Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission 2024-07-23 Agenda Packet Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:00 P.M. AGENDA Participate In-Person: San Rafael City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 Watch Online: Watch on Zoom Webinar: http://tinyurl.com/Planning-Commision-24 Watch on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael Listen by phone: 1 (669) 444-9171 ID: 840 9897 7308# One Tap Mobile: US: +16694449171, 84098977308# This meeting will be held in-person. This meeting is being streamed to YouTube at www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael. How to participate in the meeting: • You are welcome to come to the meeting and provide public comment in person. Each speaker will have 3 -minutes to provide public comment. • Submit your comments by email to PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. If you experience technical difficulties during the meeting, please contact PlanningPublicComment@cityofsanrafael.org. A. CALL TO ORDER B. RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT C. APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS D. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES E. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Remarks are limited to three minutes per person and may be on anything within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. Remarks on non-agenda items will be heard first, remarks on agenda items will be heard at the time the item is discussed. F. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar allows the Commission to take action, without discussion, on Agenda items for which there are no persons present who wish to speak, and no Commission members who wish to discuss. 1. Draft Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2024 G. ACTION ITEMS 1. Modification of a previously approved project located at 1515 Fourth Street. Request for a Use Permit is to operate a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units at 1515 4th Street. APN: 011-245-41 PLAN2024-033. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332, In -fill Development Projects. As proposed, and conditioned, the proposed use is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2040, the relevant provisions of the Downtown Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Project Planners: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager margaret.kavanaugh- lynch@cityofsanrafael.org Micah Hinkle, Community and Economic Development Director, micah.hinkle@cityofsanrafael.org Recommended Action - Approve the Use Permit, subject to the conditions and based on the findings found in the staff report. H. DIRECTOR’S REPORT I. COMMISSION COMMUNICATION I. ADJOURNMENT Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Commission less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection online. Sign Language interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. The Planning Commission will take up no new business after 11:00 p.m. at regularly scheduled meetings. This shall be interpreted to mean that no agenda item or other business will be discussed or acted upon after the agenda item under consideration at 11:00 p.m. The Commission may suspend this rule to discuss and/or act upon any additional agenda item(s) deemed appropriate by a unanimous vote of the members present. Appeal rights: any person may file an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on agenda items within five business days (normally 5:00 p.m. on the following Tuesday) and within 10 calendar days of an action on a subdivision. An appeal letter shall be filed with the City Clerk, along with an appeal fee of $350 (for non-applicants) or a $4,476 deposit (for applicants) made payable to the City of San Rafael and shall set forth the basis for appeal. There is a $50.00 additional charge for request for continuation of an appeal by appellant. Minutes subject to approval at the meeting of July 23, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2024, 7:00 P.M. Minutes Participate In-Person: San Rafael City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 or Participate Virtually: Watch on Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/PlanningCommission23 Watch on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael Telephone: 1 (669) 444-9171 Meeting ID: 840 9897 7308# One Tap Mobile: US: +16694449171, 84098977308# CALL TO ORDER Chair Saude called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. He then invited Community Development Director Alicia Giudice to call roll. RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT PRESENT: SAMINA SAUDE, CHAIR JON HAVEMAN, VICE-CHAIR JON PREVITALI, COMMISSIONER JILL RODBY, COMMISSIONER SHINGAI SAMUDZI, COMMISSIONER ALDO MERCADO, COMMISSIONER ABSENT N/A ALSO PRESENT: CRISTINE ALILOVICH, CITY MANAGER MICAH HINKEL, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LAURA SIMPSON, INTERIM COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MARGARET KAVANAUGH-LYNCH, PLANNING MANAGER APRIL TALLEY, PROJECT MANAGER MARY WAGNER, LEGAL COUNSEL HEATHER HINES, PLANNING CONSULTANT APPROVAL OR REVISION OF ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Chair Saude asked if there are any changes to the order of the agenda. The Director’s report was moved to the top of the agenda. No further revision to the agenda was requested. Motion carried: 6 -0. DIRECTOR’S REPORT City Manager, Cristine Alilovich, reported on the following items: 1. Introduction of new city staff working on the Northgate Project: • Laura Simpson, Interim Community Development Director. • Heather Hines, (Consultant) Principal Planner. • Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager. • Mary Wagner, Legal Counsel with Burke, Williams, and Sorenson. • April Talley, Project Manager. • Micah Hinkel, Community Economic Development Director (New Appointment). No further items were reported. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF MEETING PROCEDURES Chair Saude stated that public comment will be limited to three minutes to provide testimony on non-agendized items. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Chair Saude stated that public comment will be limited to three minutes to provide testimony on non-agendized items. Invited members of the audience to step forward to the dais to address the Commission. Public Commentors: Steve Harris, Field Representative for NorCal Carpenters Union Local 35 – Marin County, provided testimony on supporting a “living wage” for Marin County residents. Angela Adams, NorCal Carpenters Union Local 751, provided testimony requesting support of medical benefits and living wages for trade workers. There were no further comments from community members. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2023 Recommended Action – Approve minutes as submitted. 2. Review and Acceptance of the General Plan Annual Progress Report and Housing Element for 2023. – Accept as submitted. Chair Saude invited public comment and there was none. Chair Saude requested a motion to proceed with a vote. Commissioner Haveman motioned to approve the two items on the consent calendar. Commissioner Mercado seconded and affirmed the motion to approve the two items. Chair Saude then invited Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager, to take roll: AYES: Commissioners Haveman, Mercado, Previtali, Rodby, Samudzi, and Chair Saude. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried 6-0 ACTION ITEMS 3. Accept Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) For Northgate Town Square Project. To accept public comments on the draft EIR for 5800 Northgate Drive “Northgate Town Square Project”. Recommended action: (1) Convene a public hearing to accept comments on the draft EIR. (2) Direct staff to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), inclusive of a comprehensive Response to Comments, and any necessary revision to the DEIR. Chair Saude stated that public comment will be limited to two minutes to provide testimony on the DEIR. The chair included a statement that if your comment has already been stated to summarize with an affirming “I agree” statement. Chair Saude invited Staff to provide a presentation for the project. Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager, informed the Commission that the project will be presented in two-parts: Heather Hines, Planning Consultant, provided the first part of the presentation which consisted of the project scope. Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager, presented the second part of the which consisted of the Draft EIR findings to the Commission. The Planning Commissioners presented questions to staff. Staff provided responses. Chair Saude opened the public hearing. A total of twenty-two public speakers provided comments to the DEIR. Chair Saude closed the public hearing. Chair Saude turned it over to the Commissioners for comments or discussion. Commissioner Samudzi provided clarification on the purpose of the public hearing. Commissioner Mercado provided comments on the methodology of the baseline assessment of the project. Commissioner Previtali provided comments on the use of union of labor and hours of construction. Commissioner Haveman provided comments on the data use to assess the project. Commission Rodby provided general comments. Chair Saude provided comments related to parks, public recreation facilities, greenhouse gas, retail amenities, and responses to SMART. Chair Saude requested a motion to (1) to accept the public comments on the DEIR. (2) Direct staff to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), inclusive of a comprehensive Response to Comments, and any necessary revision to the DEIR. Commissioner Mercado moved and Commissioner Samudzi seconded a motion to approve the action items. Chair Saude invited Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager, to take roll: AYES: Commissioners Mercado, Previtali, Rodby, Samudzi, Vice Chair Haveman, and Chair Saude NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried 6-0 COMMISSION COMMUNICATION Chair Saude asked the Commissioners if they had any communication to report. The Commissioners did not have items to report. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice Chair Haveman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 PM. Jose M. Herrera-Preza, Principal Planner APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON __/__/2024 - 1 - Community Development Department – Planning Division Meeting Date: July 23, 2024 Agenda Item: G.1 Case Numbers: PLAN24-033; Project Planner: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager Margaret.kavanaugh- lynch@cityofsanrafael.org and Micah Hinkle, Director, Community and Economic Development micah.hinkle@cityofsanrafael.org REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 1515 4th Street: Modification of a previously approved project located at 1515 Fourth Street. Request for a Use Permit is to operate a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project consists of a Use Permit to operate a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units at this location. The design of the new project has been found consistent with the previous Environmental Design Review Permit (ED22-0016) by the Director of Community and Economic Development, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code SRMC14.25.160 – Amendments. A memorandum of this action is included for reference as Exhibit 2. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332, In -fill Development Projects. As proposed, and conditioned, the proposed use is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2040, the relevant provisions of the Downtown Precise Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit application subject to conditions of approval in the Draft Resoluti on as found in Exhibit 1. REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS Use Permit pursuant to Downtown Precise Plan Table 2.3.070.A and SRMC Code Section 14.04.020 to allow for “residential care facility, large” use on the site . - 2 - PROPERTY FACTS The following table provide s an overview of General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and immediate surrounding area as well as existing developed land uses. Table 1: Land Use Information Address: 1515 4th Street Parcel Number: 011-245-41 Property Size: 0.8 acres/ 38,519 square feet Neighborhood: West End Village Site Characteristics General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use Project Site DMU T4MS 50/70, T4N 40/50 Vacant Bank Building North: DMU T4MS 50/70 Retail Businesses South: DMU T4N 40/50, T5N 40/60 Medical/Professional Offices, AT&T Building East: DMU T4MS 50/70 Dentist Office West: DMU, MDR T4MS 40/50, MR 2.5 Tire Shop, Single Family Residence DMU = Downtown Mixed Use; MDR = Medium Density Residential; T4MS = Transect 4 Main Street; T4N = Transect 4 Neighborhood; T5N = Transect 5 Neighborhood; MR = Medium Density Residential Site Description & Setting The project site is 0.8-acre/38,519 square feet in area and is surrounded by Shaver Street, 4th Street, and East Street to the west, north, and east, respectively, as well as two commercial buildings to the south. The site currently has driveways onto both 4 th Street and East Street. The site is relatively flat with a gentle downslope towards the southwest corner of the site. Retaining walls along the southern and southwestern sides of the property cause the site to be taller and flatter than the surroundin g topography. A vacant bank building is located on the project site. Figure 1: Vicinity Map with Site Zoning =T4N 40/50 =T4MS 50/70 =T4MS 50/70 Open Sub-Zone - 3 - BACKGROUND In April 2023, the Planning Commission approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 22- 016) for a proposed new mixed -use building with 162 residential units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The approved building has 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 building also had two partially subterranean floors that accommodate 179 vehicle parking spaces, a bicycle storage room for 116 bicycle parking spaces, and a trash room. The ground level included 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 d the remaining 153 residential units. A lounge room and two common roof decks were also included on Level 7. The project included 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). The Commission’s decision was appealed to the City Council, and on May 8, 2023 the City Council upheld the Commission’s decision to approve the project. On March 4, 2024, the applicant submitted a modified project for formal consideration by the City. It was reviewed for compliance with the General Plan, the Downtown Precise Plan and the San Rafael Municipal Code as well as routed to City departments and outside agencies for review. After completing a thorough comparison, the Community and Economic Development Director determined that there were different components to the modified project. Each of these are identified and discussed, below: Environmental and Design Review Permit. The Director found that proposed plans included in the March 2024 submittal were consistent with the intent of the original approval Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED 22-016), pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.25.160 - Amendments—New application. Exhibit 2 Memorandum that memorializes that analysis. Use Permit. The Director found that the new use, a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE), required a Use Permit at the proposed location, pursuant to Table 2.3.070.A of the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP). This use is identified as Residential Care Facility, Other (Large 7 or more residents) on the table. As noted above, the project site encompasses T4MS 50/70, T4N 40/50 and T4MS 50/70 Open Sub-Zone. Form-Based Zones T4N and T4MS require the Planning Commission to be the body of decision for this use. Commercial Linkage Fee. The modified project was no longer a housing project per se , but rather a commercial project for the sake of in lieu and other impact fees. This topic is discussed in detail below. While the purpose of this staff report is to provide an overview of the entire project for the benefit of the Planning Commission and the community, the focus of the analysis, findings and conditions is on the Use Permit as that is the entitlement before the Commissi on for action. - 4 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Summary The applicant proposes to build and operate a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units at 1515 4th Street. It also qualifies as a State Density Bonus Project as a senior housing project. The building height is unchanged from the previously approved project (a maximum height of 80 feet). Parking remains subterranean but is reduced from 179 to 135 parking spaces and the trash room that was formerly in the garage is relocated to a service area along E Street . A new canopy has been added to protect the drop- off area at the main entrance to the building along 4th Street. The first floor includes six independent living units along with resident amenities including a main dining room, private dining area, art studio, screen room a wine lounge and town hall meeting room. The second floor has 28 memory care units and 13 assisted living units and the upper floors include a mix of assisted and independent living units. Figure 2: Rendering Looking Southwest ANALYSIS The project site is located within the Downtown Precise Plan. Most of the project site is 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 in the T4N 40/50 district of the Downtown Precise Plan (see Figure 1 above). Section 2.3.070 identifies allowable land uses, and Table 2.3.070 A ide ntifies “Residential Care Facility, Other- Large (7 or more residents) as a Conditionally Permitted Use . Therefore, the project requires Use Permit approval by the Commission to allow for a state licensed residential care facility for th e elderly use on the site with findings consistent with SMC 14.22.080: A. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; - 5 - B. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city; and C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. San Rafael General Plan 2040 Consistency The site is designated as Downtown Mixed Use on the General Plan 2040 Land Use Map, which allows for a mix of housing and retail uses. There is no residential density limit on properties designated as Downtown Mixed Use in General Plan 2040. The project is consistent with key General Plan Policies. Specifically, the project is consistent with Land Use and Economic Diversity and Inclusion goals and policies, which encourage new senior housing development. Policy LU-2.8: Senior and Disabled Care Facilities - Encourage facilities and services to meet the needs of older and disabled residents, including senior housing, assisted living, and convalescent care facilities; and facilities providing adult day care and social services, and health care for older adults and people with disabilities. Policy LU-3.3: Housing Mix. Encourage a diverse mix of housing choices in terms of affordability, unit type, and size, including opportunities for both renters and owners. Goal EDI-6: An Age-Friendly Community Enhance the quality of life for older adults in San Rafael. As an inclusive community, San Rafael is a city that works for everyone, regardless of age or ability. The City provides access to services and resources that make it easier for older adults to stay active and connected. It plans and provides appropriately for older adults who need assistance. Policy EDI-6.2: Aging in Community - Improve opportunities for older adults to age in place and continue living independently in their San Rafael homes. This should include recognition of the importance of in - home support services and caregivers, At the same time, provide more options for tho se seeking to “age in community” and relocate to suitable housing in the city that includes supportive services, smaller units, and access for persons with mobility limitations. The proposed project would further these General Plan policies by providing 155 independent and assisted living units, 28 memory care units, and amenities for residents and guests in the West End Village neighborhood which provides a number of goods and services within walking distance of the project site. Downtown Precise Plan Policies and District Objectives The proposed project is within the West End Village subarea of the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP), directly at the border of the West End Village and the Downtown Core. Chapter 4 of the Downtown Precise Plan envisions West End Village retaining its residential character, with new development filling in the missing gaps in the neighborhood fabric. A variety of housing types including Missing Middle types respond to the existing form and scale of the neighborhood while expanding housing choice. The Plan further states: “New development at the western edge of Downtown helps create a gateway experience. For large-scale new development, the City could provide incentives to encourage private parking facilities - 6 - to be publicly accessible.” The Downtown Precise Plan was adopted by the City with the intent of accommodating higher density mixed use development in the City’s Downtown. The proposed project in accordance with the purpose of the DPP as it provides a transitional large-scale project at the edge of the Downtown Core and West End Village subareas and increases opportunities for seniors with a continuum of needs by providing 155 independent and assisted living units, 28 memory care units, and amenities. Zoning Ordinance Consistency The proposed project is consistent with applicable development standards of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, development standards pertaining to light and glare, noise, mechanical equipment screening and water-efficient landscape. 14.16.170 - Geotechnical review - The applicant has provided a Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical Group, dated March 21, 2024. The report concluded that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and provided recommendations. 14.16.227 - Light and glare. Neutral-colored stucco finishes are proposed, which will avoid off -site glare impacts. As shown on the Schematic Lighting & Photometric Plans, light fixtures will be shielded to conceal light sources from view off-site and avoid spillover onto adjacent properties. 14.16.243 - Mechanical equipment screening . Proposed roof-mounted mechanical equipment is adequately screened from public view by parapet walls. Additionally, the draft resolution includes a condition of approval for review of any ground -mounted utility and trash enclosure area to ensure adequate screening from the street. 14.16.260 - Noise standards. The project site is located in a “normally acceptable” noise exposure area per General Plan 2040, Figure I -9. The application has provided a Noise and Vibration Assessment, prepared by Illingworth & Rodking, Inc., dated March 6, 2024 which includes noise mitigation measures to prevent any off-site impact, as well as achieve the minimum interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential units. 14.16.320 - Swimming pools, hot tubs, and other mechanical equipment. As proposed and conditioned, all mechanical equipment will be located a minimum of five feet from the property lines, consistent with this requirement. 