fueled vehicles). A Health Risk Assessment has
been provided to establish that the project would be within acceptable threshold limits established
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (Exhibit 7b).
➢ Traffic/Circulation. Traffic generation, patterns and distribution and around transit center,
downtown roadways and intersections and regional transportation corridors. The focused traffic
and parking analysis provided discussion of anticipated impacts of the preliminary project
submittal. Traffic impacts were identified as negligible. (Exhibit 7d)
➢ Visual Impacts. Recommendations on the upper story design including stepbacks of floor levels,
design and form/massing of upper levels, etc. recommended to mitigate height, bulk and mass
and access to natural light for adjacent uses, in order for the building to fit in with the downtown
character and preserve views of St Raphael's Spire as seen from public vantage points1US101. A
visual analysis would be needed with formal submittal to' evaluate the project. A shadow study
may also be warranted.
RECOMMENDATION..,:... -...-.........:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive the applicants presentation, accept public
testimony, discuss the concept including asking any questions of the applicant or members of the public
or staff, and provide comments on the project details including concerns of the Commission that need to
be addressed in formal application submittal.
PROPS TY FACTS-.:':':.-'-:.-`--.
Address/Location: 1930 Tamal ais Avenue Parcel Number(s): 011-277-01
Propert Size: 14,689 square feet Nei hborhood: Netherton Office
2 Pro forma information shall demonstrate to the city that the requested concession or incentive results in an identifiable,
financially sufficient, and actual cost reduction. The cost of reviewing any required pro forma data submitted as pat of
the application in support of a request for a concession or incentive, including, but not limited to, the cost to the city of
hiring -a consultant to review said pro fonna, shall be borne by the applicant.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009 Page 3
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation I Zoning Designation Existin Land -Use
Project Site:
Netherton Office
HO
14,443sf community
service facility & food
service (Whistlestop,
Marin Senior Services,
Jackson Cafe
North:
Netherton Office
HO
Commercial, f=ourth
Street
South:
Public/Quasi-Public
P/QP
Bettini Transit Center,
Third Street
East:
Hetherton Office
HO
SMART
West:
Hetherton Office
HO
Commercial, Tamalpais
Avenue
-
GR. NfD...
The subject project has been referred to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for
conceptual review and comment of a significant project in a gateway location. Conceptual review is
intended to inform and assist applicants in preparing formal application submittals. The DRB meeting
was held this past Wednesday, February 18 and the comments received have been summarized in this
report.
The site is currently developed and occupied by Whistlestop, Marin Senior Services and Jackson Cafe
uses. Administrative offices are provided for Whistlestop and several small non-profit organizations, an
active aging center operated by Whistlestop that offers classes and services to older adults, and Jackson
Cafe restaurant that is oriented to Whistlestop clients. The office components house 17 employees: The
Whistlestop active aging center and restaurant occupy 10,400 square feet of the building. Whistlestop
services include providing transportation, food and on-site services for the elderly.
The property is in the "Hetherton Gateway" downtown location, outside of the 'Parking Assessment
District'. The existing building is a one-story stucco -clad building originally built in Mission Revival Style
by the Northwest Pacific Railroad in 1929 to replace an older depot building built in 1880 (i.e., the San
Rafael Depot). The building is listed on the City's local historical building survey list as having potential
historic or cultural significance (train depot building reconstructed in 1929) and has been modified from
its original condition; including second floor level additions for Whistlestop (per UP82-59/ED82-
42/1319506 and UP87-42/ED87-65/626423). Rail service stopped in San Rafael in 1974. In 1980 Marin
Senior Coordinating Council purchased the depot to use as a senior center.
Pre -application Review & Neighborhood Meeting
A pre -application review was completed by City staff on March 27, 2014 and a Neighborhood Meeting
was held on January 14, 2015. The applicant developed conceptual plans in response to technical
issues identified in response to the pre -application. Comments from the Neighborhood Meeting are
attached as Exhibit 8. Preliminary design concepts identified by staff included the following:
o The new building must provide a unique, well designed gateway building, as described within the HO
zoning district and general plan designation.
• Provide step backs for the upper floor levels to minimize bulklmasslaccess to natural light
• Complement and strengthen the existing character of the downtown streetscape particularly at the
ground floor leve/ (e.g., design approach, selection of materials/colors, height of floor level(s), etc.)
• Provide a prominent retail fagade at Fourth Street
Provide high quality. architectural design at the upper floor levels.
Support defined connections to the SMART Station and Bettini Transit Center.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Na: CDR14-009
Page 4
Enhance the new walkways in front of the site, including consideration of trees and landscaping
improvements adjacent to the street frontages.
Any pedestrian and bicycle lane treatments on Tamalpais Avenue should be proposed to calm traffic
and/or provide a pleasing streetscape
Design Review Board Meeting
The Design Review Board provided comments on the proposal at its February 18t" meeting, which are
summarized in the Design Review Board section of this report.
PROJE:C:rDESC.RIPTION: ::<_ '= ;:::'.::::::
Project Description
The project requests conceptual design review comments on a proposed new five -story building
containing 48 low income senior housing units, cafe and senior center facility uses, and 21 ground floor
parking spaces on the 14,689 square foot rectangular lot located on the east side of Tamalpais Avenue,
between Third Street, Fourth Street and backing up against SMART right of way (near Bettini Transit
Center). The concept would replace the existing two-story 14,443 square foot "San Rafael Depot"
building and additions made to the building since its construction in 1929. The applicant's summary
description of the project is attached as Exhibit 2.
The conceptual plans provide four schemes for discussion that have been prepared based on staff and
public feedback provided to date. More specifically, the concept includes the following development
components:
•S Height. Up to 66 -foot tall building in five stories is proposed, consistent with maximum 66' height limit
for the HO District and General Plan 2020 Exhibit 9; which designates this area west of the railroad
tracks for taller buildings for office and housing opportunities.
Density. A density bonus for a 100% increase above the base density of 24 units is requested for
provision of 100% affordable units to low income seniors. A minimum 20% affordability is required.
Up to 35% maximum bonus could be achieved; for 9 additional market rate and 33 total units. An
increase for 100% bonus for a project that exceeds the affordability requirements may be requested
as a "concession" under the City and State Density Bonus provisions. However, this would require _
City Council approval as a concession, and requires submittal of a financial pro -forma that
demonstrates to the City that the concession would make the project feasible and increase
affordability.
Intensity. The site is permitted a non-residential floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 (building to site area);
or over 29,000 square feet of non-residential building area. The project description indicates the
project would result in 1.2 FAR and identifies Jackson Cafe with approximately 1,400 square feet of
seating and commercial kitchen area, and Whistlestop use occupying approximately 14,500 square
feet of building area on two levels. The building are calculations on sheet A0.3 indicate 2,222 square
feet of cafe use, 12,472 square feet of Whistlestop facility use, 2,268 square feet of community
lounge area, 308 square feet offices, 470 square feet laundry, and 1,656 square feet community &
computer rooms. There appears to be overlap occurring between residential and community service
use areas. Further detailed review of building areas would be required to clearly quantify residential
and non-residential space. However, the conceptual project proposal indicates the project would be
designed to fall within the FAR limits.
•s Parking. The project proposes 21 spaces for the entire project and requires approval of a Use Permit
to establish and/or modify the parking standards. Staff notes that 104 spaces would be required for
all uses (based on 67 spaces .required by the current use permit plus 36 spaces based on the
Parking standards for residential use). However, the project is requesting elimination of all parking
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009
Page 5
requirement for the low income senior residential units (based on renting to seniors that would not
own a car and commit to use of transit services that may include'the Whistlestop shuttle services .
currently provided). This request would require a "concession" with submittal of a financial pro -forma
that must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. As noted above, a preliminary parking
assessment has been submitted that concludes the supply could support anticipated peak weekday
demand for the use as proposed (Exhibit 7c). A revised parking analysis would be required and
evaluated by staff for the new use as part of formal application submittal. Bicycle parking is proposed
to be supplied. Clean air vehicle parking has not been assessed.
❖ Mixed -Use & Non -Residential Land Uses. Administrative use permit review of mixed-use
development is required consistent with SRMC 14.17.100, to evaluate compatibility issues including
noise. Administrative office and food service uses are permitted in the HO District. Community
service/senior facility uses may be considered by Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Administrator
could approve an amendment or modification to an existing community service facility use, and/or
parking modification. In this case, the use permits required for the project would be referred to the
Planning Commission, and elevated to the City Council to be considered with the concurrent request
for a 100% density bonus and parking waiver concessions which require financial pro -forma.
❖ Landscaping. The project is required to provide a minimum 10% landscaping, or 1,496 square feet.
The conceptual plan sheet A0.0 indicates 1,240 square feet of ground level landscaping would be
provided with 1,280 square feet of common balcony landscape area.
+ Public Improvements. The City requires undergrounding of utilities, street trees and minimum six-
foot walkways along the property frontage. The existing sidewalk in the City right of way is
substandard. The project proposes to widen the sidewalk to six -feet and provide street trees by
eliminating road paving and street parking along the site frontage. The walkway across the street is
identified as 10 feet wide, with a 26 -foot travel -way and 8 foot parking provided on the opposite side
of the street.
❖ Building Design Features. The conceptual plans include an arcade and restaurant on Fourth Street
to complement the pedestrian frontage and SMART use. The building also has been stepped back
and articulated to address its interface with the SMART property line and proposed height. The four
schemes presented include the following:
o Al - Scheme I with sloped roofs and brick with archway accents and stucco facades (that would
be compatible with the nearby San Rafael Corporate Center);
o A2 - Scheme 2 more contemporary with reverse -shed roof forms;
o A3 - Scheme 3 more conventional with flat parapet roof forms.
o A4 - Scheme 4 echoing the mission style of the existing "depot" building and the San Rafael
Mission at St. Raphael's Church.
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency:
The policies specifically identified as pertinent to review of this development project have been provided
in the attached Exhibit 3. The design criteria applicable to the project have been incorporated into the
City of San Rafael Design Guidelines. The General Plan contains many competing policies that must be
weighed and considered, but all are initially given equal weight. The General Plan encourages mixed use
housing on the site and no conflicts with specific General Plan 2020 policies have been identified based
upon preliminary review of the project concepts. However, there are several policies that identify
important design and visual considerations that must be considered for this site. For instance, Policy NH-
37 specifically identifies Hetherton Office District Design Considerations and Policy CD -7 specifically
identifies views that would need to be considered with development of the site.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009 Page 6
Staff notes that. in order to assess the proposal for compliance with all of the pertinent policies, the
applicant would be required to submit a visual analysis, an historic evaluation, an air quality assessment,
parking study and greenhouse gas emissions strategy with the formal application.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
HO District Land Use and Development Standards
The HO District allows mixed-use development subject to an administrative use permit. The cafe use and
administrative office use are permitted in the HO district. The senior services and Whistlestop uses are
quasi -public uses that may be considered with a conditional use permit.
Major design review approval is required pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.25. The
project also requires a parking modification pursuant to Chapter 14.18 and Density Bonus pursuant to
Chapter 14.16. This would include submittal of a major use permit request and/or request for
"concessions" to the parking requirements and for a 100% density increase.
The HO District allows non-residential development with up to 2.0 floor area ratio, and a 66 foot building
height limit (west of the rail lines, per GP 2020 Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 9, and SRMC Chapter 14.05 and
14.16). The allowable density is 1 unit per 600 square feet of site area, or 24 units.
Affordable Housing/Density Bonus Provisions
Affordable housing requirements apply to new non-residential development of 5,000 sf or more, and for -
sale projects or rental projects requesting a density bonus (pursuant to state law and Ca Govt Code
65915, and San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.030). The net increase in non-residential
development has not been tabulated or confirmed as part of this conceptual review submittal. Use of
lounge and community space would be overlapping from senior living units and senior center uses, and
will require more detailed quantification to determine the amount of area resulting in a net increase in
non-residential uses.
A density bonus allowance and various zoning incentives or concessions would be applicable to senior
housing project with 35 units or more, or for -sale and rental housing projects that propose affordable
housing units. The City must grant a density bonus increase of up to 35% above the density for an
affordable housing project, which varies based on number and type of affordable units offered. The
subject project would qualify for up to 33 units (based on 24 base units and 35% density bonus, or 9 unit
increase) and grant of up to three incentives or concessions based on the number of affordable units
being proposed; e.g., based on 100% affordability as proposed. Certain incentives or concessions may
be obtained automatically upon request, while others would require documentation to support the need
for the incentive and certain findings by the City.
In this case, the project proposes 100% affordability to low income seniors earning, and is asking for
grant of a 100% density bonus increase, i.e., 24 unit increase above the base density (as permitted
under Section 14.16.030.H.2 which states the City may grant a density bonus exceeding the state
minimum requirements as a concession where the applicant agrees to construct a greater number of
affordable housing units than required by Section 14.03.030.8.2).
The City may consider a request for 100% density bonus, without need for zoning or general plan
amendments, consistent with the Ca Govt Code 65915. However, a 100% density bonus request would
need to be requested and approved as a "concession" under the density bonus law, and requires
preparation and submittal of a financial pro -forma, and approval by the City Council; pursuant to San
Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.030.H.3.b.v. The pro forma must demonstrate to the City that the
requested density significantly contributes to the feasibility of lower income housing by resulting inan
identifiable and sufficient cost reduction for the project. The number and type of zoning concessions or
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009
Page 10
• Modify the design to provide orientation to SMART rather than a wall facing the platform. Further,
pursue conversations amongst SMART, the applicant, and City to explore opportunities to
coordinate or integrate development or interface of development between the two sites.
• Provide pedestrian friendly shopping, public spaces, landscaping, upper story setbacks from
Fourth Street, marketplace oriented to services for transit customers, integrate retail space to
face SMART station
• Provide engaging ground floor retail at street level, which is not achieved in the concepts.
• Pedestrian oriented ground level that provides uses and services that integrate with SMART
should be included.
• It is understood that adequate parking is an issue in the area and places constraints on
development options. However, the project must address its parking needs for the use and revise
the parking design and location. Consider multilevel, below grade or concentration on one part of
site (e.g,, possibly located at Third Street, for example).
• Parking supply needs to consider provision of adequate parking for caregivers, guest, and
classes at the facility.
• Parking needs significant work to be adequate and facilitate better design solutions, including
pulling building away from street to provide recesses, landscaping, etc.
• Development needs to provide assessment and respond to impacts from exhaust fumes.
• The development concept should also consider and respect the ideas and concepts studied in the
Downtown Station Area Plan vision document.
The meeting can be viewed on the City website: http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The formal project submittal will require submittal of revised or preparation of new studies addressing the
following environmental topic areas3 to facilitate evaluation of the project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (which would be in addition to any other studies mentioned above, and
required for review of the zoning entitlements):
✓ Aesthetics —Visual analysis of impact on public views toward St. Raphael spire.
✓ Air Quality — Assessment of exposure of sensitive population to substantial pollution
concentrations (senior housing near US 101, and transit facilities). Page 9 of Exhibit 7b provides
a summary of the project screening for hazard impacts as compared to the regional air district
(BAAQMD) adopted risk thresholds.
✓ Cultural Resources — Historical review to discuss whether the project causes a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. Exhibit 7a provides information on historic resource values, pursuant to State
thresholds for evaluation of an historic resource.
✓ Geology and Soils — Study of whether the site contains an unstable geologic unit or soils, or
expansive soils. Geotechnical investigations are routinely required and would not be anticipated
to reveal unstable conditions in this area. Preliminary evaluation of structural and code
requirements has been prepared by the applicant for the pre -application review.
s The State Office of Planning & Research is preparing revised 2014 CEQA Guidelines which may affect the requirements for
environmental assessment of some of the topic areas.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009 Page 9
buildings in downtown, including Fourth Street. The current five -story building is not found to
achieve this.
• Development needs to add to the distinctive image of San Rafael and unique gateway character
of site, contribute, respect and retain the gateway feeling as an entry to downtown, and celebrate
the entry to downtown. The five story concept creates a wall and monolithic building that would
not be compatible with these goals.
• The site has a number of constraints that make the program difficult to achieve with a building
that would address the design considerations required for the site. The program appears
ambitious given the site constraints (narrow size, location and need to preserve gateway feel,
orient to SMART, provide parking, etc.). Services and housing are good but the current program
would be difficult to achieve on this site.
• Provision of housing must not come at the expense of compromising on design goals.
• The existing depot building contributes significantly to that character, adds to the historic and
hometown feel and is a marker at the gateway for this area.. Development must consider the
iconic value of the depot building to the City. These characteristics need to be reflected and
achieved in any new building design. The building needs to make a statement, not just with
decoration, and save or retain all or at least part of the existing building in the design if possible.
• The design needs to make reference to and connection with the unique characteristics of San
Rafael. This building design could be located in any community.
• The building needs to reduce the massiveness of the structure as currently designed in one large
five story building from Third Street to Fourth Street. This creates a wall that is not inviting asa
gateway building and not pedestrian oriented.
• The building should draw you in to downtown and not block views into the City, providing gradual
transitions in height, stepping the building floor levels back from Fourth Street and Third Street,
etc.
• A building proposed up to five -stories must include stepbacks from Fourth Street and Third
Street, with significant detailing provided including a model, visual simulations, sections through
project to show how it would relate to the area and address need for transitions and retain views
and light access, markers in field to illustrate its bulk and mass, detailed plans, no exposed roof
vents, good roof forms, public and -private open spaces, etc.
• The building should be broken with vertically as well as horizontally. Three stories, up to five
stories where feasible.
• The concepts are comparable to the WinCup multistory apartment project in Corte Madera, which
creates a wall facing Highway 101, and Whole Foods multi -story mixed use project in Novato,
which blocks views of entry to the downtown area; which are issues that need to be avoided with
this project.
• A mission revival style may be appropriate to retain the unique and significant character that the
existing depot building contributes to the City downtown and hometown character.
• Consider, respect and preserve views to Saint Raphael church tower from 101 and Tamalpais
from Fourth Street.
• Accommodate landscaping in the building design. Landscaping is a lost opportunity.
• Revisit public spaces idea, public plaza open space, which could provide an opportunity to break
building massing apart and relate to the SMART station.
• The project needs to provide a good marriage with the transportation hub and does not currently
achieve that.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009
Page 7
incentives being requested with a state density bonus pursuant to Section 14.16.030 (Table 14.16.030-1)
must be identified by the applicant, along with submittal of information required under Section
14.16.030.H.4.
The City has not been presented with any prior request for density bonus that exceeds the maximum
state allowance. Therefore, there is no precedence on which the City staff can rely in providing
preliminary comments. Such a request would likely evaluation of competing and overlapping City
policies.
HO District Design Criteria
The Design Intent of the HO District is stated in the Zoning Code as follows:
➢ The Hetherton office district is intended to become an elegant entryway into downtown.
➢ Development will be large-scale with on-site parking, and should include landmark design
elements supportive of the district's gateway role.
➢ Buildings will typically range from three (3) to five (5) stories with upper stories stepped back.
➢ Plazas, public art and ground floor retail are encouraged along Fourth Street between Netherton
and Fourth Street.
Parking Standards
City parking standards require the following:
o At least 0.75 spaces per senior housing unit (36 spaces) and at least one space for any non -
senior units, or as specified by use permit (tandem may be permitted);
o No guest parking demand is required in downtown.
o One (1) space per 50sf of restaurant dining/public area;
o One (1) space per 300sf of office area and/or one space per 250sf of commercial area; and
o Community service facility, subject to parking study/as specified by use permit.
Based on the City code, the residential parking demand would require 36 spaces, for 47. senior housing
units and one caretaker unit. An additional 67 space demand was established by the current use permit
for the senior services facility services, offices and Whistlestop uses. Detailed information and analysis
would be required to quantify anticipated demand based on current and proposed changes for the facility
offices, services and cafe. Staff notes that existing senior housing and assisted living facilities in San
Rafael have been approved with reduced parking rates, below the 0.75 space per unit standard
(generally in the 0.25 — 0.5 range). These facilities differ in that most include units with on-site care
services. Two facilities specifically include shuttle services as part of the use.
As noted in the project description the project proposes to provide 21 spaces for the current senior
services facility concepts employees and guests, and cafe use with waiver of parking for senior housing,
based on proposed restriction to. rent to seniors without cars (as a transit -oriented development for
seniors). A parking analysis would be subject to review to justify parking demand for visitors and guests
to the units and for the senior services and cafe uses. The parking assessment (Exhibit 7c) recommends
21 spaces would be adequate for the use based on the following conclusions, found ori pages 9 and 10
of the assessment:
® Currently 40 -percent of existing active aging center clients travel by alternative modes. Upon
commencement of SMART this is estimated to increase to 59 -percent. After adjusting for the sites
downtown and transit -oriented characteristics and demographics the peak. demand of the active
aging center use is calculated as 21 spaces during the lunchtime peak hour.
Y Residents in the vehicle restricted units are assumed to generate no parking demand.
O 1.5 parking spaces for. the management. unit are recommended as appropriate, with the 0.5 space
shared with other uses.
6 On-site parking of guests is not required by the parking ordinance in the Downtown. However, 8
guest spaces have been identified as appropriate to meet demand.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009 Page 8
• 17 existing employees in administrative offices would be relocated (to the Whistlestop bus site on
Lindaro Street) and other non-profit office uses would be removed from on-site, thereby
eliminating this existing parking demand at the site.
A parking standard of 0.25-0.5 spaces per unit is used for senior housing in several Northern
California jurisdictions (not including any housing complexes imposing a restriction on vehicle
ownership).
Staff notes that Public Works and Parking Department staff will be evaluating opportunities and
constraints associated with parking in the area. However, there are not any plans in place, nor any
funding identified that could be used to support development of public parking structures in the area in
the near term.
Chapter 14.25 Design Review Criteria
The review requirements in. Chapter 14.25 include site design, architecture, and colors and materials
criteria that would" apply generally to development within the City, and are attached (Exhibit 4). No
specific criteria are listed for the subject development type. However, these criteria support and would be
used in concert with the specific and general design criteria found in the General Plan 2020, the Zoning
District, and the San Rafael Design Guidelines.
San Rafael Design Guidelines:
The San Rafael Design Guidelines have been developed as interim criteria that implement design related
policies found in the General Plan 2020, and noted in the policies listed above. The project site is within
the Active Pedestrian and Commercial Streets and the Second/Third and Environs areas of Downtown
depicted in the Guidelines, which are attached for reference (Exhibit 5). In addition to the general criteria
listed in this report, the guidelines specifically identify view corridors impacting the site that need to be
considered and addressed; i.e., views of St. Raphael Spire from Highway 101.
Downtown Station Area Plan (Vision Document):
In 2013, the City prepared a vision document for the area, which is intended for reference in future long
range planning for the downtown "SMART Station area. The project would not conflict with any future
efforts to adopt and implement'the Downtown Station Area Plan (SAP) recommended development
patterns and public improvements.
The project does not include any proposed street improvements or changes to Tamalpais given that the
City does not know what effects the SMART station may have on circulation in the area at this time.
Portions of the plan related to the subject site are attached for reference as Exhibit 6. The full document
is available online at:
http://docs,cityo€sanra€ael.org/CommDev/Planning/SAP/Downtown/DTSR SAP Approved Final%20Draft.pdf
Staff notes that Public Works Department staff have advised the applicant that the current traffic patterns
must be considered in evaluating the site, as the changes to traffic as a result of operation of SMART or
future changes to Bettini Transit Center are unknown. The development concept should be able to
preserve future opportunities to implement changes in the area, including those envisioned in the vision
plan document.
Design Review Board Comments:
At its February 18 meeting the Board accepted public comment, and provided the comments on the
conceptual schemes. Staff recorded the following comments regarding concerns and ideas that needed
to be addressed with development at the site: .
Respect the long range planning efforts that call for a harmoniously integrated building with
gateway features at this location, and compatibility. with the character of the existing older
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009
Page 11
✓ . Greenhouse Gas Emissions — Verification the project would comply with the BAAQMD Air Quality
Plan and CEQA thresholds and City of San Rafael Adopted Climate Change Action Plan,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Reduction Strategy. It is expected that the project would
comply with the City GHG reduction strategy, and therefore, be covered by the regional air quality
plan. Documentation would be obtained with project submittal to confirm compliance, and City
staff would confirm that the project size falls within the BAAQMD screening criteria (Table 3-1 in
its revised CEQA Guidelines manual). Generally, a project would need to exceed 78-94 units
and/or 53,000 square feet of general office space to trigger a project specific greenhouse gas
emissions assessment.
✓ Hazards and Hazardous Materials — Investigation whether development of the site would create a
significant hazard to the public or environment; e.g., based on a location near any known
hazards/hazardous materials sites. As noted above, Exhibit 7b provides assessment of health
risks as a result of transportation uses and corridors near the site.
✓ Hydrology — Engineering plan identifying whether the site would place housing in a 100 year flood
hazard area.
✓ Noise — Study whether the project could achieve compliance with mixed-use residential noise
standards.
✓ Trans portation/Traffic — Study whether the project would conflict with city adopted circulation
plans or policies, or congestion management program established by the County CMA, change
traffic levels or circulation patterns in a location that results in safety risks, substantially increase
hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access, and/or conflict with
adopted transit/pedestrian/bicycle plans or decrease performance of such facilities. As noted
above, Exhibit 7d includes a preliminary assessment of project traffic Impacts and parking
demand.
The Commission may have additional comments or suggestions. on information that should be prepared
for the project, or other items that the applicant might consider in preparing a formal application.
NEIGHBORHOOD M't,&wb.:L.:CORRESPONDENCE
As noted above, a well -attended neighborhood meeting was held on January 14th. Notes from the
neighborhood were taken by Whistlestop. Parking supply, building design, location of units near the
freeway, loss of a locally significant building, and proposed building scale were some specific concerns
noted at the neighborhood meeting. The meeting notes have been attached as Exhibit 8. In addition,
several members of the public attended the February 18 Design Review Board meeting and provided
comment on the project, which has been reflected in the meeting summary above as prepared by staff.
Notice of all public meetings were mailed to residents, owners and interested parties within 400 feet of
the site and posted on the property at least 15 days before the meeting dates (including the
Neighborhood Meeting and the Conceptual Review meetings). A notice was also published in the Marin
Independent Journal prior to the Neighborhood Meeting. Staff has attached copies of all written
comments that have been received on the.project during its processing of the preliminary and conceptual
reviews (Exhibit 9). Additional verbal testimony that was provided to the Design Review Board and
considered by the DRB prior to making its comments on the conceptual plans can be viewed online at:
http://www.citvofsanrafael.org/meetin
-gs/
-
��� - - �� ..� �-`L�3-.� .�� `Zy ate•. � ...
�r-
As noted in the Executive Summary, the Planning Commission's review is. being requested to provide
early feedback on the project design and potential community concerns or project issues. Conceptual
review is based on very preliminary information and precursory review, and non-binding. In General, it is
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: CDR14-009
Page 12
assumed the project would not require any variances or deviations from standards beyond the
entitlements described in the project description. However, this cannot be confirmed until a detailed
application is presented for review by City staff.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission specifically consider the topics listed in the Executive
Summary, in addition to other comments or concerns the members may wish to bring forward. It is
anticipated that all comments would be considered by the applicant in order to bring forward a formal
development proposal.
:EXHIBITS:
I . Vicinity Map
2. Applicants Project Description/Summary
3, General Plan 2020 Policies for CDR14-009
4. zoning Code Chapter 14.25 Design Review Criteria
5. San Rafael Design Guidelines
& Downtown Station Area Plan (Vision Document) Excerpts
7, Whistlestop Pre -application reports
a. Historic Resources Evaluation
b, Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
c. Whistlestop Parking Analysis
d. Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
8. Neighborhood Meeting Notes
9. Public Comments
Project Plans - Provided to Planning Commission Only
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map (930 Tamalpa►s Ave)
r,
9203 l ` } ' i f`. 15 $ 4 ' 92 2
gip{ 1YIIS5TON;/ta���' !�
L4 h J 0
R o.. fia 122
- O - - q ` \.090;, - , �; M •h.. r � r+'•,77'9 rdN.
55
Rol
;
7
roLliki �tv .11�;t' b` �`p O �� � �; Q>•�V1 � � r,`P..:� ] ����B�y�F�f+""}:
an)
I t*da7aoh: q O r 7-
f. X931; �dt�
�!mLb J0901
ago. h h
O i ° _(0103 MJ N,
+
, e i
M n! G
N'\roM p q i i sit /.
t _
51
799
O
f 17
--
ZI
-1
SCALE 1., 3;302
260 0. 200 400 600
FEET
N
Wednesday,- February 1.1, 2016 9A8 AM
Exhibit 2
Applicants Project Description
VAN METER
WILLIAMS
PRLLACK:
Van Meter Williams Pollacic LLP
Whistlestop Mixed Use Older Adult Community
Project Description 2/11/2015
Overall Project and Program Description
The Whistlestop project site is approximately 1/3 of an acre or 14,650 s.f. of site area, bounded by
Fourth Street, Tamalpais Avenue, Third Street, and the SMART Station site. The project's program
includes the older adult services for Whistlestop's extensive service program and includes meeting
rooms, classrooms, and service offices. The approximately 94,500 s.f, facility, on the second floor,
expands the Whistlestop core facilities and provides a contemporary facility for older adults to come
to receive counseling assistance, to exercise, and to participate in art, music, and other enrichment
classes and activities. The top three stories will include 47 affordable senior housing apartments and
one resident manager's apartment in addition to common facilities for the residents.
The ground floor will house a new Whistlestop Jackson Cafe, which will face Fourth Street with
approximately 1,400 s.f. of seating with a commercial kitchen. An arcade along Fourth Street will
allow for outdoor dining while also providing better vantage views from the sidewalk to the SMART
Station platform. The building lobby will be shared by Whistlestop and the senior housing and
includes a management office, greeting desk far clients and visitors, and two elevators.
There are 21 parking spaces for Whistlestop employees and guests within a street level garage. The
garage circulation consists of a one way circulation loop through the parking area; the van drop off is
included within this loop, allowing older adults to enter the lobby from within the garage and
protected from adverse weather conditions.
Other facilities on the ground floor, which will be enclosed within rooms, include mechanical
equipment, electrical/communications utilities, and garbage and recycling. The garbage and recycling
company will serve the site on an approximately bi-weekly basis.
The affordable senior housing component includes 47 one bedroom units, and a two bedroom
resident manager's unit. There are management staff offices on the third floor, near the area which
serves as the central lobby for the senior housing. There are several community spaces on the
residential floors of the building that are separate from the Whistlestop Center and for the exclusive
use of residents. These include a community room for the residents, which has a small kitchen and
storage, as well as a computer room and an activity room for TV watching and other resident
activities. There is also a central laundry room for the residents' use. Additional lounges are also
placed strategically throughout the complex to encourage social interaction. Outdoor common area
terraces are also located on each residential floor level, allowing residents to enjoy the tremendous
views of central San Rafael and Marin from these higher vantage points. These outdoor terraces also
allow residents to provide "eyes on the street" and SMART station, providing informal surveillance
and security to the neighborhood.
Site and Building Design
The Whistlestop Mixed Use Older Adult Community development is located in downtown San Rafael
in proximity to a wide variety of medical and social services, retail shops, and pharmacies. Its transit -
oriented location adjacent to the Bettini Transit Center and the incoming SMART station offers. a
variety of transportation options that are particularly beneficial for older adults.
ARCHITECTURE I URBAN DESIGN. m SAN FRANCISCO I DENVER
444 Rnrant Ctraat q,,ita 4M Can Franrkrn r'.A qai 7 TAA; q7d [igF7 11F7R 1M1a7PP Ctract Suits 7d narnrar rn gn9n7 T4(14 7gR 14Rn www r,mum nnm
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 2 - Project Description
Exhibit 2
Applicants Project Description
The Whistlestop Mixed Use Older Adult Community will play an important role in the City of San
Rafael and West Marin as an anchor development on downtown San Rafael's Fourth Street, which
serves as the City's retail "Main Street," and adjacent to the new SMART rail station. This
development will be viewed from several other vantage points including from Third Street, Fourth
Street, the Transit Center, and Hwy 101 South. As a building viewed from all sides and multiple
important vantage points, it is important that it presents a strong quality image from all primary
viewing points noted above.
Four architectural design schemes have been submitted, and regardless of their varied stylistic
approaches, they share several key elements and features. Three of the designs have a strong two
story base which is clad in brick veneer. All schemes show the Fourth Street elevation with a strong
arcade and storefront windows along the cafe. The windows in all schemes have deep recesses and
are paned to provide a high quality appearance.
The building's mass is articulated into smaller "building forms" which are separated by deep recesses
at the entry lobby along Tamalpais Avenue and throughout the building levels at the large common
areas. Most of these recesses have outdoor patios at the podium level and include primarily glazed
facades, creating strong articulation between building forms. The multiple forms are also broken
down into smaller more vertical articulations, through variation in materials, colors, and textures.
Each articulated building form has a strong roof, parapet, or top element.
Another feature that is shared between the four schemes is the fifth floor roof deck which accents the
Third Street elevation and provides relief in the massing by stepping the building down; this element
contrasts with a strong vertical stair tower also anchoring Third Street. The key to this massing
concept is that each elevation of the building is treated similarly, and there is no "rear" of the building
that gets less attention in material, articulation, or detailing than another.
The Proposal submitted presents four aesthetic schemes which illustrate a variety of strategies for the
design direction for the development. After receiving comments from community members noting
San Rafael as a "Mission City," the team developed a fourth aesthetic approach, "Mission Style". We
would like to have a conversation regarding the design direction with the City Design Review, and
Planning Commission.
• The Traditional style takes its cues from other recent buildings in the downtown. The mixed use
Town Center and San Rafael Corporate Center developments share a similar character.
• The Vision style looks to San Rafael's future and makes a dynamic statement with flying roof forms
and detailed articulation throughout the building facades.
• The Contemporary style emphasizes simplicity in character with quality refined detailing and key
elements emphasized such as a large "roof" of solar panels.
• The Mission style offers an aesthetic approach with classic Spanish Revival features and details.
Developed after receiving comments from community members noting San Rafael as a "Mission
City," this design style relates to the architecture of the current Whistlestop building and the San
Rafael Church. Though this could be an appropriate approach, we note that we have not seen this
interpretation by the City on other important projects, including the Town Center or Corporate
developments, and therefore would like to discuss this as a design choice.
Other features which are shared by these four conceptual designs include: green walls along the base
of the building fronting the SMART Station and along the garage on Tamalpais Avenue, taking cues
from other similar areas in downtown San Rafael; a concept to include mural art depicting vintago
images of San Rafael that can be viewed from the station platform; a single unique balcony extending
over Fourth Street to add visual dynamics and interest to San Rafael's "Main Street."
Page 9
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 2 - Project Description
Exhibit 2
Applicants Project Description
The Interiors of the Residential Apartments
The one bedroom units have open concept designs with a large L shaped eat -in kitchen which
expands to the living space. The bathroom is intentionally spacious to allow for flexible access and
include linen storage, drawers, and medicine cabinets. The bedroom has ample space with closets for
storage. A coat closet at the entry and a large kitchen pantry provide additional space for each
resident. In the corridors at each'apartment entry door, we often build in display shelves for residents
to place personal items such as pictures and other mementos to personalize their entryway as well as
to help them identify their home. Images of similar apartments and interior spaces are included in the
planning submittal package.
Tamalpais Avenue Design
The Design team has met with the City of San Rafael Public Works Department to determine the
appropriate requirements for public improvements to Fourth Street, Tamalpais Avenue, and Third
Street. While Fourth Street and Third Street will generally maintain their current configuration,
Tamalpais Avenue, whose right of way is narrower than other streets, will be reconstructed to meet
City of San Rafael standards for sidewalk width and lane width. There will be new street lights and
street trees if allowed by the City DPW. The existing parking along Tamalpais Avenue on the
Whistlestop side of the street will be removed. The existing sidewalk on the western side of
Tamalpais Avenue will not be impacted nor will the street parking on this side of the street.
There have been discussions within the City and community regarding the potential redesign of
Tamalpais Avenue. The basic street design, which is proposed relative to the Whistlestop
development, does not limit the ability for the City to reconfigure or reprioritize the circulation on
Tamalpais Avenue. This is an independent design and development process, which the Whistlestop
Mixed Use Older Adult Community development team would gladly participate in, however it is not
required for this project.
Building Code and Fire Access
The proposed project will meet building code requirements and does not require any easements or
other consideration from SMART. To address acoustics and the mix of uses within the building, the
development is anticipating constructing the first two floors, primarily Whistlestop uses, out of
concrete, while the top three floors of residential uses are anticipated to be Type VA wood frame
construction. Theentire building will have fire sprinklers. The proposed design has been vetted with
the City of San Rafael Fire Department and Building Department officials and we believe -that the
primary code considerations are acceptable to each department.
There is an opportunity to enhance the station platform if SMART would like the Whistlestop
development team to work with them; however this is not critical to the overall project's development.
Acoustical Evaluation
The development team has undertaken an acoustical analysis and the findings confirm that the noise
impacts to the development can be mitigated through reasonably standard construction.
Historic Evaluation
The development team has conducted a historic evaluation of the existing Whistlestop building to
determine its significance as a historic resource as it relates to CEQA. The building is not listed as a
designated landmark. Since the 1976 field recordation of the former depot, the building has
undergone extensive alterations and modifications, and the evaluation has concluded that it does not
meet the threshold of integrity to meet the definition.of local "structure of merit" and is not a resource
under Section 15064.5(a)(2) of the CEQA guidelines. The City regulations do not place any restrictions
on this structure. The existing facility does not meet the modern needs of the Whistlestop operations,
thus a new facility will allow Whistlestop to continue to provide high quality services for the older
adults of Marin.
Page I
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 2 - Project Description
Exhibit 2
Applicants Project Description
Planning Regulations
The current zoning on the property is the Netherton Office Park designation.
