HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Environmental and Design Review Permit for New Mixed-Use Building at 1515 4th Street____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: May 8, 2023
Disposition: Resolution 15214
Agenda Item No: SM 1
Meeting Date: May 8, 2023
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Alicia Giudice,
Community Development Director
Jeff Ballantine, Senior Planner
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING
AT 1515 4TH STREET
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP23-
002) AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APRIL 11, 2023 ACTION
APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED22-016) FOR
A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH 162 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 8,900 SQUARE
FEET OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 1515 4TH STREET
AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15332
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On March 10, 2022, Collin Monahan (“applicant”) submitted a proposal to construct a new mixed-use
building with 162 residential units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor commercial space located at
1515 4th Street. The northern face of the proposed building that faces 4th Street would be seven stories
and the southwestern corner of the building is eight stories. The proposal includes demolishing the
existing vacant bank building on the site and providing landscaping and other site improvements.
The project proposes that 13 of the 162 units would be available to very low-income households.
Because the proposal provides that 10% of the total base density units would be affordable to very low-
income households, the project is subject to the State Density Bonus Laws (“SDBL”, Gov. Code section
65915 et seq.). As a density bonus project providing 10% of base density units as affordable to very low
-income households, the project is entitled to two incentives/concessions (hereinafter “incentives.”)
Because at least two-thirds of the square footage of the project is dedicated to residential uses, the
project is considered a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). The
HAA provides that a City may only deny a housing development project or reduce its density if the project
is inconsistent with objective standards; “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment
by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or
criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”1
1 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
On April 11, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an environmental and
design review permit for the proposed project. The Planning Commission took public comment, received
reports from staff and the applicant, and considered the evidence in the record. The Planning Commission
voted 3 ayes, 1 noes, and two abstentions to approve the environmental and design review permit.
On April 18, 2023, the City received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s April 11, 2023 action
(Attachment 2) approving the Environmental and Design Review permit for the project. The basis for the
appeal relates to public safety concerns regarding potential traffic and flooding impacts from the proposed
project. The appeal does not raise any significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts of the
project, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as
they existed on the date the application was deemed complete as required by the Housing Accountability
Act (Government Code Section 65589.5). Therefore, the appeal has no merit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal (AP23-002)
and upholding the Planning Commission’s April 11, 2023 action approving Environmental and Design
Review permit (ED22-016, PLAN22-039) for a proposed new mixed-use building with 162 residential
units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor commercial space at 1515 4th street and determine the project
is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332.
BACKGROUND:
Project Summary
The project proposes to demolish the existing approximately 4,300 square foot commercial building and
construct a new mixed-use building with 162 residential units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor
commercial space on the existing 38,521-square-foot site located on 4th Street between E Street to the
east and Shaver Street to the west. The building would have a maximum height of 80 feet, with seven
stories on the northern portion of the building fronting 4th Street and eight stories at the southwestern
corner. The project would have two partially subterranean floors (Level P2 and Level P1, shown on
Sheets A2.0A and A2.0B of the project plans) that would accommodate 179 vehicle parking spaces, a
bicycle storage room for 116 bicycle parking spaces, and a trash room. The ground level includes 8,900
square feet of retail space, a gallery space, reception area, club rooms, nine residential units, and an
outdoor swimming pool and courtyard area. Levels 2 through 7 include the remaining 153 residential
units. A lounge room and two common roof decks are also included on Level 7. The project proposes
119 one-bedroom units and 43 two-bedroom units.
Affordable Housing
The project would include 13 residential units designated as Below Market Rate (BMR) for Very Low-
Income households (those earning between 30% and 50% of the Area Median Income). Pursuant to the
City’s Guidelines for Administration of the Affordable Housing Requirement, the affordable units must be
dispersed throughout the project and must be of similar mix and type to that of the market-rate units.
Additionally, the affordable housing units shall be compatible with the design, materials, amenities and
appearance of the market rate units.2
Accordingly, the project must provide at least 4 two-bedroom very low-income units, and 9 one-bedroom
very low-income units. Prior to certificate of occupancy or the final inspection of any units in the project,
an affordable housing regulatory agreement must be approved by the City Manager and recorded against
2 San Rafael Guidelines for Administration of the Affordable Housing Requirement, subd. (C).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
the project site. The regulatory agreement will limit the rental of the 13 affordable housing units to
maximum rents affordable to very low-income households.3
Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the two levels of parking garages would be provided through the installation of two
new driveways on Shaver Street. Pursuant to the Local Traffic Analysis prepared by Advanced Mobility
Group, dated December 2022 (Attachment 5), the proposed project would remove on-street parking
adjacent to the project on Shaver Street to increase travel lane width from about 16 feet currently to about
22 feet wide in order to provide safer roadway conditions. The current sidewalk width on Shaver Street
frontage of the project ranges from 6 feet to 7 feet wide. The proposed project sidewalk would be widened
to 8 feet to accommodate for the project driveways. An 18-inch planting strip flush with the sidewalk and
adjacent to the building would be provided for additional safety of pedestrians. The Public Works
Department has reviewed the Local Traffic Analysis for the project and verified that it addresses the City’s
relevant policies and requirements, including the City of San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines,
June 2021.
Design Review Board Hearing
The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project on March 7, 2023 and recommended Planning
Commission approval of the project on the condition that the applicant addresses the following comment:
Provide a different color and/or material for the two building corner columns facing 4th Street and the
center building column facing 4th street from the color and material proposed for the rest of the building
columns on all building elevations.
This recommendation is included as Condition of Approval #3 in the City Council Resolution (Attachment
1).
Planning Commission Hearing
On April 11, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the Environmental and Design
Review Permit for the proposed project. The Planning Commission meeting was well attended with 19
people providing public comment that raised concerns about the project and 18 people providing public
comment in support of the project. After considering the evidence presented before them, the Planning
Commission voted to approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit ED22-061. On April 18,
2023, Vikram Seshadri (“Appellant”) appealed the Planning Commission decision. Staff’s analysis
presented below demonstrates that the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the
environmental and design review permit has no merit.
ANALYSIS:
Consistency with City Policies and Regulations
The project is consistent with the adopted City Council goals and objectives; San Rafael General Plan
2040; Zoning Ordinance; and Downtown Precise Plan as described in detail in the April 11, 2023 Planning
Commission staff report packet (Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Attachment
3).
Downtown Precise Plan Consistency
Development review criteria of the San Rafael Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) are included in Chapter 9
(Downtown Form-Based Code). The Downtown Precise Plan was adopted by the City with the intent of
3 San Rafael Guidelines for Administration of the Affordable Housing Requirement, subd. (E).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
accommodating higher density mixed use development in the City’s Downtown. Development standards
and building massing and articulation criteria of the DPP are provided below.
Form Based Code
Most of the project site is located in the T4MS 50/70 district and the T4MS 50/70 Open sub-zone district
with a small portion of the southwest corner of the site is located in the T4N 40/50 district of the Downtown
Precise Plan (see Figure 1 above). Section 2.3.040 of the Downtown Form-Based Code provides the
relevant development standards for properties located in the T4 Main Street (T4MS) district. Section
2.3.030 of the Downtown Form-Based Code provides the relevant development standards for properties
located in the T4 Neighborhood (T4N) district. A summary of these development standards is included in
Table 2 and Table 3 below, respectively.
Table 1: Development Standards – T4MS 50/70 (DPP Section 2.3.040)
Standard Required Proposed Compliance
Building Setbacks
Front 0 ft. min.; 10 ft.
max.
0 ft. Complies
Side Street 0 ft. min.; 10 ft.
max.
0 ft. Complies
Side 0 ft. min. 0 ft. Complies
Rear 0 ft. min. 10 ft. 3 in. Complies
Façade length in
façade zone.
(1) Front
(2) Side Street
(1) 80% min.
(2) 70% min.
(1) 100%
(2) 88% east side
(2) 94% west side
Complies
Civic Space 1,000 sq. ft. min. 0 sq. ft. Density Bonus Concession
Height 50 ft. max. 80 ft. Density Bonus Waiver. Measured
from existing grade.
Stepback
Front 10 ft. at 45 ft. tall 0 ft. Density Bonus Waiver
Side Street 10 ft. at 45 ft. tall 0 ft. Density Bonus Waiver
Rear 10 ft. at 45 ft. tall 10 ft. Complies
Ground Floor Ceiling 14 ft. min. 15 ft Complies
Vehicle Parking 103 spaces 179 spaces Complies
Bicycle Parking 205 spaces 205 spaces Complies
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
Table 2: Development Standards – T4N 40/50 (DPP Section 2.3.030)
Standard Required Proposed Notes
Building Setbacks
Front 7 ft. min.; 15 ft.
max.
0 ft. Density Bonus Waiver
Side Street 7 ft. min.; 15 ft.
max.
0 ft. Density Bonus Waiver
Side 5 ft. min. 71 ft. 5 in. Complies
Rear 15 ft. min. 10 ft. 3 in. Density Bonus Waiver
Building Length 75 ft. max. 75 ft. 6 in. Density Bonus Waiver. For
portion of building located in T4N
40/50 district.
Façade length in
façade zone.
(1) Front
(2) Side Street
(1) 70% min.
(2) 50% min.
(1) 100%
(2) 94% west side
Complies
Height 40 ft. max. 80 ft. Density Bonus Waiver. Measured
from existing grade.
Stepback
Front 10 ft. at 35 ft. tall 0 ft. Density Bonus Waiver
Side Street 10 ft. at 35 ft. tall 0 ft. Density Bonus Waiver
Rear 10 ft. at 35 ft. tall 0 ft. Density Bonus Waiver
Massing and Façade Articulation
Division 3.2 of the Downtown Form-Based Code includes massing and façade articulation standards. A
summary of these standards is included in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Massing and Façade Articulation (DPP Division 3.2)
Review Criteria Proposed Code
Subsection
Tripartite Façade Articulation. New
facades and façade modifications
along a street or civic space shall be
designed to visually express a base,
middle, and top.
Most of the top level is recessed from a
majority of the lower levels and in lighter
color stucco such that the top of the building
is distinct from the rest of the building. The
ground level primarily consists of glass
windows and storefronts such that it is
distinct from the upper levels.
3.2.030
Massing and Composition. Building
facades shall be arranged in an orderly
composition of window bays/openings
based on prevalent patterns of 5, 7 or
9 bays.
Each building elevation is arranged in an
orderly composition of the following number
of window bays/openings:
• North Elevation – 9 bays/openings
• East Elevation – 5 bays/openings
• South Elevation – 9 bays/openings
• West Elevation – 5 bays/openings
3.2.040
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
Table 3: Massing and Façade Articulation (DPP Division 3.2)
Review Criteria Proposed Code
Subsection
Corner Elements. New facades and
facade modifications shall be designed
to include a corner element to give
visual importance to the corner and
enhance the public realm.
Each building façade includes a corner
element that is distinct from other portions of
the building.