14.16.370 - Water-efficient landscape. The draft resolution includes a condition of approval to require the applicant to provide written verification of plan approval from MMWD prior to the issuance of a building permit and/or grading permit. Through compliance with conditions, the project will be consistent with water-efficient landscaping requirements. Commercial Linkage Fee The project will employ staff across a variety of functions including administration, marketing, caregiving, and food service. As a new commercial development, the project is subject to the City’s commercial linkage fee, which charges new commercial develo pment for its role in creating additional demand for affordable housing for the new workforce. The City does not have a specified fee for residential care facilities. Per San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.16.030, to determine the fee per square foot required, staff working with a consultant team analyzed data submitted by the applicant, including a staffing plan showing anticipated employee density for the proposed project, as well as Marin County wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Using the data provided, staff applied the methodology used in the City’s most recently adopted fee study to - 7 - establish a maximum justifiable fee for the project at $140 per square foot. This represents the revenue required to completely close the gap between what housing costs to build and what employees can afford. To determine a fee rate, consultants and staff factored in financial feasibility and existing fees in other jurisdictions. A condition of approval memorializes the final amount. Public Health and Safety 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 welfa re, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the project vicinity. The project will be built in accordance with the applicable California Building Code, including specific requirements for senior living developments. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Support of this determination is provided in the CEQA Infill exemption memo found in Exhibit 4. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 14.29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing. Public notice was also posted on a frontage of the subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Staff have received numerous public comments on the project (Exhibit 7). Major themes contained within these comments include concerns regarding building height and scale of the building in relationship to the neighborhood, traffic impacts, impacts to street parking spaces, shadow impacts upon existing buildings, and concerns about the need and desirability of a senior housing development in this location. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the project as presented, subject to conditions of approval (staff recommendation) 2. Approve the project with certain modifications, changes, or additional conditions of approval. 3. Continue the project and request staff to bring back specific information that the Planning Commission needs in order to take an action. 4. Deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution of denial. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Memorandum from Director Decision of Consistency dated 7/23/24 3. Architectural Plans, dated 5/7/2024 4. CEQA Infill Exemption Memo dated 7/23/24 with exhibits 5. Public Comments EXHIBIT 1 4875-2920-2642 v2 RESOLUTION NO. 24-03 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A USE PERMIT (PLAN24-033), MODIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (PLAN22-0039), AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR A STATE LICENSED RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY (RCFE) CONTAINING 155 SENIOR INEPENDENT AND ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 28 SECURED MEMORY CARE UNITS AT 1515 4TH STREET (APN 011-245-41) WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Environmental Design Review (ED22-016) for a new mixed-use building with 162 residential units and 8,900 square feet of ground floor commercial space which seeks concessions and waivers of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law at 1515 4th street in the T4MS 50/70 and the T4N 40/50 zoning districts (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No 15214 denying an appeal and affirming the Planning Commission’s approval of EDR 22-016 to allow construction of new mixed-use project at the project location ; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2024, the Applicant submitted an application to revise the previously approved mixed-use project to allow operation of a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) pursuant to the Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act (Health and Safety Code section 1569 et seq.) WHEREAS, the proposed “Project” would contain 155 senior independent and assisted living units with kitchens, and 28 secured memory care units; and WHEREAS, the design of the “Project” was found consistent with the previous Environmental Design Review Permit (PLAN22-016) by the Director of Community and Economic Development, pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code SRMC14.25.160 – Amendments; and WHEREAS, a Use Permit is required to operate a state licensed RCFE, pursuant to Table 2.3.070.A of the Downtown Precise Plan ; and WHEREAS, the “Project” invokes the State Density Bonus Laws (“SDBL,” Government Code section 65915 et seq.); WHEREAS, pursuant to the SDBL, because the “Project” is a senior citizen housing development, as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil Code, the “Project” need not provide any affordable housing units in order to be entitled to a 20% density bonus and waivers of development standards; WHEREAS pursuant to the SDBL, the previous “Project” sought and was granted waivers for building height, front, side, rear setbacks from property line building length, front, street side and rear step-backs of higher floors and incentives/concessions for civic space; - 2 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 WHEREAS, the “Project” is not entitled to any incentives/concessions because it does not proposed to include any affordable housing units and therefore, the applicant has sought to convert the previously proposed incentive/concession into a waiver to permit location of the required civic space within the building as opposed to being located outside of the building in a location accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, applicant submitted a justification for this waiver which is entitled “Justification for Waiver for Outdoor Civic Space” and is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; WHEREAS, Applicant also seeks a waiver for building height to allow a maximum of 80 feet; and; WHEREAS, Applicant also seeks waivers from the development standards for building height and for step-backs on the front, streetside and rear of the proposed building ; WHEREAS, Applicant also seeks waivers from the development standards for building for setbacks on the front, streetside and rear of the proposed building ; WHEREAS, the “Project” requires discretionary actions by the City, and therefore the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) require analysis and a determination regarding environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the “Project” is subject to the City’s Commercial Linkage Fee requirements, the City does not have a specified fee for residential care facilities , so staff working with consultants analyzed data and methodology from various sources, factored in financial feasibility to arrive at final fee amount, and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2024, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Use Permit, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the Planning Commission 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. WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and - 3 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 WHEREAS the Planning Commission finds that the above recitals together with the staff report and the application materials, including without limitation, all documents, reports, studies, memoranda, maps, oral and written testimony, and materials in the City’s file for the applications and the “Project”, and all adopted and applicable City planning documents related to the “Project” and the “Project” Site and all associated environmental documents, have together served as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the recommendations set forth in this resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission makes the following findings relating to Use Permit (PLAN24-033). USE PERMIT FINDINGS (PLAN24-033) A. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located ; The site is designated as Downtown Mixed Use on the General Plan 2040 Land Use Map which allows for residential uses. Specifically, the “Project” is consistent with Land Use and Economic Diversity and Inclusion goals and policies, which encourage new senior housing development. In addition, the “Project” is consistent with the Downtown Precise Plan objectives of providing housing in the West End Village neighborhood. B. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the city; and 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 . C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. The “Project” is consistent with applicable development standards of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, development standards pertaining to light and glare, noise, mechanical equipment screening and water-efficient landscape. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning Commission directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning Commission approves the use permit for a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units subject to the conditions of approval set forth herein; NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, all applicable conditions of approval of the previously approved Environmental and Design Review permit No. PLAN22-0039 have - 4 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 been included herein and therefore, the Planning Commission hereby repeals all previously imposed conditions of approval on Environmental and Design Review Permit No. PLAN22- 0039. USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PLAN 24-033) Planning Division 1. This Use Permit approves the operation of a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units at this location . Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance to the plans submitted April 4, 2024 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 plans submitted April 4, 2024 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. For purposes of this resolution and conditions of appro val, “building permit” shall mean any permit issued for construction, demolition, excavation, grading or any earth disturbing work requiring a permit. 2. Permit Validity. This Permit shall become effective on 7/23/2024 and shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval 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 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 all recommendations included in the Local Transportation Analysis prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, dated December 2022 and February 2024. 4. Plans submitted for building permit shall incorporate all recommendations included in the Noise study Belmont Village of San Rafael Senior Housing Project NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated March 6, 2024 5. All outstanding and applicable fees associated with any portion or phase of this Project, including but not limited to permit processing fees, affordable housing fees, transportation impact fees, and any and all impact fees shall be paid in full prior to t he issuance of the first building permit the Project. 6. A Commercial Linkage Fee of $2,591,632.00 shall be paid in full prior to the Certificate of Occupancy the Project. This fee is calculated based on 194,421 square feet at $13.33 per square foot. 7. Bicycle Parking. The project shall provide 172 term bicycle parking spaces as shown on the project plans. 8. Conditions Shall be Printed on Plans. The conditions of this Permit shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit. Additional sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the conditions. The sheet(s) - 5 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 containing the conditions shall be of the same size as those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2” by 11” sheets are not acceptable. 9. Applicant Responsible for Compliance with Conditions. The applicant shall ensure compliance with all of the following conditions, including submittal to the project planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation, and/or modification or other remedies. 10. Plans and Representations Become Conditions. All information and representations, whether oral or written, including the building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented at the Planning Commission meeting dated July 23,2024 shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Minor modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval by Director. Modifications deemed not min or by the Director may require review and approval as an amendment to the Environmental and Design Review Permit. 11. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations. The approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. Prior to any construction, tenant improvement or installation of signage, the applicant shall identify and secure all applicable permits from the Planning and Building Divisions, Public Works Department and other affected City divisions and departments. 12. Construction Hours: Consistent with the City of San Rafael Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A, construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City-observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, hauling materials off-site; startup of construction equipment engines, arrival of construction workers, paying of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at, or working on, the site. 13. Discovery of Cultural, Archaeological or Paleontological Resources or Human Remains. If, during the course of construction potential resources or remains are found: All work is to stop within 100 feet of the finding and may not continue until the appropriate action listed below is satisfied. A. If it is a cultural, archaeological or paleontological resource: the City of San Rafael and a qualified archeologist are to be notified immediately. The qualified archeologist will contact Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and the Planning D ivision and coordinate the appropriate evaluation of the find and implement any additional treatment or protection, if required. No work shall occur in the vicinity until approved by the qualified archeologist, FIGR and Planning staff. B. If human remains are encountered during any project -related activity, all work is to halt within 100 feet of the project and the project sponsor shall contact both Planning staff and the County Coroner. If the County Coroner determines that the human re mains are of Native American origin, the Planning staff shall notify FIGR within 24 -hours of such identification who will work with Planning staff to determine the proper treatment of the remains. - 6 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 14. Civic Space. The Project shall provide publicly accessible Civic Space pursuant to Downtown Precise Plan which shall in the location shown in the floor plans. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, applicant shall negotiate and record a Civic Space Use Agreement in a form approved and executed by the City Manager which shall govern, in perpetuity, public access to the Civic Space within the Project. The Civic Space Use Agreement shall be available 6 am to 9 pm, seven days with prior approval of the property management company. 15. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, Applicant shall record in the Marin County Recorder’s Office a covenant, in a form drafted and approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, restricted occupancy of the Project pursuant to Government Code section 65915(b)(1)(C) (SDBL referencing Civil Code sections 51.3 and 51 .12) and Health and Safety Code section 1569 et seq. (the Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act.) 16. Notice of Fees Protest The applicant may protest any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City as part of the approval or as a condition of approval of this development. Per California Government Code Section 66020, this 90 -day protest period has begun as of the date of the approval of this application. 17. The Applicant or permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Rafael or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City of San Rafael or its agents, officers, or em ployees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City concerning a development, variance, permit or land use approval whi ch action is brought within the time period provided for in any applicable statute; provided, however, that the Applicant’s or permittee’s duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City’s promptly notifying the Applicant or pe rmittee of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City’s full cooperation in the Applicant’s or permittee’s defense of said claims, actions, or proceedings. Fire Department 18. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2022 California Fire Code, current NFPA Standards, and all applicable City of San Rafael Ordinances and Amendments. 19. 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) c. Fire Underground plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) d. Fire Alarm plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) e. Area of Refuge and Elevator Communication as defined by CA Fire Code section 1009. (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) f. Kitchen Hood Automatic Fire -Extinguishing System plans (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau) g. DAS/ERCCS Radio Coverage System. (Deferred Submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau). 20. The fire apparatus access roadways must conform to all provisions in CFC Section 503 and Appendix D. 21. A Fire Command Center required as per CFC section 508. - 7 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 22. Provide signed ambulance staging area near the front building entrance. 23. Review and sign the City of San Rafael – Fire Construction Requirements document. Provided at time of building permit application. 24. 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. Fire Department Connection (FDC) location. e. Double detector check valve location. f. Street address signage. g. Recessed Knox Box(s) h. Fire Alarm main and annunciator panels. i. NFPA 704 placards. j. 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. 25. 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 f rom the fire lane. 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/ 26. A Knox key switch is required for driveway or access road automatic gates. https://www.knoxbox.com/gate-keys-and-padlocks/ 27. When additions or alterations are made, the nearest existing fire hydrant bodies shall be upgraded. Commercial Model: Clow 960. 28. 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. 29. 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. - 8 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 c. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway, or between the roadway and the building. 30. 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. 31. If required, a Hazardous Materials Placards shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 704. 32. If required, provide a Hazardous Materials Management Plan to be submitted to Marin County Department of Public Works, CUPA 33. 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 officia l or in multiple locations for buildings served by two or more roads. 34. Contact the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to make arrangements for the water supply serving the fire protection systems Department of Public Works General: 35. The applicant shall enter into a reimbursement agreement, on a form provided by the City, with the City and provide a deposit to fund the City’s third -party plan review fees prior to start of review(s). This may include, but not limited to, fees associated with the review of traffic, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, and surveying a spects of future project submissions. The deposit may also be used to fund the City’s third -party inspection activity during construction of the project. Inspections a re required for activities including, but not limited to, grading, traffic, drainage, and encroachment into the public right -of-way. 36. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project, the applicant shall obtain approval for and record the Lot Line Adjustment with the Marin County Recorder’s Office. Public Right-of-Way: 37. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the applicant shall submit a separate set of drawings detailing the frontage improvements in the public right -of-way (ROW) for Department of Public Works review and approval as part of the application for an encroachment permit (e.g., sidewalks, pavement restoration, driveway approach, lighting). Frontage improvements shall be designed in accordance with City of San Rafael design standards and reference Marin County Uniform Construction Standards (UCS) where applicable. 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 co nstruction based on field conditions. 38. The design of the new passenger loading zone on Fourth Street shall meet accessibility requirements per the California Building Code and Public Right -of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). - 9 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 39. The new driveway on E Street may only be used for entering and exiting the service drive/loading dock in the building. Parking and/or idling in the driveway and/or sidewalk is not permitted. All loading and unloading must take place within the project site . 40. All vehicular exits from the building parking garage and loading dock shall be equipped with pedestrian warning signals that alert pedestrians on the sidewalk when a vehicle is exiting the building. 41. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the applicant shall submit a photometric analysis of the public ROW adjacent to the project site. Depending on the results of the photometric analysis, street lighting improvements may be required to be constructed by the applicant. 42. All backflow preventers, fire department connections (FDC), and other above ground utility structures shall be placed on private property. 43. The applicant shall submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. The construction management plan shall include, at a minimum, the following information: a. All materials and equipment shall be staged on -site, unless otherwise approved. b. Traffic control plan to address on -site and off-site construction traffic. c. A screened security fence approved by the City shall be placed and maintained around the perimeter of the project and removed immediately following construction work. d. Proposed construction phasing and approximate timeline. e. Mass grading shall only occur between April 15 through October 15, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department of Public Works. f. All public streets and sidewalks that are impacted by the grading and construction operation for the project shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. 44. 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. Grading and Drainage: 45. Prior to first building permit issuance, storm drain profiles detailing the connections between the private property and City storm drain pipe shall be required to ensure the proposed connection does not conflict with existing infrastructure. 46. Minimum storm drain pipe size in the public right -of-way is 12”. Blind connections to an existing storm drain pipe are not permitted. Prior to issuance of building permit, drainage drawings shall be provided showing that new structures will be provided at connections to the existing storm drain system and that the minimum pipe size in the public right -of-way will be 12”. 