The height limit is 66 feet. The proposed schemes vary in height but all four schemes are within this
height -limit.
There are no setback or maximum lot coverage requirements.
The open space requirements are being met through a variety of common roof decks throughout the
building.
Concessions requested:
The proposed development is requesting two concessions to the current zoning regulations as
allowed by SB 1818; the density bonus law legislation. These concessions are:
1. A density bonus above the 135% state density bonus to 200% of the allowable density.
2. A parking determination of 0 parking spaces designated for the residential units (outside of 1 space designated
for the Resident Manager) based on anticipated apartment lease restrictions, where Eden will lease to residents
who do not own cars, and known market segment of affordable housing for seniors who do not own cars.
3, SB 181 allows a third concession, which is not currently been requested. We may consider using that third
concession if an issue arises in the future.
This project proposes a higher density than the set in the zoning, but this is primarily due to the
smaller apartment sizes proposed at this site. One -bedroom apartments are a common typology for
affordable senior apartments, usually housing one or sometimes two residents per apartment. A
development with larger units and higher bedroom counts (for example, within a condominium or
family development) would provide homes to a similar number of residents as a development with
more but smaller one -bedroom units. Thus, the smaller apartment sizes allow for a higher count of
units within the proposed development, but the proposed building area and massing remain within
their respective allowable limits.
There is also a parking reduction being requested for the Whistlestop uses as the project site is located
within the most transit -rich area of San Rafael and Marin County and in a strong mixed-use area with
many supportive services. A parking analysis completed by WTrans indicates that the spaces included
in the design meet the projected demand. A revised parking study will be provided as part of the
project's planning application.
A summary of the zoning is provided as part of the submittal package.
Page d
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 2 - Project Description
Exhibit 3
General plan 2020 Policies for CDR14-009
Land Use
➢ LU -23. Land Use Maps and Categories. Netherton Office Land Use, Designation. 32-62
Units per gross acre. Office use, ground floor retail, personal service, food service and
live work uses allowed. Residential and live -work are permitted on the upper floors on
Fourth Street and on the ground floor and above elsewhere.
Housing
➢ H-9. Special Needs. Encourage a mix of housing unit types throughout San Rafael,
including very low and low income housing for..'. lower income seniors...
➢ H-13. Senior Housing. Encourage housing that meets the needs of San Rafael's older
population, particularly affordable units and affordable care facilities. Support
development that provides housing options so that seniors can find suitable housing to
rent or purchase.
➢ H -14a. Residential and Mixed Use Sites Inventory. Encourage residential development in
areas.appropriate and feasible for new housing. These areas are identified in Appendix B,
Housing Element Background, Summary of Potential Housing Sites (available for view on the
City's website). Explore effective ways to share housing site information and. developer and
financing information to encourage development of underutilized institutional land. The City has
employed different strategies to find the most effective way to deliver information about
development. It an ongoing and evolving process that has included practices such as preparing
fact sheets for sites with multiple inquiries. [Note: Table B3.11 of the January 2015 adopted
Housing Element appendix B lists this site as a potential Mixed Use housing opportunity site. The
site has 24 base density and 33 units possible with a 35% density bonus allowance. Recognized
constraints were traffic capacity and parking.]
➢ H -14c. Continue to Implement Zoning Provisions to Encourage Mixed Use. San Rafael has
been effective in integrating both vertical mixed use and higher density residential development
within its Downtown. As a means of further encouraging mixed use in commercial areas outside
the Downtown, General Plan 2020 now allows site development capacities to encompass the
aggregate of the maximum residential density PLUS the maximum FAR for the site, thereby
increasing development potential on mixed use sites. The City will continue to review
development standards to facilitate mixed use, including: a. Encourage adaptive reuse of vacant
buildings and underutilized sites with residential and mixed use development on retail, office, and
appropriate industrial sites. b. Explore zoning regulation incentives to encourage lot consolidation
where needed to facilitate housing. c. Review zoning requirements for retail. in a mixed use
building or site, and amend the zoning ordinance as necessary to allow for residential -only
buildings in appropriate mixed-use zoning districts.
➢ H-15. Infill near Transit. Encourage higher densities on sites adjacent to a transit hub,
such as the San Rafael Transportation Center and the Downtown and Civic Center
SMART stations, and along major bus corridors.
➢ H -15a. Downtown Station Area Plan. The coming of SMART rail service to Downtown San
Rafael in 2016 is an opportunity to build on the work that the City has undertaken to revitalize the
Downtown and to create a variety of transportation and housing options, economic stability, and
vibrant community gathering places in the heart of San Rafael, General Plan 2020, adopted in
2004, allowed for higher residential densities and reduced residential parking standards to
encourage housing development within the heart of Downtown that would support local
businesses and allow people to live close to their place of work. The Downtown Station Area
Plan, accepted by City Council in June 2012, establishes a series of implementing actions, the
following of which specifically serve to facilitate higher density residential and mixed use infill in
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 3 — General .Plan Policies
the area....✓Review parking requirements and develop additional municipal parking resources to
reduce onsite parking burden (long term).'
Program Objective: Complete Station Area parking study and Transit Center relocation analysis
in 2015. Following the commencement of operation of SMART (2016), study other Station Area
Plan recommendations to increase housing opportunities near transit, and implement through
Zoning Code changes where appropriate. Build upon lessons learned from the Station Area
parking analysis to re-evaluate parking standards on a citywide basis.
Neighborhoods
➢ NH -22. Housing Downtown. Create a popular and attractive residential environment that
contributes to the activity and sense of community Downtown. This includes... b.
providing incentives to encourage private sector construction of... affordable housing... C.
designing units that take advantage of Downtowns views, proximity to shopping and
services and transit, and d. implementing zoning standards that reflect Downtowns
urban character.
➢ NH -25. Pedestrian Comfort and Safety. Make Downtowns street systems more
comfortable and safe for pedestrians by balancing between the needs or pedestrians
and the desire for efficient traffic flow, slowing traffic..., providing two way traffic...,
making pedestrian crossings direct and safe, establishing pedestrian environments
unique to each District, improving and/or expanding sidewalks, street trees, landscaping
and other sidewalk amenities, increasing visibility to storefronts and businesses, seeking
innovative solutions and ideas.
➢ NH -27. Parking. Continue to make parking convenient and easy to find by encouraging
solutions that address Downtowns urban parking situation. Needed improvements
include: providing a range of long and short term parking, facilitating the joint use of
parking areas where appropriate, reducing the visual impacts of parking areas through
design and landscaping. Improving pedestrian safety in parking lots and garages,
alleviate in parking congestion where appropriate by converting underdeveloped lots into
public and private parking lots, improve signage and visibility of public parking spaces.
➢ NH -28. Special Place. Preserve Downtowns reputation as a special place by developing
a strategy that capitalizes on Downtowns strengths: unique urban characteristics and
density, diversity in architectural design, and historic heritage and buildings.
➢ NH -29. Downtown Design. New and remodeled building must contribute to Downtowns
hometown feel. Design elements that enhance Downtowns identity and complement the
existing attractive environment are encouraged, and may be required for locations with
high visibility or for compatibility with historic structures. Design considerations include:
varied and distinctive building designs, sensitive treatment of historic resources,
generous landscaping to accent buildings, appropriate materials and construction, and
site design and streetscape continuity.
➢ NH -30. Pedestrian Environments. Enhance Downtowns streets by establishing
pedestrian environments appropriate to each District. These environments could
include... views into retail stores... outdoor businesses... signs... sun filled courtyards,
plazas... street furniture and lighting... information kiosks and public art.
➢ NH -31. Ground Floor Designed for Pedestrians. Ensure that all buildings, regardless of
height,.are comfortable for people at the street level. This includes: relating wall and
window heights to the height of people, use of architectural elements to create visual
interest, adding landscaping and insets and alcoves for pedestrian interest, and stepping
upper stories back as building height increases.
z
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 3 — General Plan Policies
➢ NH -32. Historic Character. Recognize and use the unique character of Downtowns may
attractive, well liked, historic buildings. Encourage new development on sites in the
Downtown area to be compatible with nearby historic buildings, the historic Downtown
street pattern, and the areas historic, pedestrian oriented character.
➢ NH -33. Downtowns Neighbors. Distinguish Downtown from adjoining neighborhood
areas by establishing major entrances to Downtown with gateway treatments, keeping
all Downtown activities within the Downtown areas, and providing a gradual transition
into adjacent residential neighborhoods in terms of building scale and intensity of use.
➢ NH -36. Hetherton Office District. a. Office Center. Emphasize development related to the
Transportation Center, especially office and professional service buildings which could
include limited areas for street0level retail uses. Residential is also strongly encouraged
in this area, b. Transportation Hub. Use the Transportation Center to coordinate and
facilitate the different ways people move to and around Downtown, including bus, rail,
auto, bicycle and on foot. Include safe pedestrian and bicycle connections linking this
area to the stores, services, cultural facilities, and recreational opportunities in other
parts of the Downtown. Expand connections from the Transportation Center to other
parts of the City by:...
➢ NH -37. Netherton Office District Design Considerations. a. Downtown Gateway.
Transform the Netherton Office District into an elegant transition into Downtown San
Rafael, Improve the entries to Downtown at Third Street, f=ifth Street, Mission Avenue,
Lincoln Avenue and the freeway remaps with entrance graphics, enhanced planning and
lighting. Buildings should complement the districts entryway treatments and provide an
attractive facade along Netherton Street. b. Fourth and Hetherton. Announce and mark
this primary gateway to Downtown.... c. Hetherton Design. Encourage projects of high
quality and varied design with landmark features that enhance the Districts gateway
image. Examples include: building design emphasizing the gateway character and
complementing the districts transitional treatment by incorporating accent elements,
public are and other feature items, upper stories stepped back, ground floor areas have
a pedestrian scale, retail uses opening onto public areas, useable outdoor spaces,
courtyards and arcades that are landscaped, in sunny locations and protected from
freeway noise... d. Under Highway 101 Viaduct... e. Height. Building heights of three to
five stories are allowed west of the rail transitway, and typically up to three stories east
of the rail transitway.
Community Design
➢ CD -1. City Image. Reinforce the City's positive and distinctive image by recognizing the
natural features of the City, protecting historic resources, and by strengthening the
positive qualities of the City's focal points, gateways, corridors and neighborhoods.
➢ CD -2. Recognize and promote the unique character and integrity of the ... Downtown....
➢ CD -4. Protect San Rafael's positive and distinctive image by recognizing, preserving and
enhancing the City's historic resources.
➢ CD -5. Views. Respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of the Bay and
its islands, Bay wetlands, St. Raphael's church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt.
Tamalpais, Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and
publicly accessible pathways.
➢ CD -7 Downtown and Marin Civic Center. Build .upon the character of these areas by
controlling land uses to clearly distinguish their boundaries; by recognizing Mission San
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 3 — General Plan Policies
Rafael Archangel and St. Raphael Church, Marin Civic Center, and other buildings that
help define the City's character, and requiring that these and other architectural
characteristics and land uses that give these areas their identity are strengthened.
➢ CD -10. Nonresidential Design Guidelines. Recognize, preserve and enhance the design
elements that contribute to the economic vitality of commercial areas. Develop design
guidelines to ensure that new nonresidential and mixed-use development fits within and
improves the immediate neighborhood and the community as a whole.
Circulation
➢ C22. Attractive Roadway Design. Design roadway projects to be attractive and where
possible to include street trees, landscape buffers public are integration of public spaces
and other visual enhancements, Emphasize tree planting and landscaping along all
streets.
Sustainability
➢ SU -1. Land Use, Implement General Plan land use policies to increase residential and
commercial
➢ densities within walking distance of high frequency transit centers and corridors.
➢ SU -2d. SMART. Encourage continued funding, development and use of SMART, which will
provide residents and employees of San Rafael an additional transportation alternative to single -
occupant vehicles.
➢ SU -2e. Sidewalk and Street Improvements. Continue to implement sidewalk and bicycle
improvements in accordance with the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the Safe
Routes to School program.
➢ SU -3b. Charging Stations for Private Facilities. Revise building codes to facilitate installation
of charging stations for plug-in electric vehicles in private parking facilities.
➢ SU-Sa. Green Building Regulations. Require new construction and remodel projects to comply
with adopted green building regulations.
➢
SU -5d. Reflective Surfaces. Encourage the use of high albedo (reflectivity) materials for future
outdoor surfaces such as parking lots, roadways, roofs and sidewalks.
➢ SU -6. New and Existing Trees. Plant new and retain existing trees to maximize energy
conservation and carbon sequestration benefits.
➢ SU -8. Social Diversity and Equity. Enhance social equity among all segments of the
community.
➢ SU -8a. Affordable Housing. Continue to expand the supply of affordable housing, which
reduces commute times and congestion.
Air & Water Quality
➢ AW -2. Land Use Compatibility. To ensure excellent air quality, promote land use
compatibility for new development by using buffering techniques such as landscaping,
setbacks, and screening in areas where different land uses abut one another.
➢ AW -2a. Sensitive Receptors. Through development review, ensure that siting of any new
sensitive receptors provides for adequate buffers from existing sources of toxic air contaminants
or odors. If development of a sensitive receptor (a facility or land use that includes members of
the population sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly and people
with illnesses) is proposed within 500 feet of Highway 101 or 1-580, an analysis of mobile source
toxic air contaminant health risks should be performed. Development review should include an
4
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 3 — General. Plan Policies
evaluation of the adequacy of the setback from the highway and, if necessary, identify design
mitigation measures to reduce health risks to acceptable levels.
➢ AW -3. Air Quality Planning with Other Processes. Integrate air quality considerations
with the land use and transportation processes by mitigating air quality impacts through
land use design' measures, such as encouraging project design that will foster walking
and biking.
➢ AW -315. Smart Growth and Livable Communities Programs. Participate in and implement
strategies of Metropolitan Transportation Commission's regional "Smart Growth Initiative" and
"Transportation for Livable Communities Program."
5
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 3 -- General Plan Policies
Sala Rafael, CA Code of'Ordrnances Exhibit 4 Page f of 5
Chapter 14.25 Design Review Criteria
14.25:050 -'Review criteria.
A. Consistency with General Plan Design Policies. To ensure that each proposed improvernent shall
accomplish the purposes of Section 14.25.010, Specific purposes, environmental and design review
Shall be.gulded by general plan. design policles! and the following criteria.
B Consistency with Specific Plans. In addition to,the criteria listed below, development will also be
evaluated. for consistency with applicable neighborhood and area design plans. Adopted pians
which include design guidelines. include: Hillside Residential'Design Guidelines Manual, San Rafael
Design Gui-delihes; the San Rafael General Plan .2020, specifically the neighborhood and
community design elements, a`nd any design guidelines or amendments. that are adopted by
resolution.
C. Design Criteria. Review shall :be gufde6bythe followingcriteria to assure that, with regard to
buildings, structures and physicaf improvements,- each proposed development shall carry outthe
purposes of -this chapter., the genera! plan policies and any design plans. Any or ail of the following
criteria may, upon recommendation of the design review board, be waived by the planning
commission when the applicant has demonstrated that alternative design concepts carry out the
objectives -of this chapter and where such developments consiste:ntwith.the general plan, Hillside
residential -design criteria maybe waived by the city council with the following findings; -
1. The project design alternative -meets the stated objectives of the guidelines to preserve the.
inherent: characteristics of hillside sites,.d'isplay sensitfVftyto the natural hillsidesetting:and
compat'ibili'tywith nearby hillside neighborhoods, and mairitafn.a-strong relationship. to the
natural setting, and
2.. Alternative des41gn:sofutl6ns which minimize grading, retain more.of the project site in its
naturaf:state, miriimize.visualimpacts, protect slgnificanttrees, or.protectnatural: resources
result -in: a demonstrablysupe-ribr.project with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and
compatibil ityl with and sensitivity to: nearby structures.
D; Competent Design. The development plans shall be designed by, and bear -the signature..of'a
person who, under:thb building.code, has been designated as legally co.mpetent'to submit such
development prbposal..Plans fora development subject to a major environmental and design
review permit beforethe design review board shall be prepared by; and bear the.signature: of; an
architect -and/or landscape architect licensed bythe state of California Department of Consumer
Affairs.
S. Site Design. There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the
development and between the structures and the site, Proposedstructures and site•deve[opment
should be related accordant.tb:existing;development in thevicinity. There must be a consistent
organization of materials and a balanced relationship of major elements.
-1. Views. Major views of .the San Pabla Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tama ipais and
the hills should be preserved and enhanced from public streets and°_publlc vantage points. In
addition, respect views of -St: Raphael's Church up "A" Street.
2.
abou7'.blarllC Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
.
Exhibit 4 - Design Criteria Ch. 14.252/ t
San Rafael, CA Code of Or dzzzanee-s Exhibit 4 Chapter 14.25 Design Review Criteria Page 2 of 5
Site Features and Constraints. Respect site features and recognize site constraints by
minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation. Sensitive areas such as highly
visible hillsides, steep, unstable or hazardous slopes, creeks and drainageways, and wildlife
habitat -should be preserved.and respected.
3. Access, -Circulation and Parking. The development should provide good vehicular, bicycle and
pedestrian circulation and access, on-site and in relation to the surrounding area, including
public streets, waterways, shorelines and open space areas. Safe.and convenient parking
areas should -be designed to provide easy access to building entrances. Parking facilities
should detract as little as possible from the design of proposed or neighboring structures.
Entrances•to parking structures should be well-defined and should include materials
compatible with those of the parking garage. Traffic capacity of adjoining streets must be
considered.
4.. Energy -Efficient Design. The site design shall show.thatdue regard has been given to
orientation of structures to streets and climatic considerations.
S. Drainage. Special attention shall be given to proper site surface drainage and an adequate
drainage_system. (Note: The details of drainage systems shall be subject -to approval of the
director of the department of'public works.)
b. Utility Service. Utility connections shall be installed underground. Proposed method of
sanitarysewage disposal for all buildings shall be indicated. Refuse collection areas shall.be
screened and located in areas convenient both to users and to persons who make collections.
There shall be.adequate ingress and egress to all utilities. (Note; Recycling facilities must meet
Standard of Resolution 93-57.)
F. Architecture. The project architecture should be -harmoniously integrated in relation to the
architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design. The design
should be sensitive to and compatible with historic and architecturally significant buildings in the
vicinity, and should enhance important community gateways, view corridors and waterways as
identified in the general plan.
1, Design Elements and Approaches. Design elements and approaches which are encouraged
Include.;
a. Creation of Interest in the building elevation;
b, Pedestrian -oriented design in appropriate locations;
c. Energy-efficient design;
d. Provision of a sense of entry;
e. Variation in building placement and height;
f. Dwelling units accessible to the mobility -impaired;
g, Equal attention to design of all facades in sensitive locations;
h. Bedrooms and decks oriented away from high noise sources.;
I. Common usable areas should offer:residents a convenient and attractive place to
exercise, relax and meet one another;
j, Private yard areas should be oriented away from high noise sources and flake advantage
of view opportunities and solar orientation.
2.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
about;blank Exhibit 4 - Design Criteria Ch. 14.��l9/2015
San. Rafael, CA Code of Ordinances Exhibit 4 Page 3 of 5
Chapter 14.25 Design Review Criteria
Materials and Colors. Materials and colors should be consistent with the context of the
surrounding area. To minirnite:contrast ofthe..structure with Its background as viewed,from
the surrounding. neighborhood, color selection: shall coordinate with the predominant colors
and values of the surrounding landscape and architecture, _High-quality building materials are
required. In hillside areas, as identified in, Section 14.12.U20 of this! title, naturalmaterlals and
colors in the earth tone and woodnote range are generally preferred. Other colors and
materials may be used which are appropriate to the architectural style, harmonious with the
site and/or compatible with the:character of the surrounding environmeft.
a. Earthtone/woodtone colors are considered to..be, various natural shades. of reddish -
brown; brown,. grey, tan, ocher, umber., gold, sand,, blue, and green:
b. Natural materials include adobe; slump block, brick,. stone, stucco, wood shakes, shingles
and:siding,:and tile roofs.
c. Concrete. surfaces shall be colored, textured, sculptured and/or patterned to serve a
design as well as a structural function.
d. Metal buildings, roofs, orfinishes that develop ar7-attractive oxidized finish (such'as
copper: or weathering steel).maybe used. Unpainted metal, galvanized::metal or: metal
subject to rusting is discouraged.
e. Glare -reducing and color -harmonizing finishes :may be required on glass surfaces when
they constitute fifty percent (50x/0) or more of a wall or building face, or When they permit
a view of pipes, utilities and other service units.
f, Reflective glass, such as. mirror or,glazed, Is .discouraged.. Such glass maybe prohibited
where it has: an. adverse impact, such as glare:on pedestrian or automotive traffic or on
adjacent structures.
g. Roof materials shall minimize reflectivity.
1 Walls; Fences; and Screening. Walls, fences and. screening shall be: used to screen parking and
loading areas, refuse -collection areas and mechanical equipmentfrom view. Screening of
mechanical' equipment shall be designed as:anAntegrated architectural- component of the
building and the landscape. Utility Meters. -'and transformers shall be Incorporated into the
overall :project design,
4. Exterior Lighting. Light sources should provide safety for the building occupants, but not
create. a glare or hazard on adjoining streets or be annoying to adjacent properties or
:resid-ential areas.
5. Signs. Signs shall be designed consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 14.19, Signs,
6. Upper -Story Additions and Modifications Which Result lin More Than One ploor. Design review
of new -two-story homes, upper -story additions and lift -and -fill construction is not intended to
preclude such development, but rather required to assure better design of such additions and
to limit impacts.on adjacent properties. Modifications tostructures. on lots -in the Hillside:
development overlay district or on lots with an average slope. of twenty-flve.percent (25%)'or
more are subject to the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines Manual.
a. Windows Facing the Rear Yard. There shall'be-a minimum number of upper -story
windows fac'rngthe rear whore:p`rivacy of adjacent residential structures would be
significantly affected (e,g., unfiltered and direct -Views from a primaryliving'areainto a
primary living room, b:e'droom.or backyard recreational area of an adjoining residential
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
about -Wank Exhibit 4 - Design Criteria Ch. 14.252/19/2015
Exhibit 4
San Rafael, CA Code of Ordinances Chapter 14.25 Design Review Criteria Page 4 of 5
property would result). Windows above the first story shall be designed so.that they do
not look directly onto private patios or backyards of adjoining residential property.
Skylights, opaque glass, permanently affixed louvers, inset windows orwindows with high
sills may be required where appropriate when other window designs would severely
affect the privacy of rear yards or patios of adjacent residences.
b. Windows Facing the Side Yard. Windows, balconies or similar openings above the first
story shall be oriented so as not to have a direct line -of -sight into windows, balconies or
similar openings of adjacent structures.
c. Windows Facing the Front Yard. Windows, balconies, doors or other openings above the
first story are encouraged. Windows and doors shall match the style and scale of the
windows and doors of the existing structure, Upper -story additions shall be an extension
of the existing residence with internal circulation connecting to the existing structure.
d. Outside Stairways, Outside stairways to upper stories shall be designed as modest
structures which do not dominate the facade of the building.
e, Design Consistency. Proposed roof slope, window style and building materials shall be
designed to be consistent with the roof slope, window style and materials of the existing
structure.
f. Neighborhood Compatibility. Where a prevailing design exists on both sides of the street
for the length of the block, the addition or modification shall be designed to be
compatible with the design character and scale of -the neighboring buildings.
g. Shadowing. Shading of existing solar collectors and primary, active recreational areas in
the rear and/or side yards of adjacent properties should generally not exceed ten percent
(10%) of the area or increase existing shading by more than ten percent:(10%) between
the hours of noon and three p.m. (3:00 p.m.) on December 21 due to the proposed upper -
story construction. For purposes of this subsection, a solar collector shall be any device
which is designed primarily to collect solar energy and which contains an area of twenty-
four (24) square feet or more. Applications which cannot meet this. design criterion shall
demonstrate that every feasible effort has been made to reduce the shading impacts of
the proposed structure and that a reasonable upper�story addition which complies with
this design criterion is not feasible.
G. Landscape Design, The natural landscape should be preserved in its natural state, insofar as
practicable, by minimizing grading, and tree and rock removal. The landscaping shall be designed
as an integral enhancement of the site, sensitive to natural site features,
1, Outdoor Amenity Areas. Outdoor amenity areas should be designed to minimize noise
Impacts on adjoining uses.
2, Water -Efficient Landscape Design. Water conservation shall be considered and -incorporated in
the design of landscape and irrigation plans for all projects. For projects that are required to
provide a water -efficient landscape pursuant to Section 14.16.370 of this title, the landscape
plan and supportive materials shall comply with. Marin Municipal Water District(MMWD)
Ordinance, and future amendments, as adopted, Where available and when deemed
appropriate, reclaimed water shall be used for irrigation.
3, Landscaped Buffer Area. Landscaped buffer areas may be required near wetlands and other
sensitive habitat areas, A landscaped berm.around the perimeter of parking areas is
encouraged,
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
about:blaiilc
Exhibit 4 - Design Criteria Ch. 14.33719/2015
San Rafael, CA;.. Code of OrdiiiancesExhibit 4 Page 5 of 5
Chapter 14.25 Design Review Criteria
4; Street Trees and landscaping. Street trees shall be shown on pians submitted for a project
within -the downtown area; -.and shall be provided and protected in accordance with the city
.street -tree planting guidelines and recommendations of the city arborlst..Street trees and
landscaping should be consistent with the following:
a, Provide smaller scale, seasonal color and stroefi trues for pedestrian-orlented streets;.
b. Provide high;canopy traffic -tolerant trees and landscaped setbacks for primary vehicular
circulation streets,
c. Existing mature trees proposed to be removed as part of a project should be replaced
with an equivalent number, size. and alternate species,
d. Trees proposed to remain shall be protected during construction.
e. All trees shall be installed; protected and pruned in accord with accepted arboricultural
standards.and practices.
H. Temporary Visual and Air Pollution Resulting from Construction, Temporary pollution resulting
from grading and construction shall be minimized to avoid unnecessary annoyance to persons
living or working in the area,
(Ord, 1838 §§ 50,51,2005; Ord, 1820 § 5,2004; Ord. 1802 § 7,2003; Ord. 1695.§ 1, 1996; Ord, 1694 § 1(Exh. A) (part), 1996;
Ord. 1663§ ?(part), 1994; Ord. 1625§ ?(part), 1992).
(Ord. No. 1882, Exh.--A, §§ 90-93, 6-21-10; Ord. No. 19,23, § 2(Exh. A), 6-16-2014)
aboitt:blanic Planning Commission, February 24 201 015
Exhibit 4 - Design Criteria Ch. 14.2
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
SAN RAFAEL.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Iritroduction
The following design guidelines are -intended to assist in the design of°ew buil
ndings
and additions so that they will: integrate well with their surroundings. The intent. -is for
new development to enhance its environs and achieve community values of
"pedestrian friendly" and "people -oriented" design.
In some cases, new development should emulate established patterns of:design
present in. the. vicinity. Where there is an existing desirable pattern consistent with
zoning regulations of building height, width, scale or materials, new'buildings and
additions should seek to reinforce the pattern of development,
In other cases, however, there: is no predominant design theme or pattern, and more
variety may exist. Some existing patterns are. only a• f.ragment of a potential pattern
and difficult to identify.
The -guidelines: are: indications of what the City considers to be:desirable design. The
guidelines also offer suggestions on how to address public access,; accommodate
automobile access and parking; and integrate signage.
Theguidelines are discretionary, :and are intended::to .assist projects_ In achieving high
quality design. Applicants are encouraged to seek creative design solutions.
Designers may suggest other means of achieving the City's objective of high quality
design, as provided for in the zoning Ordinance.
The guidelines- are used by staff and the Design Review Board toevaluate the quality
of project design and to make recommendations regarding design review approval or
denial.
The following Residential and Nonresidential Design Guidellnes.apply to'all of the City
of San Rafael, except in Downtown and the.Fourth Street corridor in the
Montecito/Happy valley Neighborhood: where theDowntown Design. Guidelines apply,
and those lots where the Hillside Design Guidelines apply,
The guidelines: are: intended as an interim document until: such time that -more detailed
guidelines can. be developed with public input in accordance with the. dinection•
contained in the Community Design Element of General Plan 2020.
111u trallons by Hotivat,dlzlcowltz
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael Design Guidelines
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Residential design guidelines are one way to protect and enhance existing attractive or historic
buildings, and to improve design of other buildings over time, as they are remodeled. The
residential design guidelines encourage the qualities that define and make each residential
neighborhood unique, and serve to strengthen the overall visual and functional quality of each
neighborhood. The guidelines allow for innovative architecture that is in context with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Building Design
Where there is an existing pattern, particular attention should be given to maintaining a
consistent streetscape.
❖ All building facades should be varied and articulated. Long monotonous wails should be
avoided.
Attention should be paid to the street- and Canal -front facades of buildings by
incorporating similar materials and details.
Scale
Where necessary to replicate existing patterns or character of development, design
techniques should be used to break up the volume of larger buildings into smaller units.
For example, a building can be articulated through. architectural: features, setbacks and
varying rooflines'.to appear more as an aggregation of smaller building components.
Transitional elements, such as stepped facades, roof decks and architectural details that
help merge_ larger buildings into an existing neighborhood should be used.
Building Height
Adjacent buildings should be considered and transitional elements included to minimize
.apparent height differences.
Roof Shapes
❖ Where possible, relate new roof form to those found in the area.
•;• Roof top equipment should be screened from view and integrated into the building
architecture.
The visual impact of roof vents should be minimized,
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San kiAfael Design. Guidelines
Building Entrances
+S There. should be a clear, Well-defined sense of entry from .the streetto the building..
Where possible,.the entrances of street fronturiits should be. oriented' towards -the street
rather than to: the.interior of`the lot or to the parking lot.
•+• Examples of elements that can be usedto define. the primary entrance -and to further
define the street facade are a usable .front porch or -verandas; :an overhead trellis canopy,
or other similar feature.
Windows
4+ The placement and size of windows in
the building should be consistent with
the overall building design and the.
neighborhood streetscape. Where
Windows do not reflect an eXisting
pattern, greater attention should be
paid to other means such as'balcony
overhangs, porches;. materials, colors,
etc, of articulating the fagade.
Window proportions: should be
consistent with the proportions of the
building and twith other windows on the
building.
Windows should overlook -the street, parking and public areas to. permit surveillance and
increased safety,
Window placement.along rear and side. elevations should consider privacy needs of
adjacent neighbors,_
Driveways and Parking Areas
Driveway cuts and widths should be minimized, in compliance With zoning.
❖ Where possible, ground lever parking areas should be recessed or placed to the rear of
buildings.
•:• Design for adequate -vehicle maneuverability In parking areas. Vehicles should not back out
from a: parking space onto the street.
Minimize large paved areas for example by using alternative materials (i.e., turf block,
stamped concrete or pavers).
•:+ For multifamily buildings, parking. shduld be distributed to provide. easy access to units
and/or bullding entrances. VIsIble front or structured parking should be screened,
landscaped or have an articulated design.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael Deslgn Guidelines
Front Landscaping and Fences
Landscaped front yards should contribute to the overall visual quality of the neighborhood
and°to. create a strong landscaped character for the site.
❖ Fences in the front and street side yards should include detailing in character with the
house.
❖ Landscaped areas adjacent to sidewalks are encouraged.
Lighting
+:► Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and
vehicular safety,
Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond the boundaries of the
property.
❖ Lighting fixtures should complement the architecture of the project.
Additions to Homes
•:• An addition to a home should be related to the original building, respecting the
proportions, style and materials of the house.
The quality of materials, window placement, detailing, roof pitches and forms of additions
should be consistent with or better than the original appearance of the building.
4
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San. Rafael .Design.. Guidelines
NONRESIDENTIAL. DESIGN GUIDELINES
As modifications are made to San Rafael, whether through public improvements or as private
development affects neighborhoods or the Downtown, the design quality of these changes should
Improve the quallty of life in San. Rafael, These guidelines provide.a framework of design principles
that builds -on the strength of the existing character of an area and that strives to improve the
visual unity of the. area.
Partying: Lots
4+ A logical sequence of entry and arrival as part of the site's design should be provided.
4- Where possible, design entrances from the street to direct views towards the building
entry.
%• Parking should' be distributed to provide easy access to building entrances.
4+ Where possible, parking should be located .to the rear or side of a building in orderto
reduce the visual impact of parking areas,
•:• Design for adequate vehicle maneuverability in parking areas. Vehicles shoulidnot back out
from a parking space onto the street.
+:+ Parking areas should be screened from the street:with hedges;.walls; fences or berms,
subject to security.considerations.
4- On major arterials; where possible and appropriate, consolidate curb cuts arid -reduce entry
and exit. conflicts:.
— 4- Auto and'pedestrian entrances into the.:development should be%easy to find. For example,
special. entry treatments, such: as°:colored: concrete, .special plahting and signage should be
located at the entries to the site.
4+ Shade trees.shouid be provided in::parking loots-perthe zoning ordinance.
Landscaping
4+ Landscaped areas should be planned as integral parts of the .development and to create a
.strongly landscaped character for the site.
44 Unsightly uses should be screened;
+:+ Commercial signage or displays should not be hidden with landscaping,
•:+ Trees should bePlanted in a variety of locations, such as along: the side property lines,
clustered in planting areas; or distributed throughout the parking lot, consistent viiith the
zoning ordinance,
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael Design Guidelines
Pedestrian areas should be made visually attractive with special planting and flowering
trees.
❖ Where feasible, landscape the area between the building and the property line even when
a building is located at the minimum required side or rear yard setback.
• Retain and maintain existing public street trees and add additional street trees where
practical.
Lighting
4+ Limit the intensity of lighting to provide for adequate site security and for pedestrian and
vehicular safety.
Shield light sources to prevent glare and illumination beyond the boundaries of the
property.
+:+ Lighting fixtures should complement the architecture of the project.
Pedestrian Circulation
*:• Consider pedestrian orlentatlon when designing building entries, windows, signage and
doors.
4- Include a well-defined pedestrian walkway between the street and building. entries.
4- Clearly define pedestrian movement through the parking lot. For example, provide
changes in pavement or separate landscaped walkways.
Where appropriate, pedestrian walkways should be provided between adjacent lots.
Special design elements should be included, such as bollards, pots, benches, trash cans,
unique paving, tree grates, tree guards and. pedestrian lighting to add visual richness to
areas designed for pedestrian access.
4+ Where appropriate, include outdoor gathering places and seating for the public.
*:• Adequate facilities should be provided for bicycle parking, consistent with zoning
requirements.
Building Form
+t+ Where appropriate,. locate the building, or a substantial portion of the building along the
front yard setback or street edge to create spatial .enclosure in relation to the street,
41 Consider the pedestrian experience when designing the ground floor of buildings.
A continuity of design, materials, color, form and architectural details is encouraged for all
portions of a building and between all the buildings on the site.
+.• Consider the development's visual and spatial relationship to adjacent buildings and other
structures in the area,
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael Design Guidelines.
Entryways
❖ A defined sense of entry .with pedestrian orientation should be provided.
+:• Building, entrances should be defined with architectural elements such as roof form
changes, awnings or other architectural. elements.
Towers
•,� If a towerls:included in the design, it:should perform a. definite on-site.function;. such as
delineatirig: an entrance to a.site or a building entry; .or empl adzing a display window.
The tower should.provide an attractive distinctive silhouette against the.sky.
❖ Where appropriate, the visual :bufk.of the upper portion of the tower should be reduced to
reduce its apparent bulk, for ekample with openings through: it or with.open latticework.
Arcades
Arcades may be_used inshopping areas to provide, weather protection for shoppers, add a
sense of unity to a larger project and/or provide depth to the: building.
'- Arcades maybe topped with a simple broadband for tenant signing.
Internal illumination may be used to emphasize °arcade forms at night.
Awnings
•:• Where appropriate,..provide w;elf-designed awnings to enhance the design of the building;.
provide weather protection, and add liveliness, interest and 'a 'sense ofhuman scale.
❖ Provide a uniform treatment of awnings on multi -tenant buildings,
+:• Awning colors may be varied'and-should be compatible with the.calors of the building and
of adjacent buildings.
❖ Signs may be:provided on an awning, consistent. withthe.zoning ordinance.;
Translucent,internally illuminated. awnings are not encouraged:.
4.4 The following building, code standards are included for reference:
Minimum height above grade: 8 fleet; ;14 feet at alleys, -parking lots or other areas with
vehicular traffic
Maximum horizontal projection. (from face of building), 7 feet, or 66% of the distance
between the building and curb; whichever is less
Minimum distance to curb: Z feet between: theawning and curb
Material's and Calors
Use articulation; texturing and detailing.on.all concrete exposed io exterior view.
n%- Exterior materials should minimlze reflectivity.
•r Use colorto provide. appropriate accents on a building.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael Design Guidelines
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DOWNTOWN AND FOURTH STREET IN THE
MONTECITO/HAPPY VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD
Downtown San Rafael is the urban heart of Marin County and is a livable and walkable place
where people gather to enjoy life or conduct business. Downtown has a physical aspect
described as "hometown': New development contributes to the beautification and vitality of
Downtown. Downtown is increasingly attractive with more landscaping and trees. These
guidelines ensure that new buildings will be well designed, will respect our historic heritage and
will be attractive to pedestrians.
Montecito/Happy Valley neighborhood is in a convenient commercial location, adjacent to
Highway .101 and along Second, Third and Fourth Streets, and connecting to Downtown San
Rafael. With more than 400 diverse businesses, it is a mixed-use medium density community,
and an alternative to auto-oriented.suburbs. The neighborhood's commercial anchor is
Montecito Shopping Center, with Trader Joe's, restaurants, Rite-Aid, and a canalfront walkway.
Fourth Stteet is a commercial link to Downtown with a wide range of office, service and retail
uses,
The map below indicates the various areas of Downtown and Fourth Street and in the
Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood to which the following guidelines are applicable.