3.2.050
Windows and Openings. Buildings
100' or more in length along the street
are required to include projected or
recessed window bays. The recess
may be achieved by a partial or
complete window surround. Up to 3
bays may be grouped.
Each building façade is broken into different
columns that serve as window bays and
project from the rest of the building.
3.2.060
Density Bonus Incentives and Waivers
State Density Bonus Law affords significant inducements to developers to include affordable housing as
part of their projects in the form of “concessions or incentives.” A concession or incentive is defined as:
a reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design
requirements, including a reduction in setback or minimum square footage requirements; approval of
mixed-use zoning; or other regulatory incentives or concessions which result in identifiable and actual
cost reductions. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (k)(1).) The intent of concessions and incentives is to lower
the cost of the construction of housing in order to provide for the affordable housing. The number of
required incentives or concessions is based on the percentage of affordable units in the project (Gov.
Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(2)).
Since there is no residential density limit on properties in the Downtown Precise Plan area, an applicant
is required to demonstrate how many units can feasibly be constructed on the site in a manner that
complies with all objective development standards and that provides average unit sizes comparable to
the actual proposed project. This hypothetical project that complies with objective development standards
is called the base density project.
The applicant for this project has demonstrated a base density project of 122 residential units for this site.
Based on the commitment to provide 10% of the units, or 13 units, available to very-low income
households, the project qualifies for a 32.5% density bonus. This density bonus results in a total maximum
allowable of 162 residential units (32.5% of 122 equals 39.65 which rounds up to 40 additional units
beyond the base density project).
In addition, the project is eligible for two concessions and as many waivers to accommodate the
affordable housing development. Unlike incentives and concessions, waivers are unlimited, and their
purpose is to remove developments standards that have the effect of physically precluding the
construction of the density bonus project. As described in Table 1 above, the project seeks a density
bonus concession for the requirement to provide 1,000 square feet of civic space on the site as well as
waivers for maximum building height and minimum building stepbacks. As described in Table 2 above,
the project seeks additional density bonus waivers for minimum front and side street setback and
maximum building length for the portion of the building located in the T4N 40/50 district. Staff has
reviewed the density bonus application materials for the project and confirmed that they comply with the
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
relevant requirements in Government Code Section 65915 and San Rafael City Council Resolution
14891.
SB 330 - Housing Accountability Act of 2019
The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5 et seq.) seeks to boost homebuilding
throughout the State with a focus on urbanized zones by suspending or eliminating restrictions on
housing development. Housing development is defined as a project that is: all residential; a mixed-use
project with at least two-thirds of the square-footage residential; or for transitional or supportive housing.
As explained above, the HAA provides that a City may only deny a housing development project or reduce
its density if the project is inconsistent with objective standards or if a limited exception is met.
Section (j) of the HAA provides a limited exception to approval: where a housing development project
complies with applicable objective development and design standards, a local agency may deny the
project or reduce allowable density if the local agency finds, supported by substantial evidence, that the
project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety and that such impacts
cannot be mitigated. A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete (Government Code Section
65589.5.j.1.A).
As set forth above, the proposed project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning
standards, with allowable waivers and concession as required by State Density Bonus law. Thus, section
(j) of the Housing Accountability Act applies. Staff has conducted analysis and no public health or safety
impacts have been identified.
Summary of Appeal (AP23-001) and Staff Responses
The appeal letter submitted by Appellant (Attachment 2) alleges that the project could result in traffic
impacts that could affect public safety as well as flooding impacts. The appeal does not raise any
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts of the project, based on objective, identified
written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application
was deemed complete. As such, staff does not believe there is a basis to deny the project on the basis
of potential traffic or flood impacts. Nevertheless, City staff provides the following background information
in response to the bases for appeal:
Appeal Point 1 – Inadequate Traffic Analysis
The appellant claims that the Local Traffic Analysis prepared for the project (Attachment 5) is
inadequate because it did not analyze impacts to the intersections of 3rd Street/Shaver Street; 2nd
Street/Shaver Street; and Latham Street/Shaver Street.
Staff Response
The City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines identify the scope of work that is deemed an
appropriate level of analysis for a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) for many types of projects,
including this one, located within Downtown San Rafael:
The study area for small projects should consist of, at a minimum, the roadways providing
immediate access to the Project site, including any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. For most
projects in this tier, analysis will focus on project driveways, and identify 2-4 intersections near the
project to assess the effects on site access. (p.23)
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
The intent for requiring an LTA for a project of this scope is not for the purpose of analyzing
congestion impacts to streets but rather for the purpose of assessing “effects on site access” to the
project site. The LTA for the project included analysis for the intersections of 4th Street/E Street and
4th Street/Shaver Street because these two intersections are directly adjacent to the project site and
have relevance on assessing traffic as it relates to site access. The intersections of 3rd
Street/Shaver Street, 2nd Street/Shaver Street, and Latham Street/Shaver Street range are located
approximately 112 feet, 245 feet, and 345 feet, respectively, from the project site. Consequently,
pursuant to the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines, these three intersections are not
considered relevant for assessing effects on site access to the project site. The intersections studied
were reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer as appropriate for the LTA.
Regardless of the intersections analyzed in the LTA, there are not any objective quantifiable
standards in the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines pertaining to traffic or site access.
Appeal Point 2 – Traffic Impacts
The appellant claims that traffic congestion on Shaver and Latham will go from bad to significantly
worse due to the project. Examples of existing traffic congestion issues on Shaver Street provided
by the appellant include the following: (1) narrow street width; (2) backups on Shaver Street at 3rd
and 2nd Street traffic lights; and (3) new bulb-outs on Shaver Street at intersections of 3rd and 2nd
Streets create particularly narrow passages.
Staff Response
Narrow Street Width: Pursuant to the LTA prepared for the project (Attachment 5), the proposed
project would remove on-street parking adjacent to the project on Shaver Street to increase travel
lane width from about 16 feet currently to about 22 feet wide in order to provide safer roadway
conditions. In addition, City staff will ask the project applicant to provide a turning radius diagram
prior to issuance of a building permit to verify that vehicles can safely ingress and egress from both
proposed driveways, which will be reviewed by Public Works staff. If these submitted turn
movements raise concerns, Public Works staff may consider the possibility of removing some or all
of the street parking on the west side of Shaver Street that are immediately across from the project
site.
New Bulb-outs: The Department of Public Works is aware that speeding is an issue on 3rd Street
and in response installed bulb-outs at the intersections of 3rd Street/Shaver Street and 2nd
Street/Shaver Street as a traffic calming measure from turning vehicles earlier this year. Public
Works staff are currently observing traffic behavior at the 3rd Street/Shaver Street intersection and
are planning on modifying one of the bulb-outs to make turning movements easier. This effort is a
result of Public Works staff continually working to improve existing conditions and does not have
any relation to the proposed project.
Overall Traffic Analysis Process: The adoption of Senate Bill 743 in 2013 changed how
transportation impacts are measured for new development projects for CEQA analysis purposes.
Previously, a project’s potential environmental impacts were evaluated based on the potential
increase in traffic, measured by level of service (or “LOS”) in the immediate project area. LOS
measures the speed at which vehicles travel through a given intersection at various times of day
(i.e. “peak” and “non-peak” hours.) SB 743 prescribed a different metric for evaluating traffic based
on called Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Unlike LOS, VMT considers the number and length of car
trips induced by development projects and transportation. This newer approach encourages
walkable communities where new development is located near transit and residences are nearby
employment and shopping opportunities.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9
The City still maintains LOS standards in its General Plan. However, these standards are not
applicable to projects, such as this one, in the Downtown Specific Plan. Accordingly, the City’s
General Plan LOS standards do not apply to the project.4
The San Rafael General Plan 2040 & Downtown Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
includes analysis of potential environmental impacts of anticipated buildout through to 2040 which
includes up to 4,460 new residential units in the City, up to 2,200 of which would be within the
Downtown area. Analysis of potential transportation impacts of this anticipated in Chapter 4.16 of
the EIR indicates that the number of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) would decrease if the anticipated
buildout occurs as opposed to if the land use changes in the General Plan 2040 and in the
Downtown Precise Plan had not been adopted. Since the project is a mixed use development in
the Downtown area, it is exempt from needing to provide VMT analysis pursuant to the City’s
Transportation Analysis Guidelines and pursuant to Program M-3.2A of the San Rafael General
Plan 2040.
Therefore, the project is consistent with all applicable objective standards pertaining to traffic
impacts of the proposed new development.
Appeal Point 3 – Street Parking
The appellant claims that the proposed parking for the proposed development is insufficient and
that it will result in increased demand for street parking which the appellant claims is limited.
Staff Response
As described in the April 11th Planning Commission staff report for the project (Attachment 3), the
project proposes to provide 179 vehicle parking spaces which is more than the 103 vehicle spaces
required by the Downtown Precise Plan for this project. Since the project complies with the
applicable objective development standard for off-street vehicle parking spaces, the City cannot
request that this project provide more vehicle parking spaces than are proposed.
Appeal Point 4 – Flooding
The appellant claims that the project will exacerbate an existing flooding issue on Shaver Street
and on Latham Street. In addition, the appellant claims that the City does not provide street cleaning
on Shaver Street or on Latham Street and residents are forced to clean the stormwater grates when
they get clogged with tree leaves.
Staff Response
A large majority of the project site is currently paved and developed. As a new development,
however, the project is subject to stormwater and drainage standards to ensure compliance with
the Marin Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPP). As described in the
Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the project (Attachment 6), stormwater will travel down
through roof drains and will enter a Storm Water Diversion structure. The Diversion structure will
then release water at a specific flow rate into an in-vault media filter system. After stormwater is
filtered, it will then enter a pump vault which will pump stormwater out to the street at a design 100
gallons per minute (gpm) to ensure that the stormwater flow during a storm is not increased from
the current condition as a result of the project. The Public Works Department has reviewed the
Stormwater Control Plan and verified that it addresses the relevant requirements of the Marin
Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPP). Post construction conditions
will not exacerbate and will most likely improve drainage conditions in the area.