47. This Project includes more than 5,000 square feet of total impervious area replacement and creation and therefore is considered a regulated projec t by the State Water Resources Control Board. The following documents are required to be provided in accordance with the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) requirements: a. Stormwater Control Plan – A written document/report and exhibit to accompany the plan set used primarily for municipal review to verify compliance with stormwater treatment requirements. (Provide prior to issuance of building or grading permit.) - 10 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 b. Stormwater Facilities Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan – A written document/report and exhibit outlining facilities on -site and maintenance activities and responsibilities for property owners. (Provide prior to issuance of building or grading permit.) c. Stormwater Facilities Operations and Maintenance Agreement – A formal agreement between the property owner and the City that shall be recorded with the property deed prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy. (Provide prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.) 48. The project proposes to use non -LID facilities. 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 evapo -transpired. 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 followin g activation of the facility Refer to the Technical Criteria for Non -LID Treatment Facilities handout found on the MCSTOPPP website 49. Prior to first building permit issuance, a design -level geotechnical report shall be prepared in accordance with Appendix F of the San Rafael General Plan. 50. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the applicant shall provide a plan review letter from the geotechnical engineer of record confirming that the project drawings are in conformance with their recommendations. 51. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of building permit or grading permit. 52. Prior to start of construction, a grading permit shall be required from the Department of Public Works. Traffic: 53. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic mitigation fee (TMF) based on a new peak-hour trip estimate of 53. This project was originally submitted in 2021, therefore the applicable rate $4,246 .00 Therefore, the traffic mitigation fee for the Project is $ 225,038. 54. A construction vehicle impact fee (Street Maintenance 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. Please contact Associate Civil Engineer, Sarah Teplitsky with the City of San Rafael Public Works Department with questions regarding these conditions. - 11 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 San Rafael Sanitation District 55. Provide engineering sewage flow calculations of flow generated from the proposed project and show how many new sewer laterals and where they will be discharged to (8 -inch SS main on 4th St or 18-inch SS main on Shaver St) 56. On Civil plans, 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. 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. Provide detailed flow calculations prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer showing the average and peak flow cumulative rate for the building complex to clarify size of the proposed sewer laterals is sufficient. 60. Provide a profile of the proposed sewer laterals from the building to the existing sewer main connection point. 61. 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. 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 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. b. Pursuant to District Ordinance No. 56, a sewer connection fee may be imposed prior to issuance of the building permit. c. Be apprised that cleanout is required at every 90-ft and 45° bent on all existing and proposed SS pipes. d. SRSD highly recommends that existing sewer laterals be inspected using CCTV if any upgrades and/or repair work are proposed as a part of the sewer work proposed for this permit. 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. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission meeting held on the 23rd day of July, 2024. The Planning Commission’s Action is final unless it - 12 - 4875-2920-2642 v2 is appealed to the City Council within five (5) working days pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code Section 14.28.030 - Filing and time limit of appeals. Moved by _______________ and seconded by _______________. The vote is as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Secretary Chair - 1 - Community Development Department – Planning Division Memorandum Date: July 23, 2024 To: File From: Micah Hinkle, Community and Economic Development Director SUBJECT: 1515 4th Street. The design of the modified Project has been found consistent with the previous Environmental Design Review Permit (ED22-0016) pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code SRMC14.25.160 – Amendments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant to San Rafael SRMC14.25.160 – Amendments The planning director may approve changes in conditions of approval upon determining that the changes in conditions are minor and are consistent with the intent of the original approval, and the zoning administrator may approve minor changes to approved plans. Revisions involving substantial changes in “Project” design or conditions of approval shall be treated as new applications and referred to the original hearing body. After an analysis of the “Entitled Project” and the “Proposed Project”, the Director in collaboration with the Zoning Administrator (Planning Manager) determined that all modifications to the “Proposed Project” were minor in nature and consistent with the intent of the original Environmental Design Review approval. This determination was based on the facts contained in the analysis below. BACKGROUND The Applicant proposes to build and operate a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units at 1515 4th Street. This “Project” also qualifies as a State Density Bonus Project as a senior housing Project. The following discussion compares the “Entitled Project” to the “Proposed Project” on the basis of development standards, elevations and materials. Staff also reviewed the Density Bonus an alysis for the “Proposed Project” to ensure that it was in compliance with the relevant requirements in Government Code Section 65915 and San Rafael City Council Resolution 14891. Finally, staff verified that the minimum parking required for both vehicles and bicycles were provided for the “Proposed Project”. The analysis of the “Entitled Project” was taken from staff reports prepared for the “Entitled Project” by city staff. The information related to the “Proposed Project”, is based on Applicant statements that have been verified by city staff. - 2 - Development Standards TABLE A: Comparison of “Entitled Project” vs Proposed “Project”- Development Standards There are two zones that must be used in this analysis: T4N 40/50 & T4MS 50/70. Compliance Density Bonus “Project” Entitled Proposed Entitled Proposed Dwelling Units 162 155 + 28 memory care** Number of Stories 7 7 Building Height (max) 80 77.5 Gross Floor Area (above grade) 195,938 194,421 Gross floor area - Garage 65,320 62,039 Parking Spaces 179 135 SETBACKs Front Setback 0 0 Waiver Waiver Rear Setback 10 ft 3 in 0 Waiver Waiver Street Side Setback 0 0 Waiver Waiver Side Setback 71 ft 5 in 0 Complies Waiver STEP BACKs Front Stepback 0 3'-0" Waiver Waiver Street Side Stepback 0 2'-7" Waiver Waiver Rear Stepback 10 48'-11" Waiver Complies Ground Floor Ceiling 15 15 Complies Complies Vehicle Parking 179 135 Complies Complies Bicycle Parking 205 7 Complies Cond of Approval Civic Space None None None- Concession None- Waiver * Based on Staff Report of “Project” – April 11,2023 ** The 28 memory care units are not provided with any kitchen facilities, and therefore do not meet the definition of “dwelling unit” as it is defined in the San Rafael Municipal Code. However, under the California Civil Code they may be interpreted as a residential unit, and thus for the purpose of consistency with state law they are included the in the density bonus analysis for the “Proposed Project”. The table illustrated the “Entitled Project” and “Proposed Project” are indeed similar in nature. It further illustrated that the “Proposed Project” either complies with all applicable development standards or has secured waivers for standards in which it was not in compliance. - 3 - Elevations and Materials “Entitled Project” The approved building is a mixed use building has 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 building also had two partially subterranean floors that accommodate 179 vehicle parking spaces and a trash room. The ground level included 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 included the remaining 153 residential units. The project proposes a monochromatic color scheme with two variations of tan. The exterior walls would consist of stucco in a light tan color (CRA|E 30 by Eco Stucco) and a light umber color (Hoggar 90 by Eco Stucco). The balconies would have metal railings with glass surrounds and the windows would be aluminum with gray trim. “Proposed Project” The applicant proposes to build and operate a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units. It also qualifies as a State Density Bonus Project as a senior housing project. The building height is unchanged from the previously approved project (a maximum height of 80 feet). Parking remains subterranean but is reduced from 179 to 135 parking spaces and the trash room that was formerly in the garage is relocated to a service area along E Street. A new canopy has been added to protect the drop-off area at the main entrance to the building along 4th Street. The first floor includes six independent living units along with resident amenities including a main dining room, private dining area, art studio, screen room a wine lounge and town hall meeting room. The second floor has 28 memory care units and 13 assisted living units and the upper floors include a mix of assisted and independent living units. The exterior walls would consist of stucco in a light tan color (CRA|E 30 by Eco Stucco) and a light umber color (Hoggar 90 by Eco Stucco). The balconies will be made of glass and the windows made of a polymer material. There are some minor modifications. These include: a. Reducing the number of parking spaces within the parking garage from 179 to 135. b. Adjusting fenestration at each façade to accommodate the modified unit layout. c. Relocating trash pick-up from the garage on Shaver Street to an off-street service and loading area along E Street, d. Reducing typical floorplate widths by a few feet. e. Substituting +/-12,695 square feet of memory care space for the 8,925 square feet of ground floor commercial space. f. Relocating the floor area taken from the reduced floorplate width to a small extension of each floor along the southern edge of the site. g. Adding a canopy to protect the drop-off area at the main entrance to the building along 4th Street. Of this list of changes, b,c,d have some impact the exterior of the building where the Environmental Design Review Permit purview is focused. Staff reviewed the approved and proposed elevations to further understand if any one change rose to a substantial level. To facilitate this review, the Applicant submitted a four page exhibit that showed the approved versus proposed elevations for all four sides of the building along with floor plans for each version of the “Project”, (Exhibit 1). This document graphically demonstrated that all changes were minor in nature. - 4 - Density Bonus Discussion This “Project” application was submitted pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 and San Rafael City Council Resolution 14891). The law allows increased density, or bonus units, for a “Project” that qualifies as a “senior housing “Project”” under State Denstiy Bonus Law (SDBL). The proposed “Project” is entitled to a 20% density bonus (Gov. Code Sec. 65915(f)(3)(A)) and unlimited waivers to development standards that would physically preclude construction of the “Project” at the density sought, even absent an affordability component. 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. To assist staff with the review of this component of the project, the Applicant prepared a density bonus exhibit, (Exhibit 2) which includes a graphic representation of this discussion. In this case, the base density project is a 50’ maximum height, five-story, 160,280 gross square foot building with a minimum of 81 automobile parking spaces in a subterranean garage. The Base Case project includes 129 senior housing units with an average unit size of 688 square feet, along with associated dining and common areas. It also includes approximately 9,400 square feet of secured memory care. However, memory care units do not meet the definition of dwelling units in the San Rafael municipal code and thus are not included in the density bonus analysis. The bonus density project applies the 20% bonus to the number of units in the base density project, resulting in a bonus of 25.8 units. After rounding up as is permitted under the SDBL, the bonus is 26 units. The bonus density project includes 155 (129 Base Case + 26 bonus) senior housing units with an average unit size of 688 square feet, along with associated dining and common areas. To accommodate the “bonus,” this building is comprised of a 76’-6” maximum height, seven- story, 194,421 gross square foot building with 135 vehicle parking spaces in a subterranean garage. The Bonus Case also includes 12,695 square feet of secured memory care. The Applicant noted they were seeking waivers for building height as well as building stepbacks on the front and streetside, above 10 feet. Staff notes that waivers are also required for civic space and all four required setbacks. All waivers were supportable under State Density Bonus Standards. Staff has reviewed the density bonus application materials for the “Proposed Project” and confirmed that they do comply with the relevant requirements in Government Code Section 65915 and San Rafael City Council Resolution 14891. Parking The DPP identifies the minimum amount of required parking for the proposed “Project”. (The 28 memory care units are not dwelling units as defined in the SRMC, and do not require parking spaces.) There are 28 memory care units shown on the floor plans. Vehicular Spaces: Required Spaces: Studio or 1 Bedroom is 0.50/unit. Required spaces: 2 bedroom is 1.0/unit 3 bedroom is 1.5/unit Bicycle Spaces: - 5 - Studio/ 1 bedroom = 1 2 bedroom = 2 3 bedroom = 3 Table is based on floor plans Level Studio/1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom Total Required Total Provided Level 1 5 1 Level 2 13 Level 3 39 Level 4 27 2 Level 5 25 4 Level 6 14 9 Level 7 7 8 1 TOTAL 130 24 1 Total Vehicle 65 24 1.5 90 135 Total Bicycle 130 48 3 179 7 While the “Proposed Project” exceeds the minimum vehicular parking by 44 vehicular parking spaces, a condition of approval shall be added to ensure that bicycle parking is increased by 172 spaces. )/2253/$1/(*(1' 7+675((7$0(1,7<63$&( &20021$5($ %$&.2)+286( 5(6,'(17,$/81,76 &,5&8/$7,21 $% $% $% $% (175</2%%<',1,1* .,7&+(1 35,9$7( ',1,1*/(&785(+$//$57678',272:1+$// ',1,1*/281*(),71(665220 0(1 6 5(675220 :20(1 6 5(675220 ),71(665220 67$,5 67$,5 67$,5 6725$*( 322/ 6(59,&('5,9( /2$',1*'2&. 75$6+ 5(675220 +. 0$,/ 3$&.$*( 6725 2)),&( 287'225 ',1,1* &2857<$5' ,/% ,/% ,/% ,/% ,/% ,/% 3$5/25 287'225 ),71(66 7+675((7 6+ $ 9 ( 5 6 7 5 ( ( 7 ( 6 7 5 ( ( 7 $9 %2+ (/(9$725 /2%%< (/(9$725 /2%%< &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 6833/(0(17$/6+((7 *5281')/225&203$5,621 )((7 758( 1257+ 352326('3/$1$7*5281'/(9(/(17,7/('3/$1$7*5281'/(9(/ RETAIL REPLACED WITH STREET-FACING RESIDENT AMENITY SPACES TRASH PICKUP MOVED FROM SHAVER STREET TO E STREET LOADING DOCK RELOCATED TO FACE E STREET AMENITY PROGRAM AND SQUARE FOOTAGE RELOCATED FROM THE REDUCED CORRIDOR WIDTH AT THE NORTH WING THAT FRONTS 4TH STREET TO ACCOMMODAGE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, LOADING DOCK, TRASH PICK-UP -- PLEASE ALSO REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. COMMERCIAL KITCHEN REQUIRED FOR SENIOR RESIDENTIAL FACILITY '1 83 '1 '1 )/2253/$1/(*(1' 7+675((7$0(1,7<63$&( &20021$5($ %$&.2)+286( 5(6,'(17,$/81,76 &,5&8/$7,21 $% $% $% $% 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&% 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&% 0&678',20&678',20&678',20&678',2 $/678',2 $/% $/% $/678',2 $/% $/678',2 $/%$/678',2$/678',2 $/678',2$/%$/678',2$/678',20&678',20&678',20&678',20&678',20&678',20&678',20&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 0&678',2 &20021$5($ &20021$5($ &20021$5($ &20021$5($ 0&678',2 67$,5 67$,5 67$,5 &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 6833/(0(17$/6+((7 /(9(/&203$5,621 )((7 758( 1257+ 352326('3/$1$7/(9(/ (17,7/('3/$1$7/(9(/ AMENITY PROGRAM AND SQUARE FOOTAGE RELOCATED FROM THE REDUCED CORRIDOR WIDTH AT THE NORTH WING THAT FRONTS 4TH STREET TO ACCOMMODAGE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, LOADING DOCK, TRASH PICK-UP -- PLEASE ALSO REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. '1 )/2253/$1/(*(1' 7+675((7$0(1,7<63$&( &20021$5($ %$&.2)+286( 5(6,'(17,$/81,76 &,5&8/$7,21 $% $% $% $% $/678',2 $/678',2 $/678',2 $/,/% $/678',2 $/678',2 $/,/% $/678',2 $/,/%$/,/% $/678',2 $/,/% $/678',2 $/,/%$/678',2$/678',2 $/678',2$/,/%$/678',2$/678',2$/678',2$/678',2$/,/%$/678',2$/678',2$/678',2 $/,/% $/,/% $/678',2 $/678',2 $/,/% $/678',2 $/678',2 $/,/%&20021$5($ &20021$5($ $/678',2 $/678',2 $/678',2 $/678',2 $/% &20021$5($ 67$,5 67$,5 67$,5 &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 6833/(0(17$/6+((7 7<3,&$/833(5)/225&203$5,621 )((7 758( 1257+ 352326('3/$1$77<3833(5/(9(/ (17,7/('3/$1$77<3,&$/833(5/(9(/ AMENITY PROGRAM AND SQUARE FOOTAGE RELOCATED FROM THE REDUCED CORRIDOR WIDTH AT THE NORTH WING THAT FRONTS 4TH STREET TO ACCOMMODAGE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, LOADING DOCK, TRASH PICK-UP -- PLEASE ALSO REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS. /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522) /(9(/3 /(9(/3 3$5$3(7 7 2 7 + ) / 2 2 5 7 2 + , * + ( 6 7 7 2 3 3 / $ 7 ( &(0(173/$67(5*/$66%$/&21<32/<0(5:,1'2:67<3$&&(17&(0(173/$67(5 352326('1257+(/(9$7,21 )((7 &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 6833/(0(17$/6+((7 1257+(/(9$7,21 )((7 (17,7/('1257+(/(9$7,21 *WINDOW SIZE AND POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ADAPTED TO MEET INTERIOR UNIT LAYOUT. ADDITION OF A CENTRAL WINDOW BAY ADDITION OF BELMONT VILLAGE CANOPY PER COA COMMENT 27, STAIR TO ROOF MISSING ON ENTITLED PLANS NO RETAIL; RELOCATED GROUND FLOOR DOORS /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522) /(9(/3 /(9(/3 3$5$3(7 7 2 7 + ) / 2 2 5 7 2 + , * + ( 6 7 7 2 3 3 / $ 7 ( &(0(173/$67(5*/$66%$/&21<32/<0(5 :,1'2:67<3 $&&(17&(0(17 3/$67(5 352326('($67(/(9$7,21 &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 6833/(0(17$/6+((7 ($67(/(9$7,21 (17,7/('($67(/(9$7,21 6&$/( )((7 )((7 *WINDOW SIZE AND POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ADAPTED TO MEET INTERIOR UNIT LAYOUT. LOADING DOCK. TRASH PICKUP MOVED FROM SHAVER STREET TO E STREET ADDED SIGNAGE, SUBJECT TO LOCAL AHJ REVIEW AMENITY PROGRAM AND SQUARE FOOTAGE RELOCATED FROM THE REDUCED CORRIDOR WIDTH AT THE NORTH WING THAT FRONTS 4TH STREET TO ACCOMMODAGE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, LOADING DOCK, TRASH PICK-UP -- PLEASE ALSO REFER TO FLOOR PLANS. PROTRUDED BALCONIES EXTENDED 1'-0" TO MEET ADA CLEARANCES /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522) /(9(/3 /(9(/3 3$5$3(7 7 2 7 + ) / 2 2 5 7 2 + , * + ( 6 7 7 2 3 3 / $ 7 ( &(0(173/$67(5*/$66%$/&21<32/<0(5:,1'2:67<3$&&(17&(0(173/$67(5 352326('6287+(/(9$7,21 &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 6833/(0(17$/6+((7 6287+(/(9$7,21 (17,7/('6287+(/(9$7,21 6&$/( )((7 )((7 *WINDOW SIZE AND POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ADAPTED TO MEET INTERIOR UNIT LAYOUT. AMENITY PROGRAM AND SQUARE FOOTAGE RELOCATED FROM THE REDUCED CORRIDOR WIDTH AT THE NORTH WING THAT FRONTS 4TH STREET TO ACCOMMODAGE COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, LOADING DOCK, TRASH PICK-UP -- PLEASE ALSO REFER TO FLOOR PLANS. LOADING DOCK RELOCATED TO FACE E STREET COMMERCIAL KITCHEN REQUIRED FOR SENIOR RESIDENTIAL FACILITY /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 522) /(9(/3 /(9(/3 3$5$3(7 7 2 + , * + ( 6 7 7 2 3 3 / $ 7 ( 7 2 7 + ) / 2 2 5 &(0(173/$67(5*/$66%$/&21<32/<0(5:,1'2:67<3$&&(17&(0(173/$67(5 352326(':(67(/(9$7,21 &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 6833/(0(17$/6+((7 :(67(/(9$7,21 (17,7/(':(67(/(9$7,21 6&$/( )((7 )((7 *WINDOW SIZE AND POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ADAPTED TO MEET INTERIOR UNIT LAYOUT. TRANSFORMER ACCESS EGRESS STAIR TO ROOF DECK 352-(&7',5(&725< '(9(/23(5 *5(<67$5 6DQVRPH6W 6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$ 7HO $WWQ7UR\9HUQRQ (PDLOWYHUQRQ#JUH\VWDUFRP 2:1(5 %(/02179,//$*( :RRGZD\6WH +RXVWRQ7; 7HO $WWQ$GDP+DPLOWRQ (PDLODKDPLOWRQ#EHOPRQWFRP $5&+,7(&7 +.,7$5&+,7(&76 WK6W 2DNODQG&$ 7HO $WWQ&KULVWRSKH/DYHUQH (PDLOFODYHUQH#KNLWFRP &,9,/(1*,1((5 %.)(1*,1((56 1)LUVW6WUHHW6WH 6DQ-RVH&$ 7HO $WWQ$QGUHZ'H=XULN (PDLODGH]XULN#ENIFRP /$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 *$7(6 $662&,$7(6 &URZ&DQ\RQ5RDG 6DQ5DPRQ&$ 7HO $WWQ.LPP\&KHQ (PDLONLPP\#GJDWHVFRP 6758&785$/(1*,1((5 (1*/(.,5.6758&785$/(1*,1((56 6)LJXHURD6WWK)ORRU /RV$QJHOHV&$ 7HO $WWQ7RP1LVKL (PDLOWRPQLVKL#HQJOHNLUNFRP 0(3(1*,1((5 -25'$1 6.$/$(1*,1((56 :3ODQR3NZ\6WH 3ODQR7; 7HO $WWQ-RVK:LOH\ (PDLOMZLOH\#MRUGDQVNDODFRP $ *(1(5$/,1)250$7,21 $ 352-(&7'$7$ $ 352-(&7&203/,$1&( $ 352-(&7&203/,$1&( $ 352-(&7&203/,$1&( $ (;,67,1*&217(;73+2726 $ 6,7(3/$1 $$ 3/$1$7/(9(/3 $% 3/$1$7/(9(/3 $ 3/$1$7*5281')/225 $ 3/$1$7/(9(/ $ 3/$1$7/(9(/ $ 3/$1$7/(9(/ $ 3/$1$7/(9(/ $ 3/$1$7/(9(/ $ 3/$1$7/(9(/ $ 3/$1$7522)/(9(/ $ %8,/',1*(/(9$7,216 $ %8,/',1*(/(9$7,216 $ %8,/',1*6(&7,216 $ 3(563(&7,9(,0$*(6 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 1(:&216758&7,212)$6725<6(1,25/,9,1*+286,1*'(9(/230(17 :,7+81,7629(5*5281'/(9(//2%%<$1'/(9(/62)%$6(0(17 3$5.,1*:,7+67$7(2)&$/,)251,$'(16,7<%2186 9,&,1,7<0$3 &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO *(1(5$/,1)250$7,21 '5$:,1*/,67 $ 3(563(&7,9(,0$*(6 $ 3(563(&7,9(,0$*(6 $ 3(563(&7,9(,0$*(6 $ &2/25 0$7(5,$/%2$5' $ 6,7(/,*+7,1*),;785(6 $ 6,*1$*('(6,*1,17(17 & 7232*5$3+,&0$33/$1 & &21&(378$/*5$',1*3/$1 & &21&(378$/*5$',1*3/$1 ( /,*+7,1*&876+((76 ( 3+2720(75,&6 / 6,7(3/$167)/225 / 6,7(3/$11' 7+)/225 / &+$5$&7(5,0$*(6 3/$17 3$/(77( / 3/$17,1*352),/(*5281'/(9(/ 675((76&$3(%/'*3(5,0(7(5 / 3/$17,1*352),/(*5281'/(9(/ 675((76&$3(%/'*3(5,0(7(5 / 3/$17,1*352),/(833(5 7(55$&(6 6+((7&2817 &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 352-(&7'$7$ 352-(&76,7( )2857+675((7 =21,1*0$3 /<WZ</E'WZKs/ϳ /<WZ</E' >s>WϮ ϱϯ ϵ ϲϮ >s>Wϭ ϲϭ ϭϮ ϳϯ WZ</E'WZKs/ ϭϭϰ Ϯϭ ϭϯϱ ^dEZ dED dKd> Z&ZEKE>zͲs,/h>ZWZ</E' dKd> ϱϰ ϭϬϭ Ϯϴ ϭϴϯ >s>ϭ ϲ ϲ >s>Ϯ ϭϯ Ϯϴ ϰϭ >s>ϯ ϯϵ ϯϵ >s>ϰ ϭϭ ϭϴ Ϯϵ >s>ϱ ϭϭ ϭϴ Ϯϵ >s>ϲ ϭϬ ϭϯ Ϯϯ >s>ϳ ϭϲ ϭϲ /> > D dKd> hE/dKhEdd> dKd> ϭϱϳ͕ϳϲϳ ϭϮϲϵϱ Ϯϯ͕ϵϱϵ ϲϮ͕Ϭϯϵ Ϯϱϲ͕ϰϲϬ Ks'ZdKd>ϭϵϰ͕ϰϮϭ WZ</E'Ϯ Ϯϱ͕ϳϱϲ Ϯϱ͕ϳϱϲ WZ</E'ϭ ϯϲ͕Ϯϴϯ ϯϲ͕Ϯϴϯ >s>ϭ ϱ͕ϭϳϱ Ϯϯ͕ϵϱϵ Ϯϵ͕ϭϯϰ >s>Ϯ ϭϱ͕ϳϴϯ ϭϮ͕ϲϵϱ Ϯϴ͕ϰϳϴ >s>ϯ Ϯϴ͕ϰϳϴ Ϯϴ͕ϰϳϴ >s>ϰ Ϯϴ͕ϰϬϵ Ϯϴ͕ϰϬϵ >s>ϱ Ϯϴ͕ϰϬϵ Ϯϴ͕ϰϬϵ >s>ϲ Ϯϴ͕ϰϬϵ Ϯϴ͕ϰϬϵ >s>ϳ Ϯϯ͕ϭϬϰ Ϯϯ͕ϭϬϰ ^^/^dͬ /EWEEd>/s/E'DDKZzZ KDDKEZ 'Z' dKd> &>KKZZd> ^dW<^ͲZZ ϭϬΖD/EdϯϱΖ ϰϴΖͲϭϭΗ KDW>/^tͬt/sZ ^dW<^Ͳ^/^dZd ϭϬΖD/EdϯϱΖ ϮΖͲϳΗ KDW>/^tͬt/sZ ^dW<^Ͳ&ZKEd ϭϬΖD/EdϯϱΖ ϯΖͲϬΗ KDW>/^tͬt/sZ ^d<ͲZZ ϬΖD/E ϬΖ KDW>/^ ^d<Ͳ^/ϬΖD/E ϬΖ KDW>/^ ^d<Ͳ^/^dZd ϬΖD/E͖ϭϬΖDy ϬΖ KDW>/^ ^d<Ͳ&ZKEd ϬΖD/E͖ϭϬΖDy ϬΖ KDW>/^ ,/',d ϱϬΖ ϳϲΖͲϲΗ KDW>/^tͬt/sZ ^KE/E'WZKWK^ KDW>/E KE/E'^dEZ^ E^/dzKEh^KE^^/KE^ZEϬ Dy/DhDWZK:dt/d,KEh^hE/d^ϭϴϯ KEh^hE/d^;ZKhE^hWͿ ϯϭ E^/dzKEh^ϮϬ͘ϬϬй ^E^/dz ϭϱϮ E^/dzKEh^>/'//>/dzd> >KdZ;^&Ϳ ϯϴ͕ϱϭϵ KE/E'dϰD^ϱϬͬϳϬΘdϰEϰϬͬϱϬ KE/E'/E&KZDd/KE 0, 1 3 ( 5 & % & )/ 5 7 2 ) / 5 + ( , * + 7 7<3,&$/63$&()25 %8,/',1*6<67(06 62)),7,1* 7<3,&$/3267 7(16,21('6/$% &23<5,*+7+.,7$5&+,7(&76 $VLQGLFDWHG $%(/02179,//$*(2)6$15$)$(/ )2857+676$15$)$(/&$ %(/02179,//$*( $SULO 352-(&7&203/,$1&( %$6(352-(&7+(,*+7',$*5$0% %$6(352-(&7+(,*+7',$*5$0$%$6(352-(&73/$16 &2'(+(,*+70($685(0(17216/23('6,7(6 ΎWZ^EZ&>DhE//W>K&KZDh>d/&D/>zZ^/Ed/>hE/d^͕ϱйK&dKd>WZ</E'^W^͘ sK>hEdZz/<WZ</E'WZKs/ ϳ WZKWK^KEh^^/<WZ</E' ΎWZ^ZWW,ϵ^d/KEϮ͘ϯ͘ϬϰϬdϰD/E^dZdWZ</E'ZYh/ZDEd^͘ ϯϯ;ϮͲZͿyϭ͘Ϭсϯϯ ϵϲ;^dh/KKZϭͲZͿyϬ͘ϱсϰϴ ^^Ͳs,/h>ZWZ</E'ϴϭ ΎWZ^EZ&>DhE//W>K,ϭϰ͘ϭϴ&KZ^E/KZ,Kh^/E'WZK:d^;>^^DDKZzZͿ ϭϱϱyϬ͘ϳϱсϭϭϳ WZKWK^KEh^^ͲD/E/DhDs,/h>ZWZ</E'ϭϭϳ >s>Ϯ ϱϯ ϵ ϲϮ >s>ϭ ϲϭ ϭϮ ϳϯ sK>hEdZzWZ</E'WZKs/ ϭϭϰ Ϯϭ ϭϯϱ ^dEZ dED dKd> WZKWK^KEh^^Ͳs,/h>ZWZ</E' WZKWK^E^/dzKEh^WZK:d ϭϴϯ Dy/DhDWZK:dt/d,KEh^hE/d^ ϭϴϯ KEh^hE/d^;ZKhE^hWͿ ϯϭ E^/dzKEh^ ϮϬ͘ϬϬй ^WZK:d ϭϱϮ E^/dzKEh^>h>d/KE^ sZ'hE/d^/ ϲϱϮ ϲϱϲ dKd>hE/d^ ϭϱϮ ϭϴϯ dKd>EdhE/d^& ϵϵ͕ϭϬϰ ϭϮϬ͕Ϭϰϴ ^WZK:d WZKWK^WZK:d ^^s^KEh^^^hDDZz E^/dzKEh^E>z^/^ dKd> ϱϱ ϲϰ ϯϯ ϭϱϮ >s>ϭ Ϭ ϴ ϱ ϭϯ >s>Ϯ Ϯϱ ϴ ϲ ϯϵ >s>ϯ ϭϭ ϭϲ ϳ ϯϰ >s>ϰ ϭϭ ϭϲ ϳ ϯϰ >s>ϱ ϴ ϭϲ ϴ ϯϮ ^dh/K ϭͲZ ϮͲZ dKd> ^WZK:dhE/dKhEdd> dKd> ϰϳ ϴϯ ϱϯ ϭϴϯ >s>ϭ Ϭ ϱ ϭ ϲ >s>Ϯ ϴ ϱ Ϯϴ ϰϭ >s>ϯ Ϯϲ ϭϯ Ϭ ϯϵ >s>ϰ ϳ ϮϬ Ϯ Ϯϵ >s>ϱ ϲ ϭϵ ϰ Ϯϵ >s>ϲ Ϭ ϭϰ ϵ Ϯϯ >s>ϳ Ϭ ϳ ϵ ϭϲ ^dh/K ϭͲZ ϮͲZ dKd> WZKWK^WZK:dͲKEh^^hE/dD/y 3/$1$7*5281'/(9(/ 3/$1$7%$6(0(173$5.,1* 3/$1$76(&21'/(9(/ 3/$1$7/(9(/6 %$6(352-(&7'$7$ )/225+(,*+7',$*5$0 % % $$ % % $$ % % $$ % % $$ 127( 0(025<&$5(81,76$5(,1&/8'('$65(6,'(17,$/,17+(6('(16,7<%2186&$/&8/$7,216)257+( 385326(62)&216,67(1&<:,7+67$7('(16,7<%2186/$:6'%/21/<7+(352326('0(025< &$5(81,76'21270((77+('(),1,7,212)':(//,1*81,781'(57+(6$15$)$(/081,&,3$/&2'( $1'$5(7+86127&216,'(5('':(//,1*81,76)25385326(2)&$/&8/$7,1*9(+,&8/$5$1' %,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5(0(176 PROJECT DIRECTORY DEVELOPER GREYSTAR 450 Sansome St #500, San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 527-2857 Attn: Troy Vernon Email: tvernon@greystar.com OWNER BELMONT VILLAGE 7660 Woodway, Ste 400 Houston, TX 77063 Tel: Attn: Adam Hamilton Email: ahamilton@belmont.com ARCHITECT HKIT ARCHITECTS 538 9th St #240 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (510) 625-9800 Attn: Christophe Laverne Email: claverne@hkit.com CIVIL ENGINEER BKF ENGINEERS 1730 N. First Street, Ste. 600 San Jose, CA 95118 Tel: (408) 467-9100 Attn: Andrew DeZurik Email: adezurik@bkf.