•}er
;n.,, i .f�,.::•%t.`"•�:JJ%r r. r .,cis; ��1 t'!f';1���
i.-,;
a..� `.�:� ` Erni ilj_ t"�'"_.:' ,' •(' i,;i' 1 f ;ri �1 :..^'.:
' L .. v: 1 _ _ _ -: ,r:. •.,.�._J I' i l T. : ''' 11 �r•''"'lpA
_Jr j ,'`.,lr,_.__......�.�Q�t� �`'•-'t.ry-'r"fr`:,�"7�'t �i/ jti"� Y;,'J7� '
" .y1 },,, ! "' , ..._ _, _f' P-, �!!.q " J' 1 �ii�' •1 _Jff ys.�j 11=-r" t . i �' 1 ( 1'V( I.
':J={" ri;y`s � �•y � �i' ~' �- tiC�F" 1 . ��:��f�. r' ,tl' 1 .. �. _li- 'I � - -_: '..1 I, . .,j• }`
f''t if"•1`.tt 7r,n;taJ►FFit%:, jrt,'f ffC!T'litlf¢�. J~ J :1(_,�_•:l'_I ��? p,
'`t },. _r4' ••i ,i -- -L'',,1 ;��f�"6•-.- �i";:�:!I._r4A�S,;+ .1 '11 ,P i'
i1'
l ,�, r .d •� T� . �i ' ie 1-_3 1 `-' - 11 1?� •' a � 1" i yl f .' � '
,M% '•a.•�.f (: tt"S .n'ii" �... t:Wil
' 1, •'U : t�=' t jt. �, i J' ` .. _ .its .� l' S'i �?�,�� �-`�'-� -'- '' �''�:
1-
-"vfl • �i;:��L, E'.:1.? i- ___1 Lf_.-^^ •� af.,: _, .{5 ..`.� lJ ,.,514 I+
!•a %);`+;! �� ;•-- -•�t4• i�. i�,I '`,'t. i�F ty ^._ Y+�=C,`.. ,{I-• 'fr >i 1
L.�,� riii•`"�= ! - -• "' � 2t<. {l��: ; J.:.__�.1 �!Pf:, jt 11 `�-'•.,, .,t ., '4
•.•t/7
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael Design Guidelines
Active Pedestrian and Comnierciall Streets
Fourth Street and portions of cross streets close to Fourth are active, pedestrlan friendly shopping
and mixed use. areas. The intents: here_ are to enliven these commercial and mixed. use -:areas by
encouraging window shopping; by orienting Buildings. to'the street to increase -street activity; by
including usable, active public plazas, by minimizing parking lots and driveways which: interrupt the
pedestrian -flow, and by encouraging appropriate signage.
Street Edge_ Pattern
4• -Buildings should be located to reinforce the street edge.
:+ Much of the front or street side facades of the ground :floor should extend to the property
line, with exceptions for public plazas, outdoor gathering places, courtyards or landscape
setbacks..
Driveways and Parking Areas
❖ Driveway cuts and. widths should be minimized, and .ground level or structured parking
should be placed behind buildings.
Building Entrances
•8 The primary ground floor entrances should be oriented towards the street:or, if
appropriate, public plazas: or courtyards, and not:.t:o°parking lots.
4, Ground floor entries should be frequent.
Entries.should be well defined and well lit for pedestrian safety.
Windows
Large stob&ont window display areas should be provided at the street level on: buildings
(i.e., approximately .7:5% clear glass on the primary street level frontage);
Building Design
❖ Building design should provide interest and variety at the street level through awnings,
marquees, entries and display windows.
Long, monotonous, uninterrupted walls should be avoided;
•.• Provide differences. in fagade treatment:between ground level and upper levels to add.
visual interest to thebuilding and the pedestrian experience.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael Design Guidelines
Public Spaces and Courtyards
Public spaces are .an .integral part of the pedestrian circulation system, and should not be
separated from the sidewalk with walls or stairs.
❖ Other sides of the public space should provide a sense of enclosure, for example, define
edges with buildings, landscaping, street furniture, railings or fencing.
❖ Public spaces should be adequately landscaped and should include street furniture.
Public spaces should be located to take advantage of sunlight and shield wind exposure,
❖ Shopping or eating opportunities are encouraged within or adjacent to public spaces.
Landscaping
•«• Colorful, small scale -plants, including hanging plants, are encouraged In small areas along
the street front for variety and interest or to define building entries.
Artificial plants are discouraged.
Height
•:* Multi -story buildings on the south side of Fourth Street should include step backs or other
design techniques to retain sunny sidewalk areas on the north side of the street.
❖ Height should be minimized through methods such as building colors, upper -story step -
backs, and placing units under eaves.
Fifth/Mission District and. Environs
In this area of Downtown, providing a pleasant walking environment comfortable for people.at the
ground level is. important. These streets are less active, and attractive streets to stroll along,
Building Design
To provide visual interest, long, monotonous walls should be avoided.
Where retaining walls are needed, they should be low, or terraced and landscaped.
4- Entries should be well defined and orient to the street rather than to a parking lot:
Setbacks
Where setbacks are provided, they should be landscaped.
•:• Street trees are an important element and should be retained and enhanced.
Residential Design
Residential building types that are oriented to and bring vitality to the street are
encouraged. Building types include townhouse and podium apartments with garages no
more than 1/2 level: above grade.
10
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael. Desist►„Guidelines
Second/Third Corridor and Environs
Second -and Third.Streets are tobe attractive, landscaped major transportation corridors. While
increased pedestrian safety and comfort is- desired ori• Second and Third, greater.pedestrian use of
the cross streets is encouraged
Building Design
❖ To provide visual interest, .long, monotonous walls should be avoided.
•:• Building walls should be articulated,
Streetscap`{e
❖ To create a boulevard effect: along Second .and Third Streets, varied, landscaped setbacks
are appropriate. .
4, Additional street trees are strongly encouraged.
High canopy traffic-tolerariftreea should be provided.
Residential Design
0.4 Where possible, :residential buildings in this area should orient to the more. pedestrian
-
friendly side streets.
Main entries should be well defined and oriented to the street rather than to a parking lot.
Parking -Lots
�;• Entrances to parking lots shouldbe: distinctive and easy to find.
•4+ Parking :lots should be landscaped between the. street and parking lot.
r.
Driveway -cuts and widths should be minimized. to prevent vehicular conflicts.
11
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San Rafael Design Guidelines
Historic and Architecturally Significant Buildings
There are many historic and architecturally significant buildings in San Rafael. The City welcomes
well-designed diverse architectural styles that respect its historic heritage. These guidelines are
intended to assist in achieving this objective, recognizing there are always design exceptions.
These guidelines apply to development in the immediate vicinity of buildings listed in the San
Rafael 1-fistorical/Architectural Survey.
Vattern and Scale
•3 Renovations to historic and architecturally significant buildings identified in the San Rafael
Historical/Architectural Survey Final Inventory List of Structures and Areas should be
carefully designed to retain significant building characteristics.
•3 New buildings, additions or major remodels in the vicinity of a building in the Survey should
respect the pattern, scale and design of the older building, and not create visual
distractions.
Transition
*i• Provide an appropriate transition in height between low rise and taller buildings through,
for example, careful use of building stepbacks or variable roof heights.
Windows
•t• Windows should be properly proportioned.
❖ Where appropriate, upper story windows should be vertically aligned with the location of
windows and doors on the ground floor.
Horizontal lines
v On streets with a concentration of -older buildings that have a well-defined design pattern
or rhythm, preserve and complement horizontal building lines, such as cornice lines and
window frames of adjacent architecturally significant buildings.
12
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 5
San Rafael Design Guidelines
San_Rafael Design. Guidelines
Proportions of Openings
On. streets with -al concentration of older buildings that have a well-defined design pattern,
the size and proportion of window and door openings should be similar to those of
surrounding facades.
Materials
:* On streets with a concentration of older buildings, an infIll fagade should be composed of
materials similar to adjacent facades and :should not stand out against the others..
Differentiation between Ground Floor and Upper Floors
Older buildings, particularly mixed use buildings; tend to differentiate between first floor
and upper floor fagade treatments. This is an appropriate design feature to emulate In
new construction adjacent to such buildings.
Roof Shapes
+ Relate new roof forms to those found In the area.
View of St. Raphael:s: Church Spire
❖ Conduct:a view analysis for projects: over one storyin height, within the shaded area of the.
map below to determine the impact the development would have on views of the St.
Raphael's church spire.
13
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 5 - Design Guidelines
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT n Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
Tf,'orkshop 2 Parlidpartts' Selecdom- of Preferred Building. 7}pas for° Various Ske.0vithin the Anz Area
Page 18 a Community Design+Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 2012 Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan R APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
II. Vision for the Station Area
The following draft Vision for the Downtown San Rafael Station Area was developed, In the
course of the planningprocess, with input from the community and. the Redevelopment
Agency's Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC):
-
T[�e:;pawrrtorvrl::_Scrrij::Rafael:'Sgton:Area:_.is:;at:the crossroaa�s.of_lVlarin viiliere: eopJe:traw
north/south through the County;: and east/wesf to shop, to netgh6orhoods, and io treasure
Downtown:.:san. Raf 1 ra tt c rnplex: powntown, Mo ecrto/Haply Valley, Francisco
Boulevard:W.est and the.; canal,neig:hborhoods;.'At the: h`eart:a:;this,area fs:`a<reglonal:'trar�sft
compleX ttiati fits,seamlessty �rito the context of the surrouna'rng neighbor Pods and aonneets
people .: to :: destinatfans . thrdugfiout' rt':.' i4afdel;:=: Mar/n."''a d the' � greater Bay. Area::
In 2035, the Downtown San Rafael Station Area is a place people can easily reach by walking,
biking, or using transit. On arriving at the transit center, people feel a strong sense of welcome
to Downtown San Rafael. The area is an attractive gateway to downtown and the vibrancy of
Fourth Street.
The transit complex is a busy, regional hub for train, bus, shuttle, taxi, and other transit
services. People:are safe and comfortable walking as they transfer easily from one mode to
another, and there are clear, safe and pleasant connections between the.transit center and the
surrounding neighborhoods. It is safe for pedestrians and bicyclists to get to, around and
through this area.
The area- immediately around the .transit center reflects and enhances the surrounding
neighborhoods. New buildings -form a strong sense of place, reflecting the community's focus
on creating an exciting and friendly edge to downtown. Although development has changed
and the appearance of the area has improved, the charming character of nearby neighborhoods
remains the same. Every day a comfortable and reliable commuter rail service brings hundreds
of people to San Rafael to work, and shops in the area that is:thriving.
People who live in the area enjoy safe, pedestrian -friendly streets and access to reliable transit
service. The buildings around the transit center have a mix of uses and give the place an urban
feel. Residents like being able to walk -to the movies, restaurants, shops and nightlife. Close -by
neighborhoods have, a variety of housing types where families with children, students, young
professionals, and seniors live, and all enjoy the benefits of living close to the Downtown San
Rafael transit center.
The station provides a sense of arrival into Downtown. The Station Area is intuitive; signage and
other physical design help people navigate to their destination, with particular emphasis on
connections to Fourth Street.
Parking is available for new housing and businesses. In keeping with the vision of a transit -
oriented, walkable, and active environment, the amount of parking provided is limited to
Community Design +Architecture ® Page 19
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT A Downtown: San Rafael :Station Area Plan .June 4, 2012
encourage transit use, as well as walking and bicycling,. Parlcing facilities are -out of view but are
clearly found through signage. On -:street;. off street and shared parking -facilities are carefully
managed, efficientlyused., and meeting_demand..
Page 20 a Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT a Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
Z. Development within the Plan Area
This section discusses the potential location, building form and estimated build -out square
footage of potential redevelopment sites within the Plan Area.'
Opportunity Sites
Potential development opportunity sites within the Plan Area were identified based on input
from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment (CAC) and City of San Rafael staff (see
Figure 111-6).
U
i
d
s
Q
f hh Ave
9ccand $1
Figure 111-6. Possible Opportunit7,Sites
Development Examples
The build -out potential of each opportunity site was evaluated using current zoning and
General Plan policies for allowable uses, maximum height and f=loor Area Ratio, and amount of
parking required. Redevelopment and Planning staff subsequently provided direction regarding
the example developments, including the mix of uses, building height, and assumptions for
height and density bonuses, including allowable. density and height bonuses for affordable
housing under state law, and reductions in the amount of required off-street parking, resulting
in the development examples described below.
Page 34 a Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 2012 Downtown San Rafael Station Area. Plan 9 APPROVED FINAL, DRAFT
While specific sites have been selected for the following examples, the intention is to show a.
variety -of development prototypes and contexts that can be adapted and modified to work on:
other sites throughout the half -mile Study Area. Indeed, many opportunity sites exist within
and beyond the boundaries of -the Plan Area. While the exact_:buildin:g forms.shown below may
not be appropriate on all sites; the concepts- greater densities and building. heights; Mixed
uses, varied residential formats including condom-iums.and apartments, upperstory setbacks
and public ground floor uses such as retail or office. space—all can help contribute to a more
walkable -and pedestrian friendly environment throughout the Study Area, to best:leverage:the
benefits of expanded transit service. These prototypes may also serve to inform potential area-
specific.guidelines or a potential form -based code. as part of :a transit:overlay district, which are
described: in -further detail in the. section Recommended LundUse Policy -Changes below,
A description of the examples assumed for the opportunity sites follows illustrations of each,
shown in Figure 111-7 through Figure 111-11', Current land use regulations, as well as a side-by-side
comparison of :existing and potential uses,. the number of dwelling units, densities, and other
data are_ provided in Table 111-3 through Tab'l'e 111=.7 for each of the five development opportunity
sites-.
Parking-courits labeled "private" are intended for residential; office and business uses, "Public"
parking denotes spaces that are available .to anyone, Note. that housing is not subject to Floor
.Area Ratio (FAR) limits, so -mixed-use buildings can include• the maximum non-residential FAR.
plus any additional housing as allowed by the zoning,
!A. R; :►s:,.the:.;total,: r:.oss.:_burlelin: ;s uare,;a.o.ta ei d1Addd .`;':i`lie::ldrid::ar._ea;'exclusve.
:....::....:._ ....::. _.,9...:...: g
streets:;Parl(ing ixreascoueYed: or unto°v�red api `poo: leasable -c_ gy!q.r ,d;gtrcum"re nab inclua'ed;
'ln calculating FARs.. ;
F1obrAre-a Mafia (FAR) --
1:1 Ratio:
't Mott' .z SIRFlgS
(t04°{ lot cavOroge) (509'. lotcover30)'
4 storidl
(75FG lartavarage)
Ftoork'ep:$gfio Diagram. Sdirrce: Lo,stilrge�es florrsir�g.]7epd17ifteti7
Community Design + Archltecture a Page 35
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Pian Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT a Downtown San Rafael Station Area Pian June 4, 2012
Site A
RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL TAMALPAIS AVE
FACING TAMALPAIS AVE WHISTLE5TOP
Figure til --7: Site A ftlternel ive Concept— section looking naYk
Site A is composed of seven parcels, The example assumed, which requires assembly of these
Parcels, is a six -story mixed-use building occupying 0.8 acres. Commercial uses occupy ahigh-
cellinged space on the ground floor facing Tamalpals Avenue, comprising 8,600 square feet.
Offices uses occupy floors three and four, comprising 60,000 square feet. Residential uses
occupy floors five and six. The building contains a combination of studio and one -bedroom flats
totaling 67 dwelling units and includes 1.33 parking spaces accommodated within the building in
a two-story podium. Auto access and egress occurs on Lincoln Avenue. (See Table 111-3).
This building configuration would encourage more continuous commercial activity fronting the
SMART station block along Tamalpais Avenue; creating a more inviting pedestrian environment.
However, certain retail uses are not currently permitted along Tamalpais Avenue and would
require. a variance.
. Retaif useswithin the Nethertvno.Office.District::: ..
Satz>R.6 el rrturiicipal Toning code states:.iha.i;' Within: h`e Kethertor7 Office._�istcict:,"lojri; the
grocind floor, office; .business�silppart: retart:.cleneral retail for parcels that front on; Fourth .
Street;`_persarial service: uses__a d°restaurams:are_ el7courrxged:. Parking structures:='are.='allowed,i
::and* --should _have commerciad_use.s on: the`ground floor: Liri* on -.shops: pro:tect Fourth: Street
retall --businesses.: (Emphasis:. added) Retdik uses not.:curreni1k-. perrim tied along 7arnaip:als.
Avenue without a variance; ricfu:de shops selling_ antiques and `collectibles,:apparel;; applicinces,.
bicycles; furniture, upholstery, furnit m repalr: services: shoes, :sporting goods; 'toys;.. and selling
or renting videos:
Page 36 w Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4,2012 Downtown San Rm�mStation Area Plan w APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
By settingthe upperStVrieu bad, the perceived helght of the six story building ^ wou|d be
reduced, more. in line with the VVhhtestop building, helping to frame the street (see Figure
ill._ -7). Providing hfflcb space within the Plan Area would encourage potenda|ernphmeeoto
utilize -th6 bUtos or SM&RTtrA|n arriving at the adjacent transit oon1p|eX and.'ceduce the.
denmondfor parking. The na'�Irdent|a| ua68 on tM uppermost flb,oru would provide re3ldents to
frequent the movie theaters, restaurants and other h|0htUfeVenues DbVVUtovxnonce- \morkem
have [eftthak offices and businesses, keeping the area active, vibrant and safe for'a greater
portinnofthaday-&ddit|onaUW.tho\ncreosm|nbothbus\naosand/as|denba|useavvou|dal)nvv
employees. and residents totake, advantage: ofthe nearby bus. and rail transit services, reducing
vehicle use..
'
W149 111-3: 87ta it
Community Design +Architecture n Page 37
Planning Commisaion, February 34.3O15
Exhibit 8 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
zorilng:
H6therton Office (HO)
Building HeighV
66 feet
Maximum Housing
72 dwelling units/acre'
Maximum FAR:
:2,00 (residential space does not count.toWard
Parking:
up to 2spaces/multi-family dWelling unit
nil
Wes:
7 parcels; vacant*
Mixed-Wg
Ps
parcel, pub,
restaurant, home
furnishing :.store,,,
and thrift store
Resid ntial Density
N/A
.83 du/acre
Density
Parking Spaces:
46-prIvate:
133 private
Community Design +Architecture n Page 37
Planning Commisaion, February 34.3O15
Exhibit 8 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT a Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
Whistlestop
With the planned SMART service and proximity to the station platforms, it may be difficult to
maintain the existing use of the Whistlestop building without modification. Some:programs and
services may be impacted clue to the proximity of the station and station improvements to the
building. Finding a :new use for this site will be important to defining the heart of the transit
complex.
The Whistiestop property at 930 Tamalpais Avenue is owned by Marin Senior Coordinating
Council ("Whistlestop"). Whistlestop provides education, meals, and paratransit services for
seniors and people with disabilities. In addition to providing an important social service for
downtown San Rafael and the wider community; the operator of the senior services center also
owns the property. A proactive public-private partnership could facilitate an effort tosecure
funding for improvements to the site, recognizing its central importance to the area as a part of
the gateway toDowntown and to the functioning of the station itself. The design of both the
station and the site need to be strongly Integrated and closely coordinated, together with the
public improvements proposed for the limited street and train rights-of-way adjacent to the
site.
The parcel is currently within the Hetherton Office (HO) zoning district which permits a
maximum building. height of 66 feet and a variety of commercial uses including restaurants,
office uses, limited retail, as well as housing.
The 48 -inch Nigh SMART loading platform will be located in close proximity to the east edge of
the current Whistlestop building, potentially creating a 4-8 foot gap or "gully." Without careful
design, this area may attract unwanted activity such as graffiti, be uninviting to pedestrians,
and negatively impact the first floor windows of the current building. SMART and the property
owner should work together to integrate the station platforms with the building to minimize
negative impacts such as this gap.
The Plan envisions an engaging ground -floor commercial component and possible food -related
or restaurant uses that will help create a strong sense of arrival into Downtown. Second floor
office uses could provide transit -oriented employment opportunities .within the Station Area. It
will be important.to ensure any development.on this site relates to the adjacent SMART loading
platform in a way that enhances the experience of arriving into Downtown San Rafael.
Whistlestop Building - Former Train Depot
Page46 m Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 2012 DbWhtoWn.Son Rafoel Station Area Plan s APPROVED FINAL: DRAFT
Station -related retail
Many workshop participants were excited
about a scaled-down `version of San
Francisco's Ferry Building; envisioning a
place :that offers.feesh .produce, specialty
items, 'flowers, .coffee and commuter -
related services and other fare.. Other
models for a smallor-scale, privately owned
specialty food market include Oxbow
Market. in: Napa; Alameda Marketplace,
Epicurious. Garden in :Berkeley, and
Rockridge Market Halpin Oakland.
Such an. establishment would encourage
activity throughout the day in the heart. of RockridgeMarlrerllall, Oakland
the Plan Area and provide a convenient
opportunity for transit:patrons to shop for daily necessities on their way to and from the transit
complex, as well as linking the Station Area to Fourth:Street and the. rest of Downtown.
Staticin Plaza
improved public space or a new- public :plaza could be created in the .area of the station to
provide a community gathering place and 'e, hance_ the pedestrian experience. One possible
location is at the northern end of the Whistlestop site at the southeast corner of Fourth and
West Tarha_Ipals, serving to connect. the SMART station platforms and Whlstlestop site with
Fourth Street (see Figure: ill-12):and acting as a visual focus and pointof arrival. Plazas can make
a °major improvement :In the. ;pedestrian environment.and help encourage: transit use;.:by
providing.::attractive and.,comfortab..l.e..seating_areas,,.along with important amenities such. as
wayfinding, signage and bicycleparking. While benches and: fixed seating can work well,
movable tables,,and chairs increase: the flexibility of use by allowing users to gather in groups
and find shade or sun :as they desire. it .is ° rriportant that any .wayflnding signage or bicycle
parking provided in the area be carefully deslgned and placed to add visual interest and
complement the character of this gateway into Downtown.. Trees and other means of providing
shade, as well as other landscape treatments, can also help reduce runoff and improve water
quality-,
A plaza could also be an excellent location for public art; such as a sculpture to -serve as a focal
point and:•anchor the space, providing a landmark for people passing through and meeting one
another near the station. Art. Works Downtown is an organization that works with property
owners and the City to place artworks in San Rafael, and may be of assistance- in: selecting. and
placing a piece of public art.. this prominent locatlon.
The area along Fourth Street between the rail station and Tamalpaiss will serve to link the
SMART platforms directly with Fourth Street, providing an opportunity to continue the vitality
and visual interest -of this primary pedestrian_ corridor of San Rafael into the Station Area: The
area identifiedfor the plaza at Fourth Street and Tamalpais Avenue is privately owned. The City
Community. Design +Architecture d Page qT
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT e Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan .tune 4, 2012
could work with the property owner on a variety of -improvement options, ranging from a plaza
to enhanced streetscape improvements and the provision of pedestrian amenities. High quality
design and lighting will be .critical, as will ensuring adequate security for the area, Photos of
various plaza designs are shown in Figure 111-13.
Plaza in Santa Barbara
� M.
LrPOTS
°.ELAZI
S
aYFII.
�.. :..., S7lE570P 1S ��f -
Figure fff--12 .Possible Plaza al Fow li► Street and Tanralpais Aventic
FiguraIII-13: Photas of varlorrs plaza designs
Page 48 M Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
Jurie.4, 2012 Downtown, San Rafael Station Area Plan If APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
Use
3. Recommended Land' Us
Policy Changes
The Vision established for the Station Area
describes an .environment: where people are
able to enjoy and comfortably navigate the
public spaces .in :the Station Area and among
the surrounding blocks .of Downtown. San
Rafael: Public , spaces—streets, sidewalks,
.plazas—and the atmosphere within them,. are
correspondingly defined by the- buildings
around them. Taller buildings mean more
people to populate -.the streets and use transit,
walk, of bicycle to reach their destinations.
Commercial and retail uses on the ground floor and office. uses above encourage. activity
throughout the day, while residential uses .encourage activity in the evening, keeping streets
and other public: spaces animated and vibrant. The development concepts- studied above
provide a valuable test of the capacity to achieve this vision through the creation of new
buildings; within the limits of existing land use policy. This section examines and makes
recommendations to change existing land use policy to facilitate achievement of the vision for
the station Area. t :::;:gin t�;: F1 f :.. , ' r WIC;
The opportunity site assessment
found that under current t !tf,:� 'g `�
regulations; maximum: density' was
the most restrictive regulation:
limiting the types. of buildings :that '3
can help achieve the vision. This is ^r: _ _sf• - __ _- _:
because the maximum density could
typically be reached with a ;lowers
number of stories than what would
be allowed under the maximum
build9ng: height, In addition, the
studies ;found that providing more than one space per unit :of off_street parking for new
residential uses: wauId typically require two levels of structured parking, which is -expensive and
often infeasible:on small sites due to the space needed for vertical circulation. As discussed in -
the
n
the Development •Issues section o°f'this chapter] .the prevalence. within the: Plan Area°:of many
small parcels (less than 1:3,000 square..feet) inhibits development bocause.- t requires parcels to
be assembied,,resu.lting in:increased°cost and time forthe developer.
Based _on guidance from the Citizens Advisory Committee and the results of the land use
opportunities, this plan recommends the following. land use policy changes to make the
development envisioned :in the °General Plan and the vision for :the station area more
economically feasible and therefore more likely to be; achieved.
Community Design + Architecture Z Page 49
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT n Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
Vision 9: A Gateway into Downtown
To create an improved gateway into Downtown San Rafael, the portions of the Plan Area and
immediate environs that allow a 66 -foot height limit could be expanded to include the blocks
between Tamalpais,Avenue and Netherton from Mission Avenue to Second Street, Including
the Bettini site. The site immediately west of the SMART station, known as the Whistlestop site,
is an important site as it is part of the gateway to Downtown San Rafael, As discussed in a
previous section, this site is located -in a zoning district (HO.). that offers a 66 -foot building height
limit, This site could serve as an iconic, active, welcoming. point of arrival to downtown San
Rafael.
The development prototype shown for Site B assumed a 66 -foot height limit or variance in
order to. allow a 5 -story structure (see Figure !II -S). East of US 101, the area allowing 5440ot
heights could be expanded to include the parcels along the west side of Irwin Street between
Mission Avenue and Fourth Street, both sides of Irwin Street between Fourth and Second
Streets, and along the south side of Fourth Street between Irwin Street and Grand Avenue.
Figure 111-14 indicates these areas with colored hatching and shows the previous height limits
underneath. These increased building height limits would make a larger variety of building
projects feasible on the parcels in these areas, which will help achieve the goals established in
the. vision to encourage more people to use transit and promote a greater diversity of land
uses,: including. more residential uses in the Station Area.
BuildingkIctgly
i.i. r:J,�'.;r..,.:_:j:_ :+ii•__+r: Limits Jit
Dowituown
San itlfaci
_36,
- ,�- •L, � L,fi J'' _�i•:_.._ .,+r ,... ,rt '•-`{, . d:.;, .r tlets'.foaUa+niann�
'42
,rs
.I.r .... ♦ ~ `�I � tri'.':. %l 0.1 -3:41
, !' ,'•!; ' ,✓. ,� , ,:?. ,._Fi . :.='.:.42_:_B- : _ h`L I± �a,'' 't'" , hSt�:�' �6_i'fi � �•-�•'q 66' ,
"1.: � '. �1 �:Cr.. `i:, - '1':.!' i'r _ i, F�J� {!:. ::i i'••i•f - - _ --1.' V!
17
•.til .�fr,/..'t:r,. ti;�`tz.`�:...r;'�••:>•t -- - - --- - �tlJ_�"
'.
' �- .1'.L ,.�II:J�.._rt. ti.1 _;;.1 �,., -..r L�•....!.. _ _ , , a�.�. .} may' `rr' 1
JL F,mk -'`.`y - e� .:
gi
l •• - �: • - -1 h I.M jl: }J= - - I'�''="�:�-•>?. "fes
q z -ZD
]J r:,•- 'c.'�-
^r•= _ F'f•i..--> �' fr. rr.. %a l�„:-'= ->'f kJil.-r;•y 7 � - `•r I
Figure TII-14.-Reco))atrerrdecl Brrilding Height Limits hr DDivittown
Page 50 a Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 2012 Downtown San Rafael Station Area, Plan X APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
Vision -2; increased Activity, Commercial and:Housin.g Uses'for Transit
To encourage redevelopment within° and around the° Plan Area that supports increase activity
and a mix of .uses, the area that allows a 2.0 Floor Area Ratio:(FAR) .could be expanded, to.
include the blocks between Tamalpais Avenue and Hetherton from Mission Avenue to: Second
Street, including the Bettini Transit Gehter site. East of US 101, the area that -allows an FAR of
1.5 could- be expanded to imlude' the parcelsalong the west side of Irwin Street between'
Mission Avenue and Fourth Street, both .sides of Irwin: Street. between Fourth and Second
Streets, and along the south side of Fourth Street between Irwin Street and Grand Avenue.
Figure' -11145 indicates these areas with colored hatching and shows the previous FAR limits:
underneath. Similarly to increased building height limits, increasing. the FAR in these areas'
would make a greater :variety of building projects feasible, which .will. help :ach.ieve 'the goals
established to the vision to encourage more people to use transit and encourage a greater
diversity of land uses including niore residential uses: in the Station Area.
i
NINO
4N,
'rl
P.xhibll G'
!�' �'_i:
Ap-
T16or. Area Raltifs:
`
in Downton
i•: i
qud'Eiivirons-
4W4 ehi'-tyfnl{ili•
Iih:IM�t .CNI>OYMfA.1
• _.
M 1;S FAR
!�' �'_i:
Ap-
_.""f`F:
�:•' ..',
/ln, '
t
HOtts: rNtklraa:e�nnm.lo ira
..
�.: �: .!i !: !:. :-'::1 :.. ..'�
�I`: _
Irlrllll
... 1111
4W4 ehi'-tyfnl{ili•
Iih:IM�t .CNI>OYMfA.1
rs
i�
Rgure 711-15: MAk limns iia Dnlvn'lown
Community Design +Architeoture W Page 81
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT e , Downtown San Rafael Statlon..Area Plan June 4, 2012
Vision 3: Parking for New Housing and Business
The vision of creating a transit -oriented; walkable, and active environment in the Station Area is
benefitted by limiting the amount of parking provided in order to encourage transit use,
walking, and bicycling instead of personal vehicle use. Changes to existing parking requirements
can help achieve adequate parking ratios without providing an oversupply for new housing and
businesses, and can also help prevent parking encroachment on residential neighborhoods near
the Station Area.
In the short term, the City could consider:
■ Reducing minimum parking requirements to one space for two-bedroom residential units
and 1.5 spaces for three-bedroom. units,
• Requiring any new off-street parking to be screened from public view
• Allowing tandem parking in private developments
other policy changes are more likely to be implemented in the long-term, either because they
rely on the. availability of municipal parking, or because they require ahighly developed
network of transportation alternatives that would allow residents in the Plan Area to live with
fewer privately owned automobiles:
19 Allowing one-half spaceper residential unit to be located off-site in a municipal parking
garage
Allowing off-site parking for ground floor retail uses
Allowing unbundled parking, where parking spaces are leased separately from residential
units
■ Allowing bicycle parking in lieu of some portion of required automobile parking
These and other parking management strategies for public and private parking facilities are
discussed in Chapter IV: Parking Trends and Issues.
Vision 4: Facilitate Eventual Reuse Should Bettini Transit Center be
Relocated
To facilitate its eventual reuse as:an active mixed use development, should the Bettini Transit
Center be relocated, this Plan recommends rezoning Site C (see Table III -5 and,Figure II1-16)
from Public/Quasi-Public to Netherton Office. The Hetherton Office zone permits a variety of
commercial and office uses and multifamily residential, which will generate,more people on the
street for a longer part of the day and evening, improving the vibrancy and safety of the area,
as well as encouraging transit use over personal vehicles. As described in the opportunity site
assessment, new buildings in this location would also help to create a gateway into Downtown
from the Plan Area, These buildings would help frame the streets on all sides of the block and
provide considerably improved walking conditions at the southern boundary of the Plan Area,
where fast-moving traffic on Netherton Avenue and Second Street and the adjacent highway
on-ramp now create an uninviting place for pedestrians (see Figure III -9),
Page 52 ■ Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
.June 4, 2012 Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan 19 APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
0 125. 250 500
Recommended Zot�ir�g f,
source: Cifyo(San Retae! -
SMARi'=Sfatibrt - Pian ;4iea Area of Recommended
Zafiing=Change
Plan -'Area -Zoning Other Zoning`
ONE Comm&V1011011ce WiM=General CbMinerbiel
NOM -Hetherton Office: 111100 4th Street Rotail Core
2nd/3rd MixedUse East Residential
L Res►iientiallOffice:C7istricts 00plex Residential District
..J'6th1Wst0n Residential/Office Ntedium�DehsttyMultifam ly Res
-kms Pubiw0jast;PubiiD:_�f Hlgh-Density Multtfamlly Res
Planned Development Seplember, 2011
ter► Hafetr3l Downtown 5faffon Aren Plan
ftyaa 111.76. Rccennnended Zoning--.Tlw:indicated h16e r u+ould be;rezaiedlivafi PirbliC� nasi Public to Flellre►Ioa;O()ice
Community besign +.Architecture 9 Page 53
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT x Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
Visions 5: Create an Active Street Frontage in the Station Area
As described in the discussion about opportunity sites above, except along Fourth Street, the
zoning designations Hetherton office does not allow general retail sales, including shops selling
antiques and collectibles, apparel, appliances, bicycles, furniture, upholstery, furniture repair
services, shoes, sporting goods, toys, and selling or renting videos. These types of uses promote
pedestrian foot traffic on streets and help to create an active and engaging public realm.
To. better link the Nan Area and transit complex with Downtown, the City could consider
broadening the range of retail uses allowed along Tam alpais Avenue in the Hetherton Office
district. This would create a more continuous, active streetscape and public realm, and allow
redevelopment projects on such sites as the Bettini Center and within the Whistlestop building
to provide customer -serving retail for transit patrons and Downtown shoppers alike.
Vision 6: Modify Zoning to Facilitate Transit -supportive Redevelopment in
the Station Area
As described above, the opportunity site assessment found that the Interaction of certain
regulations prevent buildings from reaching their development potential, which is important to
achieving the Station Area vision of an active, transit -oriented environment, While .individual
regulations, such as parking or density, can be altered to help prevent some of these
limitations, it is recommended to take a different approach to regulating building development
within the Station Area.
Implementation through Form -Base Code and Eliminating Maximum Density and FAR
One option to consider is establishing a Form -Based Code and eliminating the maximum density
and FAR requirements. This approach would allows the underlying zoning to determine what
uses. are appropriate on a given site and the General Plan height limits (along with any
applicable affordable housing height bonus) to determine the maximum building height, but
lets the Form -Based Code determine what kind of facade treatments are necessary at the
ground level, at what height the building's upper stories must be set back, and. if :there are any
sky exposure planes established to ensure the building does not cast excessive shadow on
adjacent properties or the street (see Figure III -1.7 and Figure III -18),
Under a Form -Based Code approach, the underlying zoning's FAR and residential density
regulations would be superseded, avoiding the _potential conflicts referred to above. As an
example, if the current zoning's maximum density requirements were waived as part of a
modified zoning ordinance and residential uses were required to provide no more than one
parking space per unit, as many as 200 additional residential units could be accommodated as.
part of development on the six example sites described above. This is because the amount of
building space that could be created within the recommended building heights and upper story
setbacks Is greater than the amount that would reach the maximum residential density and FAR
allowed by the current zoning.
Page 54 ■ Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
t;.
•;Skyrxposureplaiic: -_-_-
t -
r: `
Figtn a
111-17, BiXding Sky Exposure Plane
Sburev oye.gbv'
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
F'igiov 111-1 & Building. Upper Stoiy Setbacks
Sblrrce: iiyagov
A Form -Based Code would permit developmentto achieve the maximum: potential allowed
under- the building height and setback regulations. This would incentivize new construction
within the. district because developers would be able to spread the soft: costs: of develop.rnent
(design and permitting fees and. land assembly anal 'purchase) over a greaternumber of units
and amount of office and commercial space.
Implementation through Development Bonuses
i.n addition to allowing greater heights and SARs directly; these changes could be made
available to developers as bonuses :in exchange for community benefitsReduced: parking
i'equirernehts could also be made available as a bonus. In contrast to the affordable housing
density bonuses that are provided under state ;faw, as discussed in Chapter 'iii;: these
development: bonuses for community.benefits.°or transit -supportive development: would be at
the.Gity's discretion. Community benefits could include amenities to.thesurrounding area that
support a more transit -oriented; walkable. environment, such as wider sidewalks and
landscaping, open space or ;plazas,; and provision of car -sharing spaces, :and for providing
additional affordable units beyond.those required by the°City's inclusionary housing policy:
Implementation through Area, Design Guidelines
The Community Design Element of San Rafael -General. Plan .2020 includes the San Rafael Design
Guidelines;which were developed to provide guidance for the°design,of buildings.that''integrate
well with their Surroundings and promote. a pedestrian friendly, people=orierited environment.
Both citywide and. -Downtown design guidelines are included in this document. Theseguidelines
are -discretionary and are.intended to assist projects: in achieving high quality design. They are
used by staff and the _Design Review Board to evaluate the quality of .project design and to
male recommendations: regarding. design review approval or denial.
The General Plan's design guidance. emphasizes preservation of Downtown's reputation as a
special place characterized by diverse' architectural. design; historic, buildings;. and. the unique
character created by a higher density of buildings and an urban street frontage, Downtown's
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT a Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
appeal is due in part to the many businesses, shops and restaurants that front directly onto the
sidewalks and address the street, These features contribute to a comfortable and engaging
pedestrian environment and are promoted by the design guidelines, which direct that windows,
landscape and architectural elements relate to the height of pedestrians and create visual
interest.