4 General Plan 2040 Policy M-2.5, incl. subd. (a)(1), and (c).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10
The City does provide street sweeping on Shaver Street and on Latham Street. However, during
some of the year such as the Fall season, it is a challenge for the City’s street sweeping crew to
keep up with cleaning up the large amount of leaves that fall on streets throughout the City.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
Notice of all public hearings on the project, including this City Council meeting, has been conducted in
accordance with the public review period and noticing requirements contained in Chapter 14.29 of the
Zoning Ordinance. All notices of public meeting or hearing on the project were mailed to all property
owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the site and the representing neighborhood groups at
least 15 days prior to each meeting or hearing. Notice of the appeal hearing was published in the Marin
Independent Journal on April 23, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and affirming Planning Commission’s April 11, 2023
action approving Environmental and Design Review permit (ED22-016, PLAN22-039)
2. Continue the hearing (to a date certain or an undefined date) to allow staff to address any of the
Council’s comments or concerns; or
3. Continue the hearing (to a date certain or an undefined date) and direct staff to prepare a
resolution upholding the appeal and denying Environmental and Design Review permit (ED22-
016, PLAN22-039)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the Resolution denying an appeal (AP23-002) and affirming the Planning Commission’s April 11,
2023 action approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED22-016) for a new mixed-use
building with 162 residential units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor commercial space located at
1515 4th street.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Resolution
2. Appeal of Planning Commission decision from Vikram Seshadri, dated Received April 18, 2023
3. Planning Commission Staff Report PLAN22-039, dated April 11, 2023
4. Planning Commission Resolution 23-02
5. Local Traffic Analysis, prepared by AMG, dated December 2022
6. Stormwater Control Plan, dated 10/28/2022
7. Correspondence
RESOLUTION NO. 15214
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP23-002)
AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APRIL 11, 2023 ACTION APPROVING
AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED22-016) FOR A NEW MIXED-
USE BUILDING WITH 162 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 8,900 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND
FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 1515 4TH STREET
(APN 011-245-41) AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael received an application on March 10, 2022 for an
Environmental and Design Review Permit (PLAN22-039, ED22-016) for a new mixed-use building
with 162 residential units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor commercial space which seeks
concession and waivers to development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law at 1515
4th street in the T4MS 50/70 and the T4N 40/50 zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2023, staff deemed the application complete; and
WHEREAS, the application meets all objective development standards, with the use of
one concession for a requirement for civic open space as well as waivers to maximum height,
minimum building stepbacks, minimum front and side street setback, and maximum building
length requirements pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915);
and
WHEREAS, the project includes 13 below market rate residential units available to very
low-income households; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023, the project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at
a duly noticed public hearing and the DRB recommended approval of the project design, with a
condition; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit, accepting all oral and
written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff
and adopted Resolution No. 23-001 approving the project (PLAN22-039, ED22-016);
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2023, the City received a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission Action filed by Vikram Seshadri; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2023, the City of San Rafael City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing to review and consider the appeal (AP23-002), accepting all oral and written
public testimony and the written report by the Community Development Department Planning
staff and closed said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the Appeal (AP23-002) cannot
be supported for the reasons set forth herein.
- 2 -
WHEREAS, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code section 14.25.120, appeals of
environmental and design review determinations shall be filed and processed in accordance
with Chapter 14.28, Appeals, of the Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael City Council finds that the project is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 of
the CEQA Guidelines because it involves an infill development project that meets the following
criteria:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and regulations.
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise,
air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
having held a public hearing on the appeal, having reviewed the record of the decision and
heard testimony of the appellant, the applicant and other interested persons, hereby denies the
Appeal (AP23-002), affirms the Planning Commission’s action to approve Environmental and
Design Review Permit (PLAN22-039, ED22-016), and approves Environmental and Design
Review Permit (PLAN22-039, ED22-016) based on the following findings:
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF APPEAL (AP23-002)
The appeal does not raise any significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts of the
project, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The grounds upon
which the appeal was filed are not a basis to reverse the Planning Commission determination and
deny the project, for the following reasons:
A. Appeal Point 1 – Inadequate Traffic Analysis
The appellant claims that the Local Traffic Analysis prepared for the project
(Attachment 5) is inadequate because it did not analyze impacts to the intersections of
3rd Street/Shaver Street; 2nd Street/Shaver Street; and Latham Street/Shaver Street.
The City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines identify the scope of work that is deemed an
appropriate level of analysis for a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) for many types of
projects, including this one, located within Downtown San Rafael:
The study area for small projects should consist of, at a minimum, the roadways providing
immediate access to the Project site, including any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. For
most projects in this tier, analysis will focus on project driveways, and identify 2-4 intersections
near the project to assess the effects on site access. (p.23)
- 3 -
The intent for requiring an LTA for a project of this scope is not for the purpose of analyzing
congestion impacts to streets but rather for the purpose of assessing “effects on site access”
to the project site. The LTA for the project included analysis for the intersections of 4th Street/E
Street and 4th Street/Shaver Street because these two intersections are directly adjacent to
the project site and have relevance on assessing traffic as it relates to site access. The
intersections of 3rd Street/Shaver Street, 2nd Street/Shaver Street, and Latham Street/Shaver
Street range are located approximately 112 feet, 245 feet, and 345 feet, respectively, from the
project site. Consequently, pursuant to the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines, these
three intersections are not considered relevant for assessing effects on site access to the
project site. The intersections studied were reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic
Engineer as appropriate for the LTA.
Regardless of the intersections analyzed in the LTA, there are no objective quantifiable
standards in the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines pertaining to traffic or site access.
B. Appeal Point 2 – Traffic Impacts
The appellant claims that traffic congestion on Shaver and Latham will go from bad to
significantly worse due to the project. Examples of existing traffic congestion issues
on Shaver Street provided by the appellant include the following: (1) narrow street
width; (2) backups on Shaver Street at 3rd and 2nd Street traffic lights; and (3) new bulb-
outs on Shaver Street at intersections of 3rd and 2nd Streets create particularly narrow
passages.
Narrow Street Width: Pursuant to the LTA prepared for the project (Attachment 5), the
proposed project would remove on-street parking adjacent to the project on Shaver Street to
increase travel lane width from about 16 feet currently to about 22 feet wide in order to provide
safer roadway conditions. In addition, City staff will ask the project applicant to provide a
turning radius diagram prior to issuance of a building permit to verify that vehicles can safely
ingress and egress from both proposed driveways, which will be reviewed by Public Works
staff. If these submitted turn movements raise concerns, Public Works staff may consider the
possibility of removing some or all of the street parking on the west side of Shaver Street that
are immediately across from the project site.
New Bulb-outs: The Department of Public Works is aware that speeding is an issue on 3rd
Street and in response installed bulb-outs at the intersections of 3rd Street/Shaver Street and
2nd Street/Shaver Street as a traffic calming measure from turning vehicles earlier this year.
Public Works staff are currently observing traffic behavior at the 3rd Street/Shaver Street
intersection and are planning on modifying one of the bulb-outs to make turning movements
easier. This effort is a result of Public Works staff continually working to improve existing
conditions and does not have any relation to the proposed project.
Overall Traffic Analysis Process: The adoption of Senate Bill 743 in 2013 changed how
transportation impacts are measured for new development projects for CEQA analysis
purposes. Previously, a project’s potential environmental impacts were evaluated based on
the potential increase in traffic, measured by level of service (or “LOS”) in the immediate
project area. LOS measures the speed at which vehicles travel through a given intersection
at various times of day (i.e. “peak” and “non-peak” hours.) SB 743 prescribed a different
metric for evaluating traffic based on called Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Unlike LOS, VMT
- 4 -
considers the number and length of car trips induced by development projects and
transportation. This newer approach encourages walkable communities where new
development is located near transit and residences are nearby employment and shopping
opportunities.
The City still maintains LOS standards in its General Plan. However, these standards are not
applicable to projects, such as this one, in the Downtown Specific Plan (General Plan 2040
Policy M-2.5). Accordingly, the City’s General Plan LOS standards do not apply to the project.
The San Rafael General Plan 2040 & Downtown Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) includes analysis of potential environmental impacts of anticipated buildout through to
2040 which includes up to 4,460 new residential units in the City, up to 2,200 of which would
be within the Downtown area. Analysis of potential transportation impacts of this anticipated
in Chapter 4.16 of the EIR indicates that the number of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) would
decrease if the anticipated buildout occurs as opposed to if the land use changes in the
General Plan 2040 and in the Downtown Precise Plan had not been adopted. Since the project
is a mixed use development in the Downtown area, it is exempt from needing to provide VMT
analysis pursuant to the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines and pursuant to Program
M-3.2A of the San Rafael General Plan 2040.
Therefore, the project is consistent with all applicable objective standards pertaining to traffic
impacts of the proposed new development.
C. Appeal Point 3 – Street Parking
The appellant claims that the proposed parking for the proposed development is
insufficient and that it will result in increased demand for street parking which the
appellant claims is limited.
As described in the April 11th Planning Commission staff report for the project, the project
proposes to provide 179 vehicle parking spaces which is more than the 103 vehicle spaces
required by the Downtown Precise Plan for this project. Since the project complies with the
applicable objective development standard for off-street vehicle parking spaces, the City
cannot request that this project provide more vehicle parking spaces than are proposed.
D. Appeal Point 4 – Flooding
The appellant claims that the project will exacerbate an existing flooding issue on
Shaver Street and on Latham Street. In addition, the appellant claims that the City does
not provide street cleaning on Shaver Street or on Latham Street and residents are
forced to clean the stormwater grates when they get clogged with tree leaves.
A large majority of the project site is currently paved and developed. As a new development,
however, the project is subject to stormwater and drainage standards to ensure compliance
with the Marin Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPP). As
described in the Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the project (Attachment 6), stormwater
will travel down through roof drains and will enter a Storm Water Diversion structure. The
Diversion structure will then release water at a specific flow rate into an in-vault media filter
system. After stormwater is filtered, it will then enter a pump vault which will pump stormwater
out to the street at a design 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to ensure that the stormwater flow
- 5 -
during a storm is not increased from the current condition as a result of the project. The Public
Works Department has reviewed the Stormwater Control Plan and verified that it addresses
the relevant requirements of the Marin Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
(MCSTOPP). Post construction conditions will not exacerbate and will most likely improve
drainage conditions in the area.
The City does provide street sweeping on Shaver Street and on Latham Street. However,
during some of the year such as the Fall season, it is a challenge for the City’s street sweeping
crew to keep up with cleaning up the large amount of leaves that fall on streets throughout the
City.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS (ED22-016)
A. The project design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and the purposes of this chapter:
The site is designated as Downtown Mixed Use on the General Plan 2040 Land Use Map
which allows for residential and commercial uses. In addition, the project is consistent with
the General Plan and specifically with design-related policies of the Neighborhoods Element
and Community Design and Preservation Element as identified in the General Plan
Consistency Table, Exhibit 6.
B. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping
design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located:
On March 7, 2023, the Design Review Board found the project design to be consistent with
applicable regulations and guidelines and recommended approval of the project design to the
Planning Commission, subject to a condition of approval.
C. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts:
The Project qualifies for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) infill exemption
pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15332 (“CEQA Guidelines
15332”), because the project meets the criteria provided below and further elaborated in the
CEQA Infill Exemption Memorandum for the project, dated April 5, 2023:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation
and regulations.
The project, as a multi-family residential use is permitted in the T4MS and T4N zoning
districts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, as detailed in the General
Plan Consistency Table (Exhibit 6 of the staff report), Zoning Ordinance as detailed in
the Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table (Exhibit 7 of the staff report), and Downtown
Precise Plan as detailed in the Staff Report. While the project seeks waivers and a
concession to development standards pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, the
use of waivers does not render the infill exemption inapplicable. Therefore, the project
is consistent with applicable the general plan designation, general plan policies, and
applicable zoning designation and regulations
- 6 -
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The project site is approximately 0.88 acres and is located within an urbanized area
surrounded by existing residential, commercial, and retail development. Therefore, the
project is within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses.
c. The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species.