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT GATES & ASSOCIATES 2871 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 Tel: (925) 730-8170 Attn: Kimmy Chen Email: kimmy@dgates.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ENGLEKIRK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 888 S. Figueroa St, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (323) 733-6673 Attn: Tom Nishi Email: tom.nishi@englekirk.com MEP ENGINEER JORDAN & SKALA ENGINEERS 6201 W Plano Pkwy., Ste 250 Plano, TX 75093 Tel: (469) 385-1616 Attn: Josh Wiley Email: jwiley@jordanskala.com A0.0 GENERAL INFORMATION A0.1 PROJECT DATA A0.2 PROJECT COMPLIANCE A0.3 PROJECT COMPLIANCE A0.4 PROJECT COMPLIANCE A0.5 EXISTING CONTEXT PHOTOS A1.1 SITE PLAN A2.0A PLAN AT LEVEL P2 A2.0B PLAN AT LEVEL P1 A2.1 PLAN AT GROUND FLOOR A2.2 PLAN AT LEVEL 2 A2.3 PLAN AT LEVEL 3 A2.4 PLAN AT LEVEL 4 A2.5 PLAN AT LEVEL 5 A2.6 PLAN AT LEVEL 6 A2.7 PLAN AT LEVEL 7 A2.8 PLAN AT ROOF LEVEL A3.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.5 BUILDING SECTIONS A3.6 PERSPECTIVE IMAGES PROJECT DESCRIPTION NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A 7-STORY SENIOR LIVING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITH 183 DWELLING UNITS OVER GROUND-LEVEL LOBBY AND 2 LEVELS OF BASEMENT PARKING, WITH SB-35 AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENSITY BONUS. VICINITY MAP COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 12" = 1'-0"A0.0BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 GENERAL INFORMATION DRAWING LIST A3.7 PERSPECTIVE IMAGES A3.8 PERSPECTIVE IMAGES A3.9 PERSPECTIVE IMAGES A3.10 COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD A3.11 SITE LIGHTING FIXTURES A3.12 SIGNAGE DESIGN INTENT C0 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PLAN C1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN C2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN E0.01 LIGHTING CUTSHEETS E1.01 PHOTOMETRICS L-1 SITE PLAN - 1ST FLOOR L-2 SITE PLAN - 2ND & 7TH FLOOR L-3 CHARACTER IMAGES & PLANT PALETTE L-4 PLANTING PROFILE - GROUND LEVEL STREETSCAPE/BLDG PERIMETER L-5 PLANTING PROFILE - GROUND LEVEL STREETSCAPE/BLDG PERIMETER L-6 PLANTING PROFILE - UPPER TERRACES SHEET COUNT: 38 COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS A0.1BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PROJECT DATA PROJECT SITE 1515 FOURTH STREET ZONING MAP BIKE PARKING PROVIDED 7 BIKE PARKING LEVEL P2 53 9 62 LEVEL P1 61 12 73 PARKING PROVIDED 114 21 135 STANDARD TANDEM TOTAL REFERENCE ONLY - VEHICULAR PARKING TOTAL 54 101 28 183 LEVEL 1 6 6 LEVEL 2 13 28 41 LEVEL 3 39 39 LEVEL 4 11 18 29 LEVEL 5 11 18 29 LEVEL 6 10 13 23 LEVEL 7 16 16 IL AL MC TOTAL UNIT COUNT TABLE TOTAL 157,767 12695 23,959 62,039 256,460 ABOVE GRADE TOTAL 194,421 PARKING 2 25,756 25,756 PARKING 1 36,283 36,283 LEVEL 1 5,175 23,959 29,134 LEVEL 2 15,783 12,695 28,478 LEVEL 3 28,478 28,478 LEVEL 4 28,409 28,409 LEVEL 5 28,409 28,409 LEVEL 6 28,409 28,409 LEVEL 7 23,104 23,104 RESIDENTIAL MEMORY CARE COMMON AREA GARAGE TOTAL FLOOR AREA TABLE STEPBACKS - REAR 10' MIN AT 35' 48'-11"COMPLIES W/ WAIVER STEPBACKS - SIDE STREET 10' MIN AT 35' 2'-7"COMPLIES W/ WAIVER STEPBACKS - FRONT 10' MIN AT 35' 3'-0"COMPLIES W/ WAIVER SETBACK - REAR 0' MIN 0'COMPLIES SETBACK - SIDE 0' MIN 0'COMPLIES SETBACK - SIDE STREET 0' MIN; 10' MAX 0'COMPLIES SETBACK - FRONT 0' MIN; 10' MAX 0'COMPLIES HEIGHT 50' 76'-6"COMPLIES W/ WAIVER BASE ZONING PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS DENSITY BONUS CONCESSIONS EARNED 0 MAXIMUM PROJECT WITH BONUS UNITS 155 BONUS UNITS (ROUNDS UP)26 DENSITY BONUS 20.00% BASE DENSITY 129 DENSITY BONUS ELIGIBILITY TABLE LOT AREA (SF)38,519 ZONING T4MS 50/70 & T4N 40/50 ZONING INFORMATION MI N . P E R C B C 1 2 0 8 . 2 7' - 6 " 10 " FL R T O F L R H E I G H T 9' - 0 " TYPICAL 10" SPACE FOR BUILDING SYSTEMS & SOFFITING TYPICAL 8" POST- TENSIONED SLAB COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS As indicated A0.2BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PROJECT COMPLIANCE BASE PROJECT HEIGHT DIAGRAM B BASE PROJECT HEIGHT DIAGRAM A BASE PROJECT PLANS CODE HEIGHT MEASUREMENT ON SLOPED SITES (< 6%) *PER SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE FOR MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 5% OF TOTAL PARKING SPACES. VOLUNTARY BIKE PARKING PROVIDED 7 PROPOSED BONUS CASE BIKE PARKING *PER DSRPP CH9 SECTION 2.3.040 T4 MAIN STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 33 (2-BR) X 1.0 = 33 96 (STUDIO OR 1-BR) X 0.5 = 48 BASE CASE - VEHICULAR PARKING 81 *PER SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CH14.18 FOR SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTS (LESS MEMORY CARE) 155 X 0.75 = 117 PROPOSED BONUS CASE - MINIMUM VEHICULAR PARKING 117 LEVEL B2 53 9 62 LEVEL B1 61 12 73 VOLUNTARY PARKING PROVIDED 114 21 135 STANDARD TANDEM TOTAL PROPOSED BONUS CASE - VEHICULAR PARKING *MEMORY CARE UNITS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION. PROPOSED DENSITY BONUS PROJECT 155 MAXIMUM PROJECT WITH BONUS UNITS 155 BONUS UNITS (ROUNDS UP) 26 DENSITY BONUS 20.00% BASE PROJECT 129 DENSITY BONUS CALCULATIONS *MEMORY CARE UNITS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION. GSF INCLUDES ALL UNITS. AVERAGE UNIT SIZE 688 688 TOTAL UNITS 129 155 TOTAL NET UNIT SF 88,752 106,640 BASE PROJECT PROPOSED PROJECT BASE CASE VS BONUS CASE SUMMARY DENSITY BONUS ANALYSIS *EXCLUDES 23 UNITS OF MEMORY CARE IN BASE PROJECT UNIT COUNT. TOTAL 33 63 33 129 LEVEL 1 0 8 5 13 LEVEL 2 3 7 6 16 LEVEL 3 11 16 7 34 LEVEL 4 11 16 7 34 LEVEL 5 8 16 8 32 STUDIO 1-BR 2-BR TOTAL BASE PROJECT UNIT COUNT TABLE TOTAL 47 83 25 155 LEVEL 1 0 5 1 6 LEVEL 2 8 5 0 13 LEVEL 3 26 13 0 39 LEVEL 4 7 20 2 29 LEVEL 5 6 19 4 29 LEVEL 6 0 14 9 23 LEVEL 7 0 7 9 16 STUDIO 1-BR 2-BR TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT - BONUS CASE UNIT MIX PLAN AT GROUND LEVEL PLAN AT BASEMENT PARKING PLAN AT SECOND LEVEL PLAN AT LEVELS 3-5 BASE PROJECT DATA FLOOR HEIGHT DIAGRAM B B AA B B AA B B AA B B AA NO R E Q U I R E D M I N . O R M A X . MI N . O R M A X . NO R E Q U I R E D MIN. OR MAX. NO REQUIRED MIN. OR MAX. NO REQUIRED OB J E C T I V E S T A N D A R D R E Q U I R E S 1 S T O R Y COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A0.3BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PROJECT COMPLIANCE WINDOW COMPLIANCE COMPLIES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AT LEAST 1 CORNER ELEMENT THAT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIRED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. COMPLIES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AT LEAST 1 CORNER ELEMENT ALONG THE 4TH STREET FACADE THAT IS OVER 150' IN LENGTH. COMPLIES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AT LEAST 1 SQUARE CORNER ELEMENT. OBJECTIVE STANDARD DIAGRAM (DSRPP PAGE 303)OBJECTIVE STANDARD (DSRPP PAGE 302)COMPLIANCE COMPLIES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AT LEAST 1 CORNER ELEMENT ON THE REQUIRED FACADE. COMPLIES. THE CORNER ELEMENT INCORPORATES AT LEAST 1 ENTIRE STORY WITHIN THE COMPOSITION. NOT APPLICABLE AS THIS IS AN OPTION NOT A REQUIREMENT. COMPLIES. THE CORNER ELEMENT PROJECTS 4'. NOTE, THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS DO NOT REQUIRE A MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM WIDTH OF THE CORNER ELEMENT PROPOSED COMPLIANT PROJECT DN OBJECTIVE STANDARD DIAGRAM (DSRPP PAGE 301) OBJECTIVE STANDARD (DSRPP PAGE 300) COMPLIANCEBASE - MIDDLE - TOP COMPLIES. THE FACADE MODIFICATIONS ALONG A STREET OR CIVIC SPACE ARE DESIGNED TO APPEAR AS MULTIPLE BUILDINGS NO GREATER THAN 75' IN LENGTH COMPLIES. COMPLIES. THE BUILDING FACADES ARE ARRANGED IN AN ORDERLY COMPOSITION OF BAYS BASED ON PREVALENT PATTERN OF 5, 7 OR 9 BAYS. COMPLIES. COMPLIES. COMPLIES. E STREET (WITH 3 BAYS) FOURTH STREET (WITH 9 BAYS)SHAVER STREET (WITH 5 BAYS) COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 1" = 20'-0"A0.4BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PROJECT COMPLIANCE COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS A0.5BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 EXISTING CONTEXT PHOTOS 90 ' - 1 0 " 150' - 9" 78 ' - 4 " 146' - 8" 16 9 ' - 2 " 297' - 5" 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T COURTYARD PA R K I N G E N T R Y PA R K I N G E N T R Y MAIN ENTRY PROPOSED PROJECT 1515 4TH STREET PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE 1447 4TH STREET 901 E STREET 908 E STREET 201 SHAVER STREET 205 SHAVER STREET 209 SHAVER STREET 1531 4TH STREET 1524 4TH STREET 1522 4TH STREET 1504 4TH STREET 1444 4TH STREET 220 SHAVER STREET STUCCO RETAINING WALL STUCCO RETAINING WALL STUCCO RETAINING WALL 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 1/16" = 1'-0"A1.1BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 SITE PLAN UP UP 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T LEVEL P2 PARKING 62 SPACES RENTABLE RESIDENT STORAGE BIKE STORAGE (7 SPACES) GARAGE MECHANICAL ROOM ELEVATOR LOBBY UNEXCAVATED AREA STORAGE A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 STAIR 4 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT LEVEL P2 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH P2 PARKING COUNT PARKING SPACE WIDTH LENGTH COUNT STANDARD 8' - 6" 18' - 0" 27 EV READY 8' - 6" 18' - 0" 4 EV CAPABLE 8' - 6" 18' - 0" 14 ACCESSIBLE 9' - 0" 18' - 0" 4 VAN ACCESSIBLE 9' - 0" 18' - 0" 1 COMPACT 7' - 6" 16' - 0" 1 COMPACT TANDEM 7' - 6" 16' - 0" 9 PARALLEL 8' - 6" 20' - 0" 1 BELMONT VILLAGE BUS 12' - 0" 26' - 0" 1 TOTAL PARKING COUNT: 62 COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.0ABELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT LEVEL P2 UP DN 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T SERVICE LOBBY UNDERSIDE OF POOL (EL. PIT) STAFF LOUNGE B.E. WORKROOM B.E. STORAGE HK STORAGE KITCHEN STORAGE STORAGE LOW STORAGE FIRE PUMP ROOM TRANSFORMER ROOM ELECTRICAL ROOM GENERATOR ROOM MPOE / TCOM ELEVATOR LOBBY STAIR 1 LEVEL P1 PARKING 73 SPACES RESTROOM RESTROOM HK MEPMEP POOL EQUIPMENT A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 STAIR 4 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT LEVEL P1 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH P1 PARKING COUNT PARKING SPACE WIDTH LENGTH COUNT STANDARD 8' - 6" 18' - 0" 26 EV READY 8' - 6" 18' - 0" 8 EV CAPABLE 8' - 6" 18' - 0" 20 ACCESSIBLE 9' - 0" 18' - 0" 4 VAN ACCESSIBLE 9' - 0" 18' - 0" 1 TANDEM 8' - 6" 18' - 0" 8 COMPACT 7' - 6" 16' - 0" 1 COMPACT TANDEM 7' - 6" 16' - 0" 4 PARALLEL 8' - 6" 20' - 0" 1 TOTAL PARKING COUNT: 73 COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.0BBELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT LEVEL P1 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5ENTRY LOBBY DINING KITCHEN PRIVATE DININGLECTURE HALLART STUDIOTOWN HALL DININGLOUNGEFITNESS ROOM MEN'S RESTROOM WOMEN'S RESTROOM FITNESS ROOM STAIR 2 STAIR 3 STAIR 1 STORAGE POOL SERVICE DRIVE / LOADING DOCK TRASH RESTROOM HK MAIL PACKAGE STOR. OFFICE OUTDOOR DINING COURTYARD IL 2-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B PARLOR OUTDOOR FITNESS 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T A/V BOH ELEVATOR LOBBY ELEVATOR LOBBY A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 1" / 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 4TH STREET AMENITY SPACE COMMON AREA BACK OF HOUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CIRCULATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT GROUND LEVEL 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.1BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT GROUND FLOOR DN UP DN DN 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC 1-B MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC 1-B MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO AL STUDIO AL 1-B AL 1-B AL STUDIO AL 1-B AL STUDIO AL 1-BAL STUDIOAL STUDIO AL STUDIOAL 1-BAL STUDIOAL STUDIOMC STUDIOMC STUDIOMC STUDIOMC STUDIOMC STUDIOMC STUDIOMC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA MC STUDIO STAIR 2 STAIR 3 STAIR 1 A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 4TH STREET AMENITY SPACE COMMON AREA BACK OF HOUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CIRCULATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT LEVEL 2 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.2BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT LEVEL 2 DN 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-BAL STUDIOAL STUDIO AL STUDIOAL/IL 1-BAL STUDIOAL STUDIOAL STUDIOAL STUDIOAL/IL 1-BAL STUDIOAL STUDIOAL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B COMMON AREA COMMON AREA AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL 1-B COMMON AREA STAIR 2 STAIR 3 STAIR 1 A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 4TH STREET AMENITY SPACE COMMON AREA BACK OF HOUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CIRCULATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT LEVEL 3 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.3BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT LEVEL 3 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 IL 1-B IL 2-B IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B COMMON AREA COMMON AREA AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-BAL STUDIOAL STUDIO AL STUDIOAL/IL 1-BAL STUDIOAL STUDIOAL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 2-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B COMMON AREA STAIR 2 STAIR 3 STAIR 1 A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 4TH STREET AMENITY SPACE COMMON AREA BACK OF HOUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CIRCULATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT LEVEL 4 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.4BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT LEVEL 4 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 IL 1-B IL 2-B IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B COMMON AREA AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL/IL 2-B AL/IL 2-B AL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL STUDIOAL STUDIOAL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 2-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 1-B COMMON AREA AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL STUDIO STAIR 2 STAIR 3 STAIR 1 A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 4TH STREET AMENITY SPACE COMMON AREA BACK OF HOUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CIRCULATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT LEVEL 5 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.5BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT LEVEL 5 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 IL 2-B IL 2-B IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL 2-B COMMON AREA AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 2-B AL/IL 2-B AL/IL 2-B AL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL 1-BIL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-BIL 1-B AL/IL 2-B IL 1-B IL 2-B IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 2-B STAIR 2 STAIR 3 STAIR 1 A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 4TH STREET AMENITY SPACE COMMON AREA BACK OF HOUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CIRCULATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT LEVEL 6 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.6BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT LEVEL 6 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 COMMON AREA IL 1-B IL 2-B IL 2-B IL 2-B IL 1-B IL 2-B IL 2-B IL 2-B IL 1-B IL 3-BIL 1-BIL 1-BIL 1-BIL 2-B IL 1-B IL 2-B COMMON AREA STAIR 2 STAIR 3 STAIR 1 ROOF ACCESS ROOFROOF TERRACE A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 4TH STREET AMENITY SPACE COMMON AREA BACK OF HOUSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CIRCULATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT LEVEL 7 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.7BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT LEVEL 7 2 A3.5 3 A3.5 1 A3.5 ACTIVITY COURTYARD BELOW ROOF TERRACE BELOW TERRACE BELOW ROOF BELOW POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR SOLAR READY AREA TOTAL OF 15% OF ROOF AREA POOL BELOW STAIR #3 SERVICE ELEVATOR MAIN ELEVATOR POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR SOLAR READY AREA TOTAL OF 15% OF ROOF AREA 3'-6" PARAPET, TYP. LOCATION OF POTENTIAL ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, TYP., (SCREENED BY PARAPET) SINGLE PLY ROOFING, TYP. ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW DRAIN, TYP. STAIR 2 RO O F A C C E S S 1/ 4 : 1 2 S L O P E 1/ 4 : 1 2 S L O P E 1/4:12 SLOPE 1/4:12 SLOPE 1/4:12 SLOPE 1/4:12 SLOPE A3.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.2 1 3/32" = 1'-0"1 PLAN AT ROOF LEVEL 0 FEET 8 16 32 TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A2.8BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PLAN AT ROOF LEVEL LEVEL 1 0' -0" LEVEL 2 16' -0" LEVEL 3 26' -3" LEVEL 4 36' -6" LEVEL 5 46' -9" LEVEL 6 57' -0" LEVEL 7 67' -3" ROOF 77' -6" LEVEL P1 -10' -0" LEVEL P2 -19' -6" PARAPET 81' -0" 9' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 3' - 6 " 67 ' - 3 " ( T O 7 T H F L O O R ) 77 ' - 6 " ( T O H I G H E S T T O P P L A T E ) CEMENT PLASTERGLASS BALCONY POLYMER WINDOWS, TYP.ACCENT CEMENT PLASTER LEVEL 1 0' -0" LEVEL 2 16' -0" LEVEL 3 26' -3" LEVEL 4 36' -6" LEVEL 5 46' -9" LEVEL 6 57' -0" LEVEL 7 67' -3" ROOF 77' -6" LEVEL P1 -10' -0" LEVEL P2 -19' -6" PARAPET 81' -0" 3' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 16 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 67 ' - 3 " ( T O 7 T H F L O O R ) 77 ' - 6 " ( T O H I G H E S T T O P P L A T E ) CEMENT PLASTERGLASS BALCONY POLYMER WINDOWS, TYP. ACCENT CEMENT PLASTER COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 0 FEET 8 16 32 3/32" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION LEVEL 1 0' -0" LEVEL 2 16' -0" LEVEL 3 26' -3" LEVEL 4 36' -6" LEVEL 5 46' -9" LEVEL 6 57' -0" LEVEL 7 67' -3" ROOF 77' -6" LEVEL P1 -10' -0" LEVEL P2 -19' -6" PARAPET 81' -0" 3' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 16 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 67 ' - 3 " ( T O 7 T H F L O O R ) 77 ' - 6 " ( T O H I G H E S T T O P P L A T E ) CEMENT PLASTERGLASS BALCONY POLYMER WINDOWS, TYP.ACCENT CEMENT PLASTER LEVEL 1 0' -0" LEVEL 2 16' -0" LEVEL 3 26' -3" LEVEL 4 36' -6" LEVEL 5 46' -9" LEVEL 6 57' -0" LEVEL 7 67' -3" ROOF 77' -6" LEVEL P1 -10' -0" LEVEL P2 -19' -6" PARAPET 81' -0" 3' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 16 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 77 ' - 6 " ( T O H I G H E S T T O P P L A T E ) 67 ' - 3 " ( T O 7 T H F L O O R ) CEMENT PLASTERGLASS BALCONY POLYMER WINDOWS, TYP.ACCENT CEMENT PLASTER COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 0 FEET 8 16 323/32" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION LEVEL 1 0' -0" LEVEL 2 16' -0" LEVEL 3 26' -3" LEVEL 4 36' -6" LEVEL 5 46' -9" LEVEL 6 57' -0" LEVEL 7 67' -3" ROOF 77' -6" LEVEL P1 -10' -0" LEVEL P2 -19' -6" PARAPET 81' -0" GARAGE LEVEL B1 GARAGE LEVEL B2 9' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 3' - 6 " 67 ' - 3 " ( T O 7 T H F L O O R ) 76 ' - 1 0 " ( T O H I G H E S T T O P P L A T E ) COMMON AREACOMMON AREACOMMON AREACOMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA IL 1-BIL 2-BIL 2-BIL 2-B IL 2-B IL 2-B IL 2-B IL 1-B AL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL/IL 2-BAL/IL 2-B AL 2-B IL 2-B IL 2-B AL/IL 1-BAL/IL 2-B AL/IL 1-B IL 1-B IL 2-B IL 1-B AL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-B IL 1 IL 2-B IL 1-B IL 1-BAL/IL 1-BAL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B IL 1-BAL 1-BAL 1-B IL 1 AL/IL 1-B IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL 1-B AL STUDIO AL/IL 1-B AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO AL STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO MC STUDIO AL/IL 1-B IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B MC 1-B AL STUDIO MC STUDIO AL STUDIO MC STUDIO AL STUDIO MC STUDIO AL STUDIO MC STUDIO AL STUDIO MC STUDIOMC 1-B LEVEL 1 0' -0" LEVEL 2 16' -0" LEVEL 3 26' -3" LEVEL 4 36' -6" LEVEL 5 46' -9" LEVEL 6 57' -0" LEVEL 7 67' -3" ROOF 77' -6" LEVEL P1 -10' -0" LEVEL P2 -19' -6" PARAPET 81' -0" GARAGE LEVEL B1 GARAGE LEVEL B2 POOL COMMON AREACOMMON AREA COMMON AREA IL 2-B AL 2-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B MC STUDIO IL 1-B IL 1-B AL 1-B AL 1-B AL STUDIO MC STUDIO 67 ' - 3 " ( T O 7 T H F L O O R ) 3' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 16 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 76 ' - 6 " ( T O H I G H E S T T O P P L A T E ) LEVEL 1 0' -0" LEVEL 2 16' -0" LEVEL 3 26' -3" LEVEL 4 36' -6" LEVEL 5 46' -9" LEVEL 6 57' -0" LEVEL 7 67' -3" ROOF 77' -6" LEVEL P1 -10' -0" LEVEL P2 -19' -6" PARAPET 81' -0" GARAGE LEVEL B1 GARAGE LEVEL B2 COVERED ARCADECOMMON AREACOMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA AL/IL 1-B IL 2-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B MC 1-B IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B AL/IL 1-B MC STUDIO IL 1-B IL 1-B AL STUDIO IL 1-B 3' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 3 " 16 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 67 ' - 3 " ( T O 7 T H F L O O R ) 76 ' - 6 " ( T O H I G H E S T T O P P L A T E ) 3/32" = 1'-0"3 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION LOOKING EAST 3/32" = 1'-0"1 EAST-WEST SECTION LOOKING SOUTH 3/32" = 1'-0"2 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION LOOKING EAST 0 FEET 8 16 32 0 FEET 8 16 320 FEET 8 16 32 COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.5BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 BUILDING SECTIONS COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS A3.6BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PERSPECTIVE IMAGES VIEW FROM E STREET LOOKING SOUTH-WEST1 COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS A3.7BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PERSPECTIVE IMAGES STREETSCAPE DETAIL AT BULBOUT ON 4TH1 COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS A3.8BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PERSPECTIVE IMAGES STREETSCAPE DETAIL AT 4TH AND SHAVER1 COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS A3.9BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 PERSPECTIVE IMAGES VIEW FROM 4TH AND E LOOKING SOUTH-WEST - SUMMER1 COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 