While Form -Based Codes are intended to contain design guidance specific enough that
additional design guidelines are not necessary, an implementation approach based on
development bonuses could benefit from the creation of area -specific design guidelines that
could supplement or supersede the existing design guideline.: Area design guidelines could help
integrate new development with the existing character, especially of Fourth Street and adjacent
neighborhoods, and achieve the strong sense of place that the plan envisions.
Land Use .Recommendation Summary
To summarize, this Plan recommends the following:
■ Extend the area permitting a 66 -foot height limit to include the blocks between Tamalpais
Avenue and Netherton from Mission Avenue to Second Street, including the Bettini site.
Increase the height limit to 54 feet for the parcels along the west side of Irwin Street
between Mission Avenue and Fourth Street, along both sides of Irwin Street between
Fourth and Second Streets, and along the south side of Fourth Street between Irwin Street
and Grand Avenue.
n Extend the 2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to include the blocks between Tamalpais Avenue and
Netherton from Mission Avenue to Second Street, Including the Bettlni site, East of US 101,
increase the FAR limit to 1.5 for the parcels along the west side of -Irwin Street between
Mission Avenue and Fourth Street, along both sides of Irwin Street between Fourth and
Second Streets, and along the south side of Fourth Street between Irwin Street -and Grand
Avenue.
• Support the vision of creating a transit -oriented, walkable, and active environment in the
Station Area by limiting the amount of parking provided to encourage transit use, walking,
and bicycling instead of personal vehicle use. Consider implementation through developer
bonuses on individual sites, rather than direct implementation.
• Rezone the Bettini Transit Center site from Public/Quasi-Publicto Netherton Office,
• Allow a broader range of ground floor general retail sales uses by right along- Tamalpais
Avenue in the Hetherton Office district,. as Is allowed on Fourth Street and Lincoln Avenue.
• Develop zoning modifications to encourage redevelopment in proximity to the transit
center such as implementing a Form -Based Code. Consider implementing additional height
and.FAR increases in return for amenities through developer bonuses.
• If a Form -Based Code approach is not used, consider creating an updated set of design
guidelines specific to the area.
Page 56 ■ Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 2012 Downtown San: Rafael Station Area Plan :a APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
ii/, Parking Trends and Issues
This chapter discusses parkfing' issues and opportunities in the Plan Area. Existing off -:street
parking facili_tie's -are heavily occupied,. and the construction of'the SMART station will .remove
some existing off-street parking. To accommodate the SMART statlon, 26 'parking spaces will.be
removed- from the Whistlestop ,site and 30 spaces from the SMART right -of --way on East
Ta►nalpais°Avenue between Third and Fourth Streets, currently being used byWhistiestop. To
-accommoda.te:the SMART roll lines through Bettint, 5 spaces will be removed'at the: south end
of the Bettini Center's: Iatform C. This results in a: net reduction -of 61 public.spaces,'Beyond
these, in keeping with community desires to create a pleasant pedestrian experience, removal
,of some additional on=street pa.rldrigwould: allow improvements ;to multi -modal conditions,
including pedestrian, bicycle and transit operations. Thus, a strategy is needed to manage the
supply of on -street parking, balance parking and pedestrian priorities; and provide sufficlent
parking for visitors, residents and businesses in the area..
New parking facilities envisioned in this Plan are intended primarkly to support new: mixed-use,
commercial and residential development. In addition, SMART has had discussions with nearby
property owners. regarding the possible provision of commuter parking fac`illties near the transit
center -within planned privately owned garages. To support and encourage transit use, as•well
as walking- and bicycling within the Station Area; commuters' use of parking_ intended .for
general. use can be limited through a combination of general parking'time limits -of four hours
and .through the use of:permits for residents and employees.
The following is a: summary of current on -and off-street parking conditions; .see Figure:1 -
V-1 for
a..map. Parking counts described as "private'' are intended for residential; office and business
uses: "Public'. parking: denotes spaces that are ;available to anyone, including commuters,
though time limits apply to most on -street public parking spaces,
Ori=Street Parking
There. are approximately 200 existing on -street spaces currently within the Plan Area; 56
spaces will be. removed for SIVIART's Initial Operation Segment, (105) to Downtown San
Rafael, leaving;144 public on -street: spaces in the Plan Area, Most ofthe spaces:are metered
or have time restrictions(mostlytwo-hour time. limits), Time -of -day "tow away" restrictions
during thePM peak. period (4;00 to 6:00 PM.) are in _effect along Irwin Street, Third.Street,
and Fifth Avenue.
■ On -street parking occupancy peaks at.just over 50 percent between the hours of 12:00 OM
and 2:00 -PM on weekdays.
Off;Street:Pai'ldng
Approximately 197 long-term publicparking spaces are provided in four park-and-ride lots
maintained by Caltrans under or adjacent to US .101. These- lots are free, do not have time
limits and are available to commuters as well as Downtown visitors and employees. As such,
these lots will be available to;SMART patrons.
Community Design + Architecture i Page 57
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT a Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
The Caltrans park-and-ride lots are over 90 percent occupied from 9:00 AM to after 4:00 PM
on weekdays.
Miscellaneous off-street .private parking areas are currently located at: East Tamalpais
between Third and Fourth Streets (30 spaces), SMART right-of-way between Fourth Street
and Mission Avenue (12 "informal" spaces), Whistlestop parcel (26 spaces:), =Caltrans park-
and-ride lots leased to private parties under US 101 between Second and Fourth Streets
(121 spaces), and other off-street private lots at the Citibank site (33 spaces) and at the
southwest corner of Tamalpais Avenue / Fifth Avenue (14 spaces). These miscellaneous
parking areas provide 236 private spaces.
The miscellaneous off-street parking areas approach 90 percent occupancy between 11:00
AM and 1:00 PM.
Accessible Parking
Current laws permit free parking in municipal metered parking spaces for any person displaying
a disabled placard on their vehicle. Spaces specifically designated and thus reserved for people
with disabilities are available within the Plan Area as follows:
1 space in the park and ride lot north of Mission Street
■ 2 spaces and 1 van accessible space in the park and ride lot between Mission Street and
Fifth Avenue
3 spaces in the park and ride lot between Fifth Avenue and Fourth Street
1 space at the Whistlestop building (typically for Whistlestop clientele)
■ 7�spaces in the municipal lot on Third Street between A.Street and i_ootens Place
1 on -street space at Fourth and A Streets
m 1 space and 1 van accessible space in the lot at Lootens Place and Fifth Avenue
These miscellaneous accessible parking spaces provide 18 spaces, A number of accessible
parking spaces are also designated within a number of private lots associated with businesses in
and around the Plan Area.
Page 58 a Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 2012 Downtown SanRbfaol Station Area Plan :0 APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
;Y
Jr -
+la
-�J
a
4 i.
vv -
5
wIL'(�G17
v
4;
Ofst;
v
A -
Is
a
-7�
0 M 260. 600 .
I -in NIL
Pdrk --h.g Inventory
'Im Ort-rStreet ParkiJ --7— Plan Area
WL
...—Park andRil Lot
'Cars Along Tracfis East of.TArhalpigAvenue
-Whist(AstopParkin9 betwoon3rd :Street and 4th :Street
M Diagonal Parking Near CillbankWest of Hetherton Street
W -Privdte Parking Indladed In the-Surv6y (Citibank Lot, and Two Lots Under US -101 Adjacent to 3rd Street)
Firtre IM: B.4wing Pei -king hiventoiy
Community De6ign +ATGhltbC(UFB 8 Pago 59
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT ■ Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
As discussed previously, the difficulty and expense of providing required off-street parking on
individual small sites is likely to, have constrained the development potential of much .of the
Plan Area in the decades since the allowable heights and densities were increased. Also of some
perceived concern is the potential for spillover commuter parking in the neighborhoods
surrounding the Plan Area. Providing additional municipal parking spaces may help to alleviate
both of these issues.
The Plan Area lies just outside of the Downtown Parking Assessment District ("District'), which
covers the area bounded by E Street, Fifth Avenue, Second Street and Lincoln Avenue (see
Figure IV -2). The Downtown Parking. Assessment District was created in 1958 to provide public
spaces for new development. Inside the District, a portion of required parking may be provided
by District lot spaces (not on -street spaces) if there is capacity in the nearest District lot.
Development outside the District boundaries, which includes areas within the Plan Area, must
provide all of their required parking as private off-street spaces, although parking requirements
for portions of Downtown outside of the District are lower than in the rest of the City.
The City of San Rafael's Downtown parking Lofts
CaWl6syol.
The City of Saa Rafael
Pn kr n n-1— n..,........
moa
ofiragom
2 Levelsf
$vtface Pinking l.ots []
Long7ortn Potkin9jU
Figure I i- 2. Do11 ntowr Pai king District
Divlficf
Pnrking
Boundary
Plan
Area
Boundary
1.,. Xd & C St. Pafking Garage
2,....W &ASI. Parking Garage
5....,5rd & Loolens (N.W,1
4...,.9rd 8 Loalons (Walgtacns)
5,....9fd &01195 SI.
6.....511) & Gurdon Lano
Page 60 a Community Design + Architecture
7.... 5111 & Loolons
9.....6th & C St.
5111 & D St,
1g.....Menzies Parking
11....,2nd between D & C &1.
12 009 3rd 81•.(Potrnll only)
13....1569 41➢ 5t.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT . Downtown San :Rafael Station Area Plan June 4, 2012
2. Talmalpais Avenue "Complete Street" Concepts
The major station access improvement explored in this plan is to reconstruct Tamalpais Avenue
to serve -as a "Complete Street" that would serve all travel modes. In this concept,- Tamalpais
Avenue could be converted to one-way northbound travel between Second and -Fourth Streets
and ane -way southbound travel between Fourth Street and Mission Avenue:
The conversion of Tatimalpais Avenue to. one-way travel, which would require more detailed
analysis, would .support several elementsof the station access, pedestrian/bicycle, and open
space elernents:of the plan:
■° Station Access; Currently, the segment of Tama Ipals _Ave.nue:from Secondto Fourth Streets
has_relativelylaw traffic volumes. These volumes are anticipated to decrease further with
the: construction :of the median .o_n Fourth.:Street that will prevent leftAurns to and: from .
Tarnalpais.Avenue, The: eli►imination..of left -turns at Fourth Street,. combined with the one-
way northbound traffic flow, will make Tama] -pals Avenue .less attractive as a cut -through
route. This:will: allow this°section of Tamalpals.Avenue to serve as -the "front door" to the
San Rafael Transit Center and support passenger loading activities.
■ . Convenient passenger Loading: The one-way traffic flow between. Second and Fourth
Streets will allow for convenient Kiss-and-Rlde and passenger:loading.along the east curb in
front of Whistlestop and the Bettini .transit center .(see the intermodal Transit: Center
section ;for additional detail on passenger loading,. taxi, and shuttle- bus parking along
Tamaipals= Avenue)-. In addition to public transit -related passenger loading, Whistlestop
provides specialized transportation services to seniors and persons with disabilities at their
site;immed ately adjacent to the station.
r Locaj, Connectivity:. Tamalpais Avenue would serve as the primary nort1-h oath pedestrian
and bicycle connection between the SMART station and. the Puerto Suello Path and Transit
Cerite.r Connector, Fodrth.Street, and the MahbnCreek Path:
■ Bicycle/Pedestrian: From .Second to Fourth .Street, the removal of the southbound travel
lane zod the :parking spaces' along the .west curb will provide additional. right-of-way, This.
extra right-of-way could be utilized to -.Make multimodal1m'provem0tits along these two
blocks -of Tamalpals.
East Tamalpais. closure: East Tamalpais Between Third and Fourth Streets; located on the:
east side of the: SMART station, is recommended to be abandoned and: 'incorporated into:
the integrated Sari Rafael transit complex..
■ Onen Space;: Currently, the segment of Tamalpais° Avenue from Fourth Street to Mission
Avenue, is very lightly traveled. The proposed median at Fourth Street will:also prevent left
turns: to and from Tar alpals Avenue,.which.will further decrease traffic volumes along this
.segment of Tarnalpais Avenue. Converting this segment to one-way southbound should
have little effect on traffic:flow within the Plan Area. Ohe- option could be the conversion to
one;way travel to free up the right-of4ay from.the former northbound lane. This stretch of
Tamalpais could become 'a landscaped. multi -use pathway: Tamalpais Avenue: southbound
Page 00 IN Community Design + Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 2Q12 Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan a APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
and East Tamalpais northbound between Fourth Street and Mission Avenue will work as a
one-way couplet in. this area,
Figure 'VI -3 shows one potential concept to Tamalpals Avenue between Second and Fourth
Streets.
,its � , . r;. ;, �� --_--='�;.•--_-, _.. ___- .
PARKING WHISTLESTOP
(EXISTING) L I I BUILDING
SIDEWALK CLASS -If TRAVEL' KISS -N -RIDE! SIDEWALK 'I
DIKELANE &5NUT'i{E5
151IAREP LANE WITI I CLA55111 DIKE ROUTE
TAMALPAIS AVE
Figure YI--3 Potential concept for Tamalpais klenue behme)? Second and Fourth.Streets
Figure V11-4 shows one alternative landscape treatment for this section of West Tarnalpais and
Tamalpais Avenues between Fourth Street and Mission Avenue, which would require further
study and coordination with SMART's ongoing track design -work. In conjunction with the
proposed conversion of West Tamalpais Avenue to one-way.'southbound travel, narrowing the
pavement of West Tamalpais and eliminating on -street parking on the eastern curb, leaving a
pull-out fire staging area near the center of the block, would free up space for landscaping and
other :uses, Widening the sidewalk on the western curb would improve the pedestrian
environment. Other features such as distinctive sidewalk :paving, a separated multi -use
pathway, stormwater management features .such as planters, bulb -outs at crosswalks, and
permeable paving in parking areas, as illustrated in Figure V1-5, could also be considered during
the design phase, Other possible configurations include a .separated multi -use pathway, or
northbound and southbound Class 11 bicycle lanes,
Community Design + Architecture a Page 91
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT u Downtown San Rafael Station Area Pian
June:4„2012
STMAL% I ASOIG� TRAVEL' GREENVI&I SHAM YAO G� lrvly . SIDEYM
rIAESTAGING _
TAMALPAIS.AVE
'SHAPED LANE%'7HHC(ASSdR BIRROUTE
Rgore f,14 Pofenlial conceptfw rarnalpdis AT+entre betiveen Fourth SMeef and Ae[hvsloh AV4Wwe
Figure YI-S°Polential.concept for Tamalpais.AVenne lmprovemenis
Page 92 n Community Dosign +Architecture
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 2012 Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan ■ APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
3. Pedestrian Access and. Improvements
Figure VI -6 shows the major routes pedestrians would likely use to access the transit complex
from different areas of San Rafael, and also shown the major destinations within the Study
Area, including Downtown, the Montecito and Canal neighborhoods, and local schools. The
pedestrian routes reflect information provided by residents during the public workshops.
The Plan Area's street network, which is characterized by short block lengths, provides a
generally well-connected and walkable environment. However, the Plan Area does have some
pedestrian deficiencies:
• Some intersections have crosswalks that are not established. This can create indirect walk
routes and can result in jaywalking. Crosswalks are not established in locations where
sidewalks do not exist or at locations with specific traffic operations and safety
considerations,
• Crosswalks that conflict with double left -turn movements
a Crosswalks without pedestrian signal heads
■ Narrow sidewalks on portions of Hetherton Street and Tamalpais Avenue
• Heavy traffic volumes and loud traffic noise from US 101
Community Design + Architecture a Page 93
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
June 4, 20.12
Exhibit 6
Station Area Plan Excerpts
Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan
. ftil-e VI -16., Mcj.WW_0edes1r1an Jklusrei,_Plew 2011 Upetale
■
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
T = :.
4L
Community Design 4 -Architecture m
Page 103
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 6 - Station Area Plan Excerpts
Exhibit
Station Area PbmExoerpts
June 4.2012 Downtown San Rafael Station Area Plan
LL
0M Connector
Mj
FIRhAve
APPROVED FINAL DRAFT
Figure Y'U-2.-,S1rev)Vo)vork Changes
'
Community oongn+AmhW,atum n Page 115
Planning Commission, February 24'2O15
Exhibit 6 - Station Area P|anExmarpts
m
Exhibit 7d
Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
July 8, 2014
Ms: -Andrea Osgood
Eden -Housing, Inc:
22645• Grand Street
:Hayward; CA 94541
Focused Traffic.Analysis:for the Whistlestop Project
Dear Ms. Osgood;
W=t ra tnl s
WhI locic.& Weinberger
Thnsporcatli5o, Inc.
490 Mendocino Avenue,
Suite 201
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
'Voice 707.542.9500
fax 707,542:9590
wwb www,w-t ifmcom
As. requested, Whitlock & Weinb.erger Transportation,, Inc:: (WJrans) has prepared a focused traffic
analysis relative to :the proposed. Whistlestop project. on Tamalpals .Avenue in the City of San :Rafael.
The 'analysis was based on a site plan dated. June 18, 2014; as well as information supplied by
Whistlestop;. Eden: Housing; and the site's:archltects; Van Meter. WilliamsPollack;
Project Description
The site is currently occupied by administrative offices for Whistlestop and several small non-profit.
organizations, as well as an active aging center operated by Whistlestop that offers classes arid
services
to older adults. The active aging center also includes a restaurant called: Jackson Cafe that Is oriented to
Whistlestop clients. Currently,. the, office components of the. site include seven Whistlestop
admiriistrative employees and .ten employees associated with non-profit groups• subleasing space in the
building- from. Whistlestop, The.. existing active aging center •arid restaurant• components of the :site
occupy, 10;400 -square .feet of the building.
The: proposed. project would redevelop the, site to ineludeA7 transit -oriented' affordable senior housing
units, a single manager's unit, and an,expandedactive �aging center.. The 47 senior residential units would
be leased to:residents who. da..not'own. vehicles; with this restriction made as a requirement of the
lease. The active aging. center Would be expanded to 15,000 square feet and:continue to be operated by
Whistlestop. Jackson. Cafe would remain a component of the active aging, center and primarily
patronized by Whistlestop residents and: clients; though would: also be open. to the public, With, likely
patrons being customers walking to .and. from the adjacent translt center and SMART .station, The
existing, Whistlestop administrative offices (and associated seven employees) would be .moved offsite.
Leases to other non -profits would be terminated and these .uses eliminated .(along with occupancy by
their 10 employees): Whiklestop staff assoclated with the: active aging. center, and restaurant. would
remain at:-the'new-fatility. The: active aging centetk would operate -only on weekdays from approximately.
8:30 AM to 4 00 PH.
The project Would include 21 onsite parking spaces accessed via Tamalpais :Avenue, :inclusive of one
handicap -accessible space.
Trip. Generation
The trip generation estimates for the exisdng�and. future land uses at the project site were determined
using standard rates published by the institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7d - Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 7d
Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood Page 2 July 8, 2014
Manual, 9(h E=dition, 2012: Trip generation .rates for General Office Building (LU 710) were used to
estimate the trips currently made by the building's 17 office/administrative employees. Trips associated
with the proposed new residential component were estimated using Senior Adult Housing — Attached
(LU 252) rates- for the 47 affordable senior housing units, and Apartment (LU 210) rates for the
manager's unit, Several trip generation sources were reviewed to determine the land use that best
captures the characteristics of the project's current and expanded active aging center. The Recreational
Community Center land use (LU 495) was chosen as it includes facilities that may have classes and club
meetings, meeting rooms, exercise facilities and classes, a restaurant,.and:related uses. Trips generated
by the Recreational Community Center land use (or Active Aging Center in this case) include those
made by program participants, caf6 customers, program employees, and program volunteers.
Trip Reductions
The project site is adjacent to the 'San Rafael Transit Center (also referred to as the Bettini Transit
Center), which serves as the major transit hub in Marin County, providing local and commuter bus
service. The site is also a hub for Whistlestop Wheels, a door-to-door paratransit service operated by
Whistlestop that serves the senior community and those unable to drive. In 2016, a SMART station will
bring commuter rail service to the transit center. Given the proximity of the Whistlestop development
to the San Rafael Transit Center, Whistlestop Wheels services, SMART station, and the demographics
of its senior housing residents and. program participants, a substantial portion of the trips associated
with the project are expected to be made via modes other than private automobile.
Nonresidential Trip Reductions Applied to Existing Uses
In order to determine the net change in trips at the site, the trip generation associated with the 17
existing administrative and office employees and existing 10,400 square foot active aging center .was
subtracted from the total trips projected to be associated with implementation of the project. It is
estimated that the 17 existing employees (Whistlestop administrative staff and employees occupying
subleased non-profit space) generate 20 percent fewer auto trips than reflected in standard ITE office
rates given the site's transit accessibility and: walkability. This 20 percent estimate is based on research
contained in Parking Management Best Practices, Todd Litman, 2006, discussed below,
With respect to trips associated with the existing active aging center, Whistlestop has compiled data on
client travel modes to the active aging services for the past three years.. Table I summarizes the current
client mode share information, which indicates that only 60 percent of .clients arrive by private
automobile (in other words 40 percent of clients travel by non -motorized modes, transit, or
paratransit). Correspondingly, the standard ITE -based estimate of trips associated with the current
active aging center was reduced by 40 percent,
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 7d - Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 7d
Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
Ms...Andrea Osgood . Page 3 July 8, 2014
Table I
Trip Reductions for Active Aging Center
Mode Choice
Mode Share
Existing.
Future
Private Vehicle
60%
41
Non -Auto Modes
Transit
24%
32%1
Paratransit
10%
0%
Walk
6%
6%
'On -Site Residentsz
"Total;Trig:Iteductios',:,4' 1ie'd to Qet1`-esAgi'n' ;.Center.':=Use',
P.. PP. g:
..
ased.:on,,n.ob-auto:.mod.;share
Notes: I Tetnsit•use is estimated to. increase by 8% with implementation of SMART'
2 Shift associated with clientsof active aging center becoming residents;of`new
housing
Nonresidential Trlp Reductions Applied to Future Uses
The existing mode share of active aging center clients was also used as a:basis to estimatethe future
client mode share. One characteristic of the -area that. will change -in the future is com- miencement of
SMART commuter: rail -service, which increases °transit opportunitiesby adding.24 trains- per day to
existing bus service in the immediate area. The Trip Generation./Manual includes information regarding
the:trip- reductions. that may occur when an ,urban; residential development 'is located on a major bus
corridor, as well as the trip .reductions that may occur -when the same development is located near a
transit center with both bus and rail service. The. data suggest. that a site near high -frequency bus
service may experience ,a 7 percent vehicle :trip reduction, while the trip. reduction for a site near both
bus and rail service may experience a vehicle trip reduction- that is. 8percent'higher, at approXimately .f5
percent, For, the :purposes of this' analysis, the added vehicular trip reduction associated with
commencement of SMART rail'service was therefore assumed to be 8 percent,Ancreasing the transit
mode -share from the existing value of 24. percent to a future value of 32 percent,
Future mode shares were also adjusted to account for the "capturing" .of trips made. -by` new onsite
residents -who participate in active aging:cehter.activities. Manyfuture onsite residents -are expected to
be Whistlestop program participants who,- after moving onsite, would no longer ne'66ta- travel to the
facility via other travel modes.: Some of these participants. are currently driVing. to :and parking at
Whistlestop during the day, but:after moving onsite would no longer -generate vehicle -trips or parking
demand. Based on input from Eden Housing's resident services division (Eden Housing Resident
Services), it conservatively estimated that: at::least. 20 percent of onsite -residents would .be using the
active aging center .during peak hours, This is based on. Eden's experience at.: other senior housing
properties: that have an onsite or imrmediately.adjacent senior center such as the proposed active aging
center. If one assumes that there will be at Feast 47 onsite .residents (one. resident per unit), this
translates. to approximately nine onslte.participants using the active aging center: .At the current private
automobile mode share of 60 percent, these nine: participants would -have generated'. between five and
six vehicletrips during pealc hours if: they did not' live onsite. Since they will be living onsite, trip
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7d - Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 7d
Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
Ms, Andrea Osgood Page 4 July 8, 2014
generation would be expected to decrease by 10 to 20 percent. For the purposes of this analysis, an
average I I percent capturing of trips was assumed to occur[.
In total, the future active aging center is estimated to have a trip generation that is approximately $9
percent lower than direct application of ITE rates for a "recreational community center" would yield.
Residential Trip Reductions
The publication Parking Management Best Practices addresses factors that affect parking demand and
requirements. While the publication focuses on parking, several of the characteristics that affect parking
demand at a development are directly translatable to the site's trip generation potential. These
characteristics are summarized in Table 2, followed by descriptions of how each characteristic
specifically relates to the proposed project with respect to vehicular trip reductions.
Table 2
Trip Reductions for Older Adult Affordable Housing
Adjustment Factors
Description
Applied Trip
Reduction
Transit Accessibility[
Quality transit service is both nearby and frequent;
20%
Lower end when within X -mile of bus service, higher end
when within '/,-mile of rail service
Walkability[
Environment adjacent to the site provides quality
100%
pedestrian facilities and complementary uses. that
encourage walking
Auto Ownership
Occupancy of senior housing units restricted to low-
45%
income individuals who do not own automobiles
Total Trh Radu.ction. Applied.to.,Seniar°.Housing Use..
Notes: [ Source = Parking Management Best Practices, Todd Litman, 2006, as shown in Table 3-7
• Transit Accessibility
As shown in Table 2, the type and proximity of transit service reduces auto dependence, decreasing
both ,parking demand and trip generation. Transit accessibility can reduce auto use by 10 to 20
percent2. Because the Whistlestop site is contiguous to the major bus transfer center in Marin
County, Whistlestop Wheels paratransit services, and a future commuter rail line, the maximum
transit reduction of 20 percent was applied.
[ While at the lower end of the potential range In trip reductions, I I percent was chosen in order to be consistent
with the corresponding deduction applied in this projeces,parking demand analysis
2 Parking Management Best Practices, Todd Litman, 2006, as shown in Table 3-7
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 7d - Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 7d
Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
Ms: Andrea Osgood Page 5 July 8, 20114
• Walkability.
Residential projects that are located in a walkable environment like.. downtown. San Rafael also create
less parking demand and fewer vehicle trips :that► projects located in suburban :contexts since
individuals are able to walle.to nearby shopping, services,. transit opportunities, employment centers;
and other residences. Walkability can reduce auto -use by 5' to 15 percentz. The mid -paint
reduction factor of 10 percent for walkability was -applied. This is. a: lower walliability deduction that
would be applied in a major city such as San Francisco, but a. higher deduction. than would be applied
in a suburban neighborhood that offers fewer services within easy walling distance as.compared to
downtown San Rafael.:
i Auto Ownership.
The. commitment by Eden Housing to restrict occupancy of the affordable senior housing units to
residents .who .do not own a vehicle will inherently lead to'a significant reduction in vehick trips
compared' -to those estimated by directly applying ITE rates. Note that while it may initially appear
reasonable for the senior housing units to generate: no vehicle trips, there would still be a modest
amount of traffic associated with visitors including family; friends,.and.aides: Implementation of auto
ownership restrictions is only possible because of the transit accessibility and walkability factors
described above. In addition to the proposed restriction of auto ownership; the effects of income
also play a major. role In car usage:_ On its own, the effects income can reduce auto ust-by 10 to 3.0
percentz, and a reduction at.the maximum 30:percentvalue of this range would be appropriate._given
that the project is .for exclusive residency by love 4come seniors. The additional reduction in auto
usage that would; be. attributable to Eden Housing's proposed auto ownership restrictions for
residents could be: signlflcant; but for the purposes of this •analysls is estimated to be at least 15
percent;. leading to .a total trip reduction estimate of 45 percent that is- related to the auto
ownershipcharacteristics of this site.
In. .summary, the projects _combination of resident non -auto ownership, transit: accessibility, and
Walkability is estimated to result in a trip generation;: that is approximately 75 percent below, standard
ITE rates for senior attached housing. The project would still generate. a modestfamount of residential -
based traffic associated with visitors, aides; and deliveeles.. While transit accessibility and Walkability are
also likely to affect the number of trips generated by the onsite manager's unit, standard.ITE rates for
the apartment land use were conservatively applied to this unit with no. deductions..
Total Project Trip Generation
The expected:trip generation poteotial for the proposed project js indicated, in Table 3. The proposed
project, is expected. to result in a net :decrease of one trip per day, a net .decrease of three trips during
the a.m. pealc:hour, and a .net decrease of two trips during the p.m, peak hour..
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7d - Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 7d
Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood Page 6 July 8, 2014
Table 3
Trip Generation -Summary
Land Use
Units
Daily
AM Peals Hour
PM Peak Hour
Trip Reduction
Rate
Trips
Rate
Trips
In
Out
Rate
Trips
In
Out
Existing Uses
General Office Building
17 empl
3.32
56
0.48
8
7
1
0.46
8
1
7
20% Reduction
-11
-1
-1
0
-1
0
-1
Recreational Community
10.4 ksf
33.82
352
205
21
14
7
2.74
28
14
14
Center
40% Reduction
__.._._...256
-141
4
-6
-3
-12
-6
-6
Existing -Trips--`-._
19
14
5
23
9
1.4,_,
Proposed Project
Recreational Community
15.0 ksf
33.82
507
2.05
31
20
11
2.74
41
20
21
Center
59% Reduction
-299
-18
-12
-6
-24
-12
-12
Senior Adult Housing-
47 du
3.44
162
0.19
9
3
6
0.23
11
6
5
Attached
75% Reduction
-122
-7
-2
-5
-8
-5
-3
Apartment
I du
6.65
7
0.51
1
0
1
0.62
1
0
1
Future Trips
255
16
9
- 7 -
21
9
-12
Net Change in Trips
-1
-3
-5
2
-2
0
-2
Notes: icsf- thousand sauare feet. du = dwelling units.
enrol = emolovees
Because the proposed project is expected to create negligible changes in peak hourtraffic, quantitative
analysis of traffic impacts would yield no meaningful results and further analysis of traffic impacts appears
to be unnecessary.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• The proposed project would redevelop the current Whistlestop site into 47 units of affordable
senior housing limited. to residents who do not own a vehicle, one manager's unit, and a 15,000
square foot active aging center.
• Seven existing Whistlestop administrative employees that work at the site would be relocated
offsite as part of the project. Ten employees associated with subleased non-profit space at the
current site would also relocate, resulting in a total relocation of 17 existing employees.
• The project is located in. downtown San Rafael within comfortable walking distance of a wide range
of services, and is adjacent to the major bus transfer center in. Marin County, Whistlestop Wheels
paratransit services, and a future SMART rail stop.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7d - Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 7d
Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
Ms, Andrea Osgood. Cage 7 July 8, 2014
The. combihed effects; of transit accessibility, walkability, and non -ownership, of vehicles by residents
is projected to result in a 75 percent reduction in vehicle trips compared to typical sehlor housing
located in a suburban area.
• Currently 40 percent of the existing activeaging, center clients travel by non -motorized modes,
transit, or paratransit; upon commencement of SMART rail service and .completion of onsite senior
housing, the share of trips to the active aging center made by modes other than private vehicle is
projected to increase to 59 percent,
The proposed project is expected to -..generate 255 trips per day Including 16: during the a:m. peak
hour and :2;1 during the. p.m. peak hour. Comparedto the site's estimated current trip -generation,
this represents a net decrease of one trip per day, a. net decrease of three trips.during the a.m., peak
hour, and a net decrease of two trips during the p.m. peak hour.
• Because the proposed project it expected to cause no increase in traffic during either the a.m or
p.m, peak hour, no further analysis of traffic impacts appears to be necessary.
Thank you for giving W -Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call' if you have any
questions..
since r ly,.
/A/�
chary 72a,
ley, AICA
ssociate /
Dalene Whitj'ocl<, , PTOE
Principal
JZM/sabfSRAI 10.1.2
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7d - Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 7d
Whistlestop Traffic Analysis
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 7d - Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 7a
JRPWhistlestop Historic Resource Evaluation
STORICAL
NSiILTIN(; 114 2850..Spaff�l'd Sheat ° p�tVls, CAn678 ° (530) %fi;25?1. e {'i311), 7a7=25i?5°,Fax °� New.±iJ,�rplilstprlcai.,ean�
Stephen:Ft. Wee;; Pr1!Wpa11Pres1.Jen1
Ralltl: F...'Ner6erf; Princlpal /Vice Prosident.
"Metra Btrnse,'Peitner
Christopher D: mcm6rris, Partner
Matthew C. Guthrie
10 H Street
San Rafael, CA94901
August 21, 2012
bear Mr, Guthrie:
Please find attached a DPR 523 form for 930 Tamalpais:Avenue, the former San Rafael Depot. The form
presentsthe- reeo.rdation and evaluation of the building and concludes -that it isnot eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources. (CRHR), or the National Register.of Historic Places (NRHP),
and that is not historical resource forthe purposes of CEQA.. This conclusion included application of
the CEQA Guidelines and appropriate Public.. Resources Codes, as well as CRHR and NRHP significance
criteria, as cited in the form.
The building is not significant under any of the CRHR.or NRHP .criteria for evaluation and it has been
extensivoly altered, Which has caused a substantial loss of integrity to its date of construction (1.929); as
documented on.the attached DPR 523 form... Furthermore, because of the integrity loss; the evaluation
concludes that the building no longer meets.the definition of a local "structure of merit." For these
reasons; 930 Tamalpais Avenue.:is not:an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA compliance.
Thank you and please contract me if you. have any questions,
Sincerely;
Meta Buns-
Partner
Water Resource/Land WO History , cultural Resources Marla -Went . 5ectian 10"u:-1PI9hKiftgPObM- rli-�� di9,,idF 3Wl?i&y 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 1 of 17
mistorlc Nesource kvaivation
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
P1. Other Identifier: 930 Tamalpais Avenue
*P2, i_ocation: ❑ Not for Publication 0 Unrestricted *a. County Marin
and (P2b and Plc or Ptd. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Rafael Date 1954 revised 1980 T 2N; R 6W; /< of Sec _; B.M.
c. Address 930 Tamal_pais Avenue City Rafael zip 94901
d. UTM: (give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10; 542000 mE/ 4202610 mN
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
Assessor Parcel Number: 011-277-01
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The former San Rafael Depot located at 930Tamalpais Avenue, between 3`d and 0 Streets, in San Rafael is a one and two-
story stucco -clad building with a generally rectangular footprint and multiple gable and flat roof elements (Photograph 1).
Originally designed in the Mission Revival architectural style, it retains few characteristics of that style. All of the arched
parapets on the building are replacements designed to look like the original parapets of the building. The north end of the
building consists of a single -story element with a second -story gable -roof addition sited west of the midline and flush with
the west side of the building. The east side of the single story section was formerly an open arcade; however, all of the
arches have been enclosed with multi -pane windows, doors, and/or stucco, and new arched parapets have been constructed
above two door openings (Photograph 2). (See Continuation Sheet.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6 — 1-3 Story Commercial Building; HP17 — Railroad Depot (former)
*PAF. Resources Present: 0 Building ❑ Structure ❑ Object 11 Site ❑ District ❑ Element of District ❑ Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 1. July 31,
2012, camera facing northwest.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
0 Historic ❑ Prehistoric ❑ Both
1929 (Maria Journaa
*P7. Owner and Address:
Marin Senior Coordinating Council
Inc.,
930 Tamalpais Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901-3325
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
address)
Heather Norby and Leslie Trew
JRP Historical Consultine, LLC
2850 Spafford Street
Davis, CA 95618
*P9. Date Recorded: July 31, 2012,
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.') n/a
*Attachments: ❑ None ❑ Location Map U Sketch Map 0 Continuation Sheet lX Building, Structure, and Object Record ❑ Archaeological Record
❑ District Record ❑ Linear Feature Record ❑ Milling Station Record ❑ Rock Art Record 11 Artifact Record ❑ Photograph Record
❑Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 2 of 17 *NRNP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
61, Historic Name; San Rafael Depot
132. Common Name: Whistlestop
133. Original Use; Railroad Depot B4. Present Use: Senior Center
*135. Architectural Style: Mission Revival •
*86. Construction History: (Construction date, alteration, and date of alterations) Built in 1929. Please see Table 1 in "Section B10
Significance (continued)' for a list of alterations.
*B7. Moved? ED No 0 Yes ❑ Unknown Date: Original Location:
*138. Related f=eatures:
B9. Architect: Frederick H. Meyer b. Builder: Leibert and Trobock, contractors
*810, Significance: Theme n/a Area n/a
Period of Significance n/a Property Type n/a Applicable Criteria n/a
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The property at 930 Tamalpais Avenue does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), nor is it an historical resource foir the purposes of
the California Environmental _Quality Act (CEQA). This property has been evaluated in accordance with Section
15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources
Code (see Tables 2 and 3 for more information about CEQA Guidelines and California Public Resources Codes),
Historic Context
The former San Rafael Depot at 930 Tamalpais Avenue was constructed by.the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWPRR) in
1929 to replace an older depot building constructed in about1880 by the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad Company
(SF&NP). Peter Donahue, who by the 1870s owned controlling interests in a few small railroads serving the "redwood
empire" of the north San Francisco Bay, consolidated his interests and created SF&NP. SF&NP reached San Rafael in
1879, connecting with the narrow gauge San Rafael and San Quentin Railroad, In 1880 this line was extended a half mile to
the North Pacific Coast `B" Street Station, Still seeking a better commuter connection to San Francisco, in 1882, Donahue
organized the San Francisco & San Rafael Rail Road Company to build south from San Rafael to a terminus at Tiburon
Point. The railroad depot on Tamalpais Avenue served the line from Tiburon Point north to Fulton!