The Project site is located in Downtown San Rafael and is surrounded by urban
development. As shown on the San Rafael General Plan 2040 map of Special Status
Species (Figure 6-3), there are no known special status species within the project
boundaries. Furthermore, the Project site is a developed site, fully graded, paved, and
occupied with an existing vacant office/retail structure and vegetation is limited to
ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Accordingly, the site has no value as
habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
Traffic. The project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic and is
consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2040 & Downtown Precise Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as confirmed by the Local Transportation Analysis
prepared by Advanced Mobility Group for the project, dated December 2022. The
project is not required to provide detailed vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis
pursuant to the San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines since it is a residential
and employment generating project in a low VMT area. Areas within the Downtown
Precise Plan area, including the project site, are not subject to the City’s adopted level
of service (LOS) policy which calls for LOS D or better. Despite not being subject to
this standard, study intersections will operate above LOS D and the project will not
result in a significant traffic impact as a result of conflict with an adopted policy.
Noise. The Project would not result in any significant effects relating to noise as
confirmed by the 1515 Fourth Street Mixed-Use Residential Project Noise and
Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc, dated January 2023.
Air Quality. No significant air quality impacts would occur from the project since the
project is below the screening criteria in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines for air quality impacts. No significant greenhouse gas
(GHG) impacts would occur pursuant to the BAAQMD CEQA Threshold for Evaluating
the Significance of Climate Impacts, dated April 2022, since the project is consistent
with a local GHG Reduction Strategy and since the project meets the following criteria:
• It will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing and will not
result in wasteful use of energy as it will be consistent with the most recent
building requirements for energy efficiency.
• The project will be consistent with Title 24 building efficiency standards, will
comply with the California Energy Commission’s standards for lighting
efficiency, and will comply with lighting standards.
• The project will not result in significant VMT impacts, as discussed in the Local
Traffic Analysis prepared for the project, and will be required to comply with
- 7 -
off-street electric vehicle (EV) requirements in the most recently adopted
version of CALGreen Tier 2C.
per the City of San Rafael’s Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Precise
Plan and San Rafael General Plan 2040 (“EIR”), which addressed greenhouse gas
impacts associated with land use developments in San Rafael that are consistent with
the General Plan update and the Downtown Precise Development Plan.
Water Quality. According to the Stormwater Control Plan, the site currently has
36,024 square feet of impervious surface. The post-project impervious surface area
will be 34,848 which will allow for more onsite infiltration. Additionally, the proposed
project includes Low Impact Development (LID) Design Strategies and the creation of
a Drainage Management Area. Further, the proposed mixed-use project will include
office, retail, and residential activities which will not introduce new types of pollutants
on site. As such, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The Project site is located within the City of San Rafael and would continue to be
adequately served by City and regional services. Pacific Gas & Electric has provided
a will-serve letter for the Project. The Property is currently being served and water
service will continue to be provided by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD),
though the purchase of additional water allotment will be required. Furthermore, the
EIR prepared for the Downtown Precise Plan concluded that MMWD will have
sufficient water supply to meet the demand for buildout of the San Rafael Downtown
Precise Plan.
Wastewater service will be provided by the San Rafael Sanitation District. The EIR
concluded that the wastewater demand for the Downtown Precise Plan Area will not
exceed the permitted capacity of the Central Marin Sanitation Agency’s wastewater
treatment plant.
In addition, none of the following exceptions to the categorical exemption apply, as listed in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2:
• Location. Section 15300.2(a) does not apply to a Class 32 infill exemption.
• Cumulative Impact. Section 15300.2(b) does not apply as there is no evidence of a
potential significant cumulative impact because successive projects of the same type in
the same place have not been approved and are not currently contemplated or proposed.
Furthermore, development of the site as well as development throughout the city was
analyzed in the City of San Rafael’s EIR which concluded that buildout under the General
Plan and Downtown Precise Plan would result in cumulative impacts. These impacts have
been previously analyzed and the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations.
The project will be subject to all applicable mitigation measures contained in the EIR for
the General Plan and Downtown Precise Plan and as such, this exception does not apply
to the project.
• Significant Effect and Unusual Circumstances. This exception has 2 prongs:
o Whether the project presents unusual circumstances; and
o Whether there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment
due to those unusual circumstances.
There is nothing unusual about the project. It is proposed on an existing infill site
that is substantially developed on all sides. There is no sensitive habitat or
- 8 -
sensitive areas on or around the site. Further, the General Plan/Precise Plan EIR
specifically notes that the increase of downtown higher density development would
not have a significant effect.
• Scenic Highways. The project site is not in proximity or visible to any designated scenic
highway or highway eligible for designation based on the State of California’s Scenic
Highway program. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the project.
• Hazardous Waste Sites. The site is not a state designated hazardous waste site. A
search of the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker site did not reveal any
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) projects on the site nor did it indicate that
there were any other Cleanup Program Sites. Additionally, a review of California
Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database which lists all hazardous
waste sites including Superfund sites, State Response Sites did not show any listings for
1515 4th St in San Rafael. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the project.
• Historical resources. There are no historical resources located on the proposed project
site. The existing building on the site was constructed in 1985. It does not contain any
unique architectural features nor have any community significance. The City recently
updated the list of historic resources in the Precise Plan and the Project site is not
identified as a historic resource. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the project.
D. The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The project has been reviewed by various departments of the City of San Rafael and
appropriate agencies and where applicable, conditions of approval have been incorporated to
ensure the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the project vicinity. In addition, the project will be
built in accordance with the applicable California Building Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(ED22-016)
Planning Division
1. This Environmental and Design Review Permit approves a new mixed-use building with 162
residential units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor commercial space at 1515 4th Street.
Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans approved
April 11, 2023 with regard to building techniques, materials, elevations, and overall project
appearance except as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or
revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed greater than minor in
nature by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the
Planning Commission.
2. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on 5/8/2023 and shall be valid for a period
of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or 5/8/2025, and shall become null and void if
a building permit is not issued or a time extension is not applied for prior to the expiration date.
A permit for the construction of a building or structure is deemed exercised when a valid City
building permit, if required, is issued, and construction has lawfully commenced. A permit for
- 9 -
the use of a building or a property is exercised when, if required, a valid City business license
has been issued, and the permitted use has commenced on the property.
3. Plans submitted for building permit shall incorporate the following Design Review Board
recommendations and shall be reviewed for compliance by Planning Staff and the Chair of
the Design Review Board.
a. Plans shall be revised to provide a different color and/or material for the two building
corner columns facing 4th Street and the center building column facing 4th street from
the color and material proposed for the rest of the building columns.
4. Plans shall demonstrate compliance with regulations set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code
(SRMC) Section 14.16.320, requiring a minimum setback of five feet from the property line for
all mechanical equipment.
5. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and shielded and directed
downward and away from property lines to conceal light sources from view off-site and avoid
spillover onto adjacent properties pursuant to SRMC §14.16.227. The project shall be subject
to a 90-day post installation lighting inspection to evaluate the need for adjustment and assure
compliance with SRMC Section 14.16.227.
6. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition and any dead or dying plants, bushes,
trees, or groundcover plantings shall be replaces with new healthy stock of a size appropriate
and compatible with the remainder of the growth at the time of replacement.
7. Prior to issuance of permits or authorization to proceed, the applicant must provide written
verification of final landscape and irrigation plan approval from the Marin Municipal Water
District (MMWD). All landscaping and irrigation must meet the MMWD water conservation
rules and regulations. The landscape plans and supportive materials shall also be provided
and designed to comply with the Water Efficient Landscape requirements of San Rafael
Municipal Code Section 14.16.370 and MMWD Ordinance No. 414 (including amendments),
if applicable.
8. Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds. Initial site disturbance activities, including vegetation and
concrete removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to
August 30), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the
presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the
project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by
the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided.
To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds
protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14
days prior to scheduled vegetation and concrete removal. In the event that active nests are
discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a
minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no
construction shall be allowed inside the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined
that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on
the nest). No ground- disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified
biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the
nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between
August 31 and January 31.
- 10 -
9. Archaeological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), “provisions for historical or unique
archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be
instituted. Therefore:
A. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are
discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources
shall be halted and the project applicant and/or lead agency shall consult with a
qualified archaeologist, historian or paleontologist to assess the significance of the
find.
B. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent
and/or lead agency and the qualified professional would meet to determine the
appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate
determination to be made by the City of San Rafael. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or
a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional
standards.
C. In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified professional, the
project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary or feasible in light of
factors such as the uniqueness of the find, project design, costs, and other
considerations.
D. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data
recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site
while mitigation measures for cultural resources is carried out.
E. If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall prepare a report
on the findings for submittal to the Northwest Information Center.
10. Human Remains (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In the event
that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during ground-disturbing
activities, all work shall immediately halt and the Marin County Coroner shall be contacted to
evaluate the remains, and following the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5
(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native
American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all
excavation and site preparation activities shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find until
appropriate arrangements are made. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible,
then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to
resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance and
avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously.
11. Paleontological Resources (Ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction). In
the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during construction,
excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery
is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards
[SVP 1995,1996]). The qualified paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed,
evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find. The paleontologist
shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before
construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that
avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating
- 11 -
the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important, and such plan shall
be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
12. Halt Work/Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural
resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all work within 50 feet
of the discovery shall be redirected. The project applicant and project construction contractor
shall notify the City Planning Department within 24 hours. The City will again contact any tribes
who have requested consultation under AB 52, as well as contact a qualified archaeologist,
to evaluate the resources and situation and provide recommendations. If it is determined that
the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan
shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation
with Native American groups. If the resource cannot be avoided, additional measures to avoid
or reduce impacts to the resource and to address tribal concerns may be required.
13. Plans submitted for building permit shall incorporate all recommendations included in the
Noise and Vibration Assessment, prepared for the project by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. on
January 30, 2023.
14. Plans submitted for building permit shall incorporate all recommendations included in the
Local Transportation Analysis prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, dated December 2022.
15. The project is required to provide thirteen (13) residential units as affordable to very low-
income households (those earning between 30% and 50% of the Area Median Income), as
proposed by the applicant pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. As a result, the project also
complies with affordable housing requirements prescribed in Section 14.16.030 of the San
Rafael Zoning Ordinance, City Council Resolution 14890, and City Council Resolution 14891.
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement for the
thirteen (13) affordable units shall be approved by the Community Development
Director and recorded on the property.