1/8" = 1'-0"A3.10BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD CEMENT PLASTER ALUMINUM WINDOWS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT & ENTRY CANOPY CONCRETE FASCIA FROSTED GLASS GUARDRAIL Dark BronzeWhite Sand 964 Benjamin Moore Light Gray Kemper Terra Mauve 105 Benjamin Moore 1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION Dark Bronze COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS A3.11BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 SITE LIGHTING FIXTURES DOWNLIGHT WALL SCONCE AT GROUND FLOOR WALL SCONCE ABOVE LOADING DOCK POST LIGHTS IN SOUTH SIDE COURTYARD DOWNLIGHT AT COVERED ACRADE DOWN/UP WALL SCONCE AT 7TH FLOOR 90 ' - 1 0 " 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T COURTYARD PA R K I N G E N T R Y PA R K I N G E N T R Y MAIN ENTRY PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE SIGN A SIGN C SIGN B COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS 1" = 40'-0"A3.12BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 SIGNAGE DESIGN INTENT SIGNAGE KEY PLAN SIGNAGE A SIGNAGE B SIGNAGE C COPYRIGHT © 2024 HKIT ARCHITECTS C0BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PLAN FOURTH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T ±MORE OR LESS Δ DELTA AB AGGREGATE BASE AC ASPHALT CONCRETE APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER BC BEGIN CURVE BCT BEGIN CURB TRANSITION BFP BACKFLOW PREVENTER BLDG BUILDING BLRD BOLLARD BM BENCHMARK BO BLOWOFF BSL BUILDING SETBACK LINE CB CATCH BASIN CC POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE CL CENTERLINE CL2 CLASS II CO CLEAN OUT CONC CONCRETE CY CUBIC YARD DDC DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK DI DROP INLET DIA DIAMETER DN DOCUMENT NUMBER DS RAINWATER DOWN SPOUT DW DRIVEWAY DYL DOUBLE YELLOW LINE E ELECTRIC ECT END CURB TRANSITION EG EXISTING GROUND ELEV ELEVATION EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT ER EDGE OF ROAD ESMT EASEMENT EX EXISTING FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FF FINISHED FLOOR FG FINISHED GRADE FH FIRE HYDRANT FL SURFACE FLOWLINE FT FOOT G GAS GB GRADE BREAK GI GRATE INLET GM GAS METER HB HOSE BIB HDRL HANDRAIL HORZ HORIZONTAL HT HEIGHT INV BOTTOM INSIDE OF PIPE IP IRON PIPE IR IRRIGATION L LENGTH LP LIGHT POLE MAX MAXIMUM MB MAILBOX MH MANHOLE MIN MINIMUM MON MONUMENT NO NUMBER NTS NOT TO SCALE OVH OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE OR OFFICIAL RECORDS PAD PAD GRADE PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PG&E PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PIV POST INDICATOR VALVE PL PROPERTY LINE PTC PROJECTED TOP OF CURB PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION PVT PRIVATE R RADIUS RC POINT OF REVERSE CURVE RSPR RIPRAP ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION RTWL RETAINING WALL R/W RIGHT OF WAY S=SLOPE SD STORM DRAIN SDCO STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SF SQUARE FEET SL STREETLIGHT SO SIDE OPENING SS SANITARY SEWER SSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STA STATION STD STANDARD TB TOP OF BOX TC TOP FACE OF CURB TEL TELECOMMUNICATION LINE TF TRANSFORMER TG TOP OF GRATE TS TRAFFIC SIGNAL TV TELEVISION TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UB UTILITY BOX UP UTILITY POLE UT UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE VC VERTICAL CURVE VERT VERTICAL VLT VAULT W WATER WL WHITE LINE WM WATER METER WS WATER SERVICE YD YARD DRAIN ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS & LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED BENCHMARK IRON PIPE CENTERLINE MONUMENT BLOW OFF VALVE CHECK VALVE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FIRE HYDRANT POST INDICATOR VALVE REDUCER RISER LIGHT POLE STREET SIGN TRAFFIC SIGNAL STREET LIGHT UTILITY POLE GUY ANCHOR CATCH BASIN TREE TREE CLUSTER TREE TO BE REMOVED PROPERTY LINE BUILDING SETBACK EASEMENT CENTERLINE GRADE BREAK FLOW LINE FENCE TREE PROTECTION FENCE SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN WATER OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE UNDERGROUND GAS LINE UNDERGROUND TELECOM LINE ASPHALT ASPHALT GRIND & OVERLAY CONCRETE DETECTABLE WARNING VALLEY GUTTER BIORETENTION AREA INVERT AT CLEANOUT KEYNOTE DETAIL IDENTIFICATION SHEET WHERE DETAIL IS SHOWN CROSS SECTION IDENTIFICATION SHEET WHERE CROSS SECTION IS SHOWN SAN RAFAEL VICINITY MAP 1" = 10'scale 10 0 10 feet 20 OPINION OF PROBABLE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES MATERIAL MOVED ON SITE*200 CY IMPORT NOT ANTICIPATED EXPORT 19,100 CY *MATERIAL MOVED ON SITE IS SOIL EXCAVATED (CUT) AS A RESULT OF STRIPPING OR GRADING ACTIVITIES AND REUSED ON THE PROJECT SITE AS FILL. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND COMPUTED FROM EXISTING GRADE TO SUBGRADE. WHILE IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT APPROXIMATELY 19,100 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL WILL BE EXPORTED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT, ACTUAL VOLUMES ARE VARIABLE BASED ON THE SOIL ENGINEER'S ASSESSMENT OF THE SOIL ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR'S METHOD OF STRIPPING, COMPACTION AND TRENCHING. TOPOGRAPHIC NOTES UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES: THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARING THIS MAP WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THIS MAP. CHANGES TO THIS MAP MUST BE REQUESTED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PROFESSIONAL. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS OBTAINED FROM MFKESSLER, DATED DECEMBER 15, 2021. BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS PRELIMINARY AND HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED. BENCHMARK: CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BM #T-70, DESCRIBED AS: A PK AND TAG SET IN CONCRETE CURB AT THE INTERSECTION OF FOURTH STREET AND 'E' STREET ON THE NORTHEAST CURB RETURN. COPYRIGHT © BKF ENGINEERS 2024 2 15 1 5 F O U R T H S T R E E T AP N 0 1 1 - 2 4 5 - 2 6 SA N R A F A E L , C A L I F O R N I A C 8 5 1 2 9 AN D R E W J . D e Z U R I K 0 3 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 4 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR E L I M I N A R Y DA T E : BK F E N G I N E E R S 20 0 4 t h S T R E E T SU I T E 3 0 0 SA N T A R O S A , C A 9 5 4 0 1 (7 0 7 ) 5 8 3 - 8 5 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m 232070_EXHB-GRAD.dwgPl o t M a r 0 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 4 : 2 0 p m CO N C E P T U A L G R A D I N G P L A N C1 1 SE E S H E E T 2 MA T C H L I N E SE E S H E E T 2 MA T C H L I N E OWNER/DEVELOPER:GREYSTAR WEST 450 SANSOME ST, STE. 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94111 PH: (415) 489-3900 CIVIL ENGINEER:BKF ENGINEERS 200 4TH ST, STE. 300 SANTA ROSA, CA. 95401 PH: (707) 583-8500 FAX: (707) 583-8539 ARCHITECT:HKIT ARCHITECTS 538 NINTH ST, STE. 240 OAKLAND, CA. 94607 PH: (510) 625-9800 GEOTECHNICAL MILLER PACIFIC ENGINEERING GROUP ENGINEER:504 REDWOOD BLVD, STE. 220 NOVATO, CA. 94947 PH: (415) 582-3444 FAX: (415) 382-3450 LANDSCAPE GATES + ASSOCIATES ARCHITECT:1655 N. MAIN ST, STE. 365 WALNUT CREEK, CA. 94596 PH: (925) 736-8176 FAX: (925) 838-8901 FOURTH STREET E S T R E E T 1" = 10'scale 10 0 10 feet 20 COPYRIGHT © BKF ENGINEERS 2024 2 15 1 5 F O U R T H S T R E E T AP N 0 1 1 - 2 4 5 - 2 6 SA N R A F A E L , C A L I F O R N I A C 8 5 1 2 9 AN D R E W J . D e Z U R I K 0 3 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 4 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PR E L I M I N A R Y DA T E : BK F E N G I N E E R S 20 0 4 t h S T R E E T SU I T E 3 0 0 SA N T A R O S A , C A 9 5 4 0 1 (7 0 7 ) 5 8 3 - 8 5 0 0 ww w . b k f . c o m 232070_EXHB-GRAD.dwgPl o t M a r 0 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 4 : 2 1 p m CO N C E P T U A L G R A D I N G P L A N C2 2 MA T C H L I N E SE E S H E E T 1 MA T C H L I N E SE E S H E E T 1 BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE BELMONT VILLAGE OF SAN RAFAEL 1515 FOURTH ST, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 BELMONT VILLAGE April 29, 2024 L-1April 22, 2024 1” = 10’-0” SITE PLAN - 1ST FLOOR 0’5’10’20’ PROPOSED PLANTING AREA STREETSCAPE: 1,535 SF COURTYARD: 1,850 SF TOTAL: 3,385 SF 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T Group Fitness Pool RR/ Core Fitness Center Men’s Restroom Women’s Restroom Great Room Entry Lobby Welcome Center Lecture Hall/ Screening Room Art StudioTown Hall Bistro Kitchen Josephine’s Dining Private Dining Service Drive/ Loading Dock 182115 4 2 223 10 1120 17 9 17 8 13 16 1312 141514 16 19 1 5 6 Pool and Enhanced Pool Deck Paving per Arch Plans Pool Fencing Single Gate Conceptual Pool Deck Furnishing Arrangements Yoga Lawn Putting Green Outdoor Lounge Fireplace Lounge Chairs Herb Garden Covered Outdoor Dining Accent Paving at Covered Entry Bike Racks Benches Trash and Recycling Receptacles Sidewalk Courtyard Trees Street Trees in Tree Grate Utility-Friendly Small Trees Planting Area Planter along Street Frontage Perimeter Planting and Vines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7 7 April 29, 2024 L-2April 22, 2024 SITE PLAN - 2ND & 7TH FLOOR 1” = 10’-0” 2ND FLOOR MEMORY CARE TERRACE11” = 10’-0” 0’5’10’20’ KEY PLAN N.T.S. 7TH FLOOR ROOF TERRACE21” = 10’-0” 0’5’10’20’ KEY PLAN N.T.S. SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T 4TH STREET PROPOSED PLANTING AREA MEMORY CARE: 168 SF ROOF: 1,156 SF TOTAL: 1,324 SF SH A V E R S T R E E T SH A V E R S T R E E T Outdoor Dining Shade Canopy/Trellis per Arch Raised Planter Benches Guardrail per Arch Plans Terrace Trees Private Patio Flexible Space Lounge Seating Outdoor Lounge Outdoor Fire Pit Green Roof 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 7 2 3 4 6 5 Josephine’s Cafe Day Room Sports Lounge 12 11103698 4 5 6 April 29, 2024 L-3SCALE April 22, 2024 CHARACTER IMAGES & PLANT PALETTE NEW STREET TREE SCHEDULE STREETSCAPE FURNISHING LEGEND TREE GRATE - QUANTITY: 10 CAST IRON TREE GRATE TO MATCH EXISTING TREE GRATES ALONG FOURTH STREET. MFR: IRON AGE DESIGNS MODEL: 6’X6’ AT FORTH STREET; 4’X6’ AT SHAVER STREET BENCH - QUANTITY: 2 6’ STEEL BENCH WITH BACK AND CENTER ARM REST MFR: VICTOR STANLEY MODEL EVA OR PER CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SITE FURNISHING STANDARDS. TRASH RECEPTACLE - QUANTITY: 2 STEEL TRASH AND RECYCLING RECEPTACLE MFR: VICTOR STANLEY MODEL: SAGE OR SD-42 TO MATCH EXISTING AT FOURTH ST.; SURFACE MOUNT OR PER CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SITE FURNISHING STANDARDS. MODEL: SAGE (36SA) 4’X6’ TREE GRATE 6’X6’ TREE GRATE MODEL: SD-42 WITH LOCKING SIDE DOOR BIKE RACK - QUANTITY: 8 STEEL TUBE HOOP BIKE RACK MFR: DERO MODEL HOOP RACK, SURFACE MOUNT; POWDERCOAT BLACK TO MATCH EXISTING AT FOURTH ST. OR PER CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SITE FURNISHING STANDARDS. STREETSCAPE PLANTING AREAS DIETES BICOLOR/FORTNIGHT LILY - 5 GAL, 36” O.C. GREVILLEA ‘LITTLE GEM’/COASTAL WOOLY GREVILLEA - 5 GAL, 36” O.C. LOMANDRA ‘BREEZE’/DWARF MAT RUSH - 5 GAL, 36” O.C. VERBENA LILACINA ‘DE LA MINA’/CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA - 5 GAL, 36” O.C. BUILDING PERIMETER PLANTING AREAS DIANELLA REVOLUTA ‘LITTLE REV’/LITTLE REV FLAX LILY - 1 GAL, 24” O.C. FESTUCA MAIREI/ATLAS FESCUE - 1 GAL, 36” O.C. LIGUSTRUM SINENSE ‘SUNSHINE’/SUNSHINE LIGUSTRUM - 5 GAL, 36” O.C. NANDINA ‘LEMON LIME’/LEMON-LIME NANDINA - 5 GAL, 30” O.C. PITTOSPORUM ‘CRÈME DE MINT’/DWARF PITTOSPORUM - 5 GAL, 30” O.C. LEVEL 1 COURTYARD PLANT PALETTE TREES ACER PALMATUM ‘SANGO-KAKU’/CORAL BARK JAPANESE MAPLE – 24” BOX ARBUTUS ‘MARINA’/MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE – 24” BOX LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA ‘TUSCARORA’/CRAPE MYRTLE – 24” BOX ULMUS ‘NEW FRONTIER’/NEW FRONTIER ELM – 24” BOX SHRUBS/PERENNIALS ABUTILON PALMERI/INDIAN MALLOW - 5 GAL, 42” O.C. ACHILLEA SP./YARROW - 1 GAL, 30” O.C. AEONIUM ‘SUNBURST’ - 5 GAL, 30” O.,C. CALANDRINIA ‘SHINING PINK’/SHINING PINK CALANDRINIA - 1 GAL, 24” O.C. HEUCHERA MAXIMA ‘ALUM ROOT’/OPAL ISLAND ALUM ROOT - 1 GAL, 24” O.C. LEUCOSPERMUM CORDIFOLIUM ‘FLAME GIANT’/PINCHSHION - 5 GAL, 48” O.C. LIGUSTRUM SINENSE ‘SUNSHINE’/SUNSHINE LIGUSTRUM - 5 GAL, 36” O.C. NANDINA ‘LEMON LIME’/LEMON-LIME NANDINA - 5 GAL, 30” O.C. NEPETA X FAASSENII/CATMINT - 1 GAL, 30” P.C. OLEA EUROPAEA ‘MONTRA’/LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE - 5 GAL, 48” O.C. PITTOSPORUM ‘CRÈME DE MINT’/DWARF PITTOSPORUM - 5 GAL, 30” O.C. SALVIA ‘HOT LIP’/HOT LIP SALVIA - 5 GAL, 48” O.C. TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS/WALL GERMANDER 1 GAL, 24” O.C. WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA ‘MORNING LIGHT’/GREY BOX COAST ROSEMARY - 5 GAL, 42” O.C. LEVEL 2 MEMORY TERRACE & LEVEL 7 ROOF DECK PLANT PALETTE SMALL TREES LAGERSTROEMIA ‘ZUNI’/ZUNI CRAPE MYRTLE – 15 GALLON OLEA EUROPAEA ‘MONTRA’/LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE – 15 GALLON SHRUBS/PERENNIALS ACHILLEA SP./YARROW - 1 GAL, 30” O.C. AEONIUM ‘SUNBURST’ - 5 GAL, 30” O.C. HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ‘PERPA’/BRAKELIGHTS RED YUCCA - 5 GAL, 30” O.C. HEUCHERA MAXIMA ‘ALUM ROOT’/OPAL ISLAND ALUM ROOT - 1 GAL, 24” O.C. LOMONDRA ‘ROMA’/PLATINUM BEAUTY VARIEGATED MAT RUSH - 5 GAL, 36” O.C. NEPETA X FAASSENII/CATMINT - 1 GAL, 30” O.C. PITTOSPORUM ‘CRÈME DE MINT’/DWARF PITTOSPORUM - 5 GAL, 30” O.C. ROSMARINUS ‘HUNGTINGTON CARPET’/HUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARY - 1GAL, 48” O.C. SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA/PURPLE SAGE - 1 GAL, 30” O.C. WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA ‘MORNING LIGHT’/GREY BOX COAST ROSEMARY - 5 GAL, 42” O.C. PLANTING STATEMENT THE PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE IS COMPOSED OF LOW WATER USE TREES, SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND ORNAMENTAL GRASSES IN MAJORITY THAT ARE ADAPTED TO THE LOCAL AND SUMMER-DRY CLIMATE. THE PLACEMENT OF PROPOSED SPECIES WILL RESPOND TO SUN/SHADE EXPOSURE AND WILL BE GROUPED PER THEIR WATER USAGE. THE PLANT COMPOSITION VARIES IN FORM, TEXTURE, COLORS, SCENTS, AND BLOOMING SEA- SONS , THAT WILL PROVIDE YEAR AROUND COLORS AND INTERESTS. THE DIVERSITY OF THE PLANT PALETTE WILL ALSO PROVIDE HABITATS TO ATTRACT BIRDS AND BUTTERFLIES. THE PLANTS WILL BE SPACED AT THEIR MATURE SIZE TO MINIMIZE WATER USE AND MAINTENANCE. THE PROPOSED SHRUB SPECIES WILL NOT REQUIRE SHEARING TO REDUCE THE MAINTENANCE AND GREEN WASTE. TREES AND SHRUBS WILL BE PLACED TO SHADE THE BUILDINGS ALONG SOUTH AND WEST SIDES, AS WELL AS SHADE THE PAVED AREA TO CONSERVE ENERGY AND REDUCE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. THE PROPOSED PLANTING AREA SHALL BE PROPERLY AMENDED WITH COMPOST AND ORGANIC FERTILIZERS TO HELP NATURE THE SOIL AND SEQUESTER CARBON. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE TOP DRESSED WITH 3-INCH LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO HELP CONSERVE MOISTURE OF THE SOIL AND PREVENT WEEDS FROM GROWING. ALL TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 15-GALLON SIZE CONTAINER; SHRUB, PERENNIALS AND ORNA- MENTAL GRASSES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1-GALLON CONTAINER SIZE. IRRIGATION STATEMENT THE INTENT OF IRRIGATION DESIGN IS TO REDUCE POTABLE WATER CONSUMPTION THROUGH THE USE OF A HIGH EFFICIENCY, CENTRALLY CONTROLLED SYSTEM. THE SMART CONTROLLER WILL MAKE DAILY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE WATERING TIME FOR EACH STATION BY USING REAL TIME ET AND RAIN INFORMATION, ASSURING EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF THE POTABLE WA- TER AND ELIMINATING OVERWATERING. EFFICIENT DRIP IRRIGATION WILL BE PROPOSED IN ALL PLANTING AREAS THAT ARE LESS THAN 10’ WIDE, ELIMINATING OVERSPRAY AND REDUCING WATER CONSUMPTION. PLANTS SHALL BE GROUPED IN HYDROZONES, SO THAT PLANTS WITH SIMILAR WATER NEEDS WILL BE PLANTED TO - GETHER TO AVOID OVERWATERING. THE IRRIGATION DESIGN SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE’S MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (MWELO). A DEDICATED IRRIGATION WATER METER WITH A BACKFLOW PREVENTER, MASTER VALVE AND FLOW SENSOR, WILL SERVICE THE GROUND/STREET LEVEL LANDSCAPE. THE IRRIGATION AT LEVEL 2 MC TERRACE AND AT LEVEL 7 ROOF TERRACE WILL BE SERVICED BY DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LINE AND WILL INCORPORATE A BACKFLOW PREVENTION EQUIPMENT. REVIEW NOTES 1. PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AND IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE REVIEWED BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY ENTITLEMENT FOR THE PROJECT. 2. LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL RECEIVE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM MMWD PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ACER RUBRUM ‘SCARSEN’/SCARLET SENTINEL RED MAPLE – 24” BOX LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X ‘NATCHEZ’/NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE – 24” BOX PISTACIA CHINENSIS ‘KEITH DAVEY’/CHINESE PISTACHE – 24” BOX QUERCUS ROBUR X ALBA ‘CRIMSCHMIDT’/CRIMSON SPIRE OAK – 15 GALLON April 29, 2024 L-4SHEET TITLE SCALE April 22, 2024 PLANTING PROFILE - GROUND LEVEL STREETSCAPE/ BLDG PERIMETER 0’5’10’20’ 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T Group Fitness Pool RR/ Core Fitness Center Men’s Restroom Women’s Restroom Great Room Entry Lobby Welcome Center Lecture Hall/ Screening Room Art StudioTown Hall Bistro Kitchen Josephine’s Dining Private Dining Service Drive/ Loading Dock ACER RUBRUM ‘SCARSEN’ SCARLET SENTINEL RED MAPLE24” BOX STREETSCAPE/ BLDG PERIMETER PLANTING PALETTE ACCENT TREECANOPY TREECOLUMNAR TREECOLUMNAR TREE LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X ‘NATCHEZ’ NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE – 24” BOX QUERCUS ROBUR X ALBA ‘CRIMSCHMIDT’ CRIMSON SPIRE OAK – 15 GALLON PISTACIA CHINENSIS ‘KEITH DAVEY’ CHINESE PISTACHE – 24” BOX ACCENT SHRUBS/ PERENNIALS ORNAMENTAL GRASSESS FOUNDATION SHRUBS VERBENA LILACINA ‘DE LA MINA’ CEDROS ISLAND VERBENA 5 GAL, 36” O.C. LOMANDRA ‘BREEZE’ DWARF MAT RUSH 5 GAL, 36” O.C. DIANELLA REVOLUTA ‘LITTLE REV’ LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL, 24” O.C. DIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILY 5 GAL, 36” O.C. FESTUCA MAIREI ATLAS FESCUE 1 GAL, 36” O.C. GREVILLEA ‘LITTLE GEM’ COASTAL WOOLY GREVILLEA 5 GAL, 36” O.C. LIGUSTRUM SINENSE ‘SUNSHINE’ SUNSHINE LIGUSTRUM 5 GAL, 36” O.C. NANDINA ‘LEMON LIME’ LEMON-LIME NANDINA 5 GAL, 30” O.C. PITTOSPORUM ‘CRÈME DE MINT’ DWARF PITTOSPORUM 5 GAL, 30” O.C. April 29, 2024 L-5SHEET TITLE SCALE April 22, 2024 PLANTING PROFILE - GROUND LEVEL STREETSCAPE/ BLDG PERIMETER 0’5’10’20’ Group Fitness Pool RR/ Core Fitness Center Men’s Restroom Women’s Restroom Great Room Entry Lobby Welcome Center Lecture Hall/ Screening Room Art StudioTown Hall Bistro Kitchen Josephine’s Dining Private Dining Service Drive/ Loading Dock COURTYARD PLANT PALETTE ACCENT TREEEVERGREEN TREE CANOPY TREE COLUMNAR TREE LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA ‘TUSCARORA’ CRAPE MYRTLE – 24” BOX ARBUTUS ‘MARINA’ MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE – 24” BOX ULMUS ‘NEW FRONTIER’ NEW FRONTIER ELM – 24” BOX ACCENT SHRUBS/ PERENNIALS FOUNDATION SHRUBS CALANDRINIA ‘SHINING PINK’ SHINING PINK CALANDRINIA 1 GAL, 24” O.C. NEPETA X FAASSENII CATMINT 1 GAL, 30” P.C. ABUTILON PALMERI INDIAN MALLOW 5 GAL, 42” O.C. HEUCHERA MAXIMA ‘ALUM ROOT’ OPAL ISLAND ALUM ROOT 1 GAL, 24” O.C. SALVIA ‘HOT LIP’ HOT LIP SALVIA 5 GAL, 48” O.C. ACHILLEA SP. YARROW 1 GAL, 30” O.C. LEUCOSPERMUM C. ‘FLAME GIANT’ PINCHSHION 5 GAL, 48” O.C. AEONIUM ‘SUNBURST’ SUNBURST AEONIUM 5 GAL, 30” O.,C. LIGUSTRUM SINENSE ‘SUNSHINE’ SUNSHINE LIGUSTRUM 5 GAL, 36” O.C. TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS WALL GERMANDER 1 GAL, 24” O.C. NANDINA ‘LEMON LIME’ LEMON-LIME NANDINA 5 GAL, 30” O.C. OLEA EUROPAEA ‘MONTRA’ LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE 5 GAL, 48” O.C. WESTRINGIA F. ‘MORNING LIGHT’ GREY BOX COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL, 42” O.C. PITTOSPORUM ‘CRÈME DE MINT’ DWARF PITTOSPORUM 5 GAL, 30” O.C. ACER PALMATUM ‘SANGO-KAKU’ CORAL BARK JAPANESE MAPLE – 24” BOX April 29, 2024 L-6April 22, 2024 PLANTING PROFILE - UPPER TERRACES 2ND FLOOR MEMORY CARE TERRACE11” = 10’-0” 0’5’10’20’ KEY PLAN N.T.S. 7TH FLOOR ROOF TERRACE21” = 10’-0” 0’5’10’20’ KEY PLAN N.T.S. SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T SH A V E R S T R E E T Josephine’s Cafe Day Room Sports Lounge ACCENT TREE ACCENT TREE LAGERSTROEMIA ‘ZUNI’ ZUNI CRAPE MYRTLE – 15 GALLON OLEA EUROPAEA ‘MONTRA’ LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE – 15 GALLON COURTYARD PLANT PALETTE ACCENT SHRUBS/ PERENNIALS FOUNDATION SHRUBS GREEN ROOF NEPETA X FAASSENII CATMINT 1 GAL, 30” P.C. LOMONDRA ‘ROMA’ PLATINUM BEAUTY VARIEGATED MAT RUSH - 5 GAL, 36” O.C. HEUCHERA MAXIMA ‘ALUM ROOT’ OPAL ISLAND ALUM ROOT 1 GAL, 24” O.C. HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA ‘PERPA’ BRAKELIGHTS RED YUCCA 5 GAL, 30” O.C. ROSMARINUS ‘HUNGTINGTON CARPET’ HUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARY - 1GAL, 48” O.C. SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA PURPLE SAGE 1 GAL, 30” O.C. ACHILLEA SP. YARROW 1 GAL, 30” O.C. AEONIUM ‘SUNBURST’ SUNBURST AEONIUM 5 GAL, 30” O.,C. WESTRINGIA F. ‘MORNING LIGHT’ GREY BOX COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL, 42” O.C. PLANTED-IN-PLACE SEDUM TILE BLEND BY COLUMBIA GREEN TECHNOLOGIES MODEL: COLOR MAX PL4400 PITTOSPORUM ‘CRÈME DE MINT’ DWARF PITTOSPORUM 5 GAL, 30” O.C. April 29, 2024 Page 1 of 9 Community Development Department – Planning Division INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Date: July 23,2024 To: Project File From: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager Subject: CEQA Infill Exemption Memorandum for a proposed state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units at 1515 4th Street; APN 011-245-41; City Case Numbers PLAN24-033 SUMMARY The project satisfies the criteria set forth in CEQA Guideline 15332 and is therefore exempt from CEQA review. Furthermore, the project is not subject to any of the statutory exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2(a-f) that would make the project ineligible for the exemption. Project Description The proposed project (“Project”) is a n infill development on a previously developed 0.88-acre site at 1515 Fourth Street in downtown San Rafael. The Project site is currently occupied with a vacant commercial building and parking lot which will be demolished to accommodate construction to build and operate a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, and 28 secured memory care units at 1515 4th Street. The project is subject to approval of Use Permit. The CEQA Process CEQA establishes a three-tier environmental review process. The first step is jurisdictional and requires a public agency to determine whether a proposed activity is a “project” as defined in Section 21065 of the CEQA Guidelines. As provided therein, under CEQA a “project” means an activity that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following: a. An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. b. An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. c. An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. Page 2 of 9 If an activity is defined as a “project, the agency must decide whether the project is exempt from CEQA review under either a statutory or categorical exemption , Articles 18 and 19, respectively. If a project is categorically exempt, it is not subject to CEQA and is processed without an initial study or further CEQA review. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 409.) CEQA provides several “categorical exemptions” that are applicable to categories of projects that the Legislature has determined do not pose a risk of significant impacts on the environment. Here, the Project qualifies for the infill exemption pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15332 (“CEQA Guidelines 15332”). The CEQA Infill Exemption CEQA Guidelines 15332 states that infill development is exempt from CEQA review if it 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 designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 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 relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.” As discussed below, the Project meets each of these criteria and is therefore categorically exempt from CEQA. Furthermore, there are no applicable exceptions to the exemption. 