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*1312. References: San Rafael Planning Department files for
930 Tamalpais Avenue; San Rafael Building Department
permits for 930 San Rafael Avenue; Marin Journal; Marin
History Museum Library historic photograph collection;
Fred A, Stindt and Guy L. Dunscomb, The Northwestern
Pacific Railroad: Redwood Empire Route (Stindt and
Dunscomb: Redwood City, CA, 1964); and see footnot6s.
B13, Remarks:
*10114. Evaluator: Heather Norby
*Date of Evaluation: August 2012
(This space reserved for official comments.)
' Fred A, Stindt and Guy L. Dunscomb, The Northwestern Pacific Railroad:.Redivobd Empire Route (Stindt and Dunscomb: Redwood
City, CA, 1964), 13-15; Marin Journal, 24 January 1929.
DPR 528B (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 3 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date July 31, 2012 I] Continuation ❑ Update
Pia. Description (continued):
The north end of the building, fi-om the northernmost parapet on the east side to the north end of the building, is an addition
constructed in 1987. The north fagade was entirely redesigned from its original configuration during this remodel. It has an
arched, decorative parapet centered above a symmetrical fagade featuring a raised arch over a three-part window set between
two 12 -light windows in alcoves with red clay tile shed -roof extensions (Photograph 2). The second -story addition has a
red clay tile gable roof with overhang and exposed eaves and rafter tails. A clock -tower with a pyramidal roof is integrated
into the east side of the addition. A series of three-part windows line the east side between the clock tower and the northeast
corner of the addition (Photograph 3). On the west side, the second -story addition has a series of three-part modern
windows above a series of arches on the first floor that are filled with a combination of multi -pane metal windows, stucco, a
metal entry door, and a six -over -six double -hung wood -sash window (Photograph 4).
The mid-section of the building has a two- part second -story addition flush with the west side of the building. This addition
has two red tile clay gable -roof elements, one larger element to the north and a smaller element to the south, Both have
overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. A series of modem double -hung windows line the west side of the addition
above a series of heavily modified arches. The arches are mostly filled with metal entry doors, and eight -over -eight metal
hopper windows. Two of the arches have multi -pane metal windows present in the arches above the metal entry doors
(Photograph S). Also on the west side, two of the doorways have arched parapets centered above and flush with the
second -story addition. The east side of this addition has a row of six modern double -hung windows and a single entry door
accessing a long porch contained by a low horizontal wall. Below the second -story porch is a series of seven six -over -six
double -hung wood -sash windows above a brick apron; this part of the ground -level was an addition to the building
constructed between 1939 and 1946 (Photograph 6).
The southern end of the building is a single -story flat -roof addition with modern multi -pane windows on all three sides. The
south side, fronting 3'd Street, has two pairs of windows with red clay tile awnings supported by decorative knee braces
(Photograph 7). Two main entries are located on the east side of the building. The southernmost entry is located beneath an
arched parapet and inset into an alcove with rounded comers clad with a brick fagade. The door with transom is a modern
glazed door flanked by sidelights (Photograph 8). The northernmost door is located at the point where the original arcade
abuts the portion of the building constructed between 1939 and 1946 and consists of modem double doors beneath a modern
parapet (Photograph 9).
B10. Significance (continued):
In 1907, the Northwestern Pacific Railroad formed when Southern Pacific and Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe combined
forces to unify the railroads running through the redwoods in the North Bay. After the merger, the terminal at Tiburon was
converted to freight use only and the Sausalito station became the main passenger terminal. Commuter service continued to
operate under NWPRR through the stations at San Rafael, Sausalito, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, Fairfax, and Manor.
NWPRR constructed its new San Rafael station in 1929 as part of an extensive improvement project undertaken for the
system. The company simultaneously constructed a new depot at Ross and both were touted as "thoroughly modern in every
respect"3 In its coverage of the opening of the new San Rafael Depot, the local newspaper provided a description of the
building (Figure 1):
The waiting rooms are excellently finished in concrete and tile with attractive lighting arrangements and large
arched windows. Built-in phone booths, a well arranged cigar stand and large low benches have been incorporated
for the comfort of the passengers. Large double doors lead fi•om the waiting room to the wide arch covered
platform. The platform is built of concrete and extends the entire length of the depot.4
And:
2 Harre W. Demorro and Vernon J. Sappers, Rails to the San Francisco Bay (Quadrant Press: New York, n.d.), 80.
3 "New San Rafael Station to Open Early Next Week," Marin Journal, 24 January 1929,
4 "New San Rafael Station to Open Early Next Week," Marin Journal, 24 January 1929.
DPR 523L (1195) *Required information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Whistlestoo Historic Resource Evacuation
��k,�f'.h�ey �f�f6.s y . � ' f . ,� ` � � �� �' . §* � -s� c � �,�• ky �.�r"'a�-�_ � �' Tim'
un $Ru. L• -� n-1��1Y.- $r1.fA
inr Y S Ste: L 1 Y �' G 1 a N��• AN.
_ �'�i,.` re`s _ �. J ?x� i;� . -�tuvs. ,.�i:�•?' �•.'�G?
Page 4 of 17 - *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date July 31, 2012 El Continuation ❑ Update
A large warehouse for freight and express consignments forms the southern wing of the building and this is
separated from main building by a passageway from the street to the station platforms
)Figure 1: Drawing by architect Frederick H. Meyer of the San Rafael depot as it was originally designed. Fourth Street end at
right. This drawing illustrated the article "New San Rafael Station to Open Early Next Week" that appeared on the front page of
the Marin Journal on January 24, 1929.
Both stations were designed in the Mission Revival style of architecture that was popular in California from the 1880s
through the 1930s. The style was a romanticized interpretation of the Spanish Missions built in colonial California and was
characterized by shaped parapets, porch roofs, red clay tile roof cladding, widely overhanging eaves, and smooth stucco
exterior walls. Railroad companies adopted the style in the early decades of the twentieth century and many depots were
built throughout California and the West in the Mission Revival Style. 6 .
Architect Frederick H. Meyer of San Francisco designed both the San Rafael and Ross depots. Meyer, a native San
Franciscan born in 1876, began working as a draftsman for builders Campbell and Pettus in 1896 without any formal
architectural training. Over the course of his career, he partnered with several architects including Samuel Newsom, Smith
O'Brien, John Galen Howard, John Reid, Albin R. Johnson, and Albert J. Evers to design offices, hotels, schools, and
houses. Meyer had a particular interest in transportation and designed a garage for a single family residence at 2756 Steiner
in San Francisco, which was an early innovation for a house in 1910. His designs were consistent with the architectural style
of the eras within which he worked. His San Francisco designs include the Cadillac Hotel (San Francisco Landmark 176),
the Rialto Building, and the Auditorium on the south side of the Civic Center. He was a Regional Director for the American
Institute of Architects and became a Fellow in 1934. Meyer was a member of the State Board of Architects for. 15 years, an
early member of California State Automobile Association founded in 1907, and founder of the Redwood Empire Association
in 1920. Meyer died in 1.961 at Marin General Hospital.'
Since the original depot was constructed in 1929 it has undergone a series of alterations that have left little of Meyer's
original design intact and that dramatically changed the building's footprint and form (see Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1).
The first of the major additions occurred sometime between 1939 and 1946 when a large rectangular addition was
s "San Rafael and Ross Depots to Open on Jan. 25," Marin Journal, 17 January 1929.
6 Karen J. Weitze, California's Mission Revival, (Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc,: Los Angeles, 1984), x-xii; Virginia & Lee McAlester, A
Field. Guide to 1Imerican Houses (Alfred A. Knopf New York, 2011), 408-410.
7 Encyclopedia of San Francisco, "Frederick Herman Meyer," wwwsfhistoryencyclopedia.coin/articlesim/meve—F - dericic.html, accessed August 1,
2012; "New SanRafael Station to Open Early Next Week," Ae Marin Journal, January 24, 1929, front page,
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 5 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date July 31, 2012 . 1] Continuation ❑ Update
constructed that completely enveloped the original warehouse on the south end of the depot.' The addition abutted the south
end of the open arcade, closing the south -facing arch shown in Figure 2.
in foreground (Photograph courtesy of Marin history Museum Library, J.G. Graham collection). Arrow
indicates original arcade wall (above) and largely surrounded by new construction (below).
Figure 3: Former San Rafael Depot, July 31., 2012, camera facing northwest. Note extensive additions to
the second story, enclosed arcade at right, and additions to south end at left.
A series of three small additions, each under 400 -square -feet, were constructed between 1949 and 1953. In 1955, a portion
the trackside arcade was enclosed by the construction of three partitions. Two more entry arches were enclosed in 1964.
.Another small addition of 300 -square -feet was constructed in 1978.9
8 1946 aerial photograph of 930 Tamalpais Avenue, accessed at http://www.historicaerials.com/ on August 2, 2012; "NWP Single car at
San Rafael Station," circa 1939, Marin History Museum Library, J.G. Graham Collection.
San Rafael Building Department permits. Please see Table 1 for permit numbers.
DPR 5231, (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a a Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 6 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Noft and L. Trew *Date July 31, 2012 El Continuation ❑ Update
NWP stopped offering service through San Rafael in 1974 and by 1984, no portion of their systern was still in operation.i0
In 1980, the Marin Senior Coordinating Council purchased the depot to use as a senior •center known as the "Whistlestop."
After purchasing the property, the council made two large additions to the former depot, one in 1985 and another in 1987.
By the tune these two extensive additions and remodels were proposed, the San Rafael Depot had been modified to such a
degree that the building no longer retained much of its original appearance. In fact, in 1987 planning staff from the City of
San Rafael wrote to the city's Design Review Board regarding the proposed 1,390 -square -foot addition that "any
architectural significance of the original building has long been lost by the many additions that have occurred through the
years." Review of the planning department file on the depot did not find that the Design Review Board had any
disagreement with that conclusion.' 1
Alteration
Description of Alteration
Source
Date
1939-1946
Large addition on south end subsumed the original
1939 historic photograph; 1946 aerial photograph 12
southern end of the building.
1949
Enlarge telephone room on east side of building with 8'
Building Permit 7064
x 10' addition
1951
Construct 391 -square -foot addition for offices ace
Building Permit 8474
1953
Construct 200 -square -foot addition --Building
Permit 8199
19SS
Portion of arcade enclosed by construction of three
Building Permit 962
partitions
1964
Enclose two entrance arches
Building Permit 842
1978
Construct 300 -square -foot addition
Building Permit 10574
1981
Interior remodeling; construct exterior refuse enclosure
Building Permit 15974
Building Permit 19506; Report to Mayor and City
1985
2,550 -square -foot second -story addition
Council, Apr; 2, 1987 located in Planning Dept,
file for 930 Tamalpais Ave.
1987
Construct 1,390 -square -foot addition; redesign north
Building Permit 26423.
end'of existing ground floor
Table 1: Date and description of alterations to San Rafael Depot with source material.
The first of the major 1980s remodels to the former San Rafael Depot was a 2,550 -square -foot second story addition and
remodel designed by architect Edward Hageman. One original arch on the east side of the building was used as a model for
new arches constructed at various points around the building. Two new canopies were added to the windows on the south
end (3rd Street) of the building.L3 The 1987 addition, also designed -by Edward Hageman, added 1,390 -square -foot to the
building with a second -story addition, a new clock tower integrated into the addition, and an addition and redesign of the
north end of the. The addition on the north fagade added a rectangular space with windows on the east and west sides and a
main symmetrical fagade with an arched parapet and three windows. The second story addition consisted of a rectangular
mass with a gable -roof structure and a new clock tower with a pyramidal roof.14
10 Charles Hall Page & Associates, Inc., "Historic/Architectural Survey Form, 930 Tamalpais Avenue," October 1976.
11 Demoro and Sappers, Rails to San Francisco Bay, 80; Sewieterman, Joseph P., When the Railroad Leaves Toren: American
Communities in the Age of Rail Line Abandonment (Truman State University Press: Kirkville, Missouri, 2004), 73; Marin History
Museum, Images of America: Modern San Rafael, 1940 — 2000 (Arcadia: Charleston, South Carolina, 2012), 91; San Rafael Planning
files, 930 Tamalpais Avenue, Correspondence from Planning Staff to Design Review Board, 29 May 1987.
12 "NWP Single car at San Rafael Station," circa 1939, Marin History Museum Library, J.G. Graham Collection; 1946 aerial photograph
of 930 Tamalpais Avenue, accessed at http://www.historicaerials.com/ on August 2, 2012.
13 Edward Hageman, "Addition and Alterations for The Whistlestop," drawing, January 20, 1983.
14 Edward Hageman, "Addition and Alterations for The Whistlestop," drawing, April 30, 1987, sheet 7.
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Evaluation
Page 7 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 0 11 -277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date July 31, 2012 El Continuation El Update
Previous and Current Evaluations
The San Rafael Depot was constructed in 1929, approximately 50 years after SF&NP first constructed a rail line through San
Rafael, therefore, this building is not directly associated with the early history of SF&NP or with the early development of
railroads in or around San Rafael. Rather, this depot was constructed as a railroad depot to replace an older structure during
a phase of system improvement implemented by N WP. There is no evidence in the historical record that suggests that this
depot was significant within the context of the transportation system in the North Bay in the 1920s or 1930s that would rise
to the threshold of significance required under NRNP Criterion A/CRHR Criterion 1, therefore the San Rafael Depot does
not appear eligible under these criteria.
Research did not reveal direct associations between the former depot and any individual significant to history at the local,
state, or national level that might imbue this building with significance under NRNP Criierion B/CRHR Criterion 2. Because
the San Rafael Depot was constructed over 50 years after the initial development of the NWP system, it has no association
with early railroad developer Peter Donahue, nor is there evident that the building has specific associations with any other
historically important railroad official.
This building is not significant under NRHP Criterion C/CRHR Criterion 3 because it is does not embody the distinctive
characteristics of its type of architecture — Mission Revival — nor is it an important work of a master architect. Because of
multiple additions and renovations since the depot was constructed, this building has lost most of the elements that originally
defined its Mission Revival Style (see integrity discussion below). The original architect of the building, Frederick H.
Meyer was a prolific architect who designed buildings in San Francisco and in the Bay Area in various professional
partnerships in the first decades of the twentieth century. Accounts of his work and contributions do not substantiate that he
should be considered a master architect, however, even if he were, this building with its multiple alterations to his original
design would not be considered a good example of his work.
The San Rafael Depot is well documented in the historical record through textual records, photographs, and drawing, and is
not significant under NRNP Criterion D/CRHR Criterion 4 because it does not have the potential to yield important
historical information.
In addition to lacking significance under any of the criteria for evaluation under the NRHP or CRHR, the San Rafael Depot
has suffered very substantial losses of integrity that prevent it from conveying its association with its original date of
construction, 1929. The building has not been moved or relocated so it retains integrity of location, the setting of which is
still in downtown San Rafael. In all other five integrity considerations, however, it has lost virtually all of its ability to
convey any association with its historic period. The original design of the building is nearly impossible for an observer to
discern' from the current exterior configuration because of the first large addition built between 1939 and 1946 that
enveloped the freight warehouse, as well as the subsequent series of smaller additions, the enclosing of the arcade, and the
two large additions in the 1980s. All of these changes represent a significant loss of integrity of original design, materials
and workmanship of the building, The depot has also lost integrity of association because it has not served as a railroad
depot since 1974 and has subsequently been converted to use as a senior center. And finally, feeling, the most subjective of
all integrity considerations, refers to the sense of time and place the building might convey to a visitor. This building does
not have the feeling of a 1920s railroad depot. Even if this building met the criteria of significance, the original depot has
been obscured and altered so completely that it would not be eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHP because of its
substantial loss of integrity, Under CEQA guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3), a building is considered an "historical
resource" if it meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR; this building meets none of the criteria and is not an historical
resource for the purposes of CEQA under this section of the guidelines (see Table 2).
The Whistlestop Depot at 930 Tarnalpais has also been the subject of previous local historical analysis and studies. In 1976
Charles Hall Page & Associates, Inc., surveyed 930 Tamalpais Avenue for architectural and historical significance and
found that the building had "fair" architectural significance and "major" historical/cultural significance. Ten years later the
same company conducted the "San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey" which identified structures and areas in San
Rafael considered to have historical or architectural significance, including the Whistlestop Depot building. The city council
adopted the list. Each structure or area in the survey was given a property classification of good, excellent, or exceptional
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
WhistlestoD Historic Resource Evaluation
�; • - V r - ''" - - " F •.Tk'•' wa-� 'skr� .�ac�`.rr•u _ : z+:. - -
'. �y I D
Page 8 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date July 331, 2012 x❑ Continuation ❑ Update
and, although the depot was rated good, it was not placed on the City of San Rafael's list of designated landmarks.
According to the City of San Rafael's historic preservation ordinance, the purpose of listing buildings with "historic,
architectural, or aesthetic merit" (referred to in the ordinance as "structures of merit") that are not designated landmarks, is
to "recognize and encourage the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and the use of such structures."15 The ordinance
fiarther states that "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose any regulations or controls upon such structures of
merit included on the said list and neither designated as landmarks nor situated in historic districts."16 None of the previous
studies identified 930 Tamalpais Avenue as part of any locally designated historic district, nor are any locally designated
historic districts in its immediate vicinity.
Since the last field recordation of the former depot in 1976, the building has undergone• extensive alterations and
modifications and this current evaluation concludes that it does not meet the threshold of integrity necessary for conveying
architectural significance to its date of construction under the NRNP or CRHR.17 Under CEQA guidelines, Section
15064.5(a)(2), a building is considered an "historical resource" if it is included in a local register of historical resources as
defined by the Public Resources Code (see Tables 2 and 3). Although the building was recognized as a potential historic
resource in previous surveys, it has subsequently lost integrity to such a degree that the preponderance of evidence now
demonstrates that the building no longer meets the definition of a local "structure of merit" and it is not an historical
resource under this section of the CEQA guidelines, Because 930 Tamalpais Avenue is not eligible for the NRNP or CRHR,
and because the building no longer meets the definition of a local "structure of merit," it is not an historical resource for the
purposes of CEQA compliance.
15 San Rafael, California, Code of Ordinances. 2.18.069(a).
16 San Rafael, California, Code of Ordinances. 2.18.069(b).
17 Charles Hall Page & Associates, Inc., "Historical/Architectural Survey Form, 930 Tamalpais Avenue," October 1.976; Charles Hall
Page & Associates, Inc., "City of San Rafael, San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey, Final Inventory List of Structures and Areas,"
September 1986.
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 9 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN : 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date July 31, 2012 El Continuation © Update
Table 2: CEQA Guidelines applied. to 930 Tamalpais Avenue.
Title 14. California Code of Regulations
Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
Article S. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study
15060 to 1
15064.5. Determining the Significance of
Impacts to Archeological and Historical
Resources
(a) For purposes of this section, the term "historical'
resources" shall include the following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the
State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code,
5024.1, Title 14 -CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical
resources, as defined in section 5020.1(Ic) of the Public
Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical
resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g)
of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be
historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must
treat any such resource as significant unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not
historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or
manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically
significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California may be
considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead
agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence
in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be
considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant"
if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, 5024.1,
Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of California's history
and cultural heritage;
DPR 5231. (1/95)
15062.5a(1) does not apply to the subject building
because it has not been subject to Commission action.
Although the building was recognized as a potential
historic resource in previous surveys (see pages 7-8 of
the DPR 523 form), it has lost substantial historic
integrity and no longer meets the definition of a local
structure of merit.
The previous surveys may have met PRC 5024.1(g), but
the building has lost substantial historic integrity since
the time of those surveys. (See separate table below for
PRC 5024.1).
In compliance with 15064.5a(2), the project proponent
conducted a survey to address the extensive changes to
the building since the previous surveys. The survey and
evaluation conducted and presented on the DPR 523 form
for this project meets the survey guidelines and concludes
that with consideration of all of the alterations to the
building, the preponderance of evidence now
demonstrates that the building is not eligible for listing
locally, or in the CRHR, or NRNP.
The current survey and evaluation concluded that the
building isnot historically significant because it does not
meet any of the criteria for listing on the CRHR (see
DPR 523 form, pages 7-8). .
*Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Whistlestop Historic Resource Evaluation
N� i"' '•t.(,! .1h s n _ .?l:ruG'rr a .wp, a r.�. - - t:: - '3.:§b ,,i_�w:'• •;�.,xt. ..� •F.•
a"f. � �i,`•s. -T+i1 . 4 ' � �v.•thy�7". ".•!.' �:.RNv1i � 1. - ..f — til
Page 10 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277701
*Recorded by H. Norby and. L. Trew - *Date ,July 31, 2012 El Continuation ❑ Update
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our
past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of construction, or represents the work
of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history.
Table 3: California Public Resources Code applied to 930 Tamalpais Avenue.
California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
(a) A California Register of Historical Resources is hereby established. The California Register is an authoritative guide
in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state's historical resources
and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.
The commission shall oversee the administration of the California Register.
(b) The California Register shall include historical resources determined by the commission, according to procedures
adopted by the commission, to be significant and to meet the criteria in subdivision (c).
(c) A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if The building does not meet 5024.1 c,
it meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places criteria: see DPR523 form, pages 7-8.
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative
individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
(d) The California Register shall include the following:
(1) California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the
National Register of Historic Places.
(2) State Historical Landmark No. 770 and all consecutively numbered state
historical landmarks following No. 770. For state historical landmarks
preceding No. 770, the office shall review their
eligibility for the California Register in accordance with procedures to be
adopted by the commission.
(3) Points of historical interest which have been reviewed by the office and
recommended for listing by the commission for inclusion in the California
Register in accordance with criteria adopted by the commission.
This section (5024.Id) does not
apply to the building because it is
not listed in the California Register,
see DPR523 form.
(e) If nominated for listing in accordance with subdivision (f), and determined to This section (5024.1e) does not
be significant by the commission, the California apply to the building because it is
Register may include the following: not being nominated for the
(1) Individual historical resources. California Register.
(2) Historical resources contributing to the significance of an historic district
under criteria adopted by the commission.
(3) Historical resources identified as significant in historical resources
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Whistlestop Historic Resource Evaluation
Y , 'Sr fib.. -•R' ,°��•.. � -Vh.' 4 2 �'_ ��:
4}}�-nom,-a�•..�`�",.'-''fir-y �� "''.. �i.k` �$'c"' ' -�L pj�_-r.-'. T .
Page 11 of 17 *Resource Name or #x (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date July 31, 2012 0 Continuation ❑ Update
surveys, if the survey meets the criteria listed in subdivision (g).
(4) Historical resources and historic districts designated or listed as city or
county landmarks or historic properties or districts pursuant to any city or
county ordinance, if the criteria for designation or listing under the ordinance
have been determined by the office to be consistent with California Register
criteria adopted by the commission.
(5) Local landmarks or historic properties designated under any municipal or
county ordinance.
(f) A resource may be nominated for listing as an historical resource in the
California Register in accordance with nomination procedures adopted by the
commission, subject to all of the following:
(1) If the applicant is not the local government in whose jurisdiction the
resource is located, anotice of nomination in the form prescribed by the
commission shall first be submitted by the applicant to the clerk of the local
government. The notice shall request the local government to j oin in the
nomination, to provide comments on the nomination, or if the Iocal
government declines to join in the nomination or fails to act upon the notice of
nomination within 90 days, the nomination may be submitted to the office and
shall include any comments of the local government.
(2) Prior to acting on the nomination of a survey, an individual resource, an
historic district, or other resource to be added to the California Register, the
commission shall notify property owners, the local government in which the
resource is located, local agencies, other interested persons, and members of
the general public of the nomination and provide not less than 60 calendar
days for comment on the nomination. The commission shall consider those
comments in
determining whether to list the resource as an historical resource in the
California Register.
(3) If the local government objects to the nomination, the commission shall
give full and careful consideration to the objection before acting upon the
nomination. Where an objection has been raised, the commission shall adopt
written findings to support its determination concerning the nomination. At a
minimum, the findings shall identify the historical or cultural significance of
the resource, and, if applicable, the overriding significance of the resource that
has resulted in the resource being listed in the California Register over the
objections of the local government.
(4) If the owner of a private property or the majority of owners for an historic
district or single property with multiple owners object to the nomination, the
commission shall not list the property as an historical resource in the
California Register until the objection is withdrawn. Objections shall be
submitted to the
commission by the owner of the private property in the form of a notarized
statement certifying that the party is the sole or partial owner of the property,
and that the party objects to the listing.
(5) If private property cannot be presently listed in the California Register
solely because of owner objection, the commission shall nevertheless
designate the property as eligible for listing.
DPR 523L (1/95)
This section (5024.1f) does not
apply to the building because it is
not being nominated for the
California Register.
*Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 12 of 17 *Resource.Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L, Trew *Date July 31, 2012
(g) A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be
listed in the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources
Inventory.
(2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance
with office procedures and requirements.
(3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office to have a
significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on DPR Form 523.
(4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for
inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical
resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed
circumstances or further documentation and those which have been
demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the
significance of the resource.
(h) Upon listing an historical resource or determining that a property is an
historical resource that is eligible for listing, in the California Register, the
commission shall notify any owner of the historical resource and also the county
and city in which the historical resource is Iocated in accordance with procedures
adopted by the commission.
(i) The commission shall adopt procedures for the delisting of historical resources
which become ineligible for listing in the California Register.
DPR 523L (1/95)
0 Continuation ❑ Update
Although the building was
recognized as apotential historic
resource in previous surveys that
may have met 5024,1g, it has lost
substantial historic integrity since
that time. As such, the project
proponent has complied with
5024.1g (2) and (4) to address the
extensive changes to the building
since the previous surveys.
The current survey and evaluation of
the building concluded that it no
longer meets the definition of a local
structure of merit, and it is not
eligible for listing locally or in the
CRHR or NRHP, which is a
Category 6Z rating for "not
eligible," Therefore, the building
does not meet 5024,lg(1), or
This section (5024,1h) does not
apply to the building because it is
not eligible for listing in the
California Register.
This section (5024.11) does not
apply to the building because it is
not being delisted from the
California Register.
*Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 13 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date .July 31.2012 0 Continuation ❑ Update
Photographs (continued):
Photograph 2: North end of building (indicated by red arrow) is an addition constructed
in 1987 (see red arrow below indicating original design of north end). Row of arches at
left was originally an open arcade. Camera facing southwest.
Figure 4: Drawing by architect Frederick H. Meyer, Marin Journal, January 24, 1929. Red arrow indicates original north end of
the depot building. Also note the open arcade.
DPR 523L (1./95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Whistlestoo Historic Resource Evaluation
..�. �,. ...r.�::�'`.�.'.. •��;�i •' "u -C._ _
- _
'.-a - �� �yy. - -.• �+,Y :Si:+�<1 r: a-- y�.-.� •!.� `•.y`-Si'�
r i '��.'l:N
g
Page 14 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. TreW *Date July 31, 2012 0 Continuation © update
Photographs (continued):
Photograph 3: Second -story addition and clock tower were constructed in 1987. Also
Photograph 4: West side of the building, camera facing northeast. Note second -story
addition, parapet flush with addition, and various treatments of ground -level arches.
DPR 5231_ (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Whistlestoo Historic Resource Evaluation
Page 15 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) "N: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. TreW *Date July 31, 2012 1l Continuation ©Update
Photographs (continued):
Photograph 5: West side showing 1985 second -story addition, camera facing southeast.
Photograph 6: Mid-section of east side. 1985 second -story addition above 1939-1946
addition, camera facing west.
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
Page 16 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) APN: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew _ *Date July 31, 2012 91 Continuation 0 Update
Photographs (continued): .
]Photograph 7: South end of building, camera facing northwest.
Photograph 8: Southernmost entry on east side, camera facing west.
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7a
WhistlestoD Historic Resource Evaluation
Page 17 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) AM: 011-277-01
*Recorded by H. Norby and L. Trew *Date July 31, 2012 EI Continuation ❑ Update
Photographs (continued):
Photograph 9: Entry at south end of former arcade on east side, camera facing west.
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7a - Historic Evaluation
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
July 8, 2014-
N/hltloei< 8cweinberger
Ms. Andrea: Osgood.
Transportation, Inc.
Eden -Housing, Inc.
490 Mendocino Avenue
22645:Grand Street
Suite 201
=Santa Rosa;CA:.95401
Hayward, CA 94541
Voice '707.5479500
fax 707,542.9590
PariCing Analysis fort . he Whistlestop Project,
web www.w-tm con-
aeAr-Ms. Osgood•,..
As requested, Whitlock &. .Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (W -Trans) has prepared .a:
parking analysis
for the, proposed Whistlestop project on Tamalpais Avenue.:in the: City of Sari, Rafael.
The analysis .was
based on a site plan .dated June .181 2014; as well as information supplied �by Whistlestop, Eden, Housing,
and the site's. architects,. Van Meter Williams Pollack.
Project Description
The site Is currently occupied by administrative offices for Whistlestop and .several small nonprofit
organizations;�as well as an: active aging. center operated by Whistlestop that..offers classes and services•
to older -adults: The active -.aging center also includes a.restaurant-called Jackson Cafe that is.oriented to
Whistiestop clients. Currently, the office components of the site include seven Whistlestop
admiriistrative employees and ten- employees associated with nonprofit groups subleasing. -space in the
Building. from- Whistlestop. The existing active aging. center and restaurant, components of the site
occupy 10,400 square feet of the building.
The -proposed project would.; redevelop the site to include 47 one -bedroom; translt=oriented affordable
senior;housing un. its,.a single two-bedroom. manager's.:unit, and an expanded active aging -.center: The 47
senior residential units would':be leased .to residents who do not own vehlales; with this: restriction -
made as -a: requirement: of the lease. The active aging ci rhterwould sbe,expanded to. 15,000 -square feet
and continue to be operated by Whistlestop. Jackson Cafe would :remain a .component csf the' active
aging -center and:.prinlarily patronized by Whistiestop resldents and clients; though it -would also be open
to the public, with likely -patrons beingcustomers walking: to and fromtheadjacent-transit center and
SMART station. The existing Whistlestop adrministrative :offices (and. associated seven employees)
would bemoved offsite.. Leases to other non profits would be terminated and these uses elfminated
(along with occupancy by their 10 employees). Whistlestop staff associated with the active, aging :center
and: restaurant would remain,at the! new facility. The active aging center would: operate only on
weekdays -from approximately 8:30.AHio _+00 PM.
The project would Include :21 onsite panting spaces accessed via Tamalpals Avenue, Inclusive, of one
handicap -accessible space.
City Parking Requirements
While the-.prplect is located in downtown San Rafael, it is just outside of the:°City's--downtown parking
assessment district, and thereby required to accommodate its parkirig demand onsite, The Clty's parking
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood Page 2 July 8, .2014
requirements are specified in Section 14.18.040 of the zoning code, including a. tabular list of requirements
by land use in Chart 14.18.040. In the downtown area, one -bedroom multifamily residential units are
required to provide one space per unit, and two-bedroom units are required to provide 1.5 spaces per
unit. Downtown residential units are not required to provide guest parking. Direct application of the
City's parking requirements would yield a total of 49 .spaces for the proposed project's residential uses,
comprised of 47 spaces for the 47 one -bedroom apartments and 2 spaces for the two•bedroom manager's
unit. The project's active aging center would fall under the "quasi -public uses" category, which indicates
that a parking study is required and subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
Limitations of Traditional Parking Requirements in Mixed -Use Environments
Parking demand for new development is typically projected using empirically -derived rates established by
organizations such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and Urban:Land Institute (ULI). In
many cases, a determination of parking adequacy is gauged solely on whether or not a project meets the
supply required by the jurisdiction's zoning code, rather than by assessing the projected demand, The
following are three Ivey shortfalls to relying on standardized rates without consideration of the
surrounding built environment.
• Standardized parking demand rates have typically been developed based on studies of .sites in auto -
oriented suburban areas. This has been done largely out of.necessity, as the "purest" sites are those
with single uses and their own isolated parking lots. The problem with using such data is that it assumes
a very auto -dependent condition in which there is a lack of travel made by transit use, bicycling, or
walking. This type of suburban -based data also excludes the effects of development oriented to an older,
less auto-dependentdemographic such as that associated with the proposed project.
The use of standardized, single -use parking demand rates does not consider the potential for
"shared parking." The concept of shared parking is based on the fact that different land uses often
experience peak parking demand -at different times, be it by time of day or even month of the year.
A classic example is that of office and residential uses. The office uses create the highest parking
demand during the daytime on weekdays, which also happens to be the. time when residential
parking demand Is. at its lowest. If these two land uses were able to share a common parking facility,
the .actual number of parking spaces needed to accommodate the combined demand at any given
time would be considerably lower than the sums of the projected .Individual demand for the
residential and office uses. Because the Whlstlestop active aging center operates only on weekdays
during the daytime, its parking demand profile is very similar to office uses, and its potential to share
parking with residential uses is very good. Shared parking can substantially improve the efficiency of
how land is used and helps to reduce the cost of development.
The use of traditional parking demand rates and/or suburban -oriented parking requirements can
adversely affect other goals of the commutilty 'including the creation of transit -oriented
development, development patterns that support other non -automobile modes like bicycling and
walking, improved housing.affordability, and a more efficient use of urban land that focuses on urban
Infill rather than suburban expansion.
Residential Parking Demand
Resident Parking Demand
The project's 47 residential units would be restricted to occupancy by seniors who meet income
requirements and who do not own a vehicle. Residents of these units would therefore have no need for
Planning Commission, February 24, 209.5
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms.Andrea. Osgood' Page 3 July 8, 2014
onsite parking. The single two-bedroom manager's unit.would be expected to create a. parking demand
that is typical of other' downtown San Rafael apartments, and :the Citys: requirement of 1 .5 parking
spaces per uhitls appropriate, It is recommended that the project's parking supply include one reserved
parking space for.the manager's unit; with the 0;5 space component shared with .other uses as partof
the remaining parking supply (discussed further .beiow);
Active Aging Center Parking Demand
The City's zoning code does not specify parking. requirements 6r uses .similar to the- proposed active
aging center. The types .of uses octUrring'at the active aging center are, however, similar to those
captured °-by ITE's "Recreational Community Center" land use. According to ITE, this land use includes
facilities that may have classes and .club meetings, meeting rooms; exercise facilities and classes, a
restaurant, and related uses. Trips generated by the Recreational .Community Center land use. (or
active aging center In this case)..include those made by program participants,; cafe customers,, program
employees,.. and: program volunteers, The- ME publication Parking Generation, 40 Edition, 20 10, provides
parking demand data based on surveys obtained at actual facilities throughout the country, similar to the
process used to. determine the rates in the companlon Trip Generation Munual,publication:
Parking Generation indicates that the• average peals. period parking demand for this type; of use in a
suburban- location is 3,20 vehicles per 1;000 square feet, which for the _proposed 15,000 square foot
active aging center translates to a. jieak.period parking dbrndrid bf-48:spaces. The publication includes no
data for facilities in- urban locations, or :locations that are particularly well -served by transit. Por the
purposes of determining :the parldrig demand created by the Whistlestop active .aging center, the.
standard. -suburban ITE parking generation estimate of 48 spaces. was used as the starting point from
Which deductions were applied to account for the .site's location andthe demographics of its users.
Mode Share Adjustments
Usting Mode Share
Whistlestop:has compiled data on clieiit.teavel modes to the active aging center for the.:past'three years..
Table I surnmar.izes the current.client mode share:informati'on, whieh.Indicates that pproxlmately 60
percent of clients: have-.historlcally arrived by private,automob'ile, while the remaining 40 percent have
traveled to and from Whistlestop by:non•auto. modes.
Table 1,
Active Aging Center Existing Mode°Share
Mode: Choice
Mode :Share
Private Vehicle
60%
Non -Auto Modes
Transit
24%
Paratransit
10%
Walls
6%
Total Non -Auto Modes
40!
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood rage 4 July 8, 2014
Future Changes in Mode Share
The travel mode shares associated with the active aging center are projected to change once the
proposed project is completed and SMART commuter rail service begins in 20.16. Commencement of
SMART commuter rail service will increase transit opportunities by.adding 24 trains per day to existing
bus service In downtown San Rafael and the area immediately surrounding the proposed project. For
the parking analysis, the corresponding shift in mode share was estimated using data contained in the
Trip Generation Manual. This publication Includes information regarding the trip reductions that may
occur when an urban residential development is located on a major bus corridor, as well as- the trip
reductions that may occur when the same development is located near a transit center with both bus
and rail service. While the information is oriented to trip generation, Jt reflects a change in mode share
that is also tied to parking demand, The data suggest that a site near high -frequency bus service may
experience a 7 percent vehicle trip reduction, while the trip reduction for a site near both bus and rail
service may experience a vehicle trip reduction that is 8 percent higher, at approximately 15 percent.
This 8 percent shift in mode share from auto to transit, which captures the effects of SMART, was
applied for the purposes of the parking analysis, resulting in a revised future transit mode share of 32
percent, The projected future mode share associated with the active aging center is shown in Table 2-.
Residents of the 47 senior housing units to .be constructed as part of the project are expected to be
some of the most frequent participants of the active aging center; many residents will have chosen to
live at the site specifically because of Its proximity to Whistlestop services, while others will likely
participate in active aging center programs simply because of their onsite location and targeted
demographic. ..Some of these future residents are currently driving to and parking at Whistlestop'during
the day, but after moving onsite would no longer generate parking demand, Based on input from Eden
Housing's resident services'division (Eden Housing Resident Services), it is conservatively estimated that
at least 20 percent of onsite residents would be using the active aging center during peak activity
periods. This is based on Eden's experience at other senior housing properties that have an. onsite or
immediately adjacent senior center such as the proposed active aging center. If one assumes that there
will be at least 47 onsite residents, (one resident per unit), this translates to an estimate of 9A onsite
participants using the active. aging center during peak. activity periods. At the current private automobile
mode share of 60 percent, these participants would .have generated an estimated.. parking demand of 5.6
spaces if they did not live onsite. Since they will be living onsite, parking demand will decrease, with the
corresponding mode share shift being approximately I I percent,
in summary, the total future parking demand reduction applied to the:active aging center based on mode
share is S9 percent. This deduction is based on travel data obtained from the existing Whistlestop
active aging center that has been adjusted slightly to reflect initiation of SMART rail service and the
moving of some participants to onsite apartments.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c;
VVhiat|oohopParking Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood Fag& 6 July K%O|4
Ta6W2
Active.AgIng Center Future Modb$hare
Mode:Choit:e Mode Share.