16. Bicycle Parking. The project is required to provide 205 long term bicycle parking spaces. A
bike room for 116 bicycle spaces is proposed on Level P1. There are 89 bicycle parking
spaces proposed along the walls in front of parking spaces in Level P2 and Level P1. A bicycle
shall be able to be individually locked to any of the bicycle parking spaces in the proposed
bike room.
17. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall pay all outstanding Planning Division
application processing fees.
18. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall pay all applicable development
impact fees required for this project, including those fees mentioned herein and other fees
required by ordinance.
Building Division
19. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the latest adopted Building
Codes in effect at time of building permit submission. Currently the following codes are
adopted: 2022 California Building Code (CBC), 2022 California Plumbing Code (CPC), 2022
California Electrical Code (CEC), 2022 California Mechanical Code CCMC), 2022 California
Fire Code (CFC), 2022 California Energy Code, 2022 California Green Building Standards
Code and City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments
- 12 -
20. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by four
(4) complete sets of construction drawings to include:
• Architectural plans
• Structural plans
• Electrical plans
• Plumbing plans
• Mechanical plans
• Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plane and height of the building)
• Structural Calculations
• Truss Calculations
• Soils reports
• Green Building documentation
• Title-24 energy documentation
21. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of each building shall be
specified on the plans. In mixed occupancies, each portion of the building shall be individually
classified.
22. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of each building shall be
specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of each
building. Site/civil plans prepared by a California licensed surveyor or engineer clearly
showing topography, identifying grade plane and height of the building.
23. This building contains several different occupancy types. Individual occupancies are
categorized with different levels of hazard and may need to be separated from other
occupancy types for safety reasons. Under mixed-occupancy conditions the project architect
has available several design methodologies (accessory occupancies, nonseparated
occupancies, and separated occupancies) to address the mixed-occupancy concerns.
24. Building height and story must comply with CBC Section 504. On the plan justify the proposed
building area and height.
25. Building areas are limited by CBC Table 506.2. On plan justify the proposed building area.
26. The maximum area of unprotected and protected openings permitted in the exterior wall in
any story of a building shall not exceed the percentages specified in CBC Table 705.8
“Maximum Area of Exterior Wall Openings Based on Fire Separation Distance and Degree of
Opening Protection.” To calculate the maximum area of exterior wall openings you must
provide the building setback distance from the property lines and then justify the percentage
of proposed wall openings and include whether the opening is unprotected or protected.
27. Buildings located 4 or more stories above grade plane, one stairwell must extend to the roof,
unless the roof slope exceeds an angle of 4 vertical to 12 horizontal CBC 1011.12.
28. Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3)
copies of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also, application
must be made to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit
and beginning work.
29. School fees will be required for the project. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City
Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit.
30. Prior to building permit issuance for the construction of each building, geotechnical and civil
pad certifications are to be submitted.
- 13 -
31. Based on the distance to the property line (and/or adjacent buildings on the same parcel), the
building elements shall have a fire resistive rating not less than that specified in CBC Table
601 and exterior walls shall have a fire resistive rating not less than that specified in CBC
Table 602.
32. Cornices, eaves overhangs, exterior balconies and similar projections extending beyond the
floor area shall conform to the requirements of CBC 705.2. Projections shall not extend
beyond the distance determined by the following two methods, whichever results in the lesser
projection:
a. A point one-third the distance from the exterior face of the wall to the lot line where
protected openings or a combination of protected openings and unprotected openings
are required in the exterior wall.
b. A point one-half the distance from the exterior face of the wall to the lot line where all
openings in the exterior wall are permitted to be unprotected or the building is equipped
throughout with an automatic sprinkler system.
c. More than 12 inches into areas where openings are prohibited.
33. Walls separating purposed tenant space from existing neighboring tenant spaces must be a
minimum of 1-hour construction.
34. All site signage as well as wall signs require a separate permit and application (excluding
address numbering).
35. You must apply for a new address for this building from the Building Division.
36. In the parking garage, mechanical ventilation will be required capable of exhausting a
minimum of .75 cubic feet per minute per square foot of gross floor area CMC Table 4-4.
37. In the parking structure, in areas where motor vehicles are stored, floor surfaces shall be of
noncombustible, nonabsorbent materials. Floors shall drain to an approved oil separator or
trap discharging to sewers in accordance with the Plumbing Code and SWIPP.
38. All repair garages require oil and flammable liquid interceptor per CPC Section 1017 and CFC
Section 2211.2.3 for drainage and disposal of liquids and oil-soaked waste. For minor change
in use, the requirement for a separator might be waived where the applicant institutes (a) an
EPA “Preferred Floor Cleanup Method” and (b) berms are placed at doors.
39. Repair garages shall be mechanically ventilated. The ventilation system shall be controlled at
the entrance to the garage CBC 406.6.3.
40. Each building shall be provided with sanitary facilities per CPC Sec 412 and Table 4-1
(including provisions for persons with disabilities). Separate facilities shall be required for each
sex.
41. In accordance with California Plumbing Code section 422.2, separate toilet facilities shall be
provided for each sex. Except: 1) residential installations. 2) In occupancies with a total
occupant load of 10 or less, including customers and employees, one toilet facility designed
for use by no more than one person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 3) In
business and mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less, including
customers and employees, one toilet facility designed for use by no more than one person at
a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes.
42. Facilities in mercantile and business occupancies, toilet facility requirements for customers
and employees shall be permitted to be met with a single set of restrooms accessible to both
- 14 -
groups. The required number of fixtures shall be the greater of the required number for
employees or the required number for customers. Fixtures for customer use shall be permitted
to be met by providing a centrally located toilet facility within a distance not to exceed 500
feet. In stores with a floor area of 1,500 square feet or less the requirement to provide facilities
for employees shall be permitted to be met by providing a centrally located toilet facility within
distance not to exceed 300 feet.
43. Minimum elevator car size (interior dimension) 60” wide by 30” deep with an entrance opening
of at least 60” or a car size of 42” wide by 48” deep with an entrance opening of 36” or a car
size of 60” wide by 36” deep with an entrance opening of at least 36”.
44. All buildings with one or more elevators shall be provided with not less than one medical
emergency service elevator. The medical emergency service elevator shall accommodate the
loading and transport of an ambulance gurney or stretcher. The elevator car size shall have a
minimum clear distance between walls and door excluding return panels not less than 80
inches by 54 inches and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not less than 51 inches
with a 42-inch side slide door.
45. A minimum of two exits, with proper separation, are required from the third floor of each unit.
The exits must located a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the
maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served.
46. Check required exits and exit separation for parking level p2.
47. In the service areas, mechanical ventilation will be required capable of exhausting a minimum
of 1.5 cubic feet per minute per square foot of gross floor area. Connecting offices, waiting
rooms, restrooms, and retail areas shall be supplied with conditioned air under positive
pressure.
48. The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled. For
existing buildings and facilities when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made,
accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities shall be required unless CASP report
states compliant. Improvements shall be made, but are not limited to, the following accessible
features:
a. Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival
b. Routes of travel between buildings
c. Accessible parking
d. Ramps
e. Primary entrances
f. Sanitary facilities (restrooms)
g. Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided)
h. Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements
i. Accessible special features, i.e., ATM's point of sale machines, etc.
49. The site development of items such as common sidewalks, parking areas, stairs, ramps,
common facilities, etc. are subject to compliance with the accessibility. Pedestrian access
provisions should provide a minimum 48" wide unobstructed paved surface to and along all
accessible routes. Items such as signs, meter pedestals, light standards, trash receptacles,
etc., shall not encroach on this 4' minimum width. Also, note that sidewalk slopes and side
- 15 -
slopes shall not exceed published minimums. The civil, grading and landscape plans shall
address these requirements to the extent possible.
50. The parking garage ceiling height shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 8’ 2” where
required for accessible parking.
51. Multifamily dwelling and apartment accessible parking spaces shall be provided at a minimum
rate of 2 percent of the covered multifamily dwelling units. At least one space of each type of
parking facility shall be made accessible even if the total number exceeds 2 percent.
52. When parking is provided for multifamily dwellings and is not assigned to a resident or a group
of residents, at least 5 percent of the parking spaces shall be accessible and provide access
to grade-level entrances of multi family dwellings and facilities (e.g. swimming pools, club
houses, recreation areas and laundry rooms) that serve the dwellings. Accessible parking
spaces shall be located on the shortest accessible route to an accessible building, or dwelling
unit entrance.
53. Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according the following
table and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site:
54. At least one disabled parking space must be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and 8
feet wide off- load area. Additionally, one in every eight required handicap spaces must be
van accessible.
Fire Department
55. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2019 California Fire
Code, current NFPA Standards, and all applicable City of San Rafael Ordinances and
Amendments.
56. Deferred Submittals for the following fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for approval and permitting prior to installation of the systems:
a. Fire Sprinkler plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
b. Fire Standpipe plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
- 16 -
c. Fire Underground plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
d. Fire Alarm plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau)
Fire Prevention reserves the right due to the size and scope of this project to utilize an outside
plan check consultant for fire protection system review with review costs billed to the project
owner.
57. The fire apparatus access roadways must conform to all provisions in CFC Section 503 and
Appendix D.
58. A Fire Command Center required as per CFC section 508.
59. The building is to be equipped with Emergency Responder Radio Coverage as per CFC 510.
60. A Fire Construction Plan is required prior to any work. See attached. Returned a signed copy
to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
61. A temporary standpipe system is required during construction as per CFC 3313.
62. A fire apparatus access plan shall be prepared for this project. Fire apparatus plan shall show
the location the following:
a. Designated fire apparatus access roads.
b. Red curbs and no parking fire lane signs.
c. Fire hydrants both public and private.
d. DAS Emergency Responder Radio Coverage - notation of intent to install.
e. Fire Department Connection (FDC) location.
f. Double detector check valve location.
g. Standpipe locations.
h. Temporary standpipe during construction location.
i. Stairway to roof location.
j. Street address signage.
k. Recessed Knox Box(s)
l. Construction key box locations or note the use of Knox padlocks.
m. Fire Alarm main and annunciator panels.
n. NFPA 704 placards – if needed.
o. Provide a note on the plan as follows: The designated fire apparatus access roads and
fire hydrant(s) shall be installed and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior
construction of the building.
p. Provide a note on the plan that all fire protection equipment will be properly labeled
and identified.
q. Note on plans – 24 hour emergency contact will be posted.
63. A Knox Box is required at the primary point of first response to the building. A recessed
mounted Knox Box # 3200 Series is required for new buildings; surface mount for all others.
the Knox Box shall be clearly visible upon approach to the main entrance from the fire lane.
- 17 -
Note the Knox Box must be installed from 72” to 78” above finish grade; show the location on
the plans. https://www.knoxbox.com/commercial-knoxboxes/
64. A Knox key switch is required for driveway or access road automatic gates.
https://www.knoxbox.com/gate-keys-and-padlocks/
65. If onsite fire hydrants are required, the type is as follows: Residential model: Clow 950.
Commercial Model: Clow 960. The Prevention Bureau will identify the locations.