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 regulation. The Project site meets this condition. The Project site consists of one assessor’s parcel, which has the Downtown Mixed-Use general plan designation. The Project site includes two Downtown Precise Plan zoning designations: T4MS 50/70 and T4N 40/50. As described in detail in the July 23, 2024 Planning Commission staff report for the Project, the Project would conform to all pertinent General Plan goals, policies and programs and zoning designations, and no rezonings or General Plan amendments would be required. While the Project does seek waivers pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, t he use of waivers does not render the infill exemption inapplicable. This issue was squarely addressed and resolved in Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329. In Wollmer, an opponent of a Berkeley mixed use density bonus project challenged the City’s use of the 15332 urban infill exemption on the grounds that the City’s modifications and waivers of development standards, as required under the Density Bonus Law, meant that the project was not consistent with existing zoning. The court rejected the argument, finding that the modifications authorized by the Density Bonus Law did not disqualify the project from claiming the exemption. The court concluded the infill exemption was still Page 3 of 9 appropriate and that environmental review was not required. Waived development standards and regulations are not “applicable” to a qualifying density bonus project. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project site meets this condition. The Project site is 0.88 acres and is located within the limits of the City of San Rafael. The Project site is entirely surrounded by urban uses, including a variety of office, retail, and food service uses. c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The Project site meets this condition. 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. The Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality for the reasons discussed below: • Traffic - As noted in the Local Transportation Analysis prepared by Advanced Mobility Group for the previously approved project, (12/2022) the 4th Street/E Street and 4th Street/Shaver Street intersections currently operate at level of service (LOS) B and A, respectively. The previously approved project would have introduced 131 new trips (this number reflects corrections to the previous traffic count in compliance with Resolution 14983, which expressly states that the “fee will be based on the unadjusted (no pass by or multimodal adjustments) trip generation calculations approved by the City Traffic Engineer.”) The trip generation of the proposed project is less than the approved project as detailed in the Technical Memorandum dated 2/27/2024. The proposed project will generate 18 AM peak hour trips and 35 PM peak hour trips, for a total of 53 peak hour trips. therefore, the study intersections will continue to operate at LOS B and A, respectively. • Areas within the Downtown Precise Plan area, including the project site are not subject to the City’s adopted LOS policy which calls for LOS D or better. Despite not being subject to this standard, study intersections will operate above LOS D and as such, the project will not result in a significant traffic impact as a result of conflict with an adopted policy. • In addition to providing a LOS analysis, the Local Transportation Analysis also includes a discussion of project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As noted therein, the project screens out from the need for a detailed VMT analysis pursuant to the Cit y’s adopted VMT Guidelines which exempts residential and employment -generating projects in low VMT areas. As noted in the Analysis, the project is a local serving public facility and located in a low VMT area and as such the project will not result in sign ificant traffic impacts due to VMT generation above adopted thresholds. Page 4 of 9 Additionally, the Analysis concludes that pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, site access and circulation, and parking are adequate to serve the project and the project will not result in impacts to emergency access. • Noise - The Project would also not result in any significant effects relating to noise as confirmed by the Senior Housing Project NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 1515 Fourth Street, San Rafael, California (3/6/2024) prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Construction Noise and Vibration . The Noise and Vibration Assessment indicates that the project would have temporary increases in noise and vibration that would last for up to two years based on the proposed construction schedule. However, it is expected that construction related noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq would not last more than one year and the nearest noise sensitive (residential) uses will be 75 feet from close -in on-site construction. Additionally, the project will be subject to best practice controls along with the allowable hours of construction pursuant to Section 8.13.050 of the Municipal Code including the following as identified in the Noise and Vibration Assessment: o Noise‐generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on Saturdays. No construction shall occur on Sundays or holidays. o All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. o The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. o At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise -‐generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences. o Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. o Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction related noise sources and noise -‐sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. o The required construction-related noise mitigation plan shall also specify that haul truck deliveries are subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment. o Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing. o The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., start ing too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. The Noise and Vibration Assessment concludes that by use of administrative controls such as notifying adjacent land uses of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration to hours with least potential to affect nearby residences, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum and as such would not result in a significant impact with respect to perception. Page 5 of 9 Noise and vibration would be temporary and limited through the use of best management practices and the design of the proposed project will limit the potential for operational noise impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effe ct on noise. Operational Noise. As a residential project located in an urbanized area, t he project will not result in any significant effects relating to operational noise. Additionally, the Noise and Vibration Assessment determined that the proposed project would result in less than 1dBA increase in noise from the additional traffic that might result from the proposed project and as such impacts resulting from an increase in the ambient noise environment will be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project uses design to limit noise exposure to sensitive receptors introduced by the project which is not considered an environmental impact, but is included to ensure compliance with adopted regulations related to land use consistency. The project will utilize mechanical ventilation systems to supply fresh air and includes exterior wall assemblies, windows, and doors intended to maintain interior noise levels at or below 45 dBA L dn. With incorporation of design features, the project will not result in a conflict with adopted policies related to land use consistency and impacts of the project will be less than significant. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines provide preliminary screening for a lead agency to consider in making a conservative determination of a project’s potential impacts on air quality based on proposed land-use (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). Projects that are below the screening criteria are reasonably expected to result in less than significant impacts to air quality since pollutant emissions would be minimal. The screening level criteria for an apartment, high rise, and strip mall (presumed to be of like uses as the proposed project, are presented below: Table 1: BAAQMD Screening Criteria Land Use Type Operational Screening Size Construction Screening Size Apartment, High Rise 510 du (ROG) 249 du (ROG) Strip Mall 99 ksf (NOX) 277 ksf (ROG) Source: Table 3-1, page 3-2 BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Guidelines, May 2017 du= dwelling unit; ksf= thousand square feet Table 1 shows the screening size for construction and operation of high-rise apartments, and strip malls (presumed to be comparable to the commercial component). When projects exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria a quantitative analysis would be warranted to determine if the project would result in significant impacts related to air quality. The project proposes the development of a state licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) containing 155 senior independent and assisted living units, a nd 28 secured memory care units, which is below the screening size for construction (24 9 dwelling units) and operation (510 dwelling units for criteria pollutants). The proposed 23,959 square feet of amenity space is below the screening levels for construction (97,000 square feet), and operation (277,000 square feet for criteria pollutants). Given that the proposed project size is well below the screening criteria, the project does not trigger the need for a quantitative air quality analysis. It can be conclusively determined that the proposed project would have no impacts due to degraded air quality resulting from the infill project. It should be noted that the project will be subject to BAAQMD best management Page 6 of 9 practices during construction to control for dust and vehicle emissions. As such , impacts from air quality emissions as a result of the project construction and operation would be negligible. Furthermore, the proposed project will not result in significant GHG impacts. BAAQMD published updated GHG thresholds in April 2022 for land use projects. The new thresholds establish that a project is considered to have a less-than-significant impact due to GHG emissions if it is consistent with a local GHG Reduction Strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), or meets the following design elements: 1. Buildings: a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Transportation: a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. The project is consistent with BAAQMD’s thresholds for land use projects for buildings in that 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. As discussed previously, the project will not result in significant VMT impacts and will be required to comply with off-street electric vehicle (EV) requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2C. Based on the project’s consistency with BAAQMD’s thresholds for land use projects, the project will not have significant effects on related to greenhouse gas emissions. • Water Quality - No significant water quality impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. The project site is 0.88 acres located in a heavily urbanized and developed area. The project has been required as a condition of approval to provide an updated Stormwater Treatment plan that shall be in compliance with Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) requirements. Further, the proposed project’s 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. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality and therefore qualifies for the use of a categorical exemption from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 Page 7 of 9 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. The Property is currently being served and water service would continue to be provided by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), though the purchase of additional water allotment will be required. The proposed project is consistent with the expected growth in the Downtown Precise Plan and the EIR prepared for the 2040 General Plan and Downtown Precise Plan concluded that MMWD will have sufficient water supply to meet the demand for bu ildout of the San Rafael Downtown Precise Plan pursuant to the MMWD Water Resources Plan 2040 (March 2017) and would neither exceed planned levels of supply nor require building new water treatment facilities or expanding existing facilities beyond what is currently planned . Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on electricity or water utility services. Wastewater service would be provided by the San Rafael Sanitation District. The EIR for the General Plan and Downtown Precise Plan concluded that the expected increase in downtown population as a result of the plans would not exceed the permitted capacity of the Central Marin Sanitation Agency’s wastewater treatment plant or have other significant impacts to wastewater. As noted in the April 11, 2023 Planning Commission staff report for the project, the proposed project is consistent with the proposed Downtown Precise Plan and, therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on wastewater. As the proposed project is within the planned development of the area and can be served by all utilities and would exceed the capacity of or require the construction or expansion of new utility services, it can be concluded that the project can be adequate ly served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, as analyzed above, the proposed project meets the criteria for a 15332 Infill Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. No Exceptions to the Exemption Apply If a project qualifies for use of a categorical exemption, then the lead agency must determine whether the categorical exemption is unavailable because the project is subject to an exception to the categorical exemptions. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2.) A project will not qualify as exempt if it is subject to one of the six exceptions provided below: (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. Page 8 of 9 (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. As described below, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply. a. Location. Section 15300.2(a) does not apply to a Class 32 infill exemption. b. 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. c. Significant Effect and Unusual Circumstances. This exception has 2 prongs: 1. Whether the project presents unusual circumstances; and 2. 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 for an existing infill site that is substantially developed on all sides. There is no sensitive habitat or sensitive areas on or around the site. Case law strongly affirms that, even when opponents point to distinctive aspects of a project or its location, a typical project such as this is not subject to the “unusual circumstances” exception. (See, e.g., Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley, 241 Cal. App. 4th 943, 955 (2015) (no “unusual circumstances” despite claims of unusual size, environmental setting, and inconsistency with general plan); Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin, 70 Cal. App. 5th 951, 962 (2021) (no “unusual circumstances” despite claims of unusually large project configuration); Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1336 (2011) (98 -unit mixed use development affirmed under Class 32 exemption despite claimed unusual location and traffic issues).) Further, the General Plan/Precise Plan EIR specifically notes that the increase of downtown higher density development would not have a significant effect. d. Scenic Highways. Section 15300.2(d) does not apply because 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. e. Hazardous Waste Sites. Section 15300.2(e) does not apply because 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 De partment of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database which lists all hazardous waste sites including Superfund sites, Page 9 of 9 State Response Sites did not show any listings for 1515 4 th St in San Rafael. Therefore, the exception would not apply because the site is not a state designated hazardous waste site. f. Historical resources. Section 15300.2(f) does not apply because 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 would not apply to the project. The proposed project qualifies for a 15332 exemption as it is substantially surrounded by development in an urbanized area on a site less than five acres. As determined above it meets the conditions required for the exemption and there are no exceptions to the exemption that apply. As such the proposed project is eligible for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Categorical Exemption Class 32 for infill development. Attachments: 1. Local Transportation Analysis prepared by Advanced Mobility Group , dated December 2022 2. Technical Memorandum prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, dated February 27, 2024 3. Belmont Village of San Rafael Senior Housing Project NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated March 6, 2024 Dr a f t Technical Memorandum To:Randy Ackerman Managing Director From:Joy Bhattacharya, PE Address: Greystar Development West, LLC 450 Sansome Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Date:February 27, 2024 Reference: Trip Generation Estimates for the Proposed Belmont Village Senior Housing / Residential Care Facility for the Elderly in the City of San Rafael The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present the Trip Generation Estimates for the proposed Belmont Village project atthe south side of 4th Street between E Street and Shaver Street. The proposed project will be a new construction of a 193,567 -square-foot building, 7-Story, residential care facility for the elderly with 155 living units and 28 memory care dwellings. The facility will also include amenities like several dining halls, two fitness centers, an art studio, a lecture hall, a town hall, and a pool. Appendix A includes a site plan of the proposed Belmont Village project. The site plan shows that some of these amenities will be “retail” spaces. These retail amenities will only be available to residents and not open to the public, so they will not generate any additional trips. At this same location, a 7-story mixed use housing development with 162 dwelling units and 8,925 square feet of ground-floor retail was previously proposed and approved by the City based on the traffic study prepared by AMG. Table 1 below shows the Trip Generation for the previously proposed project as presented in the Local Traffic Analysis (LTA). Table 1: Trip Generation for Previously Proposed development at 1515 4th Street Land Use ITE Code Size1 2 Daily Weekday A.M.Weekday P.M. Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Apartments ITE 221 162 DU 2.93 475 0.28 7 39 46 0.26 31 12 43 Commercial Variety Store ITE 814 9 KSF 37.27 333 1.47 8 16 14 3.1 14 14 28 Total - 807 - 15 45 60 - 45 26 71 Notes: 1. DU = Dwelling Units 2. KSF = 1000 Square Feet Note: ITE Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition, 2021 Since the previously proposed project was a mixed-use development of residential and retail stores, a trip rate reduction was allowed in the form of internal trips. Internal trip reductions were calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The estimated trip Dr a f t February 27, 2024 Page 2 of4 reduction and net project trip generation for the previously proposed development are shown in Table 2. Therefore, the total number of trips generated by the previously proposed project were 60 and 61 trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Table 2: Trip Reduction and Net Trip Generation for the Previously Proposed Project AM Trips PM Trips In Out Total In Out Total Gross Project Trip Generation 15 45 60 45 26 71 Internal Trip Reduction 0 0 0 5 5 10 Net Project Trip Generation 15 45 60 40 21 61 Percent Reduction 0% 0% 0% 11% 19% 14% AMG proposed that the peak hour trip generation for the project should be based on the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Based on the proposed project land use and site plan, Congregate Care Facility (ITE 253) and Assisted Living (ITE 254) seemed to be the most appropriate. The ITE Manual included several other living categories for seniors (Senior Adult Housing - Single-Family, Senior Adult Housing – Multifamily, etc.). However, the information provided in ITE described a Congregate Care Facility as “an independent living development that provides centralized amenities.” A Congregate Care facility also provides a kitchenette in each individual dwelling and residents may contract additional medical professional services. This fits the description of the proposed 155 living units. ITE described Assisted Living as “an assisted living complex is a residential setting that provides either routine general protective oversight or assistance with activities necessary for independent living to persons with mental or physical limitations. The typical resident has difficulty managing an independent living arrangement but does not require nursing home care” which does fit the description of the proposed 28 memory care dwellings. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 415 daily trips and approximately 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 35 drips during the PM peak hour as shown in Table 3. Based on the proposed land use for this project, there were no additional trip reductions. Table 3: Trip Generation for Proposed Belmont Village Land Use ITE Code Size1 Daily Weekday A.M.Weekday P.M. Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Congregate Care Facility ITE 253 155 DU 2.21 343 0.08 7 6 13 0.18 14 14 28 Assisted Living ITE 254 28 BEDS 2.60 73 0.18 4 1 5 0.24 2 5 7 Total - 415 - 11 7 18 - 16 19 35 Notes: 1. DU = Dwelling Units Note: ITE Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition, 2021 Dr a f t February 27, 2024 Page 3 of4 Details of the ITE Congregate Care Facility and ITE 254 assisted living categories are contained in Appendix B. Table 4 below summarizes the net new AM and PM peak hour trips generated by previously proposed mixed-use development project and the BelmontVillage Senior Housing/Residential Care facility project. Table 4: AM & PM Peak Trip Generation Comparison AM Trips PM Trips In Out Total In Out Total Previously Proposed Project (1515 4th Street Mixed-Use Development) 15 45 60 40 21 61 Proposed Project (Belmont Village) 11 7 18 16 19 35 Net Project Trip Generation -4 -38 -42 -29 -7 -26 Net AM & PM Trips between Previously Proposed Project & Belmont Village Project -68 As shown in the Table above, the proposed Belmont Village project is expected to generate 42 and 26 less trips in the AM and PM peak, respectively. That is a combined total of 68 less trips in the peak hours. Sincethere are significantly fewer trips created by the project no additional analyses should be conducted, as the new proposed project will have less impact than the previously proposed project. VMT Analysis: In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743, which both streamlined review for transit- oriented infill projects and directed the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new practices and metrics to evaluate transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, SB 743 requires that Level of Service (LOS) metrics be replaced by VMT metrics for purposes of CEQA analysis. While SB 743 did not eliminate the ability of local agencies to continue using LOS as a planning metric in General Plans, it reflected a shift in perspective to more sustainable transportation planning that relies on metrics like VMT, which avoid discouraging infill development, and can help make non- automotive transportation faster, safer, and more reliable. The new guidelines require the use of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the metric for evaluating the significant traffic impacts to promote greenhouse gas emissions reductions, multimodal transportation networks and diverse land uses. Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg 2013) adds Public Resources Code Section 21099 to CEQA and changes the way that transportation impacts are analyzed to better align local environmental review with statewide objectives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill mixed-use development in designated priority development areas, reduce regional sprawl development, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California. Dr a f t February 27, 2024 Page 4 of4 The City of San Rafael has adopted VMT methodology for application within the city. The methodology has five screening criteria to determine if a project can be exempted from the VMT analysis. 1.Transit Priority Area (TPA): Projects located within ½ mile walkshed around major transit stops in San Rafael. The proposed project is not within ½ mile walkshed of a major transit stop. However, it does border the Downtown San Rafael TPA. 2.Affordable Housing: 100% restricted affordable residential projects in infill locations. The project is located within an infill location. 3.Small Projects: Small projects can be presumedto cause a less-than-significant VMT impact. Small projects are definedas generating 110 orfewer average daily vehicle trips.The proposed project generates more than 110 daily vehicle trips. 4.Local Serving Public Facilities: Projects that consist of Local Serving Public Facilities that encompass government, civic,cultural, health, and infrastructureuses and activity which contribute to andsupport community needs.The proposed project is a local serving public facility. 5.Neighborhood-Serving Retail Project: Neighborhood-serving retail projects that are less than 50,000 square feet, which serve the immediate neighborhoods. The proposed project is not a neighborhood-serving retail project. 6.Residential and Office Projects Located in Low VMT Areas: Residential and employment-generating projects located within a low VMT-generatingarea can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.The proposed project is a residential generating project. Based on the informationprovided bythe TAM model for the previously proposed project, the project is in a low VMT area per residents. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance onevaluating a project’s transportation impacts.According to Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is generally the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, except for projects consisting of the addition of travel lanes to roadways. VMT refersto the amount and distanceof automobile travel attributable to a project, regardless of the type of vehicle or number of occupants in a vehicle. Section 15064.3(b) establishes metrics and thresholds by which VMT can be evaluated for land use projects and transportation projects. The proposed project is a senior housing/residential care facility for the elderly in a downtown location and is in a low VMT per resident area (TAZ 800165). Based on evaluation performed for the San Rafael General Plan 2040, housing projects in Downtown San Rafael will be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. Hence, the proposed project passes two of the criteria shown above and will not require further VMT analysis. Appendix A Belmont Village Site Plan 83 83 83 ., 7 & + ( 1 7 + 6 7 5 ( ( 7 6+$9(5675((7 (675((7 :( / & 2 0 ( &( 1 7 ( 5 3$ & . $ * ( 67 2 5 $ * ( 75 $ 6 + 5 0 %2 + ( / ( 9 /2 % % < %2 + ), 7 1 ( 6 6 &( 1 7 ( 5 &2 5 ( 72 : 1 + $ / / $5 7 6 7 8 ' , 2 /( & 7 8 5 ( + $ / / 6 & 5 ( ( 1 , 1 * 52 2 0 ), 5 ( 3 8 0 3 35 , 9 $ 7 ( ', 1 , 1 * *5 ( $ 7 5 2 2 0 &2 5 ( $& 7 , 9 , 7 < &2 8 5 7 < $ 5 ' 35 ( ) 8 1 & 7 , 2 1 32 2 / 5 5 &2 5 ( 6( 5 9 , & ( '5 , 9 ( /2 $ ' , 1 * ' 2 & . 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 &2 9 ( 5 ( ' ' 5 2 3 2 ) ) 32 2 / &2 9 ( 5 ( ' $5 & $ ' ( &2 9 ( 5 ( ' 28 7 ' 2 2 5 ', 1 , 1 * :2 0 ( 1 6 55 0( 1 6 5 5 67 $ ) ) 55 &255,'25 ,/ % ( ' 5 2 2 0 ,/ % ( ' 5 2 2 0 ,/ % ( ' 5 2 2 0 ,/ % ( ' 5 2 2 0 ,/ % ( ' 5 2 2 0 ', 1 , 1 * 5 2 2 0 %, 6 7 5 2 ' , 1 , 1 * 5 2 2 0 *5 2 8 3 ), 7 1 ( 6 6 ,/ % ( ' 5 2 2 0 (1 7 5 < / 2 % % < &21&,(5*( (/ ( 9 /2 % % < 0$ , / +. /,*+7:(// (1 7 , 7 / ( ' % 8 , / ' , 1 * )2 2 7 3 5 , 1 7 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / *5 2 8 1 ' / ( 9 ( / ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 & 2 0 3 $ 5 , 6 2 1 ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( *5 2 8 1 ' / ( 9 ( / ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 )( ( 7 (1 7 , 7 / ( ' % 8 , / ' , 1 * * 5 2 8 1 ' ) / 2 2 5 )( ( 7 )( ( 7 7< 3 , & $ / ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 7 ( 83 7 + 6 7 5 ( ( 7 6+$9(5675((7 (675((7 6 ) %, . ( 3$ 5 . , 1 * 5( 1 7 $ % / ( 5( 6 , ' ( 1 7 67 2 5 $ * ( 6 ) *$ 5 $ * ( 0( & + 67 2 5 $ * ( (/ / 2 % % < 6 ) (/ ( & 7 5 , & $ / /( 9 ( / % *$ 5 $ * ( ( 1 7 5 < $ 7 * 5 $ ' ( %9 % 8 6 3 $ 5 . , 1 * " 5 ( 9 , ( : + ( , * + 7 6 ,' ( $ / / 2 & $ 7 , 2 1 $' $ $ ' $ $' $ $ ' $ $' $ $' $ 6 ) 03 2 ( 7& 2 0 6 ) *( 1 ( 5 $ 7 2 5 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / $ )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / % ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / % )( ( 7 83 '1 7 + 6 7 5 ( ( 7 6+$9(5675((7 (675((7 6 ) 32 2 / ( 4 8 , 3 6 ) % ( :2 5 . 5 2 2 0 /2 : 6 7 2 5 $ * ( (/ / 2 % % < 6 ) 75 $ 1 6 ) 2 5 0 ( 5 6 ) 67 $ ) ) 5 5 6 ) -$ 1 6 ) 67 $ ) ) 5 5 6+ 2 : ( 5 6 ) 67 $ ) ) /2 8 1 * ( 6 ) +. 6 7 2 5 6( 5 9 , & ( /2 % < 81 ' ( 5 6 , ' ( 2) 3 2 2 / ( / 3 , 7 $' $ $ ' $ $' $ $ ' $ $' $ $' $ /( 9 ( / % *$ 5 $ * ( ( 1 7 5 < $ 7 * 5 $ ' ( 6 ) %2 , / ( 5 5 0 6 ) 0( & + 6 ) % ( 67 2 5 $ * ( &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / % )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / % ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / % )( ( 7 83 83 83 6 ) ., 7 & + ( 1 7 + 6 7 5 ( ( 7 6+$9(5675((7 (675((7 6 ) :( / & 2 0 ( &( 1 7 ( 5 6 ) 3$ & . $ * ( 67 2 5 $ * ( 75 $ 6 + 5 0 %2 + ( / ( 9 /2 % % < %2 + 6 ) ), 7 1 ( 6 6 &( 1 7 ( 5 &2 5 ( 6 / $ * 8 1 $ $/ 7 , / / 5 * % 6 ) *5 2 8 3 ), 7 1 ( 6 6 /$ * 8 1 $ , / / 5 * % /$ 1 7 $ 1 $ , / /5 * % /$ * 8 1 $ , / / 5 * % 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 72 : 1 + $ / / 6 ) $5 7 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /( & 7 8 5 ( +$ / / 6& 5 ( ( 1 , 1 * 52 2 0 6 ) ), 5 ( 3 8 0 3 6 ) 35 , 9 $ 7 ( ', 1 , 1 * 6 ) -2 6 ( 3 + , 1 ( 6 ', 1 , 1 * 6 ) %, 6 7 5 2 6 ) *5 ( $ 7 52 2 0 &2 5 ( $& 7 , 9 , 7 < &2 8 5 7 < $ 5 ' 35 ( ) 8 1 & 7 , 2 1 32 2 / 5 5 &2 5 ( 6( 5 9 , & ( '5 , 9 ( /2 $ ' , 1 * ' 2 & . 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 &2 9 ( 5 ( ' ' 5 2 3 2 ) ) 32 2 / 28 7 ' 2 2 5 7$ % / ( 6 &2 9 ( 5 ( ' 28 7 ' 2 2 5 ', 1 , 1 * :2 0 ( 1 6 55 0( 1 6 5 5 67 $ ) ) 55 &255,'25 &21&,(5*( 6 ) +. &2 9 ( 5 ( ' 28 7 ' 2 2 5 ), 7 1 ( 6 6 6 ) 0$ , / /,*+7:(// 6 ) (1 7 5 < /2 % % < &2 5 5 , ' 2 5 (/ ( 9 $ 7 2 5 /2 % % < &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 * 5 2 8 1 ' / ( 9 ( / ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )( ( 7 *5 2 8 1 ' / ( 9 ( / ) / 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 '1 83 '1 '1 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) 6$ * ( 0 & 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) ', $ 0 2 1 ' 0& ' / ; 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( 0 & 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( 0 & 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) ', $ 0 2 1 ' 0& ' / ; 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( 0 & 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 0 & 60 % 6 ) %8 5 * 0 & () ) , & 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %8 5 * 0 & () ) , & 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %8 5 * 0 & () ) , & 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 &, 5 & / ( 2 ) )5 , ( 1 ' 6 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + $ / 0( ' % 6 ) %, 5 & + $ / 0( ' % 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + $ / 0( ' % 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + $ / 0( ' % 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + $ / 0( ' % 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / 0 & /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) %8 5 * 0 & () ) , & 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %8 5 * 0 & () ) , & 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( 0 & 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( 0 & 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( 0 & 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 &2 5 ( 6 ) 6$ * ( 0 & 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 -2 6 ( 3 + , 1 ( 6 &$ ) ( 6 ) 3$ 5 / 2 5 '$ < 5 2 2 0 0( 0 2 5 < & $ 5 ( 7( 5 5 $ & ( &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / )( ( 7 '1 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 "" 6 ) /, / $ & $ / , / /* % 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) ', $ 0 2 1 ' $ / '/ ; 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /, / $ & $ / , / /* % 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) &, 5 & / ( 2 ) )5 , ( 1 ' 6 6 ) :( / / 1 ( 6 6 &2 1 6 8 / 7 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 1R W ( Q F O R V H G /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) 3$ 5 / 2 5 6 ) :( / / 1 ( 6 6 :$ , 7 , 1 * 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / )( ( 7 6 ) 6, ( 1 1 $ , / 60 % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) $' 0 , 1 6 8 , 7 ( 7 5 $ , 1 , 1 * 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6 / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 6 0 % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 1R W ( Q F O R V H G /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 1R W ( Q F O R V H G /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) /, % 5 $ 5 < 6 ) 0 / , / $ & $/ , / / * % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 6 0 % 6 ) 6, ( 5 5 $ , / 60 % 6 ) 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 6 / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 0 / $ * 8 1 $ ,/ / * % 6 ) 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 6 0 % 6 ) &< 3 5 ( 6 6 $ / 0( ' % &2 0 % 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) /$ 1 7 $ 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) 3$ 5 / 2 5 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / )( ( 7 6 ) / / , / $ & $/ , / / * % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 6, ( 1 1 $ , / 60 % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) 2$ . : 2 2 ' $/ , / / * % &2 0 % 2 6 ) 5( ' : 2 2 ' $/ , / 0 ( ' % &2 0 % 2 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 3$ 5 / 2 5 6 ) 6 / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ * ( $ / 6 0 67 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6$ / 2 1 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) 6 / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 6 0 % 6 ) 6, ( 5 5 $ , / 60 % 6 ) 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 6 / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) 0 / $ * 8 1 $ ,/ / * % 6 ) 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 6 0 % 6 ) &< 3 5 ( 6 6 $ / 0( ' % &2 0 % 2 6 ) /$ 8 5 ( / $ / /* 6 7 8 ' , 2 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 6 0 % 6 ) /$ 1 7 $ 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / )( ( 7 6 ) 0$ * 1 2 / , $ $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 0$ * 1 2 / , $ $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) /$ 1 7 $ 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 6 0 % 6 ) /$ 5 . 6 3 8 5 $/ , / / * % 6 ) / / , / $ & $/ , / / * % 6 ) 6 / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 2$ . : 2 2 ' $/ , / / * % &2 0 % 2 6 ) %, 5 & + . $/ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 0 / , / $ & $/ , / / * % 6 ) $6 3 ( 1 . $/ , / 6 0 % 6 ) 6, ( 5 5 $ , / 60 % 6 ) ' / $ 1 7 $ 1 $ ,/ ' / ; % 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) 0 / $ * 8 1 $ ,/ / * % 6 ) %, 5 & + '2 8 % / ( $/ , / / 5 * % &2 0 % 2 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) 6, ( 5 5 $ , / 60 % 6 ) 0 / $ * 8 1 $ ,/ / * % 6 ) /$ 1 7 $ * $ , / /5 * % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) *$ 0 ( 6 3$ 5 / 2 5 1R W ( Q F O R V H G &< 3 5 ( 6 6 $ / /* % &2 0 % 2 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 67 $ , 5 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / )( ( 7 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) 63 2 5 7 6 /2 8 1 * ( 6 ) &2 5 ( 6 ) 0, 0 2 6 $ ' / ; % 6 ) /$ 1 7 $ 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) '/ ; /$ 1 7 $ 1 $ , / '/ ; % 6 ) 0( 6 $ , / 0 ( ' % 6 ) 0 / $ * 8 1 $ ,/ / * % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) 6 / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) 0, 0 2 6 $ , / 0( ' % 6 ) 0, 0 2 6 $ , / '/ ; % 6 ) 52 2 ) 7( 5 5 $ & ( 6 ) 6 / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) 6, ( 1 1 $ , / 60 % 6 ) 6, ( 1 1 $ , / 0( ' % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 6 ) / / $ * 8 1 $ , / /* % 67 $ , 5 6 ) 3$ 5 / 2 5 6 ) 52 2 ) 67 $ , 5 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( )/ 2 2 5 3 / $ 1 $ 7 / ( 9 ( / )( ( 7 67 $ , 5 $& 7 , 9 , 7 < & 2 8 5 7 < $ 5 ' %( / 2 : 52 2 ) 7 ( 5 5 $ & ( %( / 2 : 0& 7 ( 5 5 $ & ( %( / 2 : 52 2 ) 32 7 ( 1 7 , $ / / 2 & $ 7 , 2 1 ) 2 5 6 2 / $ 5 5 ( $ ' < $ 5 ( $ 72 7 $ / 2 ) 2 ) 5 2 2 ) $ 5 ( $ 32 2 / %( / 2 : 67 $ , 5 6( 5 9 , & ( (/ ( 9 $ 7 2 5 0$ , 1 (/ ( 9 $ 7 2 5 32 7 ( 1 7 , $ / / 2 & $ 7 , 2 1 ) 2 5 6 2 / $ 5 5 ( $ ' < $ 5 ( $ 72 7 $ / 2 ) 2 ) 5 2 2 ) $ 5 ( $ 3 $ 5 $ 3 ( 7 7 < 3 /2 & $ 7 , 2 1 2 ) 3 2 7 ( 1 7 , $ / 5 2 2 ) 7 2 3 0 ( & + $ 1 , & $ / (4 8 , 3 0 ( 1 7 7 < 3 6 & 5 ( ( 1 ( ' % < 3 $ 5 $ 3 ( 7 73 2 5 2 2 ) , 1 * 7 < 3 52 2 ) ' 5 $ , 1 $ 1 ' 29 ( 5 ) / 2 : ' 5 $ , 1 7 < 3 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / 52 2 ) 3 / $ 1 ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 52 2 ) 3 / $ 1 )( ( 7 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 32 2 / ( 4 8 , 3 *$ 5 $ * ( / ( 9 ( / % *$ 5 $ * ( / ( 9 ( / % /( 9 ( / /( 9 ( / /( 9 ( / /( 9 ( / /( 9 ( / /( 9 ( / /( 9 ( / 52 2 ) /( 9 ( / % /( 9 ( / % 3$ 5 $ 3 ( 7 -2 6 ( 3 + , 1 ( 6 ', 1 , 1 * 35 , 9 $ 7 ( ', 1 , 1 * :( / & 2 0 ( &( 1 7 ( 5 (1 7 5 < / 2 % % < 0$ , / /( & 7 8 5 ( + $ / / 6 & 5 ( ( 1 , 1 * 52 2 0 72 : 1 + $ / / 75 $ 1 6 ) 2 5 0 ( 5 (/ ( & 7 5 , & $ / 03 2 ( 7 & 2 0 %, . ( 3 $ 5 . , 1 * 5( 1 7 $ % / ( 5( 6 , ' ( 1 7 67 2 5 $ * ( *$ 5 $ * ( / ( 9 ( / % *$ 5 $ * ( / ( 9 ( / % 6$ / 2 1 /, % 5 $ 5 < :( / / 1 ( 6 6 &2 1 6 8 / 7 &, 5 & / ( 2 ) )5 , ( 1 ' 6 &, 5 & / ( 2 ) )5 , ( 1 ' 6 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( 7< 3 ( % & 2 1 & 5 ( 7 ( &2 9 ( 5 ( ' $5 & $ ' ( *$ 5 $ * ( / ( 9 ( / % *$ 5 $ * ( / ( 9 ( / % &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / %8 , / ' , 1 * 6 ( & 7 , 2 1 ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 12 5 7 + 6 2 8 7 + 6 ( & 7 , 2 1 / 2 2 . , 1 * ( $ 6 7 ($ 6 7 : ( 6 7 6 ( & 7 , 2 1 / 2 2 . , 1 * 6 2 8 7 + 12 5 7 + 6 2 8 7 + 6 ( & 7 , 2 1 / 2 2 . , 1 * ( $ 6 7 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / (; 7 ( 5 , 2 5 9 , ( : 6 ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( ' $ ( 5 , $ / 1 : & 2 5 1 ( 5 &2 3 < 5 , * + 7 + . , 7 $ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 6 %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( 2 ) 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / (; 7 ( 5 , 2 5 9 , ( : 6 ) 2 8 5 7 + 6 7 6 $ 1 5 $ ) $ ( / & $ %( / 0 2 1 7 9 , / / $ * ( ' $ ( 5 , $ / 6 ( & 2 5 1 ( 5 Appendix B ITE 253 Congregate Care Facility and 254 Assisted Living Land Use: 253 Congregate Care Facility Description A congregate care facility is an independent living development that provides centralized amenities such as dining, housekeeping, communal transportation, and organized social/ recreational activities. Each individual dwelling unit often has a kitchenette. Assistance is typically available for housekeeping or minor household maintenance. Limited medical services (such as nursing and dental) may or may not be provided. The resident may contract additional medical services or personal assistance. Senior adult housing—single-family (Land Use 251), senior adult housing—multifamily (Land Use 252), assisted living (Land Use 254), and continuing care retirement community (Land Use 255) are related uses. Additional Data Resident vehicle ownership levels are very low at a congregate care facility. The majority of site- generated trips are made by facility employees, contracted services, and visitors. The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Alberta (CAN), Minnesota, Ontario (CAN), and Oregon. Source Numbers 155, 584, 910, 970, 1049 426 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 3 Congregate Care Facility (253) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 4 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 180 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.21 1.63 - 2.44 0.31 Data Plot and Equation 0 100 200 300 0 200 400 600 800 Average RateStudy Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 2.33(X) - 22.53 R²= 0.96 X = Number of Dwelling Units T = T r i p s E n d s 427General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000–399) Congregate Care Facility (253) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 8 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 140 Directional Distribution: 58% entering, 42% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.08 0.05 - 0.16 0.03 Data Plot and Equation 0 100 200 300 0 10 20 30 Average RateStudy Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.08(X) + 1.11 R²= 0.58 X = Number of Dwelling Units T = T r i p s E n d s 428 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 3 Congregate Care Facility (253) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 9 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 136 Directional Distribution: 49% entering, 51% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.18 0.08 - 0.30 0.05 Data Plot and Equation 0 100 200 300 0 10 20 30 40 50 Average RateStudy Site Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.16(X) + 2.67 R²= 0.84 X = Number of Dwelling Units T = T r i p s E n d s 429General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000–399) 435 Land Use: 254 Assisted Living Description )..$./ '$1$)"*(+' 3$.- .$ )/$'. //$)"/#/+-*1$ . $/# --*0/$) " ) -'+-*/ /$1 oversight or assistance with activities necessary for independent living to persons with mental or +#4.$''$($//$*).\# /4+$'- .$ )/#.$!Q0'/4()"$)"$))$) + ) )/'$1$)"--)" ( )/ but does not require nursing home care. Its centralized services typically include dining, housekeeping, social and physical activities, medication administration, and communal transportation. # *(+' 3*((*)'4+-*1$ .. +-/ '$1$)",0-/ -.!*- #- .$ )/\'5# $( -i.) care are commonly offered at an assisted living facility. Living quarters for these patients may be located separately from the other residents. Assisted care commonly bridges the gap between independent living and a nursing home. In some areas of the country, an assisted living residence may be called personal care, residential care, or domiciliary care. Staff may be available at an assisted care facility 24 hours a day, but skilled medical care—which is limited in nature—is not required. Congregate care facility (Land Use 253), continuing care retirement community (Land Use 255), and nursing home (Land Use 620) are related uses. Additional Data The technical appendices provide supporting information on time-of-day distributions for this land use. The appendices can be accessed through either the ITETripGen web app or the trip generation resource page on the ITE website (https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip- and-parking-generation/). The sites were surveyed in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s in Connecticut, New -. 4[ 2*-&[- "*)[ )).4'1)$[ )) .. [ 3.[)/#\ Source Numbers 244, 573, 581, 611, 725, 876, 877, 912, 1016, 1029 General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000–399) Assisted Living (254) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 2 Avg. Num. of Beds: 135 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.60 1.86 - 4.14 *** Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size 0 100 200 0 100 200 300 400 Average RateStudy Site Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= *** X = Number of Beds T = T r i p s E n d s 436 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 3 Assisted Living (254) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 14 Avg. Num. of Beds: 106 Directional Distribution: 60% entering, 40% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.18 0.08 - 0.29 0.08 Data Plot and Equation 0 100 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 Average RateStudy Site Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= *** X = Number of Beds T = T r i p s E n d s 437General Urban/Suburban and Rural (Land Uses 000–399) Assisted Living (254) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 14 Avg. Num. of Beds: 106 Directional Distribution: 39% entering, 61% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.24 0.11 - 0.34 0.07 Data Plot and Equation 0 100 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 Average RateStudy Site Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R²= *** X = Number of Beds T = T r i p s E n d s 438 Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition • Volume 3 City of San Rafael Local Traffic Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartments Project Draft Project Report December 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................ 3 STUDY APPROACH ................................................................................................................................. 3 PROJECT STUDY SCENARIOS ................................................................................................................... 4 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 5 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ............................................................................... 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 7 EXISTING STREET NETWORK ................................................................................................................... 7 STUDY INTERSECTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 7 BIKE FACILITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 8 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .......................................................................................................................... 8 TRANSIT FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................ 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 11 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION .................................................................. 13 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ....................................... 15 SITE CIRCULATION AND OTHER ISSUES ................................................................................ 17 SITE ACCESS ....................................................................................................................................... 17 SIGHT DISTANCE .................................................................................................................................. 17 ON-SITE CIRCULATION ......................................................................................................................... 17 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE & TRANSIT FACILITIES ........................................................................................... 17 ROADWAY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................... 