Existing Future
Private -Vehicle 60% -41%
Non -Auto Modes
Transit 24% 32%1
Nmtranslt 10% .1.0%
On-Sitt.Residents2 11%
Y.
's are
op
'
Notes, / Transit -use isestimated tnincrease by8%with hnpenentudz� on SMART
2 Shift associated with clients of active aging center becoming residents of new housing
As discussed ab.qve, the active aging center (including
period par-ICIng demand of 48 -spaces if it were located in all auto-oridnted: suburban enVironment using
standard "Recreational Community Center" parking demandw'rates available from ITE. After callbrfting
this parlangsupply to a level that is more-appropHaLte to downtown. San Raffiel'and the.demographlcs of
paH<ing demand of 20 spaces, The peak period parking d6mand; 16cludih -the ap 'fifed deduaim�; f6r
mode share and proximity of onsite residents,Js shown irr-T.We 3.
'Table 3
Parkhyg Adjustments for ActiveAgirig Center
Shared Parking'
As described xbove. Aourking demand methodology that considers "shared-principiles can
improve.-fWaccuracy cfdetermining actual parking. demand o�fuse
of the parking supplied, Shared pa&ing U'w6lknfited- to, the project since the pealt.parking demand
Planning Commission, February 24.2D16
Exhibit 7o'Parking Analysis `
Spaces
Ba*-sa- Peak Period Parkin'g Demand (Suburban ITE.Rates)
.48.0
Mode'Share Adjustments
Paratransit
-4.8
On -Site FWsidents
Total Adjusted Peak Period Parking Demand (rounded),
Shared Parking'
As described xbove. Aourking demand methodology that considers "shared-principiles can
improve.-fWaccuracy cfdetermining actual parking. demand o�fuse
of the parking supplied, Shared pa&ing U'w6lknfited- to, the project since the pealt.parking demand
Planning Commission, February 24.2D16
Exhibit 7o'Parking Analysis `
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood Page 6 July 8, 2014
periods created by the active aging center versus visitor parking associated with the residential units
occur at different times. The ULI publication Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, 2006, includes state-of-the-
practice
tate-of the -
practice methodologies for determining parking demand in these types of projects, The ULI shared
parking methodology focuses on temporal data, determining when the overall peal( demand for various
land uses occurs, Including what time of day, whether It is a weekday or weekend, and what month of
the year. The recommended parking supply is then tied to that maximum demand period. The ULI
model considers the proposed mix of land uses, including quantities of each type of use.
Active Aging Center Parking Demand by Time of Day
The Whistlestop active aging center would
operate only during the daytime on
weekdays, -and would therefore be expected
to create little to no parking demand on
evenings and weekends. Activity at the
existing center peaks around lunch time, and
this trend would be expected to continue in
the future, Based on program information
supplied by Whistlestop, a weekday hour -
by -hour parking demand profile consistent
with the ULI shared parking methodology
was developed for the active aging center.
use. The adjusted peal( period parking
demand of 20 spaces (shown in Table 3
above) corresponds to the lunchtime peak.
The active aging center's anticipated parking
demand profile over the course of a typical
weekday is shown on Figure 1.
Visitor Parking Demand
The project's residential units would be
expected to generate a modest amount of
parking demand for visitors including family,
friends, and aides. While onsite
accommodation of residential guest parking is
not required by the San Rafael zoning code in
the downtown area, the potential demand
associated with visitor parking may be calculated
over the course of a typical weekday using the
ULI shared parking methodology. Figure 2
shows the anticipated parking demand for the
project related to visitors to the 47 rental units
plus one manager's unit, Guest parking demand
on weekdays remains relatively low through the
daytime but increases in the evening hours,
peaking at eight spaces between 7,00 and 11:00
p.m. The parking demand follows a similar
pattern on weekends,
25 --
20
7n
0
Q Q a a a.. Q
W Co C, N N V' W W O N
Figure I: Weekday Active Aging Center Parking Demand
9 - ---
8 ...... -
7
6
5 _._ ...._._
3
2 _
1 ..
V
Q a a w�. CL, a a
.o 0o © N -r 10 co o
Figure 2: Weekday Residential Guest Parking Remand
(48 total units, including Manager's unit)
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms, Andrea Osgood Page 7 July 8, 2014
Totaf Project Parking Demand
Following are the four componentsof the project that would typically be expected to generate.a parking
demand.
• Resident of the.:onsite nionagees unit; A single -:reserved :parking space would be provided for the
manager, and the remaining one-half parking space required by the. City's zoning code Would be
included as part of the overall shared. parking supply. The reserved. parking space would not be
available to the shared parking pool so must be considered separately in the parking demand analysis.
• Residents of the 47 rental units: Restriction of occupancy to income -qualified seniors who do not
own a vehicle effectively reduces this parking demand to zero.
• Active using center, Parking. demand at the active aging center occurs on weekdays during the
daytime, peaking during lunch time periods at 20 spaces.
• Visltdrs to the residential units: Visitor demand for the 47 rental units and single manager's unit. is
based on the ULI Shared Parking methodology, and projected to peak at eight spaces between 7:00
and 11:00 p,m. (this should be considered informational since. the City's zoning code does not
require Visitor parldng.for downtown residential. uses),.
The combined weekday parking demand profile, of these uses .by time of day.1s.shown ih Flgure 3, and a.table
summarizing the parking demand by use for several representative hours is:shown in Table 4. Note that the
graph indicates cumulative parking demand starting with the reserved -space for the manager, followed by
demand associated with the active aging center, and finally demand associated with guest parking.
20 — _....
r
15 - -
r
o --
a a
.o r,
Q Q Q Q. a s
Co .aN 0
.. Reserved: Manager Space
Reserved Manager Space + Active Aging Center.
----=Reserved Manager Space + Active Aging Center+ Guest Parking (not required by:zoning}
21 -Space Parking Supply
Figure 3;: Tdtal Project Parking Demand by Time of Day -
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Q_
n-
a �
a-. n:. CL
Q
.. Reserved: Manager Space
Reserved Manager Space + Active Aging Center.
----=Reserved Manager Space + Active Aging Center+ Guest Parking (not required by:zoning}
21 -Space Parking Supply
Figure 3;: Tdtal Project Parking Demand by Time of Day -
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood Page 8 July 8, 2014
Table 4
Weekday Parking Demand by Time of Day
Note: Project Includes 21 -space onsite parking supply
Maximum parking demand period
No parking supply required for visitors per zoning code
As can be seen -in .Figure 3 and Table 4, the project would generally be able to accommodate its total
parking demand onsite. Total demand (including visitors) would be expected to exceed the 21 -space
supply between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on weekdays by approximately two spaces, However, this
total parking demand includes spaces for two residential visitors during the pealc lunchtime period,
although the City's zoning code does not require the. provision of visitor parking spaces for downtown
residential units, Without this two -space visitor parking demand, the project would be expected to fully
accommodate its parking needs onsite,
Between 3:00 p.m, and overnight until the following 9:00 a.m. on weekdays, and all day on weekends,
the project would be expected to have a parking surplus of at least nine spaces.
Examples from Cather jurisdictions
Many large cities including Sacramento, San Francisco, and Oakland require no. off-street parlcing for
multifamily residential housing within their central business districts. However, these major downtowns
are more densely populated and offer higher levels of transit accessibility than downtown San Rafael.
Following is a list of parking requirements used for senior housing developments in several Northern
California jurisdictions that share some characteristics to downtown San Rafael, including those applied
in Sacramento and Oakland in traditional mixed-use. neighborhoods outside of the downtown core, It Is
Important to note that none of these sample parking requirements are reflective of sites that are
restricted to car -free seniors, as would be the case for this project. A discussion of one site that does
restrict occupancy to car -free seniors follows later in this report,
• In 2012, the City of Sacramento conducted an extensive analysis of parking demand in different parts
of the City, and as a result significantly revised its zoning code parking requirements, Senior housing
Is required to provide no parking in the Central Business District, and is required to provide 0.25
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Total Parking Spaces
9;00 AM
Noon's
3:00 PM
6:00 PM
9:00 PM
Demand by Project Component
Senior Housing.(residents)
0
0
0
0
0
Onsite Manager
I
I
I
I
I
Active Aging Center
6
20
9
1
0
Residential Visitors
2
2
2
5
.8
Total Parking Demand
�9
23—_---12-..__..�_
7
9 __...
Parking Surplus (Shortfall)
Supply minus total demand
12
(2)
9
14
12
Supply minus demand (excluding
14
0
11
19
20
non-requ)red visitor parking))
Note: Project Includes 21 -space onsite parking supply
Maximum parking demand period
No parking supply required for visitors per zoning code
As can be seen -in .Figure 3 and Table 4, the project would generally be able to accommodate its total
parking demand onsite. Total demand (including visitors) would be expected to exceed the 21 -space
supply between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on weekdays by approximately two spaces, However, this
total parking demand includes spaces for two residential visitors during the pealc lunchtime period,
although the City's zoning code does not require the. provision of visitor parking spaces for downtown
residential units, Without this two -space visitor parking demand, the project would be expected to fully
accommodate its parking needs onsite,
Between 3:00 p.m, and overnight until the following 9:00 a.m. on weekdays, and all day on weekends,
the project would be expected to have a parking surplus of at least nine spaces.
Examples from Cather jurisdictions
Many large cities including Sacramento, San Francisco, and Oakland require no. off-street parlcing for
multifamily residential housing within their central business districts. However, these major downtowns
are more densely populated and offer higher levels of transit accessibility than downtown San Rafael.
Following is a list of parking requirements used for senior housing developments in several Northern
California jurisdictions that share some characteristics to downtown San Rafael, including those applied
in Sacramento and Oakland in traditional mixed-use. neighborhoods outside of the downtown core, It Is
Important to note that none of these sample parking requirements are reflective of sites that are
restricted to car -free seniors, as would be the case for this project. A discussion of one site that does
restrict occupancy to car -free seniors follows later in this report,
• In 2012, the City of Sacramento conducted an extensive analysis of parking demand in different parts
of the City, and as a result significantly revised its zoning code parking requirements, Senior housing
Is required to provide no parking in the Central Business District, and is required to provide 0.25
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood Page .9 July 8,. 2014
spaces per unit in urban- neighborhoods (which have densities and mixes of uses that are similar to°
downtown San.Rafael).
• Santa Rosa requires 0:5 parking spaces per senior housing unit within. the boundaries. of the
Downtown. Station Area and North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plans.
• Daly City. requIres a. parking 'supply of 0:375 spaces, for each l.5 bedroom !unit,that. is designated for
exclusive occupancy. by low-income seniors,
• The City•of Oakland maintains parking requirements that vary by -zoning district. Neighborhood
commercial districts outside of the downtown area with CN- i ..zoning, which: would` be considered
equivalent to: the type of built environment and transit accessibility in. downtown- San Rafael, are
required to provides one -:parking space per multifamily unit; with up to a 75 percent reduction for
.senior affordable -housing with a Conditional Use Permit (resulting in a parking requirement of '0,25
spaces: per affordable senior unit).
• Like Oakland; ;parking requirements in the City of Berkeley vary by zoning district. ,In R2 -A
residential districts, which are generally located within several blocks of bus lines but not within:
walking distance:.of downtown or rail transit; the City requires one parking space per multifamily
unit. This can be reduced by 75 percentVith a Use Permit for senior housing (resulting: in a parking
requirement of 0...25 spaces per senior unit),
in researching parking requirements for affordable senior housing in the Bay Area,, only one: example
was -found in which occupancy of the units was restricted to seniors who do not own vehicles. The site
is referred to. as Shattuck Senior Homes, located at 2425 Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley.. The 27 -unit
development includes ftoi onsite parking. Residents are required to be vehicle -free, 'and are prohibited
from purchasing residential parldhg permits in:°the surrounding. neighborhood, The development has
remained at full occupancy and reportedly has hadlittle difficulty attracting prospective vehicle -free
residents. Additional information about this project is enclosed, .including :an. excerpt from the
publication Parking & Housing. Best Practices for Increasing Housing. Affordahility and Achieving Smart Growth,
Russo, 2001,. ;and information from the Shattuck Senior Homes website at
www.sahahomes:o Pg/p ro perties/s ha'ttu clt-seni or -homes:
Conclusions and. Recommendations
• The proposed project would redevelop the current Whistlestop site into 47 units of .affordable
senior housing limited ,to residents who do :hot own a vehicle, one manager's unit, and a 15;000
square: foot active: aging, center that would -operate only on weekdays. A total of 2'.1 -parking spaces
would. be proVided onsite.
• Seven existing Whistlestop administrative employees that work at the site would be relocated
offsite- as part of the project. Ten employees associated with :subleased .non-profit space 'at the
current site. would also:relocate, resulting in a total relocation of 1-7 existing;employees..
The project"is located in downtown San Rafael within comfortable walking distance of -a wide range
of services; and is adjacent to the major bus transfer center in .Marin County,. Whistlestop Wheels
paratransit services;:and a:future SMART rail:stop.:
• The project is located outside of the City's'downtown parking assessment district.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7o
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood Page 10 July 8, 2014
• The project's 47 senior housing units would be restricted to occupancy by seniors who meet
income requirements and who do not own a vehicle; residents would therefore create no demand
for onsite parking,
• The onsite manager's. unit should be subject to the City's requirement of 1.5 parking spaces. One
onsite space should be reserved for this unit while the other one-half space may be shared with
other onsite uses.
• While onsite accommodation of residential guest parking -is not required by the City's zoning code
In the downtown area, the project would be expected to generate a. peak visitor parking demand of
eight parked vehicles between 7:00 and 11:00 in the evening,
• Currently 40 percent of the existing active aging center clients travel by non -motorized modes,
transit, or paratransit; upon commencement of SMART rail service and completion of onsite senior
housing, the share of active aging center clients traveling by modes other than private vehicle is
projected to increase to 59 percent.
• After calibrating the active aging center's parking characteristics to be reflective of its transit -
oriented, downtown environment and the demographics of its users, this component of the project
is projected to generate a peak parking demand of 20 spaces,
• The active aging center would generate onsite parking demand only during the daytime on
weekdays. The active aging center's 21 -space peak parking demand is projected to occur during the
lunchtime peals hour.
• The proposed project would be expected to accommodate its entire parking demand. onsite
(including visitors), except during the weekday lunchtime peals between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.
when demand is projected to be exceeded by two vehicles.
• The City's zoning code does not require visitor parking to be provided for residential uses within
the downtown area,
• If the two -space parking demand associated with visitors is removed from the weekday lunchtime
peals parking period (per the City's zoning code which does not require downtown residential
visitor parking), the project would be considered to meet all of its parking demand onsite.
• On weekdays between 3:00 p.m. and overnight until the following 9;00 a,m„ the project would be
expected to have a parking surplus of at least nine spaces. On weekends when the active aging
center is not operating the surplus would be greater,
• Several Northern California jurisdictions apply parking requirements for senior housing in the range
of 0.25 to 0.50 spaces per unit in neighborhoods with similar characteristics to downtown San
Rafael, though these parking requirements do not stipulate that residents remain vehicle -free as
proposed for the Whistlestop project,
• The Shattuck Senior Homes development in Berkeley requires residents to be vehicle -free and
Includes no parking for residents. The 1 1 -year old development has reportedly maintained a strong
demand for the units despite the imposed vehicle restrictions.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Ms. Andrea Osgood page .1.1 July 8, A 14
Thank you for giving W -Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any
questions.
Sinc x iy,
RQFFSS/dN
Zaa : Matley,. All CP
D' O
Associate -C rn .
TR001552 "
P. 30.
FF\c
Dalene Whitlock, E, PTOE OF CAb1FQ
Principal JZMhablsaAAI ra,Ls
Enclosure: Case Study _Information for Shattuck Senior Homes
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
PARKING & HOUSING: BEST PRACTICES FOR INCREASING
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND ACHIEVING SMART GROWTH
A Report for and Sponsored bt:
The Noxi -Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Inc. Related website available at:
www.nonprofithousing ori
'Written brt: -
Ryan Russo
In satisfaction of the Professional Report requirement for the Master's Degree in City Planning
May 2001
Studu Underwritten b :
The Sustainable Communities Leadership Program and
www.eco.org/sclp
Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy
http,,//-Lirbanpolic.y.borkeley-edu/iiaain.htm
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Parking &Housing: Best,Practiees.forincrersing Housing Affordahliityand Achieving Smart_Grewth
IV. 7 EMMLEY-- S*U'f I .X SENIOR HOMES — CAR FRUX HOUSING & PERMIT RESTRIMOMS
Policies mid Practices Exhibited:
Car-fi ee housing fok a. smalt:tot,_ d6mitown, withvearby amenities and seiroices,,
.Provision ofaltent Live forms of ti-a)iSportfltion for.i`esidents,
Restrictiiiguse of ore-strleet parking for residents of car fiiee housing in order to address °eoncerns-of
spillbver..
Car Free Hottsixigfor Seniors. -in: Dowritowri Berktley.has a ]Market
Senior bouseholds,_especiallyy diose with loW.'iiicomes, own fewer than average -vehicles. and rely more
heavily on:transit or paratransit, in the Ray :A�e�q, .persona aged 65 and al�pve: on average..use:wAlking;
cycling:artransit for 10%:a! their trip -s,28 The city. of Berkeley- and Affordable Housing Asso,'ciates
.(AHA), wnbn profit dex'eloper recognized this when they planned a senior housing development4h
Berkeley's do-vmtown area: While. all Senior housing should not necessarily -be.tax flee, it made,sense
for 2425 Shattuck.: The 27 unit development'is locrited,on a Iiaif»acre in'B&ke1ey's'.Piadesfri6h-fi ioniliy
downtowhr which has nearby shops, restaurants, .and services .(including health care) and :excell,enfi
transit ser.Wice ki the -fort. of the. dowittown.Berkeley BART station and a-itdmber of<A_C Traiisif tus:
lines. By detieIoping. car free, AHA was able to get four more units on ti -ie site aiicl B&Ikeley was,able.to
retain the pedestrian feel of`'its downtown.:
Because the city feared: that residents.would;simply park on the.street, ARA --agreed tar restrict residents
from obtaining_ residential parkiing..permits.. During the:leasing.piime, potesitaal.residen s were told of
the:laclt of.off-streetparltixig arid:filte;per tit restrictions, That did.not prevent -2425_ Shattuck rein.:
leasinvip=.qu eldy due :to the important need that the lloushig seivetl-:..If-residents needed'. -to, -keep titch•
cars, they could apply at another AHA develo�iment: o' use l arl�ing garages- dow3itown Qwo il: ' ut
of 300 appl caxrts withdrew their applications'due' to the p�'trlcing resirict ons..'
.Shattuck Senior Homes-liouses senfors .earn' 14fWeen- 40. and 50 percent -of area-:inedian income,
Along witli.the: quality public transitinthe.area., th-e:residentg at -Shattuck Senior Homes have-iegularly
sclieduled vanutrips for errands like grocery shopping,
Shattucl< Senior Homes is:an:importantexample of sensible.planning and wfn vain policies that
facilitate increasing housing -for a needy population.
as Purvis, 1994
Non -Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Inc. Page 32
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Home > Shattuck Senior: Homes
Shaftuck Senior HOMOS
2425 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley I Mqp. pi
Not Accepting Applications
High density urban infill development on the site of a former movie theater, Close proximity to
many downtown Berkeley amenities and public transit. Winner of Gold Nugget Award in 2000.
Would you like more information about Shattuck Senior Homes? Please call the Property
Manager at (510) 649-0021,
o View Property Gallery i21
s print This Page 131
Completed
September, 2003
Income Level
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
AE -11.
t3
m;l
4ATELLITE
€laa
AFFORDABLE
li O US T N G
A350CIATEI
Published on
SAMA (http:1/www,sahahomes,ora)
Home > Shattuck Senior: Homes
Shaftuck Senior HOMOS
2425 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley I Mqp. pi
Not Accepting Applications
High density urban infill development on the site of a former movie theater, Close proximity to
many downtown Berkeley amenities and public transit. Winner of Gold Nugget Award in 2000.
Would you like more information about Shattuck Senior Homes? Please call the Property
Manager at (510) 649-0021,
o View Property Gallery i21
s print This Page 131
Completed
September, 2003
Income Level
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
30-50% AMI
Resident Population
o Seniors
Architect
Kava Massih
.Contractor
Oliver & Company
Cost
$2.7 Million
Financing; Partners
a Wells Fargo
City of Berlteley
Washington Mutual
• Merritt Community Capital
FHLBS.F AHP
Property Manager
SAHA. PM
Services Coordinator
Toolworks
Source URL: ham://www.sahahomes:orgiprgpertieslshattu_ck-senior: homes
Links:
[l]-http://maps.google;com/maps?q=2425 Shattuck Avenue; Berkeley, CA
[2] http://www.sahahomes.org/%3Finline°/a3Dtrue°/a26scrollbars%3Dno%23node-images-lightbox
[3] http://www,sahahomes.org/printpdf/27
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7c .
Whistlestop Parking Analysis
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7c - Parking Analysis
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
WHISTLESTOP 2.0
930 TAMALPAIS AVENUE
SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
EDEN HOUSING, INC.
22645 GRAND STREET
HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA
94541
A:::.d ..1..::n .'41 .
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 — HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents..................................................................................................... 2
1.0 Project Summary............................................................................................... 3
1.1 Methodology.............................................................................................................4
1.2 BAAQMD Guidance ................................................... ..... 4
2.0 Impacts from Surface Streets, Highways, and Stationary Sources..............6
2.1 Surface Streets......................................................................................................... 6
2.2 US Highway 101....................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Stationary Sources........................................................... ........ 7
3.0 Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Train ............................................ 8
4.0 Summary of Results.......................................................................................11
5.0 References.......................................................................................................12
APPENDICES
Appendix A— Marin County Surface Street Cancer Risk Data
Appendix B -- Cumulative Cancer Risk Impacts — BAAQMD Sources
Appendix C— BAAQMD Link 674 (US 1.01) Impacts
Appendix D — Plan View of Whistlestop Project / San Rafael Downtown SMART Station
Appendix E — PM Emission Calculations — SMART'Train
Appendix F — Screen3 Model Inputs / Assumptions
Appendix G — Screen3 Model Output
Appendix H — SMART Train Cancer Risk Calculations
nus
ADANTA, INC. PAGE 2
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 — HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
1.0 Project Summary
Founded 58 years ago in 1954, Whistlestop's mission is to ensure that every adult has the
opportunity to age with independence, dignity and grace. For over 40 years, since 1971,
Whistlestop has provided at its current location a comprehensive hub of human needs services
for Marin County's seniors and individuals with disabilities. These services include special
needs transportation, nutrition, preventive health, classes and activities, multicultural outreach
and assistance, and a comprehensive information and referral help desk. Whistlestop is the
largest provider of active aging services in Marin County, serving over 5,000 seniors annually.
Additionally, Whistlestop operates Whistlestop Wheels. Whistlestop Wheels provides
American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit services on behalf of the Marin Transit and
the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, ADA Paratransit is transportation
for persons, who because of a physical or mental condition are unable to ride publicfixed-route
transportation such as the local and regional public bus system.
Whistlestop inhabits a two-story building that used to serve as office space for the Southern
Pacific Railroad. The building is currently occupied by administrative offices for Whistlestop and
several small non-profit organizations, as well as an active aging center operated by
Whistlestop that offers classes and services to older adults. The active aging center also
includes a restaurant called Jackson Cafe that is oriented to Whistlestop clients.
The Whistlestop 2.0 Project proposes to expand its current active aging center by increasing its
square footage and availability of services and provide on-site affordable senior housing,
catering to low to very low income seniors. The existing building at 930 Tamalpais will be
replaced with a five -story, mixed use building to include a parking garage, restaurant, active
aging center, 47 one bedroom senior units and 1 two bedroom manager's unit. The project site
currently exists of hardscape and contains no trees and very few shrubs.
Whistlestop 2.0 is planned to be the first transit -oriented development community for seniors in
Marin County. There is a growing demand in Marin County for affordable housing for senior
citizens, especially for those individuals who cannot or should not drive a car. One of the key
benefits to Whistlestop's site is its ideal location within Marin County's regional transportation
hub, including the Bettini Transit Center, the future location of the Sonoma -Marin Area Rail
Transit (SMART) train, proximity to Whistlestop's own paratransit services, and the ability to
walk within downtown San Rafael.
The architectural and planning firm Van Meter Williams Pollack has created a model that
incorporates the Whistlestop active aging center, a restaurant and 48 housing units all into one
five -story complex.
Project Details:
Housing: A total of 46,500 square feet. 47 one bedroom units and 1 two bedroom
manager's unit.
• Active aging center, including a restaurant: A total of 15,000 square feet.
o Shared -Use Space: A total of 15,000 square feet for parking and circulation, elevators.
- Total Building Use space: 77,500 square feet
- Floor 1 has parking, a lobby, and a restaurant with kitchen.
- Floor 2 is the active aging center.
- Floors 3-5 are the housing units.
AAANTA, 1Nc. PAoE 3
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 — HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
As part of the approval process, and consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the project has been asked to provide a health risk assessment (HRA) to evaluate the
potential impacts of nearby sources of air contaminants that would impact future residents at the
site. In this case, nearby sources consist of vehicle emissions at surface streets and the US 101
freeway, gasoline stations, and future SMART train operations.
This report presents the results of the HRA. The results indicate that potential impacts of cancer
risk and chronic health impacts due to nearby sources are below acceptable threshold limits
established by the.Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and do not represent a
significant impact.
1.1 Methodology
The HRA was conducted in accordance with guidance provided by the. Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's (BAAQMD) "Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local
Risks and Hazards" (BAAQMD 2012). The reference provides detailed guidance on how to
screen projects for potential risk and hazards impacts and how to conduct site-specific computer
modeling.
1.2 BAAQMD Guidance
The purpose of the "Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and
Hazards" (BAAQMD 2012) (document) is to assist lead agencies in conducting a risk and
hazard analysis as part of their CEQA environmental review for proposed land use projects. The
document provides detailed guidance on how to screen projects for potential risk and hazards
impacts and, if necessary, how to conduct site-specific computer modeling.
The document describes in detail how to screen for potential risk and hazards from toxic air
contaminant (TAC) sources using the following tools:
Surface Street Screening Tables: Through the use of computer models, the BAAQMD
estimated particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)
concentration and cancer risk values for roadways based on annual average daily traffic
(AADT) for each of the nine Bay Area counties. The county -specific tables provide
estimated PM2.5 concentration and cancer risk by distance away from the roadway. The
hazard index was found to be minimal (<0.02) for all surface streets and is therefore not
included in the tables. These tables are used to determine if a project may be adversely
impacted from local roadways and decide if further modeling is needed.
2. Freeway Screening Analysis Tool: The District developed a Google Earth application
that maps each State highway link in the Bay Area, where highway links are defined by
Caltrans mileposts. For each link, the District modeled PM2.5 concentration, cancer risk,
and hazard index, values at various distances from the edge of each side of the
highway. This information is available at elevations of six feet and 20 feet to represent
sensitive receptors on the first and second floors of buildings. Local planners can use
this application to determine if a project may be adversely impacted from freeways and
determine if further modeling is needed.
3. Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Screening Analysis Tool: BAAQMD developed a
Google Earth TM application that maps the locations of all the stationary sources in the
region that the District permits, such as back-up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners,
ADANTA, INC. PAGE 4
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 — HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
and auto body shops. For each source, the application lists the name of the source and
conservative screening level cancer risk and PM2.5concentration values. This application
is used to estimate the potential risks from stationary sources to the project site.
ADANTA, INa PAos' S
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTI_ESTOP 2.0 — HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
2.0 Impacts from Surface Streets, Highways, and Stationary Sources
BAAQMD screening impacts of cancer risk and hazard index assume a default 70 -year
exposure time. Since impacts are being evaluated for residents at a senior housing facility, it is
appropriate to apply a reasonable factor to account for the fact that exposure would be less than
70 years. The average age of seniors that would be accepted for residence is assumed to be
approximately 65 years old. For California, the average life expectancy (males and females) is
80.37 years (World Life Expectancy 2013). Therefore, conservatively assuming a lifetime
exposure at the facility of 80.4 - 65 = 15.4 years, it is appropriate to adjust the BAAQMD
screening levels by a factor of 15.4/70, or 0.22.
As residents will be housed on the third through fifth floors, with the first floor consisting of
parking, a restaurant with kitchen, and two lobbies, impacts at a receptor height of 20 feet above
ground will be evaluated, where possible. Where screening data is not available for 20 -foot
elevations, ground level screening values for cancer risk, hazard index and PM2,3 concentrations
will be used to evaluate impacts.
2.1 Surface Streets
Six nearby streets with annual average daily traffic (AADT) in excess of 10,000 may contribute
to health impacts at the proposed site. Potential cancer risk and hazard index were estimated
using BAAQMD's "Surface Street Screening Tables" (BAAQMD 2013a) and by interpolating the
appropriate table values to account for the actual distances to the project site and for the AADT
of each street within 1,000 feet of the project site. The results of the analysis are presented in
Table 1. The cancer risk screening values are conservatively based on a 70 -year exposure
time, but are adjusted by the lifetime exposure factor of 0.22 to account for the relatively
advanced age of future project residents compared with the average Marin County resident.
According to the BAAQMD, the maximum hazard index from any surface street in Marin County,
at any distance and for any AADT, is less than 0.02. Thus, to be conservative in estimating the
cumulative hazard of the project area surface streets, the hazard index for each street is
assumed to be 0.02.
BAAQMD project -level significance thresholds applied separately to each individual surface
street are: cancer risk — 10 people in 1 million; annual average PM2.5 concentration — 0.3 lag/m3
and hazard index 1.0. Health risks, particulate concentrations and hazard impacts from each
local surface street do not exceed these BAAQMD project -level significance thresholds
The table of BAAQMD surface street screening data for Marin County is presented in Appendix
A. Appendix B presents all the data used for impact estimates from surface streets, highways
and stationary sources (with the effects of the latter two sources discussed in the next two
subsections below) within a 1000 -foot zone of influence around the project site.
ADANTA, INC. PAGE 6
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlostop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 -HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 1. Screening Level Impacts from Surface Street Traffic
2.2 US Highway 101
The project site is within 1,000 feet and west of US Highway 101; specifically, 265 feet from the
edge of the nearest lane of BAAQMD link 674. Interpolating with BAAQMD screening data (see
Appendix C) gives a cancer risk of 11.58 (for a 70=year exposure), an annual average PM2.5
concentration of 0.115 pg/m3 and a hazard index of 0.012. For a 15.4 year exposure, the
predicted cancer risk from Highway 101 emissions is 2.55.
BAAQMD project -level significance thresholds applicable to Highway 101 are: cancer risk - 10;
annual average PM2.5 concentration - 0.3 pg/m3 and hazard index 1.0. Health risks, particulate
concentrations and hazard impacts from Highway 101 do not exceed these BAAQMD project -
level significance thresholds
2.3 Stationary Sources
The BAAQMD database of stationary sources has been converted to a set of compressed
Keyhole Markup Language (kml) files that can be viewed with the Google Earth TM software
package. The values as given in these kml files represent risks, hazards and concentrations
near the fence -line of each stationary source, each of which can, in some cases, be adjusted by
using a BAAQMD-provided distance multiplier to obtain the corresponding values of interest at
any more distant receptor locations.
The stationary sources emitting potentially harmful contaminants within 1,000 feet of the project
site consist of three gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs). Their estimated impacts at the project
site are presented in Table 2. These impacts are calculated by multiplying the fence -line cancer
risks and hazard indices (there are no PM2.5 emissions. by GDF sources) by the respective
distance multipliers. These values are summed to obtain the cumulative risk and hazard values
at the project site. Cumulative cancer risk values are shown for the more conservative 70 -year
exposure period and for a 15.4 year period more representative of the maximum exposure likely
ADANTA, INC. PAGE 7
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Impact on Proposed Project
Name of Street
Street
Orientatio
n
Annual
Average Daily
Traffic
(AADT)
Nearest
Distance to
Proposed
Project (feet)
Cancer Risk
(70 -year
exposure)
Annual PMZ;S
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
10
0.3 pg/m3
1.0
2nd Street
E -W
27,312
300
1.53
0.057
<0.02
3rd Street
E -W
24,692
10
3.56
0.166
<0.02
4th Street
E -W
10,967
10
2.21
0.101
<0.02
Mission Avenue
E -W
15,532
600
0.44
0.008
<0.02
Netherton Street
N -S
15,552
200
1.17
0.044
<0.02
Irwin Street
N -S
17,606
550
0.44
0.012
<0.02
Cumulative Surface Street Impacts at Proposed Project
9.34
0.388
0.12
Cumulative Cancer Risk at Project Site (16.4 -year exposure)
2.05
2.2 US Highway 101
The project site is within 1,000 feet and west of US Highway 101; specifically, 265 feet from the
edge of the nearest lane of BAAQMD link 674. Interpolating with BAAQMD screening data (see
Appendix C) gives a cancer risk of 11.58 (for a 70=year exposure), an annual average PM2.5
concentration of 0.115 pg/m3 and a hazard index of 0.012. For a 15.4 year exposure, the
predicted cancer risk from Highway 101 emissions is 2.55.
BAAQMD project -level significance thresholds applicable to Highway 101 are: cancer risk - 10;
annual average PM2.5 concentration - 0.3 pg/m3 and hazard index 1.0. Health risks, particulate
concentrations and hazard impacts from Highway 101 do not exceed these BAAQMD project -
level significance thresholds
2.3 Stationary Sources
The BAAQMD database of stationary sources has been converted to a set of compressed
Keyhole Markup Language (kml) files that can be viewed with the Google Earth TM software
package. The values as given in these kml files represent risks, hazards and concentrations
near the fence -line of each stationary source, each of which can, in some cases, be adjusted by
using a BAAQMD-provided distance multiplier to obtain the corresponding values of interest at
any more distant receptor locations.
The stationary sources emitting potentially harmful contaminants within 1,000 feet of the project
site consist of three gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs). Their estimated impacts at the project
site are presented in Table 2. These impacts are calculated by multiplying the fence -line cancer
risks and hazard indices (there are no PM2.5 emissions. by GDF sources) by the respective
distance multipliers. These values are summed to obtain the cumulative risk and hazard values
at the project site. Cumulative cancer risk values are shown for the more conservative 70 -year
exposure period and for a 15.4 year period more representative of the maximum exposure likely
ADANTA, INC. PAGE 7
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 —HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
for the future senior residents of the proposed project. A Google Earth TM screen -shot of the GDF
locations relative to the project site is also included in Appendix B.
BAAQMD project -level significance thresholds applicable separately to each local stationary
GDF source are: cancer risk — 10; annual average PM2,5 concentration — 0.3 pg/m3 and hazard
index 1.0. Health risks and hazard impacts from local GDF facilities do not exceed these
BAAQMD project -level significance thresholds.
Table 2. Screening Level Impacts from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (GDFs) Within
1,000 feet of Project Site
3.0 Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Train
The planned SMART train is the only other air emission source not addressed by application of
the BAAQMD screening tables that could have an adverse impact on the health at the future
residents of the proposed project. The tracks for the SMART train would be located adjacent to
the project site, with a second set of parallel tracks also planned (see Forsher + Guthrie plans in
Appendix D). '
Impacts from the SMART train were modeled using the EPA SCREEN3 (USEPA 1995)
dispersion model. Emissions from the propulsion engines (running and idling), and the auxiliary
engines used to provide power for the lighting and air conditioning of the passenger cars, etc.,
were modeled to predict impacts at the second story (20 -foot elevation) of the proposed project.
Two SMART operational scenarios were modeled: Scenario Terminus assumes the station will
operate as a terminus, with two trains stored overnight; while Scenario Pass -Through
assumes the station will operate as a pass-through station, with trains continuing on to the
proposed Larkspur Station. Diesel particulate emission calculations are presented in Appendix
E for each scenario. SCREEN3 modeling inputs and assumptions are presented in Appendix F.
ADANTA, INc. PAGE 8
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Value at the Specific
Value at Project Site
Source
BAAQMD
Type
Name
Address
Distance
BAAQMD
Cancer
Hazard
Cancer
Hazard
Source
(San
from
Distance
Risk
Index
Risk
Index
No.
Rafael)
Project
Multiplier
(70 -year
(HI)
(70 -year
(HI)
m
exposure)
exposure)
Union
1125
G9767
GDF
76
Lincoln
202
0.029
30.162
0,027
0.875
0.000783
Station
Ave.
Union
34 Ritter
G12350
GDF
76
Street
145
0.049
40.304
0.037
1.97
0.001813
Station
G12309
GDF
Irwin
834 Irwin
205
0.028
92.765
0.084
2.60
0.002352
Shell
1 Street
Cumulative Impacts at Project
Site
5.45
0.00495
Cumulative Cancer Risk at Project Site (15.4 -year exposure)
1.20
3.0 Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Train
The planned SMART train is the only other air emission source not addressed by application of
the BAAQMD screening tables that could have an adverse impact on the health at the future
residents of the proposed project. The tracks for the SMART train would be located adjacent to
the project site, with a second set of parallel tracks also planned (see Forsher + Guthrie plans in
Appendix D). '
Impacts from the SMART train were modeled using the EPA SCREEN3 (USEPA 1995)
dispersion model. Emissions from the propulsion engines (running and idling), and the auxiliary
engines used to provide power for the lighting and air conditioning of the passenger cars, etc.,
were modeled to predict impacts at the second story (20 -foot elevation) of the proposed project.