66. When additions or alterations are made, the nearest existing fire hydrant bodies shall be
upgraded. Residential model: Clow 950. Commercial Model: Clow 960.
67. When a building is fully sprinklered all portions of the exterior building perimeter must be
located within 250-feet of an approved fire apparatus access road.
a. The minimum width of the fire apparatus access road is 20-feet.
b. The minimum inside turning radius for a fire apparatus access road is 28 feet.
c. The fire apparatus access road serving this building is more than 150-feet in length;
provide an approved turn-around. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specific
details.
68. If the building is over 30 feet in height, an aerial fire apparatus access roadway is required
parallel to one entire side of the building.
a. The Aerial apparatus access roadway shall be located within a minimum 15 feet and
a maximum of 30 feet from the building and shall be along one entire side.
b. The minimum unobstructed width for an aerial fire apparatus access road is 26-feet.
c. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus
access roadway, or between the roadway and the building.
69. Fire lanes must be designated; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating, “No Parking
Fire Lane” A sign shall be posted in accordance with the CFC Section 503.3 and to the
satisfaction and approval of the San Rafael Parking Services Division.
70. If required, a Hazardous Materials Placards shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704.
71. If required, provide a Hazardous Materials Management Plan to be submitted to Marin County
Department of Public Works, CUPA
72. Provide address numbers plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers
painted on the curb do not qualify as meeting this requirement. Numbers shall contrast with
the background and shall be Arabic numbers or letters. Numbers shall be internally or
externally illuminated in all new construction or substantial remodels. Number sizes are as
follows: For residential – 4” tall with ½” stroke. For commercial – 6” tall with ½” stroke. Larger
sizes might be required by the fire code official or in multiple locations for buildings served by
two or more roads.
73. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for the water
supply serving the fire protection systems
Department of Public Works
74. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic mitigation fee for 60 net
new AM trips and 61 net new PM trips for a total of 121 peak-hour trips at the current fee of
- 18 -
$5,674/trip for a total amount of $686,554. The current rate is $5,674 per trip. The current rate
is valid until January 1, 2024.
75. A storm drain profile detailing the connection between the private property and storm drain
pipe will be required prior to building permit issuance to ensure the proposed connection does
not conflict with existing infrastructure.
76. Prior to issuance of building permit please submit a separate set of drawings detailing the
improvements in the public right-of-way (ROW) for DPW review and approval. (e.g.,
sidewalks, pavement restoration, driveway approach, lighting). At a minimum, we anticipate
pavement restoration (2”-thick grind and overlay) will be required along the property frontage
on Shaver, 4th, and E Streets. The limits of pavement restoration will be finalized near the
end of the construction based on field conditions.
77. Prior to issuance of a building permit, please submit a photometric analysis of the public ROW
adjacent to the project site.
78. All backflow preventers, fire department connections (FDC), and other above ground utility
structures shall be placed on private property.
79. A design-level geotechnical report will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
80. Prior to issuance of a building permit, please provide a plan review letter from the geotechnical
engineer of record confirming that the project structural and civil drawing sets are in
conformance with their recommendations.
81. This project is considered a regulated project. Therefore, the following documents are
required in addition to the stormwater control plan:
a. Stormwater Facilities Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan – A short written
document and exhibit outlining facilities on-site and maintenance activities and
responsibilities for property owners. The maintenance plan shall include the
manufactures recommended maintenance practices, designated parties of
responsible for upkeep, specify funding source for ongoing maintenance with
provisions for full replacement when necessary and provide a site specific inspection
checklist. (Provide prior to occupancy)
b. Operations and Maintenance Agreement – A formal agreement between the property
owner and the city that shall be recorded with the property deed prior to occupancy.
(Provide prior to occupancy)
- 19 -
82. In accordance with Section E.12.e of the NPDES MS4 permit Non-LID Facilities need to show
equivalent effectiveness to bioretention areas in the following areas:
a. Equal or greater amount of runoff infiltrated or evapotranspired.
b. Equal or lower pollutant concentrations in runoff that is discharged after biotreatment
c. Equal or greater protection against shock loadings and spills
d. Equal or greater accessibility and ease of inspection and maintenance
The Stormwater Control Plan must include as an attachment a letter from the manufacturer
stating the manufacturer has reviewed the Plan, the proposed device meets these technical
criteria, and the manufacturer will provide a warranty for two years following activation of the
facility Refer to the Technical Criteria for Non-LID Treatment Facilities handout found on the
MCSTOPPP website: https://mcstoppp.org/2020/03/new-and-redevelopment/
83. A construction management plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City prior
to issuance of building permit or grading permit.
84. Prior to start of construction, a grading permit shall be required from the Department of Public
Works. Applications can be found on the City’s website:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/grading-permits/
85. An encroachment permit is required from the Department of Public Works prior to conducting
any work within or any time the public ROW is restricted. Encroachment permits can be
applied for online on the City of San Rafael website:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/encroachment-permits/
86. A construction vehicle impact fee shall be required at the time of building permit issuance,
which is calculated at 1% of the valuation, with the first $10,000 of valuation exempt.
San Rafael Sanitation District
87. On sheet C3.0, show the new and/or existing sewer laterals including size/material type and
length from the building to the street. If existing sewer lateral will be removed/abandoned,
please show on the plans.
88. Indicate a cleanout/backflow prevention device no further than 2-ft from the foundation of the.
Note that the Contra Costa-type backflow device with a 2-way cleanout is preferred.
89. In order for the District to determine sewer connection fees, please provide a fixture count
table detailing all existing and new drainage fixtures and their corresponding Drainage Fixture
Units (DFU) for commercial/retail spaces. Fixture unit counts shall be pursuant to Table 702.1
of the 2019 CPC.
90. Provide the capacity calculations required to clarify size of the proposed sewer laterals is
sufficient.
91. Provide a profile of the proposed sewer laterals from the building to the existing sewer main
connection point.
92. Please be apprised of the following:
a. Any exterior sanitary sewer-related work shall be performed in accordance with the
San Rafael Sanitation District (SRSD) Standard Plans and Specifications.
b. A sewer permit from the San Rafael Sanitation District is required independent of a
building permit for all proposed sewer lateral work outside the dwelling footprint. The
- 20 -
property owner or authorized agent shall apply for a sewer permit online or contact
SRSD for more information at (415) 454-4001 prior to the start of work.
c. Pursuant to District Ordinance No. 56, a sewer connection fee may be imposed prior
to issuance of the building permit.
d. Be apprised that cleanout is required at every 90-ft and 45° bent on all existing and
proposed SS pipes.
SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these findings or the application of these findings to a
particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions of these findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project,
shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was
duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City
held on Monday, the 8th day of May 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Hill, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Kate
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Attachment 2:
Appeal of Planning Commission decision from Vikram Seshadri, dated Received April
18, 2023
https://epermits.cityofsanrafael.org/ETRAKIT3/viewAttachment.aspx?Group=PROJECT&Activity
No=PLAN22-039&key=JBP%3a2304261029170023
Attachment 3:
Planning Commission Staff Report PLAN22-039, dated April 11, 2023
https://epermits.cityofsanrafael.org/ETRAKIT3/viewAttachment.aspx?Group=PROJECT&Activity
No=PLAN22-039&key=JBP%3a2304261031160035
Attachment 4:
Planning Commission Resolution 23-02
htps://epermits.cityofsanrafael.org/ETRAKIT3/viewAtachment.aspx?Group=PROJECT&Ac�vityNo=PLAN
22-039&key=JBP%3a2304261038130077
Attachment 5:
Local Traffic Analysis
https://epermits.cityofsanrafael.org/ETRAKIT3/viewAttachment.aspx?Group=PROJECT&Activity
No=PLAN22-039&key=JBP%3a2304061032140715
Attachment 6:
Stormwater Control Plan
https://epermits.cityofsanrafael.org/ETRAKIT3/viewAttachment.aspx?Group=PROJECT&Activity
No=PLAN22-039&key=JBP%3a2301040356423692
From: Vikram Seshadri
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 3:25 PM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org>
Cc: Jeff Ballantine <jeff.ballantine@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Supportive Evidence to my Appeal Hearing for 1515 4th Street - Project No PLAN22-039 and
ED22-016
Good afternoon Lindsay,
In preparation for the upcoming appeal hearing for 1515 4th Street, San Rafael, scheduled for
Monday, May 8, I would like to submit an independent, peer reviewed traffic analysis by PHA
Traffic Consultants (attached,) which fully corroborates the premise of my appeal. I am also
including a detailed letter summarizing the traffic analysis (attached.) I would like both to be be
entered as supporting evidence and presented to the city council for appropriate review ahead of
next Monday's appeal hearing.
Can you kindly confirm receipt of this email and attachments at your earliest convenience?
Thank you in advance,
Vikram Seshadri
San Rafael, CA 94901
Vikram Seshadri
San Rafael, CA 94901
May 1, 2023
San Rafael City Council
City of San Rafael
1400 5th Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Appeal to The City of San Rafael Planning Department’s Approval of 1515 4 th Street Mixed
Use Project: Project No.(s): PLAN22-039 and ED22-016
Dear San Rafael City Council,
As stated in my appeal letter of April 18 th, I am appealing the Planning Commission’s approval
of the 1515 4th Street project on the basis that the city’s traffic consultant, AMG, and the
Planning Commission failed to properly assess the public health and safety and traffic safety
impacts at the intersections of 3rd Street and Shaver Street, 2nd Street and Shaver Street, and
Shaver Street and Latham Street.
These intersections will be significantly impacted by the 1515 project and those impacts must be
assessed. In addition, and as I and many others commented at the Planning Commission hearing,
AMG also failed to adequately address the public safety issues that the project will create at its
egress and ingress driveways or the parking and traffic impacts from the new commercial
customers.
I believe that a proper assessment of these traffic impacts will necessitate design changes. The
comments made in my appeal letter are incorporated herein by reference.
I am also submitting an independent, peer reviewed traffic analysis by PHA Traffic Consultants,
(attached) which fully corroborates my claims of the inadequacy of the AMG study and
highlights the potential public health and traffic safety hazards.
Please note that I have been advised by counsel that the appeal will be a “de novo” hearing.
“A city council's hearing on an "appeal" of a planning commission's decision "is a
proceeding de novo" at which "all issues are before the reviewing body, in this case the
city council," unless a local ordinance provides to the contrary.” BreakZone Billiards v.
City of Torrance, 81 Cal. App. 4th 1205, 1221 & n.10 (2000)
In addition, I am appealing an “environmental and design review permit” decision by the
Planning Commission. As such, neither Section 14.28.030 nor Section 14.28.040.A of the San
Rafael Zoning Code bar the presentation of supporting evidence .