Two SMART operational scenarios were modeled: Scenario Terminus assumes the station will
operate as a terminus, with two trains stored overnight; while Scenario Pass -Through
assumes the station will operate as a pass-through station, with trains continuing on to the
proposed Larkspur Station. Diesel particulate emission calculations are presented in Appendix
E for each scenario. SCREEN3 modeling inputs and assumptions are presented in Appendix F.
ADANTA, INc. PAGE 8
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 — HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Key assumptions are summarized below:
• No train -specific emissions data are available. EPA Tier 4 diesel engine emission
standards and assumed power levels are used to calculate PM emissions during arrival,
idling, and departure for the propulsion and auxiliary diesel engines.
• For modeling purposes, diesel engine emissions are from train operations between 3rd
and 4'h streets (approximately 400 feet in length), including arrival/departure running
emissions and idling emissions).
• All SMART train emissions are conservatively assumed to be co -located and emitted
from a single volume source adjacent to the project site. The center of the volume
source is assumed to be at the midpoint of the two parallel south -bound and northbound
tracks.
• For Scenario Terminus, daily weekday emissions based on 15 arrivals and 15
departures; daily weekend will be 4 arrivals and 4 departures (Matoff 2013). Weekly
emissions multiplied by 52 weeks per year for annual emissions. Thirty seconds of idling
is assumed during normal operations. An additional 60 minutes of idling per day (4 trains
x 15 minutes each) is assumed because of the station operating as a terminus. Total
annual emissions are divided by the number of seconds per year to simulate a source
with constant annual emission rate, in grams/second.
• For Scenario Pass -Through, daily weekday emissions based on 14 arrivals and 14
departures; daily weekend will be 4 arrivals and 4 departures (Matoff 2013). Engine
idling is assumed to be 30 seconds per stop. As this is a pass-through scenario, no
additional idling is assumed. Weekly emissions multiplied by 52 weeks per year for
annual emissions. Total annual emissions are divided by the number of seconds per
year to simulate a source with a constant annual emission rate, in gramslsecond.
• The SCREEN3 model was run using settings recommended by the BAAQMD - urban
dispersion characteristics and a full meteorological array of wind speeds and
atmospheric stability classes.
• The project site receptor is assumed to be at 20 feet above ground level (second -story
height) and 32 feet horizontally from the SMART volume source (midpoint of the two
parallel tracks).
• The SCREEN3-modeled maximum 1 -hour concentration is multiplied by 0.1 to convert to
maximum annual concentrations in accordance with BAAQMD recommendations
(BAAQMD, 2012).
The results of the SCREEN3 dispersion modeling analysis and calculations of cancer risk and
hazard index for the impacts due to SMART train operations are presented in Table 3.
BAAQMD project -level significance thresholds applicable to SMART train emissions are: cancer
risk — 10; annual average PM2,5 concentration — 0.3 }g/M3 and hazard index 1.0. Health risks
from a 15.4 year exposure of future senior residents of the proposed project, and particulate
concentrations and hazard impacts from SMART .emissions do not exceed these BAAQMD
project -level significance thresholds
ADANTA, INc. - PAGO 9
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 — HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 3. Screening Level Impacts from SMART Train Operations at Project Site
Scenario
Cancer Risk
Annual PM2,5
Concentration
Hazard Index
W/mai
(HI)
26.07
(70 -year
Terminus
exposure)
0.0869
0.0174
(15.4 -year
exposure)
9.72
(70 -year
Pass -Through
exposure)
0.0324
0.0065
2.14
(15.4 -year
exposure)_
SCREEN3 dispersion modeling input data, assumptions, and calculations are presented in
Appendix F. SCREEN3 dispersion modeling output (maximum 1 -hour time average) is
presented in Appendix G. Maximum one-hour concentration conversion to annual average, and
cancer risk and hazard index calculations are presented in Appendix H.
ADANTA, INc. PAGE 10
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 —HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
4.0 Summary of Results
Predicted cancer risks, annual PM2.5 concentrations and hazard indices from local surface
streets and stationary sources, Highway 101 and SMART train. operations are summarized,
summed, and compared to BAAQMD cumulative thresholds of significance in Table 4. As
discussed above, these predicted screening impacts should be considered very conservative.
Nevertheless, in spite of such conservatism, the results indicate that cancer risk and HI impacts
are below applicable thresholds for each SMART train operating scenario.
Table 4. Cumulative Screening Level Impacts to the Proposed Project from all Sources
Source
Cancer
Risk
(15.4 -year
exposure)
Annual PM2,3
Concentration
(pgim3)
Hazard Index
(HI)
Scenario Terminus
Surface Streets
2.05
0.388
0.1200
Highway 101
2.55
0.115
0.0120
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
1.20
----
0.0050
SMART Train
5.74
0.087
0.0174
Total
11.54
0.590
0.1544
Cumulative Significance Threshold
100
0.8
10
Cumulative Impacts Significant?
No
No
No
Scenario Pass -Through
Surface Streets
2.05
0.388
0.1200
US Highway 101
2.55
0.115
0.0120
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
1.20
----
0.0050
SMART Train
2.14
0.032
0.0065
Total
7.94
0.535
0.1435
Cumulative Significance Threshold
100
0.8
10
Cumulative Impacts Significant?
I No
No
No
ADANTA, INC. PAGE 11
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
WHISTLESTOP 2.0 — HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
5.0 References
BAAQMD 2012. "Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and
Hazards, Version 3.0." Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San
Francisco, CA, 94109. May.
BAAQMD 2013a. County Surface Street Screening Tables Dec 2011. Table "Marin County
PM2.5 Concentrations and Cancer Risks Generated from Surface Streets." Accessed at:
http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUI DELI NES/Tools-and-
Methodoiogy.asp x, December 12, 2013..
BAAQMD 2013b. Gasoline Dispensing Facility (GDF) Distance Multiplier Tool. Available at:
http://www. baagmd.gov/Divisions/Plan ning-and-Research/CEQA-GUI DELI N ES/Tools-and-
Methodology.aspx
Matoff 2013. Personal communication from Tom Matoff, Operations Manager, SMART,
Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit District. November 26, 2013.
OEHHA 2013. "Consolidated Table of OEHHA / ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health
Values." Accessed at http:l/www.arb.ca..qov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm, November 11,
2013.
Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit 2010. SMART Technical Specification for Diesel Multiple Units
(DM Us) Draft for Industry Review. January 20, 2010.
US EPA 1995. SCREEN3 Model User's Guide. EPA -454/B-95-004. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
World Life Expectancy. 2013. "California Life Expectancy," accessed at
http://www.worldlifeexpectancv.com/usa/california-life-expectancy, December 12, 2013.
AnANTA, INC. PAGE 12
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
APPENDIX A
MARIN COUNTY SURFACE STREET CANCER
RISK DATA
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Wd
In
O
L
m
►;
MY
G
G.
LV
C'7
z
0
z
U
0
N
d
N
r0
N
c0 Od'
(h
WCO
CQh
00 0
r
N
ONCOMC�d
O
O
0
o
COM
to O
O
_ >0
43 0,
+�+
O
Q7
0 0
0 0
m
0 0
c
0 0
v
:v
Y
N O
C(U
0 0
1 N
CC
G7
0 0
N +fir
i
+ +�
O
U
N
O
7
0
0 +1
v`- N
L H
O 10
++
lU
inro
p 41
cu
v N
3
OO
COV
Fl
c u
o
41
i% p
.V
M if1
0 0
O O
�
• �
• C N
O
L
m
►;
MY
G
G.
LV
C'7
z
0
z
U
0
N
d
w
z
U
LL1
15
LL
J
-0)
N
r0
N
c0 Od'
(h
WCO
CQh
00 0
r
N
ONCOMC�d
O
O
htl'd
O
COM
O
O
O O
O b
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O O
ECt
0 0
0 0
.E
w
0000
<t coNMMt�h47
G
hh
O
OO
COV
Fl
mC0
It
N0
0
M if1
0 0
O O
0
0 <3
0 0
0 0
o 0
a
r
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
c
>l
(U
U
U
O M
Mu7
h GO
a0
C*O
If/
U,
O Cn
0 U)
O N
i
(J
d
hCON
[[SS
Ct
O hh
4) c0
0000
h o�
O5
4) 'cF
N 00
N 0
O) O
N M
0
O O
47 Q
0
O O
000000
p7
00
r
o 0
o C]
b
o
0 o
o 0
0 o
Cl 0
p
-,
0
16
A
ul
D
y
d W
cO O
JQa
LL'
tU
N
OCn
co U)
I
OONM
0 6
y
(1)
O
`-
o oorrrh-
O 0000
Wto
0 0
-
OOOp
NNNch
Cit N
Z
N
T
O
O
T
O O
O O
(]
0 0
3
W
O
N
C
Cq
U
LU
O
O
O
OMtn
W
CJ
Z
Mtt7M
6c�]lr
6�0
vV'�Nd
o
C
r o
o
O
L1
3ccoo
NLo
`
zo�drN
rNMt0
19n"I—CRV,d
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
MMco0
O
000000a000
�
C
O
`o
F
U]
z
Q1
.y
pl
y
M MN
O
(fl !'N
M
Io ti
F
O ,~?
O
a0 '�'
u7 co
h• N
I� tf)
M
ljtl/(J}
z
N Lr)
U
W
O
OCjQ
N
OC700od0
d' ifl
(C7
h
r
N
M
O w
V 4]
M b
ifl h;
a
0
O r
0
6
r
O oc,nn
N
N g
q
n
Z
O
❑ N
cn NV'
N �Ci
CD a�
N
10
0) CO
o
r MN
h C,
c0
M
c0 hN
No007
r.-
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
06
OOi
6�i
0 0
o 00
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
LO
(D0
760 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
p 0
0 0
0 0
6
C ON
r LiO
N0
0
O
Q�m0
6 6
0 0
O
NF
0 0
P1 It
L"
0
8 0
¢
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
�= 4)
O N
❑�000d0000d000
w
z
U
LL1
15
LL
J
-0)
N
r0
N
c0 Od'
(h
WCO
CQh
00 0
r
COd'
N
ID
O
O
O
O
O-
O
0 lf)
O
C
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 0
OO
O
O O
o 0
0 0
0 0
.E
w
0000
<t coNMMt�h47
G
hh
Op_
G
N V
47 N
0
M if1
0 0
0 00
0
0 0
0 0
o 0
0 0
r
r
N
N
N
>l
C
U
O M
Mu7
h GO
a0
C*O
If/
U,
O Cn
0 U)
h
co
i
(J
d
hCON
[[SS
Ct
O hh
4) c0
0000
h o�
O5
}O
(j
tC:)
O O
0
O O
O.
O O
O r
p7
O
U
o 0
o C]
0 0
0 0
0 6
Q
O
a
m
g
-,
cr
0
ul
D
y
d W
cO O
JQa
N
w
N
~to
r O
U
c07 N
0 6
y
NM�47o0ti
f- M-0
aD h
N
Wto
0 0
0 r
N_
Cit N
M
Q
fU
O
O
T
O O
O O
O 0
0 0
0 0
N
O
N
C
U
LU
O
O
O
OMtn
fT M
N r
0
W
O
'+-
o
"tr�m
M NMM
O
L1
p
NLo
`
zo�drN
rNMt0
'i d'
c00;
0
0
MMco0
O
000000a000
�
C
0
`o
F
U]
z
Q1
y
po CO
W N
00
W
p O
M CA
G1
F
Q1
U
O
Z
N
N
CA
co d'N
O47
Occ7
W
hN
�
t6
W
'�N
d'CO
r
f 0 O
N
M
O w
V 4]
M b
ifl h;
a
0
O r
0
6
r
O oc,nn
N
N g
q
n
Z
O
10
M ti
00 co
N
N
r.-
in
w
O N
ahD Ohl
OOi
6�i
❑
0
m
O
Lo LO
LO
mr
wQI
'cu
6
407, Ili
A
0 0
O OO
0
O
0 0
6 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
T
't3
0 0
0 0
0
8 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
�= 4)
O N
❑�000d0000d000
LO
(00 1,
0 0
0
a
C
�
r Ui
oNMdO'ifj
NO
4c'aF
rn c`
c00hco
w
z
U
LL1
15
LL
J
-0)
N
O
r0
N
c0 Od'
(h
WCO
CQh
00 0
r
COd'
N
O
O
NMlt07
Cc0�oOD0
O O
C r
C
O
C; 0
C]iJ00rr
o_
r
.E
w
0000
<t coNMMt�h47
hh
Op_
G
N V
47 N
r
M if1
h: Cn
Y
h
o 0
0 0
r
r
N
N
>l
C
1-1
O M
Mu7
h GO
a0
C*O
If/
U,
O Cn
0 U)
h
co
Q
oC)CIT
0 r
r
C14
C11 NN
N
(j
tC:)
Q0
U
`o
R
-,
0
ul
D
y
d W
cO O
47 M
N 'r
M
COM
't co
co 07
O7
0
h
U
00
'�
O c=(V
NM�47o0ti
f- M-0
aD h
collo
47 M
W
�
O
U
N
c
o r
NNM'4
W Coh
1,
F
M
N
�
U
LU
O
O
co r
OMtn
fT M
N r
0
LL
R
O
'+-
Z
"tr�m
M NMM
O
O
❑
p0
rNMt0
'i d'
c00;
al O2
O
`a
C
F
U]
z
Q1
N Cfl
CO M
po CO
W N
00
W
p O
M CA
G1
F
Q1
U
O
r N
M (0
CA
r CV
It CO
0
W
�
NNch
d'CO
otr.,M
r
d'o
z
N
N
O
O
M ti
00 co
N
N
r.-
rn
w
O N
ahD Ohl
OOi
6�i
Lf)
0
O
Nc+io7o�NP747i-o
'cu
6
000000000000
0 0
O O
0 0
O OO
0
0 0
0 0
0
❑ U
0.
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
C
N,
�= 4)
O N
N It
LO
(00 1,
NO
AT[-
a
Q
4
N
G
O C
I
0 •C O
O C O
o-
N
W
4
C ,O
O C �Y
o
O N
E
O O
U O
N N 7
CL
O O N
U O
.a N
p m O
of a
-f8F to
to
EO CU
O U
TS
N N E
m a U)
X1 IV
N
E
a
x
E
pL
O U rH
H
co P
TZ
0
N
C C
fn
7
-fl N
Q
LL
O
U)
U)w
C m
E
O
U `
x
CL LJ
N
O
r0
N
c0 Od'
(h
WCO
CQh
00 0
r
COd'
N
O
O
O O
O O
O O
C r
C
O
hh
O
G
O O
O O
O r
Y
h
>l
C
6
N
h;0
Mc00.
�d;h
C
0 0
0 r
r
r N
N
N
co
O
U
`o
R
-,
0
co
A
N
�t OCU
p O
(D
N d)
f- M-0
aD h
collo
47 M
W
g
U
p
T
o r
NNM'4
W Coh
1,
F
N
C
U
LU
m
O
LL
R
O
d
Z
Mt;mfoo
N.�o�(ro
O
O
o
r N
'i d'
ll7 ti
al O2
O
W
0)choCO
Mirm
F
1-:cq
QU
NNch
d'CO
otr.,M
d'o
z
O
Q
M ti
00 co
N
co I -
r.-
rn
O
N N
M 1 4
1^.. 6pp
ch
Lf)
0
t
6
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O OO
0 0
O
0 0
0
0
O
❑ U
tl)
Ct)O
NMdOfi
'
(004000070
oo
a
4
N
G
O C
I
0 •C O
O C O
o-
N
W
4
C ,O
O C �Y
o
O N
E
O O
U O
N N 7
CL
O O N
U O
.a N
p m O
of a
-f8F to
to
EO CU
O U
TS
N N E
m a U)
X1 IV
N
E
a
x
E
pL
O U rH
H
co P
TZ
0
N
C C
fn
7
-fl N
Q
LL
O
U)
U)w
C m
E
O
U `
x
CL LJ
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
APPENDIX S
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK IMPACTS --
SAAQMD SOURCES
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
X , • rsy �H r s p-,rN
. .1C 1r.�. 1!•: ,� r ,1 � a
phi �v��` iA ��r1 Nyfs ?� i• >� 3+ v
+Gi-'4r -- -' t' �^r�y, F, Vit.?'g.F.f' :'An"r�l"`:.
- ,.'..co
7,-
CD
-T,Aq
Cc
�1, -� Fri ,i�5y rr i it _•;fa �{�:`� � rs y:_. ,.� - -�. �-1�[IR '� ~� .,�11. '.%.yam �' e.'�",i
*�I ie, '� � � t ✓ � � �� "Ifj�f�,zelgll
. �� = J !•+r...� .� #"dI� -.� F�;�I 1�
F• .d.{ A w .� r� �9I 4 1 i�ti.J/V +Li •f_p—!a]Ai7 Q� ';.1 �'�+1,
`� - •.[M-. �•'V iry(y� L~� L.f -._.115 =clj_i
4, NIP
V. to
Ns
ISM
_ - ;•�: - Y r+.. _ _:3}'� - - x 3-.[�j.:, Yom` _ _ �,�; _ •_ • _ _ -
.
Lie
r
4A
1
oma 1 , {'�')eu, -�'1Q_
`� `mss W:g� - ,� ,,, : jQ�' J�,�� ` •�. ��L
IL
kv
Al W
OQ � P
NO
00El�
TL
? I W -W
CO
cy
ou
41
_ate _' -+4.. � •� - - - w : �,� ' sl _
-r'. ��;�� E � amu.. • j.,�l' j �... � - � � _ � �..;'
• � g 1 ^� p, .��^�YF.i ��r .dry. f ' i �..
1 CII r •� ,r' }cry ;' ..{,�t� '� a? 3 3 ��s• I; . ""i d_
N
E
(n
U)
(D
Q
Y
U)
rs
X c
Lu
P
D.
IC
T
o�
M
y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
� x
v
c �
CL C m o v
�
C C i E vni LO 4 O eN-t co 9o0 V
v
N l0J 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 �
!J
a o
N Y 4 -
fa 'II
v m w N
L9 u rl m rl CJ H O IT N
�o
u [7 N
Y
y `-S
D
o u
o• a �
m 11
c X
16 sl
T 7• � N
�a
o a >
.n... 111 i D
Y
U N
'0 (U u 4
a ° o m
a a u
al
In
Ow
o v D- o y
cw;u ' U w 5m O N M Q w N N m G z vO-
z a o E n m w o
o d E o a
m v v
�. N N n N N lD N I
'Ip O m c�D O�1 m um l0D
7❑ N N c01 U) cmi N U c'1 U E
v ti u
c
c u o E F
F y fl II
c
m M
c a m c 0
o u E F `° o
w♦m.. 7 7 V1 th u _ O
y C w w w W Z Z W C V
w
0 u \
m N
D
Om
� ` O
U � �
Obb O.
Qa d
c C+ a E y
Q E' Q
Iry
Z rcim`cr�= c�9
3
Ln
z 0 3
� N
W
ui m
u ❑
N v C O
C( m N m
c
ce,{( ` a
LA t0 0c V-5 � 0 z
a m m N W
co It
oo
G m a a
F- co m m a1
O
a
°� � o 0 0 0 0
V s
m
N C
M o
ia+ 4 E 0 0 0 00 0
.. o 0 0 0 0
w
7 0 0 0 0 0
N
1 0
m
N y
n n Ol 0 pl
. Ip N a0 61 to � N
u C p H N to H
u
x � w
a
.s N M
a a 0 0 0 °x x
q�oo0��
7 s �y
a)
M
H
LM i ID O U7 O
ce(C U D Q N
C m CY T
W u d N
o
Q' O "
O m
d O
❑ u a
N 6
E°0❑�` m ro
O
0 •� n
u a£N n U1
o .O
0 d
C N N
L° Q y a
� O �
�j IL o }
v E a
u E
RN �
V ro-4Y m
Q � H m ro
G G
OO
m .�
N Vr1 —
lD tD w U
n n
w c c
E° ° en
m c 'c c
z D D
CL
� a
O v
VS 11
CL O 0 U O
r 0 La 0
Q �
z
C ° O
� z o � D, �
4�4 i 'D m O Ul
M N H O
to lj I tD z
k
r
G
u �p
d
a
c
C
Q r
ro klj
7 0. 0
01y
v
Y
m
u
m
u u
u
W
W
W
z
W.,
C7
N
LD
[1 LD
N
.a to
N
I.L X
O
E N
E
T
U
C �,
�C ,Q
M C
O_ w
1•
U
C
0
r
O
CV
C
N 0
9 E
N
f1S �
C N
W �
Q1 Q
LL I
C N
O �
CE N
G
O
U
rnh
'C Gl
X
d LU
O
0
o
0
Ln
H
0
Ln
W
o
c*
in
Ln
Ln
l4
j
Q
H
a
C
aj
O
C
H
O
d
N
rt
d
�^
O
Q
Ln
m
U
Q1
.a
N
n
d
m
o
T6
ea
G
�
�
a
x
�
� o
a
ti
E
'^
ro
m o
o v
N
y
'tu
�
O
O
a
y c
E
c o
U
lu
cbD
c
i
Cl
O m
N M
M
U o Y
m -4 WH o O
'` n 2 0 Do o N
p
N o P o O p
N
¢
Cca
D Q 4
N �
SLAC o
ry A
O
X 4 O1 m O
Ra m�MvLnLn pow
N O o
C N 0`9 em -I
Via¢ �ciod
od=
I
a a
u
In
y m N
M v
c
O p m O af°,
a
m
` .� i. ao in ti rn
N In N 01 rC
w
a a m T4 00 O N
v
4 y -
c m Q N
k
V Ol
} m
o
Q w o
fv
o
N N M v) rOi
c
so
5 :^ ami
z o - z
U
C
0
r
O
CV
C
N 0
9 E
N
f1S �
C N
W �
Q1 Q
LL I
C N
O �
CE N
G
O
U
rnh
'C Gl
X
d LU
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
APPENDIX C
BAAQMD LINK 674 (US 101) IMPACTS
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
US HWY 101 - BAAQMD Link 674 (Receptor at 20ft elevation)
Receptor Location IPM2.5 IIMA I Chronic
10 ft W J 0.294 129.035 10.030 0.105
25 ft W 0.270 26.647 0.028 0.090
SO ft W 0.237 23.437 0.024 0.070
75 ft W 0.210 20.875 0.021 0.056
100 ft W 0.189 18.785 0.019 0.050
200 ft W
0.134
13.473
0.014 0.042
300 ft W
0.105
10.560
0.01 T 0.035
400 ft W
10.086
8.697
0.009 0.031
500 ft W
0.073
7.415
0.007
OA28
750 ft W
0.053
15.453
0.005
0.023
1000 ft W
0.042 4.282
0.004
0.017
10 ft E 10.772 176.647 10.080 10.101
25 ft E 110.762 175.577 0.079 0.090
50 ft E 0.715 70.970 0.074 0.074
75 ft E 0.660 65.531 0.068 0.062
100 ft E 0.608 60.377 0.063 0.053
200 ft E 0.454 45.237 0.047 0.037
300 ft E 0.361 36.107 0.037 0.033
400 ft E 0.301 30.153 0.031 0.030
500 ft E 0.259 25.995 0.027 0.028
750 ft E
0.021
1000 ft E I 0.155 1 15.688 1 0.016 16.612
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
APPENDIX D
PLAN VIEW OF WHISTLESTOP
P ROJ ECT/STATI O N
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
C
(D
E
U)
m
aj
En
Q
s
r
z
S N V I d 21001- '8 31IS i v n i d N� p€� `r"
0
u eluao;ilv'lav}vy uvg 'anu*AV sludlMWo,� pf6 :.�. c -'I v t3art� CV ..+
Z' to
m u1
rn
a) Q
11 x
G
O�
N
N
E
E T
D
U�
0- LU
]xyw.
a `=
64
_ ! � gJ31
e
v
x
o
Pog
� d
rz
5.c
r
0
N .«+
U)
N
Q
LL
W
.
E�
E
O �
U '
� w
�C .0
GL W
v
_
^
14
v
x
o
Pog
� d
rz
5.c
r
0
N .«+
U)
N
Q
LL
W
.
E�
E
O �
U '
� w
�C .0
GL W
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
APPENDIX E
PM EMISSION CALCULATIONS - SMART TRAIN
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
it
Ln
Q
r i
^�r
d
_z
Q
OC
w
LL
Ln
c/1
LiC.I
G
CL
c
O
[6
a)
0-
0
L ai
U) E
s O
G C
� •L
4-. 0
m
aa)) a m Lo
+tn rMi rn
a)
CU U
O N a)
1
LL
41
VT ar ai
E O. 1p CL
O O y*_'
4-
a) CD tp
� d• c d'
la —'
Ct �
C
W
LL
T L V) L
O O _0 O
O C
N C O
E wo E
O O O
u
co
0
Ca
b
Q
N
M
c
zs
a1 II
41 II �
4)
C!.
O II
En bA C
a C O L
7 s6
bn
C +cu+ aa)
U Cfl -0
CL E CL
a) N
E E E
u u) tn h
u ¢¢a`�
0
N
d' O
E
L Q
LL .1C
C N
O L1_
N
E tCS
O =
U
m
'c
C= .0
(6
a w
4J
N
N
3
t
LII
C.
a)
'
1
s
GJ
IC
bA
N
e -i
�-i
CS
Q
N
�
i
a)
r{
C_
o
b A
N
r -
N
s
�
o
o
za
LnLn
v
U
�a0
-a
Q
ro
W
N
u)
oa
r -I
Ln
—
Ln
Lq
O
p
w
ct
N
w
p�
G
O
+'
M
;1-
O
II
V1
b
41
C
ru
L
4
0
0
of
'ara
a
-
�
0)
E
uj
o
C
ro
v)
N
II
W
CtLo
n
II
Cl
'3
w
m
fL
d
s
al
.N
Q
o
II
j
F-
Q
z
a
w
m
a
'�
Q
d
a
U)
i=
0
N
d' O
E
L Q
LL .1C
C N
O L1_
N
E tCS
O =
U
m
'c
C= .0
(6
a w
s
I"
C
m
61
m
a
ho
O
r•i
h{
a
V
C
m
a�
C
C
L
m
:x
m
E
O
�C
C
lC
Q
l -
ca
L
L
C
fu
a
a
a
N
L
a)
L
a)
07
7
L
Yat
.Y
lL
w
a
N
N
Li
Ln
x
x
m
a
a
a
{-
c
w
N
r-
r-
G
L1..
cu
a!
a
t
a
L
.0
C
U
n
O
O
O
a7
N
VI
TB
DO
N
N
00
Ln
ti00
N
X
M
O
CJ
ra
O
0
O
0
Oj
ro
CL
ra
r
u
u
u
N
Ln
Ln
�
C
C
w
O
w
N
a M
O
M
G
E N
M
c1
L
f6
I--
al
aj
ai
a
ria m
cu
C
C
C
CLC
m
C
C
C
'G
�•
ra
a)
I?.
C1
C2
ho
0
0
V+
a4-
,r
4
y
N
�
r
"aa
=sL
C
C
O
L
C
mo•-
>
>
c
h
IUl
0000
o cc
a
a
+
o
a
a
L/)w
V)
V)
N
m
C C
.0
C
C
G
C
G
•L
y
LLJ
4 41
.F
q-
4,
4+
aJ
to
Ln Ln
O
L
L
N
.�
H H
fA
O
O
W
M
M
to
�..
M
n
Q o
0
0
00
W
ty
O
CL
x
.0
L
O
to
m
N
m
�
Ln
MO
00
C
\
o
o
ch
yO
�: -1
r1
N
EU)
Ln
O
C
z
U
hD
r-
>
�
G
a
N
a)
Q)
d1
a
I I
40-
m
f0
o
a
VL-
U
m
+•CL
d
�y
LL
C
a
M
D
O
o
�,
y
C0
C
O
C
tl
E
a
QO m
41
i6
C1
rL
in
w
U
C
L
O
a
, �
Q
w
o
CL
bb
a
CL
Q
a
•�
II
3 a
c
to
E..
ed
z
c
C7 w
a
1-
a
¢ w -a
a
m
I"
C
m
61
m
a
ho
O
r•i
h{
a
V
C
m
a�
C
C
L
m
:x
m
E
O
�C
C
lC
Q
l -
ca
W.,
O
N
E
ClS 07
L a)
In
LL
C
O�
L w
E {i3
C
O
U
0y h••
x
CL W
L
L
fu
a
a
L
a)
L
a)
Yat
.Y
w
N
N
Li
Ln
x
x
w
N
L1..
a
a
n
n.,
N
VI
TB
(6
Ln
N
X
X
ra
m
ro
ra
N
C
C
N
aa)
G
G_
L
f6
al
ria m
cu
CLC
m
'G
�•
ra
a)
rti
a
ho
V+
a4-
,r
4
y
N
�
"aa
=sL
C
C
O
L
C
C
>
>
c
>
>
o cc
a
a
+
o
a
a
L/)w
V)
V)
m
C C
.0
C
C
G
C
G
•L
LLJ
4 41
.F
q-
4,
4+
4
to
Ln Ln
O
"t
oa
N
.�
H H
fA
O
W
M
00
to
�..
n
00
O
L
EU)
z
U
a)
>
a)
.'Y
d1
a
fit
f0
+•CL
L
�y
a
i•J
U
W.,
O
N
E
ClS 07
L a)
In
LL
C
O�
L w
E {i3
C
O
U
0y h••
x
CL W
/
E
/
k
§
B
ƒ
/k
k\
_
f &
c
0
/
0
E
0
E
2
�
�
0
0
�
/
0 Ln\
0
§
c — �
/ b '
2
§0
c %
$
\
§
c ai
g \
\ �§
�
CL
O q
0
k�
D
(U
§ 0
�
(U § §
GJ
§ t
E0 � 2
§
\ho
/ $ $
_° # m q
M £ E
« % �
E o m
2 # ƒ
m ) /
CL
k
� � k
o \ i 0
Ul
JA
# >
[ g
% ` 2
LAJ \ \ k2
2 0)» ® E 6
ICL 7 § 2 \ F-
V)
k k 7 /
�
E
/
%
�
�
C.
�
c
0
k
0
cu
-0
E
m
Z
�
%
$
�
E
�
bO
�
0
LO
\
K(D
�(
/\
L�
/3
E ®
0
O '
7B
\x
aW
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
APPENDIX F
SCREEN3 MODEL INPUTS/ASSUMPTIONS
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
G
a)
E
Q
Y
O
th
cc
z
a
Cts
w
U.
Ln
w
a
hD
no
U
0
L+-
v)
ho
C
N
cn
m
C O
O 41
N
G ai
C r-
0 a) a
U C LU
41
Q 0)
*, CL E
L Ul
Q` m L
In b o
Qs�F w
a)
N
a
V)
'Z7
G
IQ
L
M
G
a�j y W M CLO
H H
a1
.fl
G F
O U U
N Ul
(V�'j L L
C!Z .� iZ
0 LO
w aJ t0
m
C- '
N
Q Lli
Q L Vi L
O O i3 O
N L O t
a) Q. U Q.
a E ON E
u 0 o a
m
0
Q.
O.
m
a
0
N
to
C
-cs
a) II
41
II j
CL ry
O ? II bA
C
C O t
(0
c�aQ-
L +1 ai
N m
G
aj
N
41�1 E 0-
al u1 + to
E
ro E E E
U N V) to
u < <<
y
y
a
3
ID
Q.
N
T3
\
`h
m
C
a+
r
U
m
d
N
e•I
.
ri
G7
O
N
O
N
O
V
I~
CD
a
cUa
a�
ra
a
rL
Y
r C
r
A tm
w b\0
N Lo O
a) L
� N
r M
G
fLtl
II
N
O
cn
O
G
•�
(
�O
N
C
C
•�
i0U
X
S
C
a)
Q
ui
O
rte`
to Q)
N
�
cH
II
E
y;
'
:
LU
0
css
�o
II
w
F
Q�z(D
a)
¢ a
t
PCL
C
W
E
fn
U)
(1)
U)
Q
MA
m
+h
C
ay
4A
L
m
CL
ar
ti.
•L
C
41
s
u
t0
GJ
ba
rq
LD
V4
11
t3f
t!�
O
CL
Q
.$
C
w
CD
C
sr
AR
x
E
L -
d
aJ
d
L
aj
a
(U
a`y
m
CL
Q.
lA
.ae
•E
U1
x
c
L
aoi
s
a�'i
U
m
a)
t�3
dA
N
r- u� d•
is
m
Ln
DO °D°
c
O O O
0 0
x
IL
44
.�c
aa) aa)i (u
ai
ay
• cry o M
cD O (D
ID cli
E m Y
0)
`a
(D O O Ln
a
,? U) V) I-
auiviro
a
OO
tO
ay r-
"
o
�
>L)
u
x L
m
CD N
C:,s
Q% o o Q
X
A rn
NCl> 00
u,
(0
c
0
OooLo
LLO
P-
py
r e N
[�6
'6
a)
C
O
•
L
a
Iia
c
o
s
O
of,
d
rn
Q
•Vl
0)fp
N
C p
a II
+
O
O
•C31 L IL
w
Qy(q:
0.
O
c a Z
Z
dl c
iv
o
3 a�
CL
aI
It
N
Lo
ap
z (_9
FEL
Q w 0
C
ay
4A
L
m
CL
ar
ti.
•L
C
41
s
u
t0
GJ
ba
rq
LD
V4
11
t3f
t!�
O
CL
Q
.$
C
w
CD
C
sr
AR
x
E
L -
d
0
N
N �
E
tQ �
3 ay
L (n
a) 4
LL x
C 'e
o a
E
E
O�
0
•E
0- LU
aj
a`y
m
CL
Q.
lA
.ae
U1
x
aoi
a�'i
t�3
N
m
Ln
x
x
44
.�c
ai
ay
0)
`a
O.
a
>n
a
n3
m
LfY
N
X
X
(a
[�6
'6
T1
ay
w
N
v
G
!w
L
L
M fu
'-0 \
C
fu
\
m
\
6
CL
lu
G
a
c c
o a
y,
ro
C
o
c
o>
5
04
c
cu
'
o..
�
�
41
�
a
sn
p `a
w
aai
Lo
w
aa)
a
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
L
TH H
o
�r
oo
m
M
.L
N
N
00
e-+
Oa
6..
a
E
tn
41
Z
Y
i
�
a
°'
N
C
m
m
a)
CL
41
CEJ
F°-
V
U
0
N
N �
E
tQ �
3 ay
L (n
a) 4
LL x
C 'e
o a
E
E
O�
0
•E
0- LU
C
(D
E
U)
a)
co
In
Q
co
co
Of
�J
CL
V)
A
u
cu
V)
b
I -
GJ
.0
E
z
6
ra
(/1
tw
_r.,
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
APPENDIX G
SCREENS MODEL OUTPUT
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
Dispersion Modeling Inputs to SCREENS
SCREEN3 Model Input
1. Use volume source with dimensions equal to:
a. Length of side= distance from edge of rail cars on two parallel tracks:
of car width (southbound) + centerline distance between parallel tracks in the station
+ /Z of car width (northbound) = %Z x 10.5 ft. + 16 ft. + % x 10.5 ft. = 26.5 ft.
b. Height= Height of railcar =.14 ft. 8 in. (SMART 2010) -
2. Source Release Height
Release Height = % the rail car height = 7 ft. 4 in. (SMART 2010)
3. initial Lateral and Vertical Dimensions for Model Input (USEPA 1995):
For surface -based source:
Sema y (syo) = (Side Length)/4.3 = 26.5 ft./4.3 = 6.16 ft.
Sigma z (szo) = Vertical Dimension/2.15 = (14 ft. 8 in.)/2.15 = 6.82 ft.
4. Receptor Input:
- Distance from source to receptor= Distance from Whistlestop wall to midpoint of two
parallel tracks = 32 ft (Forsher+ Guthrie 2012)
Receptor height = 20 feet aboveground (second -story height).
5. Dispersion Coefficients:
Use Urban option for dispersion coefficients.
6. Emission Rates:
Scenario 1 {Terminus}; PM = 0.000110 g/sec equivalent continuous source emission rate
Scenario 2 (Pass-through): PM = 0.000041 g/sec equivalent continuous source emission rate
(See DMU PM Emission Calcs Excel spreadsheet for detailed calculations,)
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
References
Forsher + Guthrie 2012. Track distances scaled from Forsher+ Guthrie "Site Plan & Street Level Plan"
October 23, 2012.
Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit 2010. SMARTTechnical Specification for Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs)
Draft for Industry Review. January 20, 2010.
US EPA 1995. SCREENS Model User's Guide. EPA -454/8-95-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
01/02/14
12:16:18
*** SCREEN3 MODEL RUN ***
*** VERSION DATED 96043 ***
C:\Lakes\Screen View\Wstopl.scr
SIMPLE TERRAIN INPUTS:
MAX CONC
SOURCE TYPE
VOLUME
EMISSION RATE (G/S) -
0.110000E--03
SOURCE HEIGHT (M) =
2.2351
INIT. LATERAL DIMEN (M) =
1.8776
INIT. VERTICAL DIMEN (M) =
2.0787
RECEPTOR HEIGHT (M) =
6.0960
URBAN/RURAL OPTION =
URBAN
THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT) MIXING HEIGHT OPTION WAS SELECTED."
THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT) ANEMOMETER HEIGHT OF 10.0 METERS WAS ENTERED.
BUOY. FLUX = 0.000 M**4/S**3; MOM. FLUX = 0.000 M**4/S**2.
*** FULL METEOROLOGY ***
*********************************
*** SCREEN DISCRETE DISTANCES ***
*********************************
*** TERRAIN HEIGHT OF 0. M ABOVE STACK BASE USED FOR FOLLOWING DISTANCES ***
DIST CONC U10M USTK MIX HT PLUME SIGMA SIGMA
(M) (UG/M**3) STAB (M/S) (M/S) (M) HT (M) Y (M) Z (M) DWASH
10. 0.8693 4 1.0 1.0 320.0 2.24 3.43 3.44 NO
DWASH= MEANS NO CALC MADE (CONC = 0.0)
DWASH=NO MEANS NO BUILDING DOWNWASH USED
DWASH=HS MEANS HUBER--SNYDER DOWNWASH USED
DWASH=SS MEANS SCHULMAN-SCIRE DOWNWASH USED
DWASH=NA MEANS DOWNWASH NOT APPLICABLE, X<3*LB
***************************************
*** SUMMARY OF SCREEN MODEL RESULTS ***
CALCULATION
MAX CONC
DIST TO
TERRAIN
PROCEDURE
(UG/M**3)
MAX (M)
HT (M)
SIMPLE TERRAIN
0.8693
10.
0.
***************************************************
** REMEMBER TO INCLUDE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS **
***************************************************
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
01/02/14
12:11:56
*** SCREENS MODEL RUN ***
*** VERSION DATED 96043 ***
C:\Lakes\Screen View\Wstop2.scr
SIMPLE TERRAIN INPUTS:
SOURCE TYPE
VOLUME
EMISSION RATE (GIS) =
0.410000E-04
SOURCE HEIGHT (M) =
2.2342
INIT. LATERAL DIMEN (M) =
1.8776
INIT. VERTICAL DIMEN (M) =
2.0787
RECEPTOR HEIGHT (M) =
6.0960
URBAN/RURAL'OPTION —
URBAN
THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT) MIXING HEIGHT OPTION WAS SELECTED.
THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT) ANEMOMETER HEIGHT OF 10.0 METERS WAS ENTERED.
BUOY. FLUX = 0.000 M**4/s**3; MOM. FLUX = 0.000 M**4/S**2
*** FULL METEOROLOGY ***
*********************************
*** SCREEN DISCRETE DISTANCES ***
*********************************
*** TERRAIN HEIGHT OF 0. M ABOVE STACK BASE USED FOR FOLLOWING DISTANCES ***
DIST CONC U10M USTK MIX HT
(M) (UG/M**3) STAB (M/S) (M/S) (M)
10. 0.3239 4 1.0 1.0 320.0
DWASH= MEANS NO CALC MADE (CONC = 0.0)
DWASH=NO MEANS NO BUILDING DOWNWASH USED
DWASH=HS MEANS HUBER-SNYDER DOWNWASH USED
DWASH=SS MEANS SCHULMAN-SCIRE DOWNWASH USED
DWASH=NA MEANS DOWNWASH NOT APPLICABLE, X<3*LB
***************************************
*** SUMMARY OF SCREEN MODEL RESULTS ***
***************************************
PLUME SIGMA SIGMA
HT (M) Y (M) Z (M) AWASH
2.23 3.43 3.44 NO
CALCULATION MAX CONC DIST TO TERRAIN
PROCEDURE (UG/M**3) MAX (M) HT.(M)
SIMPLE TERRAIN 0.3239 10. 0.
***************************************************
** REMEMBER TO INCLUDE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS **
Planning Commission, February 24, 2095
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
Exhibit 7b
Whistlestop Health Risk Assessment
SMART TRAIN CANCER RISK CALCULATIONS
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 7b - Health Risk Assessment
C
N
E
cn
U)
N
0
toQ
x
to
1
FMM
.E
L.
LO
0
N _
E
CfT cn
en
N ,t
u- x
a
.N
E
Ez
0 ,
U�
I� x
E LEI
m
ai
o
2
U
d Ln
4
o z Lu
u
U W LC
c,` O u
�(
O
Q
CL
c�a
m m
c
w
N N J
41 o
O
3
a
a
z o
CL
0
f0
'LS
r�
u
fD
0
= N
r-
0
O Y N
G
O
O C
ff_ Co
+'
�
C
N
405 �2
f�G f6 OC
U1
.
= U
C c
ru
N
O
E
C
OC
N
H
i a U N
C
cn
o E -o
U
cc
0 u�
V
"I
EL
O f6
L
m
bn
_
Ln > 3
d
E
ox^
OC W -a Q
C
N
CG
G m
N
O
Cp
N
-0
E
<
41
_
(D Qi
=.
Q
Qj
Q
C
d
O
Cf
M
d
OJ
bA
'(v
d
N
O
�
m
�..
m c
`�
m
m_
f9 �
J
U d
W
E
�
E
C GJC
If
v
QA
Q.
q�
ids
Y
U Q
C X
M uj
o�'o
0
_
o
U
c
w
a
o
t7N
p "
01
v 11
J
x
LO
Lit
N �
to
`�
w
N
u
M
N
is
{C
C
`a
U
u
W a
I I
L-
11
0
w 41
c 3
x
N
G
++
m
O
41
C O
mx
W
C
,i
U
II
U
d
0
@
i
O
O
1a
U
I1
i
U1°
=
V
Z)
Z)
NI
c
4-1
E+
m
O
u
a
X
1
C
C
U
vhf
X
v
L
C(`
.L
O
C
O
Om
N
�'
4-
E
o
+1
J+
ca
U
LA
z
0ris
4-1
o
u
G1
Z
u1
C
41
C?
LU
tv
m
3
pC
JR
U
C
d'
C
C
+
U
v
L
°
a
D
CC
u
LO
0
N _
E
CfT cn
en
N ,t
u- x
a
.N
E
Ez
0 ,
U�
I� x
E LEI
ai
o
U
d Ln
o z Lu
U W LC
c,` O u
O
Q
m m
c
N N J
E
a
z o
CL
0
'LS
a N U
C
= N
r-
0
O Y N
f�G f6 OC
= U
C c
om
H
i a U N
o E -o
M
(0 C G
EL
O f6
L
bn
_
Ln > 3
OC W -a Q
C
G m
o E
m
L A
E
41
_
(D Qi
=.
O N
Ln
�
L
d
�
f9 �
J
U d
W
C GJC
If
v
O
— cn
Y
U Q
C X
M uj
_
U
c
p "
01
v 11
J
x
L N
N �
to
`�
w
N
u
m u
o
N
is
{C
C
`a
U
u
W a
I I
L-
11
0
w 41
c 3
x
N
G
++
O
41
C O
mx
W
C
U
U
O
U
L
CG
0
@
W V .J
O
1a
U
0cucj
U1°
=
V
LO
0
N _
E
CfT cn
en
N ,t
u- x
a
.N
E
Ez
0 ,
U�
I� x
E LEI
C
O
E
co
a)
O
Q
cn
rs�
r-
0
N
w
C
N (D
N
� rn
a) Q
LL -$4
C
O L)'
V)
E a)
O
U �
a� ry
c �.
G p
a- W
00
CD
al v-
41
O
Q
U
Q m
'u
Q
tj W
Q
z
U
vl
CL
tw
c-
. Q
w
41
'C
O
� +1 �
N
11—
O
�3
Ln
u Q
a)
>
..G
) N
.LZ
L•
w 0
�
(SII
)
f-'
v
f6
x
O
C C3
C
t4
a) fII
f6
C � a)
O -1 .12
4�
-1 Wfu m
U
CO
QJ 'p
u
y
m
� � N
U
m
m
Q
y
E
O �
E
R. L
O
xw
iN
c
CCo
¢
a
Q
'° m
D
�
m-
a
O =
o_
CU an
E
o
m
a
•E
m
m°
o M
m—
cu w
a)
to �
m
CC
�
al
ns
Q
to
Q.
lL
o 4
Nc
-i
N
d'
N
m
M
L
wo
Q .
O
o
Cl)
til
a) L
11
m
ra
N
>J
N
w
� J
lII
I1
X
41
fo
It
O
�m
C
�
11
41
� w
II
L
O
u
L
O
d
cr
41
U
4
X
a}
i%
w
41
O
Q7
v-Fli
�.41
m
X
_
CJ
7
C
tl
Itis
41
O O
u
Cp
N
is
0
a)
Q}
�-
cu
C
o
p
N w
u
Re
C
4O
r+
v
Li
O
>-
O�,
(0
o
•�
�,
alb
ro
T
uar
8,°
Mrs
a)
u
fn
m
vC-
U
I
0
N
j
OG
I-
m
.p
L
V
Yn
C
v
w
Q)
u
v
L)
V
u
a`
a=
rs�
r-
0
N
w
C
N (D
N
� rn
a) Q
LL -$4
C
O L)'
V)
E a)
O
U �
a� ry
c �.
G p
a- W
00
al v-
41
O
U
Q m
a0 Z J
° W
tj W
Q
U
vl
. Q
� +1 �
NC
Ea)
IA Z
w 0
0
OC N U
C
f6
C � a)
O -1 .12
-1 Wfu m
-C C
C io O
m
� � N
O �
E
R. L
xw
-C o
'° m
O =
m
CU an
E
=L
cu w
CC
LA
ra
to
o 4
Ln
Q
a) L
ra
>J
N
w
� J
�
41
fo
V L)
C X
�m
C
�
� w
�
u
`_�
O
d
cr
4-
O 4-
II
w
41
�.41
m
X
_
CJ
v
W a
tl
Itis
41
O O
U tA
X
N
is
N
q C
L .0
C O
(10
S_
Q}
=
p
p
N w
C
c u
0)
f`
LLJ
o
�U�
ro
uar
8,°
=
u
rs�
r-
0
N
w
C
N (D
N
� rn
a) Q
LL -$4
C
O L)'
V)
E a)
O
U �
a� ry
c �.
G p
a- W
Exhibit 8
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Comments; Suggestions and Questions from
The Whistlestop Public Meeting
January 14, 2015
Compliments
Whistlesto services
• WhiWestop is°a resource to the community
• I support what.,you :are doing at:this.site or another site if you decide to move elsewhere
• Like the services provided by whistle stop
• Yourservices are great
.Pro ect
• Compliinents:for time, cornmitment:a.nd. dedicatlon of work done so far
• Linda, Jae, Rick and 'their teams,have done a remarkable Job with a tough site
• Likes the project
• I support your -good faith efforts on this project to find other locations
• The Chamber endorses the.project,good forthe community,:creates more.jobs, more :seniors
downtown
Seniors
• 1 commend you for:educatingthe: public that poor seniors don't.own cars and don't,drlvel
• Seniors built our community. We owe them nice places fortheir retirement:: We owe them:
respect. (2)
• Isupport-senlor.housing.
Exterior -Design
Keep -design consistent with the iinaee of San Rafael
• Is this the right::image for.San:Rafael?- suggest a more soulful look
• Keep branding1br.city as seen jn the city logo consistent with the design of the'building-- either,
both or nelther.mission style.
• Be consistent with a Mission/ Spanish revival theme,
• Like Mission style
• Building:has more of an urban feel;. especially with 5 stories. Not whata think -of for San -Rafael,
oldvs. new
• prefer the: "future" look
• Likelhe:".traditional"View
• Like everything about it, rooftop, balconies, gardens, resources, parking, location
a The last reballd was done:malntain the character of the old building: Concerned about
demolishing:a h.uilding with; character..[response. about research on landmark potential of site.]
• Preservation isa>local decision,. you can't predict what would be designated as:.a:landmarlc. .
• Like.the preservation of ofd buildings, don't.like the outside design choices you have
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 8 - Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Exhibit 8
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Exterior features
• Please, no propped up eaves and "decorative propped up awnings'
« prefer brick and moss green design to the mustard color
• brick is usually dark- would not like a heavy feeling to he building, would prefer light and
colorful
• Love the arcades, more curves, more arcades
Can there be a the roof? Even if they are only mansards.
• Can there be some reference to the form of the station?
« Please include greenery and raised garden beds
• I like the -rooftop access.
« Think more about the design.
Interior Design
• Have 2 tall elevator locations, with one elevator to the rooftop far fresh air activities
« Include a workshop below,
« Include an area for storage and recharging of motorized chairs.
• Units of 550 sq. ft. sound seem small.
• Increasethe living space by reducing the outdoorwall<space.
Health and Safety
Air aualltu
« Not enough greenery for good air quality.
• The location does not have good air quality due to nearby highway, busses and trains. Not
healthy for seniors. [Response made on air quality study].
• There are management and technological ways to address air quality issues that may come up
Exercise
• Have walking exercise areas at the site.
• Can there be a recreational facility on the roof? Walking areas for active seniors.
• Concern about safety of neighborhood, especially if senior go walking in that area [response
about experience with other locations]
Location
Transit - related
• City needs a train. station. These services should be at a different location.
• Considerfuture transit needs. if elevated platforms are needed in the future, what -would this
mean if we use this site for Whistlestop?
• I am concerned about closeness to the freeway.
Entrance to the city
• This location -should have a sense of welcoming, this will be more like a wall and will block the
view of the hills
• This will be a great gateway to the community
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 8 - Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Exhibit 8
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Alternative sites
• City and others should. help find another location, maybe a property swap?
• .If another. location -where would it be?
• Consider the PG&E slue (2)
Parking
Not enough parking
• Can you add one more level of parking below [response made about area watertal;le levels]
• Reduced parking could of dct attendance at classes. The Spanish class alone has 21 students.
• Concern about parking'at grouod level,
This area is already a parking. nightmare,
• Not enough parking (2)
• Owners.of current. lot are open to continuing the lease.if Whistlestop stays at this location.
Support for parkin vig sign
• 1 like less,parking. Think visionary - a car -less future
• 1 like -the "no cars" aspect of the building
a Charge residents for parlting spaces.
• Dedicate 3. spots to car sharing with priority for. residents.
a Don't allow.ernp16yees to park underthe building, they can take transit or park=elsdWheee.
• Rather than -take the buses underthe build€ng, just land them onTamalpais.
Other
• Now l understand why city council increased building heightto,66ft
• There €s a crit€cal .need for senior housing, 40 units being bu€lt:vs. 3.2,000 people who have need;
• Addsimulated people'to the diagrams to bettersee the size?
Not_ sure. about these comments
• Park between Mission and 4th. Pedestrian walks and bicycle paths connect,
• B10 Nlarih
Questions. broughtu p during the meeting
• Will this change theright of way;for existing bicycle:and pedestrian trails [answered]
• Where will .people go during the constructionphase? [answered]
a Where is the parking forthe residents? [answered]
Can.you buy the_lot across the street for additional parking? [answered]
a Do you have other properties that have this "no car" clause? is it legal? [answered]
• 'Where. is the funding:com€ng front?[answered]
• Are you a Foundation or an Association? [answered]
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 8 - Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Exhibit 8
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 8 - Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Exhibit
Public Comments
From: 6Y <kzim��t'.-66V�
SenMonda'yj..Januaty...%-j. 261S�33PM
To: Kraig ....~~....
Cc Bill Carney
Subject Comments onWhist|oot6p
Hi1iraig - As::.V6U'knoW,PadIJensen suggested. send trig my comMentg:on theNhIAlestop.plans toyoo
1-Wasp|ea��ssde the Wail Approach: siden�t-to.:SMARTT.pModifiedwhich a -more mc(dw|mr]ook with
windows. |prdf&rscheme 1au|on8ayD[a Ilows for sn�rpenn|xxvhbhdid h't seem tnbebbeledunthe 'd[avvnQsThe
roofAne |up|aad�nt,.
|tot��disUkothe design of Scheme 2, especially the "moderU"rooffiAe-zndthe "buttrcuSen.
Scheme 3Is acceptableas It hag solbrpanels indicated, Ithmain drovvbotkisthe uglv,rodfilinevxith�4vviridsNa|dm/so|ar
punp|s, ifthnycnuk| nedwith' loss xanmmUbss,'moybesome down dopaonthe: north u@e
In -conclusion, I like the different surface. depths a rid Ua Ico nies%on.th e. upper floors. \ also like the arches onthe: bottom
fIO-orthat canhouuemurab,o'rother memorabilia ond1heoutddn[patio atihecafe. 1thinkthedesign nf3chonme1Oto
best: with the Aati0nplatform and dom/ntown' The building should also have solar panels.
Sincerely,
Kay N
�
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 8'Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
c 13
ity counca
Contact F• r-rr
Thank you:for. visiting the City of San Rafael ikvebsite. This form is available to facilitate contacting our Mayor and Councilmembers
concerning topics of interest to the community. Please contact the City Manager's office at 415-485-3070 for any additional assista►ice.
Note that the City of San Rafael considers email to Councilmembers as an informal and non -confidential method -of communication. Please send a
signed. letter ifyou would like to make your comment/question a matter of.public record. Mail formai letters to San -Rafael City Council, PO Box
151560, San Rafael,: CA 94915.
11 First Nante
IlOreell
* Last Nance
kennedy
Address I
NONE
City
KENT.fJELD
State
CA
Zip Code
949041523
Phone. Number
* Email Address
goreen2045@yahoo.com
Send email to (select one)
All City Councilmembers
* Please -enter your questions/cornments:below
Please preserve Whistlestop Building in San Rafael.. We are losing our heritage/beautiful buildings. What's beingproposed is ugly and doesn=t fit with
the character of•San Rafael. Do not let this happen. Smart was supposed to take cars off the road and now we see all this development along SMART,
Only developers.win not the people who live in San Rafael.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit
Public
^ Send email to
All City [oumcilm*mbm
°
Please entOryour questionsfcomments below
| osenior and disabled, un|nmvery
sensitive \otkolhomgngneadJnthe area. !'think hOuak0Is very poor Use ofN\o`vpoca,which |matmnsit-huh
In Vhat.-betteruse fbr�than'to make use of this wonderfU|opportunity
to:refUrbish it as theitrain- station and.transit c . enter that we need in this spot.
Thank youi
LouismHorsoheUo
3
Planning Commission, February 24.2O15
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
Alityf of San Rafael
C0
ty Council
Contact Form
Thank you for visiting the City of San Rafael website. This form is available to facilitate contacting our Mayor and Councilmembers
concerning topics of interest to the community, Please contact the City Manager's office at 415-485-3070 for any additional assistance.
Note that the City of San Rafael considers email to Councilnembers as an informal and non-confidential.method of communication. Please send a
signed letter if you would like to make your coimnent/question a matter of public record. Mail formal letters to San Rafael City Council, PO Box
151560, San Rafael, CA, 94915.
Y First Name
Lois
* Last Name
Tucker
Address t
Ad dress 2
city
Salt Rafael
State
CA
Zip Code
94901
Phone Number
*E inall Address
tttcker lois cr,yaltoo.coat
Send entail to (select one)
All City Councilmembers
K Please enter your questions/comtnettts below
I am concerned about the Station Arca plan that includes the destruction of the lovely Mission style building currently lousing Whistlestop Senior
programs. Please don't tear it down.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
Ory of San YI'-T\aAav#
CRy ConH
Can -tact Form.
TIiadL;J(du-fbr YisItlng:thc-City -of.Satt Rafael -website. This.formis available to facilitate -contacting- -,ourMa-,yor.and *** hi lhY8rdlfcr§'
. CodfieJ
conc6iffihg-lopiesofi-nttregt-tC)the eommuriitSri the City. -Manager's office at. 41549540701or any- addid&�Lhssiswnce;_
Note that -flit City of San-Rafhel. considers email to C-ouncilniornbers as an.info.rinal and non -confidential rnothad-of coi4mecation.. Please send :. a
signed lcftcr.:ir7yotfwould like- to- rnake*your cornment/question a matter Of.public record. Mail formal.-letterSA6 San Rafael City Council, PO Box
151560, Sau-R-Hifol,- CA, MUS.
Mary,
* LastNanie
Buttaro
Addrowl.
Address 2
City
Kent -Geld
State
CA
Zip Code
94904
Phone Number
* Send emA11--to (select one)
All City-Councilmefiibors
below
Triisis-regaPdi--nglhe-de,mblitiolI ofthe estory Iistoric rail depot (Whisdostop) aiid:rel)l,,tceinent-Avitti.a-new modern 5 -story structure,
r suggest rethinking the project. Ther--curvent Spanish style building-undcrscores San Rafael astli6.Misq'!6ii:City.-Ourti-atisportationlitib.eould..be.re-
imagined as a plaza or. square (thifik-Sononia-S quare). Designing aii.area to houseatlic 9mart- traiii -stow'Whistiestop: and[Lbie bus d6ov.NAIII le
reflecting the history of the cit),-Ivft[itil.-,t-,velcojiii6g.park like settin-giSenior housibg.could belocated dIsewherb;
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
Email Address
singmysticu.nol.com
Send To
Planning
Please enter your gnesdous/comments below
The historical rallroad-builcling housing Whistlestop should be preseved. itis one of the last historical buildings and last galeway to identify San
Rafael, If site is used for housing do you really think tenants would like the highway view? In fact in the past vehicles have flow off the. turi in the
highway at Central. San -Rafael.
I hear quite often that San Rafael is clone and that San Rafael Downtown is nothing more than large box buildings of shadows and dangeis..fs it too
late for San Rafael? Is there any type of charm and good will that could be brought to San Rafael?
Thank you, Connie Gurlca
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
Tjiankyou f6rvisitirig-the City zof8an --RdA6Lxydj)sltpW- Thlg;torm-ls available tolecilitnio-q0tacting our May.op.And doupetIrnerfibers.
conceMing1opia-of c.ontadtilwC- Ity MAnage6'.:offlce at..413:-48.5-3070r.1'6i':,any.-addttiondI assisitance.
Ndtb..Ihat the as alflilfbi,iiial and non-corififtntial meth-odofCOMMUDication.. Please send,a.
9'&edl.leuer.lf.q.difwould like to -make your domn!enV4ueAi6ii.a7ni6fW of bubil'b'record. Mal'Ildrftial:ietter.q,t6'SttnRArEfdle ityCounVIl,A'Q9ox
151560, San RA, *C -A, 94915,.
* First - Rome
Lisa
Last Name
Addre", I
Address 2
City
San Rafad
State
CA
Zlij Code
94901
Plione Number
*-Eninil.Address
119aloffini 1(rt)aol.com
Send: emaill.to (select Me)*.
All City C6fifidlimembom',
*.'lease enfeieyr
ou
The Olfiid§ivonderfid-but not at the. expbnse,df.Id§lhg.the.Ihcrtd Ible vidtoige,building:Rt-tho
enWY.i'Ato:San Rafhel"i-The city li..ttruggling.withmitiny issues ilght:now aft&.1-feel It-.lS.IM'p6ffant to MMM& -the presence of histofical.buildhig,.
Tlift-4re.other opfibiwilght in tfieaaine general area. Indludih&tfie empty lot just -sitting: fift-oli LinedirrWhere the -housing Nvasrazed some,years-
ago. ThO Whistldstffp�bdding isAj*&w6l-in the dr6wri:oPour wmderral cityll-My. 6 abd.9:yeorold boys (ova that building toialMialik you fdtlyour:
time. v1sa-Soery
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
Note that the City of San Rafael considers entail to staff -as informal communication, -Please send a signed. letter ifyo4 prefer to make your
contntent/question a matter of public record, Mail formal letters to PO Box 151560, San Rafael, CA, 94915.
* To help us route your message to the correct office, please identify your area of interest (select only one).,,
Question/comment for City Council
Question/comment for City Manager
Question/comment for Fire Department
Question/comment for the Library
Question/comment for Police Department
FIBuilding, Planning or Zoning Issue
J3usdness Licensing Issue
13usiness or Economic Development issue
Parks and Recreation Issue
Road or Traffic Management Issue
Web Site Technical Question
N Other Topic
First Name
Kathleen
* Last Name
Sasges
Address.1
Address 2
City
San Anselnto
State
ca
Zip. Code
94960
Phone Number
* Email Address
ksas res )bottolaw,com
Please enter your questions/connneots below
I want to go on record as an inhabitant orMarin County (San Anseltno) to beg and plead that you not tear down the beautifid building at Whistlestop.
There is no architecture you could possibly replace it with that would do the original justice, The old train station building is beautiful and an asset to
San Rafael and to people coming into San Rafael via Third Street. Yin not sure where this email should be addressed, but put my name on the long
list of protesters who do not want that building replaced. Thank you.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
CA
0
o
W-1
From: Hugo- & Cynthia- Landecl(er [mallto:qlande dergsaber, net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 1},.20151x:14 AM"
TO: Paul Jensed.
Subject: WhistleStop project proposal
.Paul,
This letter is in opposition tothe deinolition of the WhistleStop building that listed in theSan
Rafael Vffstorical/Aichiteettiral.'Survey (page 11). This document -classifies the WhistleStop
building- a9l "go-od",it additiont appears- to be eligible for the National Register of ffisitoric
Buildings.: I would, classify the building as "excellent", The building was modified and upgraded
after theTregaration of theInventory. At that time,. every effolt was made to adapt the changes so
that -they were not. detrimental to the original architecture.
San Rafael. General Plan 2020 'recognizes the need to .retain lieritage structures M' our
community. Heritage structures ate a pail of the fabricof our City. Demolitionisa-detritnent-to
this basic philosqphy�
H.-istorkally, traih.stftAon� have been1ey elements of-ever'y' community aoross thonation.. With.
the
P; the
arrival of SMART'to: San Rafael the current structure fits- well with: the SMART as well as'eurrent
.and future -uses of the surrounding area.. Repurpose not demolishl
I wish to remind all concerned of the following:
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that exterior modifications or
demolition of potential historic resources be evaluated as part of the
environmental review process. According to state law, any structure on a local
historic building inventory (such as the City's Historical/Architectural Survey).,
regardless of the City's ranking of such a structu.ro, must be considered a
significant historic resource unless 'evidence to:th.e contrary is provided,
usually involving evaluation by a qualified architectural historian. Also, any
structure which meets the criteria for listing on the State's Register of
Historical Resources.must also be considered a potentially significant historic
resource.. To eitherdemolish or:mo.dify the exterior of a potential .historic
resource in a way that reduces its historic value usually requires the
preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for consideration as_
part of the City's development review process.
Hugo Landecker
San Rafael Heritage
z
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
STEVEN SCHOONOV15R
Attorney Atlaw
Januaty:1:5j 201:5
Paul r.jensen.— Girector.
SanRafae[ Comm u nity:Deve lopmb*ht.Dept.
P.O. Box 1-51560
San Rafael, CA 9491.5:
Re, Whistlestop.,demolition:proposaI
Dear Mr. Jensen: -
Hugo Landecker incorrect — the proposed dernorition of the.,Whistlestbp
Wilding will require a full ElRprior to City'.con'sideration of this ill-conceived
project.
Not only it the current Whistlestop building historically.: - if- - - t :it is one
signi -ican
of San Rafael's few remaining edifices having .arly architectural significance and
grace. Jt, is azwelcoming sight at San Rafael's somewhat's-cruffy entrance, The
proposed posed re0lacemelltbigh-risewls, thoroughly-'Imposing'and unimaginative. If
8an-.Ratf;�el.-strives to look. like dowhtown...Van`NUys,..then by all m'6ahs; allow this.
myopic . ic organization to tear down durbeautiful train station and. build thdir five-
:sfory-mare4ouse-,
As you. know,:parking :in the Whistlestop area is scarce, andthe proposal
to require. residents of the proposed. compl.ex-to give up their motor: vehicles is
illusory.--j.-since there is really noway and nobody 1o.e:enforce.zuch a flawed
scheme The parking ;mess around Kaiser's :downtown medical building should
required; to
:serve:as�..a: remlhd0r:of what -happens when developers aren't require :.provide,
ample parking.
Thereare numerous other sUltable sites Jor hilgh-density senior housing,
,
but -few San Rafael residents -:will tolerate more Win -Cup -style high density, high-
risa-housirig in an already overcrowded downtown,
Sincerely,.
Steven n hoonover
V
_8S1mrn
Mail:: 1537`.F.o:uilh Stre6l;.P MB.::1 64 Offlc6!, ' 430.2 Redwood"Hw . y. 206 -100 --
Ban Rafael, CA 94901 SantRafael, CA.9490a
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
O
co
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
...... .... . .......
FFrom:Hugd-& Cynthia- Landecker r mallto:dandecker@saher. net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 114,2015 11-:14AM'
TO., Paul Jemen_
Subject: WhIsUeStop project proposal
P-aul;
This kitaris in opposition to. the demolition of the WhiAleStop building that *13 listedin the, San
Rafael PHstorical/Ai-ohitecttiral.Surve-,y (page 11). This document classifies the WhWle8top
building. a9l "go-o&'j-a addit ion it appears to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Buildings, I would, classify the building as "excellent". The building was modified and upgraded
after tho - - ti of theInventory. At that tune,. every effort was made to adapt the changes so
,pregara ion
thattheywere, not. detrimental to the original architecture:
San Rafael- General Plan 2020 recognizes the need toxetaiti'lieritage structures in. our
community, Heritage structures are a part of the fabric: of our City. Demolition is a- detrhnent.-to
this basic -philosophy.
Higtoric-aIly th n With.the
1 ,;trgdh.station� have beenkey elements community across e-- aflon..Wi '. e
aifival -of :9 -MART to: San Rafael the current structure fits well with. -the SMART as. well as -ourrent
and future uses of1he surrounding area, Repurpose not demolish!
I wish to remind all concerned of the followitig:
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
The Cali:fo.rnia Enviro.n.mental Quality Act requires that exterior modifications or
demolition of potential historic resources be evaluated as part of the
environmental review process. According to state law, any structure on a local
historic building inventory (such as the City's Historical/Architectural Survey).,
regardless of the City's ranking of such a structure, .must be considered a
significant historic resource unless evidence to,1th.e contrary is provided,
usually involving evaluation by a qualified architectural historian. Also, any
structure which meets the criteria for listing on the State's Register of
Historical Resources must also be considered a potentially significant historic
resource. To either demolish or modify the exterior of a potential .historic
resource in a way that reduces its historic value usually requires the
preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for consideration as_
part of the City's development review process.
Hugo Landecker
San Rafael Heritage
z
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
P, 0. Box i.50.266
San Rafael, CA
www.monteCitoresiaeiftts.com
DATE. Feb. 10, 2015
FROM,.- The M.onte`c-ito.Area.Residejit*s'zAssociation (MARA)
TO:. City of San:R*afddl Design.Review Board
City of-SanRafael Planniing-Comanission
,Cc:
City of San Rafael Mayor -and Citytouncilmembers
Nancy Mackle
Paul: je�sen
Kraig TAffiborniW 1
�
Vederatiov:of'San Rafael Neighborhoods
RE: WhistleMp project.
FOR THE PUBLICRECORD
We are sending thas.one letter to both. the DRB and. the Planning:
Commission because d,the .uproming Feb 18 and Feb 24 meetings.
Therefore., the issues: raised herein may be within the purview of the
EiRB, or the PC,.but not both., We:app..r*e-ciateyourindulg�ef,ice of that.
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
One thing we would like to make clear at the outset - everyone in our -
neighborhood, as far as we are.aware, loves Whistlestop and its
services, and would like to. see it continue to offer them in San Rafael.
We understand how this massive housing project evolved as a solution
to Whistlestop's problem with the proximity- :of the SMART train.
However, we would like.to express our.grief that it appears that some
sort of 61 foot tall, block long, very narrow:bu' ilding will be built on this
site. Its location and size will simply be a huge visual wall. Not at all
what is in the City Plan, which emphasizes enhanced and beautiful
"gateways" to San Rafael. This gateway will in the future be one with a
slammed door in the middle of it.
Given that theconstraints of this inappropriate site make it extremely
difficult to design anything remotely attractive of this height, we do
think that the three design "options" presented are mundane and very
ordinary. We would prefer to see something which is actually -in the
Mission Revival style, (instead of just a modern building with a tile
roof). This style was mentioned as desirable by the majority of those
who spoke on this subject at the public meeting on this project.
Also, the San Rafael Design Guidelines which are a part of the 2020 City
Plan say that any building over 1 story in height within a view cone of
the St. Raphael's church spire should provide a "view analysis" of the
impact the development would have on views of that church spire. This
project is within the "view cone" shown in the Design Guidelines, and
we are not aware that any such analysis has been done. We request that
it be done. A copy of that paragraph of the Design Guidelines isattached
for your reference. This subject is also in the Community Design section
of the. 20.20 City Plan: CD -5: "...respect and enhance views of ... St.
Raphael's church bell tower...".
Parking: The proposed parking of 21 spaces is obviously wildly
inadequate, and is not in compliance with the zoning: This is a very
serious matter, as this area of San Rafael is already severely
underparked, which situation will getworse when SMART starts to
operate. Employees of the stores and other commercial businesses in
the commercial district of our neighborhood along Third St. routinely
park in -the residential part of our neighborhood, as there is not. enough
Planning Commission, February 24, 2415
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
parking,in,the co.r.nmer6fal-'area. Thebus,station was.approved without
.n I
any parking, at all, and SMART does not -A" tend to.provide...ah- y-parkihg
for fts--rlders..If you just look -at., this project, which is fait, th6parkli-ig
proposed -J& -a fantasy. 47 seniors (who we. are assured with.not be
allowed--to--have cars). will hopefully have: family visitors, as: well as -care
-etc- so anyonewho,drives to use. any -s:-serv-jces
giVers, A of Whistles -top"
will need to park, At the public meeting, a.gentlemawwho teaches
Spanish-at_-Nhistl estop said thatpeople attending one of his classes
alo-fiewould.fi-1.1-up the proposed.parking: Moving the employee -s will not.
s6lve=this- problem. We. understand, that there. are other.. -already. built
senior housing.proj ects in North San Rafael which were --approved with:
inadequate.parking based. on similar thedriosi.:to-the -ono proposed for
this --project,.and that it has turned out that they are severely
underparked. There is an eXtreme political philosophy whith-.adv-dp,*.Ates'-
Iforcing-people out oftheit cars" by eliminating',patking, as-vell. as-
.-creating:g-rid- lock on.. -all of oUr streets; but've are- confident:tliat that -is:
not the pdlfcy:of the *City of San Rafael, whose residents haveto live in
the real, wot1d..
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
The Board. of MARA
Vickile Hatos.
Sid:W. ax.man
Jac-Itie Schmidt
Constanza Perry
Reamer
Sherna Deamer
Kristic Garafola
Tbm -Hurrqy--
ScottKaplan
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
NJ -
0
LL
O O
N
U
E
E
s
U ,
�rn
'c .n
duj
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
February 17, 2015
To the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission
Cc: Paul Jensen, Director of Community Development. Mayor Phillips,
Councilmembers
The San Rafael Depot, sitting snuggly 8' away from the new.SMART
track in San Rafael, is still beautiful after all of these years. The depot
building, constructed in 1929 and opened to the public exactly 85
years ago, January 25,1930*, is an important historic building that
"looks like our city".. It is among our iconic mission revival
buildings -from the last century: The Mission San Rafael Arcangel (built
in 1919), The San Rafael Station (1930) and the replica of the Old
Mission, to the right of the church, (1949).
Rebuilding the mission buildings was a wise decision, and our city still
benefits from their.gracious presence. Preserving the San Rafael train
station would follow this wisdom. Right now, the station is slated for
the wrecking ball, to accommodate Whistlestop's building plans.
Fortunately, there are more appropriate sites for the proposed
building and parking near the transit center.
Join San Rafael residents who cherish the beauty of these historic
structures and register your preference for a better site for
Whistlestop's senior housing and activity center. We hope for interest
among civic agencies, benefactors and historically minded developers
to purchase re -purpose and preserve the structure.
The San Rafael Train Station is on the City's local historical building
survey list as having potential historic or cultural significance (train
depot), and as such the City is requesting preliminary comments at
the February 24�h Design Review Board meeting. We are unfortunately
unavailable to speak, so please count our letter as you consider
Whistlestop's proposed demolition.
Let's celebrate the birthday of San Rafael's 85 -year old gem, and plan
for its 100th, instead of having to tell our grandchildren, "That's where
a beautiful train station once sat."
Amy & Joe Likover
134 Reservoir Rd
San Rafael
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments
Exhibit 9
Public Comments
Kraig; Tamlwnini
From: christine strand <christinestrand@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:35 PM
To: Kraig Tombornini'
Subject: Save The Historic Train Depot
Dear Kraig,
The idea that San Rafael's beautiful 87 -year-old Mission style Railroad Depot could soon face the wrecking ball is.appallingl Just as
th-e: new SMART train 1s being readied to stop directly In front:ofthis historic traln station, there are plans to demolish it?I What a
.shame that would be: This is the ti'me.and opportunity for San Rafael to find the way to revive this historic train depot, much lil<e
.San Francisco's Ferry Building was revived, NQTtotear it dowiil
The downtown SMART train stop a menitles.currently,planned seem extremely.: meager at best. Barely a.shelter over a few seats for
travelers waiting for the train,. zero parking, zero amenliies, The City of San Rafael should'pick up the ball, be forward thinking; and
to seize this one time opportunity to develop a bonafide welcoming"train depot at this location, in this beautiful building that
perfectly reflects.the character, history and. future of San Rafael,
Revitalized, this handsome Mission ReVlval building would be the perfect gateway to downtown San Rafael,.Madn's Mission. City. It
could ibe restyled as a vibrant depot /marketplace with shops, cafes and. restaurants.,. a destination where train travelers and others
could pause to enjoy a cup of tea., a snack or mea[ with a friend, or pick up an umbrella, a scarf, aspirin, a.book,-or fixings for dinner
to.take home,
The city should find the:way to assist.Whist[estop in relocating Its very valuable operations and condo expansion:plans to a more
appropriate San Rafael location -It would be 'heartbreaking to see another awful cook[e cutter high-density 5 -story View-bloclting
condo building at this location; serving as the symbolic gateway -to downtown San Rafael. Please, do not allow the destruction of
Mari.h's wonderful train station. Revitalize itl
Christine Strand
415.454.3547 Home
415.509,3547Cell
christinestranditsbcglolial.net
Planning Commission, February 24, 2015
Exhibit 9 - Public Comments