P a g e | 2
Accordingly, the courts have ruled,
"We know of no reason why the council should be restricted solely to a review of the
record before the commission where specific procedures have not been established by
ordinance," and absent such an ordinance, "[t]here is no limitation upon the right of
the council to hear new or additional testimony. If the council were bound by the
findings of the commission, there would be no point in requiring the council to hold a
public hearing. The council is not bound by the findings of the commission or by the
testimony before the commission," and "it appears to be the general practice of city
councils in conducting hearings on appeal to hear any relevant testimony offered unless
specifically restricted by ordinance." Lagrutta v. City Council, 9 Cal. App. 3d 890, 895
(1970). [Emphasis added]
I have also been advised that state law holds and the language under Section 14.28.040.A
suggests that the City Council may consider not only the record that was before the planning
commission, but also any additional supporting testimony, citations, facts, and evidence
presented at my appeal, and that testimony, citations, facts, and evidence presented become part
of the administrative record upon which the City Council bases its decision.
Note that Govt. Code § 65009(b)(1) suggests that the city council may consider any issue raised
in the public hearing on the appeal, in addition to written correspondence beforehand, regardless
of whether it was raised before the planning commission.
Finally, this letter is to advise the City Council that under the provisions of Senate Bill 330 and
the Housing Accountability Act, the City Council has the authority to require the applicant
to undertake additional traffic safety analysis or design changes or new traffic mitigation
measures to address the issues raised in this appeal.
SEC. 3. Section 65589.5. (d) of SB 330 states,
A local agency shall not disapprove [or place conditions on] a housing development project…
unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as
to one of the following: [Emphasis added]
(2) The housing development project … would have a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid
the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter
financially infeasible. [Emphasis added]
The PHA Transportation Consultants’ findings
In sum, the PHA analysis of the traffic study by AMG finds it to be grossly inadequate to assess
or mitigate the significant traffic safety issues and impacts that the project will produce. Among
other comments, some of the key supporting assessments and facts presented in the PHA report’s
findings are:
P a g e | 3
Project Descriptions
“The project description lacks details on the type of apartments, site traffic access,
driveways locations, garage access, and the land uses in the vicinity of the project site. These
details are needed for people to visualize the magnitude of the project and how well the
project fits in the area.” [Emphasis added]
Project Trip/Traffic Generation Analysis
“The report shows the daily apartment trip generation rate as 2.93 per dwelling unit (ITE land
use code 221, “Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition”). This appears low. The trip rate from
the previous “Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition” for the same mid-rise apartment is 5.44
trips per day per dwelling unit. This discrepancy means the traffic report may have
significantly underestimated the traffic impact of the project.” [Emphasis added]
Study Intersection Traffic LOS Analysis
“The traffic report evaluates traffic operations (LOS) on only two intersections along 4 th Street
near the project site. This is inadequate and will be unable to fully capture the project
trips and the traffic impact of the project on the other surrounding intersections.”
[Emphasis added]
Traffic Conditions Study Scenarios
“The traffic report studies only two traffic scenarios, existing and existing plus the
project scenario. This is inadequate and will likely miss the cumulative traffic from other
proposed but not yet built or occupied development projects in the area.” [Emphasis added]
Project Site Access (Driveway Access)
“The site access driveways are links between the project site and the adjacent street network.
The report did not identify and discuss the number of entering and exiting lanes for the
proposed driveways and traffic controls, signs, and security gates needed;”
And
“Shaver Street is a narrow two-way street with parking on both sides and narrow
pedestrian sidewalks. The two proposed project access driveways will likely impact
traffic operation, pedestrians, and residential access to and from Shaver Street and
Latham Street.” [Which was not analyzed or considered]
Parking (On-Street and On-Site)
“The two proposed access driveways on Shaver Street will result in a loss of on-street
parking spaces.” [Impacts which are not assessed]
P a g e | 4
Signals Warrant Study for Stop Control Intersections
“The intersection of 4th Street and Shaver Street is controlled by a stop sign at the Shaver
Street approach. The report needs to discuss whether or not the intersection needs to be
signalized with the addition of the project traffic and also traffic from other approved but
not yet built projects in the area.”
Study Area Traffic Safety
“The proposed project site is bordered by 4th Street, 3rd Street, and 2nd Street further
south. All of these streets are crosstown arterial streets that provide access to and from
the Freeway US 101. These streets have on-street and must also must share the road with
bicyclists. Traffic safety is a major concern.”
Thank you for your time and earnest consideration.
Respectfully,
Vikram Seshadri
Resident of San Rafael
Cell:
Email:
1
PHA Transportation Consultants
2711 Stuart Street Berkeley CA 94705
Phone (510) 848-9233
Pangho1@yahoo.com
Apr. 30, 2023
Vikram Seshadri
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Proposed Project at 1515 Fourth Street, San Rafael
Dear Vikram Seshadri,
In response to your request, we have conducted a peer review of the traffic stud y prepared by
AMG (Advance Mobility Group) for the proposed mixed-use development at 1515 Fourth Street
in Downtown San Rafael. We understand the project is a 7-story mixed-use development with
162 apartments and 9,000 square feet of commercial retail on the ground floor. Our review
indicated that the AMG traffic report lacks details on several key aspects of the development
and was unable to provide a full evaluation of the traffic impact of the project. Below is a list
of issues we have identified in the report that need further evaluation and consideration.
Project Descriptions
1: The project description lacks details on the type of apartments, site traffic access, driveways
locations, garage access, and the land uses in the vicinity of the project site. These details
are needed for people to visualize the magnitude of the project and how well the project fits
in the area.
Recommendation
Add a discussion on the types of apartment units, the number, and locations of access
driveways, surrounding land uses, access to and from Freeway US 101, and traffic circulation
patterns in the adjacent area. Add project site plans, or plans to show the site access
driveways.
Project Trip/Traffic Generation Analysis
1: The report shows the daily apartment trip generation rate as 2.93 per dwelling unit (ITE land
use code 221, “Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition”). This appears low. The trip rate from
the previous “Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition” for the same mid-rise apartment is 5.44
trips per day per dwelling unit. At 2.93 trips per unit per day, the residential portion of the
project will generate 475 daily trips, while at 5.44 trips per unit per day, it will generate 881
2
daily trips. This discrepancy means the traffic report may have significantly underestimated
the traffic impact of the project.
Recommendation
Revisit and confirm the project trip generation rates for both apartments and
retail/commercial uses. Revise the trip generation analysis if needed, and recalculate the
traffic LOS for the study intersections.
2: The project site is developed and current ly occupied by commercial uses. How much more
traffic the proposed project will generate compared to the previous use? Are there credits
(reductions) taken for the previous use of the site in the traffic analysis?
Recommendation
Compare the site traffic generation between the previous use and the proposed use. Discuss
the trip generation difference between the previous and proposed uses. Discuss whether or
not any credits or reductions were taken in the traffic analysis. Revise the traffic LOS analysis
as needed.
Study Intersection Traffic LOS Analysis
1: With 162 apartments plus 9,000 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial use, site-
related traffic will likely access the site from various directions via 4th Street, 3rd Street,
Second Street, Shaver Street, and E Street. The traffic report evaluates traffic operations
(LOS) on only two intersections along 4th Street near the project site. This is inadequate and
will be unable to fully capture the project trips and the t raffic impact of the project on the
other surrounding intersections.
Recommendation
Evaluate more intersections around the project site to fully capture the site traffic impact.
The list of study intersections should include 4th Street at E Street and Shaver Street, 3rd
Street at E Street and Shaver Street, and 2nd Street at E Street and Shaver Street. The traffic
study also needs to evaluate traffic operations at the two proposed access driveways on
Shaver Street. Access driveways are the linkage between the project site and the current
street network and their design and operation need to be evaluated . The analysis should
include driveway turning radius, sight distances, and spacing between the two proposed
driveways.
Traffic Conditions Study Scenarios
1: The traffic report studies only two traffic scenarios, existing and existing plus the project
scenario. This is inadequate and will likely miss the cumulative traffic from other proposed
but not yet built or occupied development projects in the area. These approved but not yet
built projects will add more traffic to the study area affecting traffic operations when they
are complete and occupied.
3
Recommendation
Add and evaluate a short-term traffic scenario. The short-term traffic scenario should
identify development projects near the proposed project site that have already received city
approvals but have not yet been built or occupied. The traffic from these projects needs to
be added to the intersection traffic LOS analyses as they will likely affect the traffic operation
at the study intersections and the overall circulation in the area.
Project Site Access (Driveway Access)
1: The project site plan shows two site access driveways to be located on Shaver Street while
pedestrian access will be on E Street. There is a discussion on the stopping sight distance for
vehicles, however, there is no discussion on the sight distance between the exiting vehicle
and pedestrians on the sidewalk. The sight distance between exiting vehicles and pedestrians
is critical if the access driveways (garage driveways) have solid walls on both sides of the
driveway while the sidewalks are narrow. In this situation, motorists exiting the garage
driveways may not be able to see pedestrians in time to stop until the front end of the
vehicle reaches the middle of the sidewalk, thus creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians.
This is especially crucial for vehicles exiting (emerging) from the underground garage, which
will make it even more difficult for motorists and pedestrians to see each other.
Recommendation
Evaluate sight distance for pedestrians and vehicles exiting from the garage. Discuss the type
of walls to be installed at the garage exits/entrances and indicate whether or not pedestrian
warning systems such as warning sound systems and or mirrors are needed. Identify the
number of lanes for the two proposed driveways, spacing between the two driveways, and
traffic controls, and discuss any traffic operations at th e driveways and the security gates.
2: As discussed earlier, the site access driveways are links between the project site and the
adjacent street network. The report did not identify and discuss the number of entering and
exiting lanes for the proposed driveways and traffic controls, signs, and security gates
needed; and whether or not the driveway design and traffic entering and exiting the
driveways would create conflicts with traffic circulation in Shaver Street.
Recommendation
Identify the number of lanes for the two proposed driveways, traffic controls, and operation
of security gate controls if there are any, and discuss any traffic operation issues and any
potential conflict at the driveways and Shaver Street.
3: Shaver Street is a narrow two-way street with parking on both sides and narrow pedestrian
sidewalks. The two proposed project access driveways will likely impact traffic operation,
pedestrians, and residential access to and from Shaver Street and Latham Street.
4
Recommendation
Consider reversing the site access plan by locating the vehicle driveways on E Street and the
pedestrian access at Shaver Street. E Street is wider and the land use is mostly commercial.
Reversing the driveways will minimize vehicle impacts and conflicts on residential access to
and from Shaver Street and Latham Street, and conflict with the pedestrians on the narrow
sidewalk.
Parking (On-Street and On-Site)
1: The two proposed access driveways on Shaver Street will result in a loss of on-street parking
spaces. Will the project provide parking spaces in the parking garage to compensate for the
loss of street parking? The project includes 9,000 square feet of retail space on the ground
floor. Are there parking spaces in the parking garage designated for ret ail use? Or will they
be accommodated on the street?
Recommendation
Identify how many parking spaces will be eliminated on Shaver Street as a result of the new
project access driveways. Discuss whether or not the lost street parking spaces will be
compensated in the garage. Discuss how parking for the retail portion of the project will be
accommodated.
2: The report does not discuss the internal circulation, drive aisles and how vehicles will
navigate within the parking garage, and whether or not some of the parking spaces will be
designated for the ground floor retail use.
Recommendation
Identify parking stall and drive aisle dimensions and discuss parking garage internal
circulation, and whether or not vehicles can move between upper and lower levels of the
garage internally.
Signals Warrant Study for Stop Control Intersections
1: The intersection of 4th Street and Shaver Street is controlled by a stop sign at the Shaver
Street approach. The report needs to discuss whether or not the intersection needs to be
signalized with the addition of the project traffic and also traffic from other approved but not
yet built projects in the area.
Recommendation
Conduct signal warrant analyses to determine whether or not the intersection of 4 th Street
and Shaver Street needs to be signalized with the addition of the project traffic and traffic
from other approved but not yet built projects in the short-term traffic scenario.
5
Study Area Traffic Safety
1: The proposed project site is bordered by 4th Street, 3rd Street, and 2nd Street further south.
All of these streets are crosstown arterial streets that provide access to and from the
Freeway US 101. These streets have on-street and must also must share the road with
bicyclists. Traffic safety is a major concern.
Recommendation
Conduct a traffic collision review for the area to identify collision hot spots and recommend
remedial strategies as needed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe most of the issues we identified above could be addressed and resolved.
The most significant concern is the project site access driveways as currently proposed at
Shaver Street. Relocating the driveways to E Street, or even moving just one of the driveways to
E Street, would greatly reduce the project impact on the residential access and traffic operation
on Shaver Street and Latham Street. It will also minimize conflict between vehicles exiting the
garage and pedestrians due to narrow sidewalks.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the above analysis. We
appreciate the opportunity to review the project.
Regards,
Pang Ho, AICP
Principal
From: Alexa Hilal Calabro
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:52 AM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Concerns in Downtown San Rafael
Hello,
I'm writing to express concern about potential traffic and pedestrian safety concerns in downtown San
Rafael.
Our family recently became aware of a large planned apartment project slated to be built in
downtown San Rafael. As a resident of this neighborhood and parent of two young children, I am
very concerned about the increase in both the number of cars on the road and the increase in
pedestrian traffic crossing those roads that this project will bring.
After reviewing the plans, there does not appear to be a clear plan to protect pedestrians from both the
increased traffic nor the entrance/exit for the building. In addition, there does not appear to be a plan
on how to efficiently route and/or accommodate traffic through the downtown area.
If there is a plan in place, could you please share it? If not, we ask that this project be delayed until
these issues are resolved and presented to the community.
We've all seen and experienced enough traffic accidents, pedestrian injury and, sadly, deaths as a result
of the San Rafael downtown traffic. Why risk more?
Alexa and Robert Calabro
San Rafael
From: Brad Sears
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:29 PM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Please forward
This article to the city council. Thanks.
https://marinpost.org/blog/2023/5/2/san-rafael-development-appealed-on-traffic-and-public-safety-
concerns
From: CHRISE de Tournay Birkhahn
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Development Project at 1515 4th Street
Hello,
I am a former commissioner for the 2020 General Plan, and before that, was a member
of the Our Neighborhood and Homes advisory committee. It was a thorough process
resulting a visionary and well-executed plan. Smart planning and the ABAG/State
Housing Element were guiding lights, and the plan reflected how seriously we took the
mandate, while also balancing the choice of sites for new development on virgin land or
in-fill projects.
So I am a fan of Smart Planning - when well done, with extensive thought and sensitivity
to the parcel and the neighborhood.
I would like to see a mixed use, residential building on that site. The site is well chosen.
But this seems like a desperate attempt to get as many units in place to fulfill the
Housing Element, and not contextualize the neighborhood, transportation routes (yes on
bus route), access and traffic.
I am advocating for a re-look at the project that may not render 162 units, but still ample
gains if it were to be less stories, with limited parking (not more than per unit, for
instance) and of course, an affordable housing element (woefully less than 10%, which
is frankly, lame.)
This is not a downtown area. Downtown itself already struggles with retail vacancies, so
the large residential buildings did not really help revitalize the neighborhood, though did
grab some residential units to help meet the mandates.
The West End cannot successfully accommodate a building of 7 stories. I don't think it
needs an "art gallery", which frankly is lipstick on a pig. But it should accommodate a
more modest proposal, since the element of Community Character in the Smart
Planning doctrine seems to have thrown out the window. It should be LEED certified,
with sustainable building and energy in mind.
Berkeley has done a very good job with where they are placing building of that size. But
Berkeley is dense and already urban. The current plan looks exactly like what buildings
have gone up on major traffic corridors - typically four lane, not two. But retail store
rates are too high for anything but chain stores...vacancies abound.
San Rafael can do better for its neighborhoods. We need the housing, we need the
building. This project is not suited to the neighborhood in elevation and sustainable
goals of less cars near transit (parking spaces outnumber units). Let's do better and a
bit smaller - 5 stories? Less parking stalls? Affordable rents for retailers and residents?
Green building?
Reign it in a bit. You will get more support.
Best,
Chrise de Tournay Birkhahn
Fan of Smart Planning and moderated growth meeting our sustainable goals.
From: Jan Booth
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 10:26 AM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Traffic concern about proposed building at 1515 4th Street
Hello,
As a resident of the Sun Valley neighborhood, I'm on Fourth Street
frequently and I cannot imagine the traffic congestion and ensuing safety
problems if so many units are built at 1515 4th.
Please approve something with fewer units. This is out of whack with the
capacity of Fourth Street and our surrounding neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Jan Booth
From: Jackie Dagg
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Eli Hill <eli.hill@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: Proposed Apartment building at 4th and Shaver
Mr. Hill,
I live in the West End Neighborhood and want to object to the
construction of the above referenced building. It is too large for the
neighborhood and parking/traffic issues have not been properly
addressed.
Jacqueline Dagg
From: Jackie Dagg
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 10:44 AM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: 4th Street apartment complex
I am against the construction of this new complex for two reasons:
it is too large for the neighborhood; and
parking concerns have not been addressed.
Jacqueline Dagg
San Rafael, CA
From: Laurene Schlosser
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 10:47 AM
To: Jeff Ballantine <Jeff.Ballantine@cityofsanrafael.org>; Distrib- City Clerk
<city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org>
Subject: RE: 162-apt complex for SR's West End
Hello:
I am planning on attending the May 8th meeting but wanted to reach out and protest the inadequate
assessment of public safety by the project’s traffic consultants, AMG.
Everything that SR resident Vikram Seshadri wrote in his appeal letter to the City of SR Planning Dept on
May 1, 2023, rings true. Pedestrian and traffic safety will be a major issue. This prosed complex is too
big , period. There are not enough parking spaces for all the people who will be living in this
complex; this will directly effect traffic on 2nd, 3rd, 4th Streets as well as Latham & Shaver. Plus – the
narrowing of 2nd and 3rd Streets to accommodate a bike lane is going to NOT PROGRESS but a MAJOR
HEADACHE. I do not understand how this is going forward with so many red flags being raised. I’m
completely baffled. Yes we need housing – but not something that large as it will only cause traffic /
parking issues for everyone. Build something of this magnitude elsewhere in SR…..like off of East
Francisco Blvd….lots of open land there or Northgate Mall.
Narrower roads, less parking, huge influx of more cars = terrible idea and a terrible reality for those of us
who live in this section of the city.
Sincerely,
Laurene Schlosser
SR
From: Tom Cummings
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Vikram Seshadri Distrib- City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org>;
jeff.balantine@cityofsanrafael.org
Subject: West End Traffic Safety
To: San Rafael City Council
From: Tom Cummings
San Rafael, CA 94901
I am writing in regard to the appeal filed by Vikram Seshadri to the traffic study conducted by AMG
Traffic Consultants in conjunction to the proposed 1515 4th Street apartment project development.
Mr. Seshadri has submitted an independent traffic study by PHA Traffic Consultants that contradicts the
original AMG traffic study in every way possible. I concur with the PHA traffic study 100%.
The original AMG traffic study glossed over the many traffic, parking and safety concerns we West End
residents have been concerned about since the initial building proposal at 1515 4th Street.
If the proposed 1515 4th Street apartment complex was of a more modest scope, the traffic, parking
and safety concerns would themselves be modest. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. Due to the
colossal size of the proposed building, the staggering number of units contained therein and the
subsequent introduction of hundreds of new vehicles in our small neighborhood, the AMG traffic study
completely fails to take into consideration the many important traffic, parking and safety concerns of
neighborhood residents and the residents of the greater City of San Rafael as well.
For starters, the AMG traffic study failed to properly assess the public health and traffic safety impacts
at the following intersections:
3rd Street and Shaver Street
2nd Street and Shaver Street
Latham Street and Shaver Street
How could a supposedly professional traffic study consulting firm, AMG Traffic Consultants, fail to assess
the traffic, parking and safety concerns at key intersections around an enormous new apartment
building?
Did their engineers notice the extremely narrow streets in this historic turn-of-the-century
neighborhood? Did they take into consideration the 75 year old business of Cain’s Tires located at 4th
Street and Shaver Street whose clients’ cars frequently clog up the sidewalk at that location? Were they
aware that it’s extremely difficult even now to execute a left turn at the top of Shaver Street onto 4th
Street due to the constant flow of heavy traffic on Eastbound 4th street? And that’s prior to erecting any
huge apartment building next door.
Further, the decision by Monahan Pacific to locate the driveways to their giant building on Shaver
Street, rather than on E Street, boggles the mind. E Street is the obvious choice. It’s wider, it’s mostly
level, it does not have an extremely busy car-centric business located across the street and it has an
existing traffic light at 4th Street and E Street. I suspect there’s some reason Monahan Pacific prefers
Shaver Street as their parking garage entrance to E Street. It’s probably more cost effective for them to
excavate on Shaver Street, where they already need to dig deep for the building foundation, than to
excavate the deep parking ramps on E Street. Frankly, we appear to be handing this developer
everything he’s asking for, can we at least show some common sense and demand that he locate his
underground parking garage ramps on E Street rather than on narrow Shaver Street? Putting the parking
garage ramps on congested Shaver Street will be an unmitigated disaster.
The PHA Traffic Consultants study identifies many other concerns and shortcomings to the original AMG
traffic study. I’m not going to attempt to list them all in this email. Suffice it to say I’m extremely
concerned about the weak, half-hearted, watered-down traffic safety report submitted by AMG. We
need to do better. You need to do better.
I can’t express how strongly I feel about these issues. As a 25 year West End home owner, I already feel
my concerns about the size of this project were ignored. Obviously, this project is WAY too big for this
location. If this project is to be foisted upon us, can we please do an honest traffic, parking and safety
assessment? The AMG
traffic study appears to be a rubber stamp sham.
Sincerely,
Tom Cummings