18 PARKING ............................................................................................................................................. 19 INTERSECTION QUEUEING ..................................................................................................................... 19 VMT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 21 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 23 Tables TABLE 1: LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS BASED ON INTERSECTION DELAY ................................................... 10 TABLE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS AND DELAY ....................................................................................... 11 TABLE 3: TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 4: TRIP REDUCTION AND NET TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................... 13 TABLE 5: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS LOS AND DELAY .................................................................. 15 TABLE 6: PARKING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 19 TABLE 7: 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE LENGTH (FT) ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 20 Figures FIGURE 1: PROJECT SITE PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: PROJECT STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 3 FIGURE 3: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES ........................................................................................................ 8 FIGURE 4: EXISTING TRANSIT NETWORK ....................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 5: EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES, LANE GEOMETRY AND CONTROLS ............................................... 12 FIGURE 6: PROJECT ONLY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES, LANE GEOMETRY, CONTROLS, AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........ 14 FIGURE 7: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES, LANE GEOMETRY, AND CONTROLS ......................... 16 Appendices APPENDIX A | PROJECT SITE PLAN APPENDIX B | TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS APPENDIX C | EXISTING CONDITIONS SYNCHRO REPORTS APPENDIX D | EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS SYNCHRO REPORTS APPENDIX E | 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE LENGTH SYNCHRO REPORTS Redefining Mobility. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Local Traffic Analysis (LTA) is to evaluate potential transportation impacts associated with the proposed mixed-use development project located on 4th Street between E Street and Shaver Street in San Rafael, California. The proposed mixed-use development project consists of 162 dwelling units and approximately 9,000 square feet of retail. Results AMG determined that the project will have no significant impacts under existing plus project conditions. Based on the results of the analysis, the following is a summary of our findings: Existing Traffic Condition: •All the intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Existing Plus Project Traffic Condition: •The project will generate 60 trips during the AM peak hour and 61 trips PM peak hour. •All the intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Project Site Access and Circulation Assessment: •Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are adequate to serve the project site. •Site access to the project site is adequate. •Site Circulation within the project site is adequate. •Parking spaces provided at the project site are adequate. •The existing lane geometry and turn lane of study intersections is adequate and will not result in spillover of traffic queues due to the addition of the project. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 2 INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum presents the Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) for the proposed mixed- use development, 1515 Fourth Street Apartments project. The project site is located on 4th Street between Shaver Street and E Street in the City of San Rafael as shown in Figure 1. The proposed project will be a new construction of a 7-story mixed use housing development that will consist of 162 multifamily residential units, courtyard with a pool, workout area, approximately 9,000 square feet of commercial area, and gallery space. The new project includes 179 on-site parking spaces and 205 bicycle parking spaces. Appendix A shows the project site plan. The purpose of a Local Transportation Analysis is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of a proposed project and assess if any improvements would be required to mitigate these impacts based on the level of significance criteria established by the City of San Rafael. Vehicular traffic impacts are typically evaluated by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use is expected to generate and distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project. The existing street system is then evaluated using the new traffic to assess the impact of the proposed project. Additionally, parking requirements, sight evaluation, site circulation, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access are also qualitatively evaluated. Figure 1: Project Site Plan Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 3 Project Study Area This study evaluates the following 2 intersections as shown in Figure 2: 1. 4 th Street and E street (Signalized Intersection) 2.4th Street and Shaver Street (Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection) Figure 2: Project Study Area Study Approach The following are key steps of the study approach: •Conduct traffic counts to establish baseline traffic conditions •Conduct trip generation and distribution of project trips •Determine the traffic conditions for the following scenarios: Existing Traffic Condition Existing Plus Project Traffic Condition •Determine the impact of project trips based on established Significance Criteria •Determine the impact of proposed project driveways Legend: Study Intersections Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 4 Project Study Scenarios This study evaluates the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions for the following scenarios: 1.Existing Conditions: The existing conditions scenario evaluates weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with existing lane geometry, traffic control and traffic volumes. 2.Existing plus Project Conditions: The existing plus project conditions scenario adds proposed project trips to the existing conditions traffic models and evaluates the impact of the proposed project at the project intersection and study segments. This scenario recommends mitigation measures, based on the City of San Rafael TA guidelines, to mitigate any significant impacts that may occur due to the proposed project. Data Collection AMG collected the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement counts (TMC) on November 3, 2022, for the two study intersections. Counts were collected during the typical weekday AM peak hour, occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and PM peak hour, occurring between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. These counts are shown in Appendix B. Field Review AMG conducted a field visit to observe any potential issues with queuing or traffic operations under the existing conditions. At the time of site visit, no pedestrians or bicyclists were observed at the intersection. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 5 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Significance Criteria for the City of San Rafael The City of San Rafael has established criteria to determine the level of significance of traffic impacts based on standards set in the San Rafael General Plan 2040, the Downtown Precise Plan, and the Draft 2021 Congestion Management Program Update, by the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). Based on these planning documents, a traffic impact is considered significant if the project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. The following policies/goals are applicable to the proposed project: Policy M-2.5: Traffic Level of Service Maintain traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards that ensure an efficient roadway network and provide a consistent basis for evaluating the transportation effects of proposed development projects on local roadways. For most intersections, the citywide LOS Standard from the San Rafael General Plan 2040 is LOS D. For the study intersections, LOS D or better is the threshold. For this analysis, significant impacts to an intersection are: • If baseline traffic volumes are operating at an acceptable LOS and it deteriorates to an unacceptable operation with the addition of project traffic. However, Point C from Policy M-2.5 in the San Rafael General Plan 2040, states that intersections within the boundaries of the Downtown Precise Plan are not subject to LOS Standards, if proactive measures are taken to address and manage congestion, and functionality of these intersections are insured. Both study intersections are within these boundaries, but LOS Analysis will be completed to quantify congestion caused by the proposed project. Goal M-3: Cleaner Transportation Reduce transportation impacts on the environment by supporting higher vehicle efficiency standards and reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by San Rafael workers and residents. Special exemptions for VMT Analysis are provided for mixed use and infill developments in downtown San Rafael. Since this project meets the description above, it is exempt from VMT Analysis per Program M-3.2A in the San Rafael General Plan 20401. Goal M-4: High Quality, Affordable Public Transit Offer a safe, convenient, and affordable transit system that will become a competitive alternative to driving. For this analysis, significant transit impacts would be: • If demand is significantly increased and existing standards are not maintained • If access to public transit facilities is reduced Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 6 Goal M-6: Safe Walking and Cycling Encourage walking and cycling as the travel mode of choice for short trips, prioritize pedestrian and bicycle safety, and provide greater access to pedestrian and cycling amenities. For this analysis, significant cycling/walking impacts would be: • If safety and quality of service of existing pedestrian/cycling facilities are reduced • If access to pedestrian/cycling facilities are reduced The analysis conducted in the following sections of the report show that there is no significant impact to the study intersection with the proposed project based on the City of San Rafael’s thresholds of significance criteria. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Street Network 4th Street is a two-lane east-west minor arterial roadway serving downtown San Rafael. It extends from Union Street to 2nd Street where both streets merge. It is adjacent to the project site and serves as a major transit route in San Rafael and Marin County. 4th Street has Class III bike facilities and on-street parking in both directions. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. The speed limit is 30 mph. E Street is a two-lane north-south minor arterial roadway that is east of the project site. Sidewalks and on-street parking are available on both sides of Shaver Street. The speed limit is 30 mph. Shaver Street is a north-south two-lane local street that provides access to the proposed project parking lot with two driveways adjacent to it. Sidewalks and on-street parking are available on both sides of Shaver Street. The speed limit is 25 mph. Study Intersections The intersection of 4th Street and E Street is a signalized intersection with four approaches. The intersection is currently operating with two-phase signal control and left turns are permitted. The intersection of 4th Stret and Shaver Street is an unsignalized intersection with three approaches. Both legs on 4th street are free, while the leg on Shaver Street is stop-controlled. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 8 Bike Facilities Bicycle facilities are classified by Caltrans into four distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally described below: • Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a separate right-of-way and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian crossflow minimized. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Provides a restricted right-of-way and is designated for the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian crossflow are permitted. • Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Provides for a right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles. • Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway/Cycle Track). Provides a cycle track or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. Class III facilities with sharrow markings are available on 4th Street near the proposed project as seen in Figure 3. Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the project area include sidewalks, crosswalks, and ADA curb ramps. Sidewalks along the study roadways vary in width from 5 to 12 feet, meeting the minimum city standards for sidewalks and wider through zone areas (4th Street). 4th Street/E Street has crosswalks and ADA curb ramps at every intersection leg. 4th Street/Shaver Street has a crosswalk and ADA curb ramps on the west leg of the intersection. A ladder crosswalk, curb extension, and ADA curb ramps are available on the south leg of the intersection. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 9 Transit Facilities Transit Service within the study area is provided by Marin Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART). The project site is located near the intersection of 4th Street and E Street which includes bus stops for Marin Transit (Lines 22,23 and 68), and Golden Gate Transit (Line 132). The downtown San Rafael SMART transit station is approximately 0.60 miles from the proposed project and connects multiple cities in Marin County to cities in Sonoma County. The existing transit network is shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: Existing Transit Network Level of Service (LOS) Methodology This study uses two different methods to determine LOS. For the signalized intersection, the percentile method was used. For the unsignalized intersection, the LOS criteria established in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition published and updated by the Transportation Research Board for unsignalized intersections. The HCM 6th Edition methodology in Synchro 11 does not provide delay or LOS when signal timing includes non-standard ring-barrier structures (NEMA phasing). Therefore, the percentile delay method was used for analysis. The percentile delay method is based on HCM 2000 methodology that Synchro uses for optimization. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) assigns intersection level of service (LOS) based on average control delay. Signalized intersection LOS is defined in terms of weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be reduced into three intersection types: all-way stop control, two-way stop control, and roundabout control. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 10 All-way stop control intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Two-way stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well as critical major-street left-turns. Roundabout control LOS is expressed using both average control delay for the intersection as well as LOS for the worst performing lane. Table 1 provides the relationship between LOS rating and delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections based on the San Rafael General Plan 2040 thresholds. Table 1: Level of Service Thresholds Based on Intersection Delay Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay (sec) Unsignalized Intersection Delay (sec) A 0 ≤ D ≤ 10 0 ≤ D ≤ 10 B 10 < D ≤ 20 10 < D ≤ 15 C 20 < D ≤ 35 15 < D ≤ 25 D 35 < D ≤ 55 25 < D ≤ 35 E 55 < D ≤ 80 35 < D ≤ 50 F 80 < D 50 < D Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 11 Existing Conditions Analysis AMG developed existing conditions traffic simulation models using Synchro 11 software using existing lane configuration, traffic signal timings and traffic volumes. Existing conditions level of service (LOS) and delay were evaluated for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The results of the LOS and delay analysis conducted for the existing conditions scenario are summarized in Table 2. Appendix C contains the existing conditions Synchro analysis reports. Table 2: Existing Conditions LOS and Delay # Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing Conditions Average Delay (sec) LOS 1 4th Street & E Street Signal AM 15.0 B PM 16.8 B 2 4th Street & Shaver Street1 One Way Stop AM 1.2 / (24.9) A / (C) PM 1.2 / (16.3) A / (C) Notes: 1. First number shown is the intersection delay, number inside the () is the highest delay movement Based on the results of the existing conditions analysis, both study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. XX (XX) 35 ( 39 ) 67 ( 83 ) 13 ( 18 ) 10 (25) 238 (315) 59 (34) 15 (23) 327 (248) 12 (28) 83 ( 85 ) 84 ( 99 ) 10 ( 52 ) 432 (357) 8 (14) 17 (13 ) 8 ( 22 ) 5 City of San Rafael - Local Traffic Analysis for 1515 4th Street Mixed Use Development Project Existing Peak Hour Volumes, Lane Geometry and Controls Figure Intersection #1 4th Street/E Street Intersection #2 4th Street/Shaver Street ADVANCEDMOBILITYGROUP 1 Legend Study Intersection Traffic Signal Stop Sign AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume Project Site 2 1 306 (362) 9 (10) Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 13 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip Generation is defined as the number of “vehicle trips” produced by a particular land use or project. A trip is defined as a one-direction vehicle movement. The total number of trips generated by each land use includes the inbound and outbound trips. The trip generation estimates for the proposed land uses (Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) & Variety Store) were calculated using the standard reference, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The estimated potential trip generation of the proposed project is shown in Table 3. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 60 and 71 trips during the AM and PM peak hours respectively. Table 3: Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Size1 2 Daily Weekday A.M. Weekday P.M. Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Apartments ITE 221 162 DU 2.93 475 0.28 7 39 46 0.26 31 12 43 Commercial Variety Store ITE 814 9 KSF 37.27 333 1.47 8 16 14 3.1 14 14 28 Total - 807 - 15 45 60 - 45 26 71 Notes: 1. DU = Dwelling Units 2. KSF = 1000 Square Feet The San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines state that projects within the downtown area and projects of mixed-use development are allowed to trip rate reductions as internal trips. The proposed project will be a mixed-use development and is within the downtown area, so it will allow for internally- captured trips. Internal trip reductions were calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The estimated trip reduction and net project vehicle trip generation are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Trip Reduction and Net Trip Generation AM Trips PM Trips In Out Total In Out Total Gross Project Trip Generation 15 45 60 45 26 71 Internal Trip Reduction 0 0 0 5 5 10 Net Project Trip Generation 15 45 60 40 21 61 Percent Reduction 0% 0% 0% 11% 19% 14% Figure 6 illustrates the project trips for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and the trip distribution through the study intersection based on existing peak hour turning movement counts. XX (XX) 4 ( 2) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 4 (2) 29 (12) 7 (3) 0 (0) 10 (26) 0 (0) 2 ( 6) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 (0) 14 (36) 5(2) 40 ( 19 ) 6 City of San Rafael - Local Traffic Analysis for 1515 4th Street Mixed Use Development Project Project Only Peak Hour Volumes, Lane Geometry, Controls and Trip Distribution Figure Intersection #1 4th Street/E Street Intersection #2 4th Street/Shaver Street ADVANCEDMOBILITYGROUP 1 Legend Study Intersection Traffic Signal Stop Sign AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume Trip Distribution Project Site 2 1 0 (0) 1 (4) 65% 10% 15% 10% Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 15 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT As aforementioned, existing plus project conditions scenario adds proposed project trips to the existing conditions traffic models and evaluates the impact of the proposed project at the project intersection and study segments. Figure 7 illustrates the existing plus project turning movement counts, lane geometry & traffic controls. The results of the LOS and delay analysis conducted for existing plus project conditions scenario are summarized in Table 5. Appendix D contains the existing plus project conditions Synchro analysis reports. Table 5: Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS and Delay # Intersection Peak Hour Existing Conditions Existing Plus Proposed Conditions Average Delay (sec) LOS Average Delay (sec) LOS 1 4th Street & E Street AM 15.0 B 15.0 B PM 16.8 B 17.4 B 2 4th Street & Shaver Street1 AM 1.2 / (24.9) A / (C) 3.0 / (26.1) A / (D) PM 1.2 / (16.3) A / (C) 2.2 / (18.3) A / (C) Notes: 1. First number shown is the intersection delay, number inside the () is the highest delay movement The results of the existing plus project conditions analysis show that there is no significant impact with the addition of the project trips, both intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better. There is a slight increase in delay during both AM and PM peak hours at intersection 2, but the intersection overall will continue to operate at LOS A. There is also a slight increase in delay at the worst intersection approach delay during both AM and PM peak hours, but it will still operate at LOS D and better. XX (XX) 37 ( 43 ) 67 ( 83 ) 13 ( 18 ) 14 (27) 267 (327) 66 (37) 15 (23) 337 (274) 12 (28) 85 ( 91 ) 84 ( 99 ) 10 ( 52 ) 432 (357) 22 (50) 22 (15) 48 ( 41 ) 7 City of San Rafael - Local Traffic Analysis for 1515 4th Street Mixed Use Development Project Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes, Lane Geometry and Controls Figure Intersection #1 4th Street/E Street Intersection #2 4th Street/Shaver Street ADVANCEDMOBILITYGROUP 1 Legend Study Intersection Traffic Signal Stop Sign AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume Project Site 2 1 306 (362) 10 (14) Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 17 SITE CIRCULATION AND OTHER ISSUES Site Access The project site would be located along 4th Street between E Street and Shaver Street. Vehicle access to the apartments will be provided by two driveways along Shaver Street. This approach would be the only access point to on-site parking and is expected to be adequate. Pedestrian access to the project will be provided through multiple entrances along 4th Street and E Street. Sight Distance AMG conducted stopping sight distance analysis in the field to ensure that there is sufficient distance for a driver to effectively apply the brakes and stop the vehicle without colliding with a vehicle/obstruction on the road. At driveways, a clear line of sight should be provided between the vehicle waiting at the driveway and the approaching vehicle. The vehicle waiting to either cross, turn left, or turn right, through the driveway should have sufficient time to make that maneuver without requiring the through traffic to drastically alter their speed. Based on AMG’s field observations and The Highway Design Manual, July 1, 2020, Chapter 200 - Geometric Design & Structure Standards, Table 201.1 Sight Distance Standards, which recommends a stopping sight distance of 150 feet for a design speed of 25 mph, the sight distance for the west leg of the intersection on Shaver Street is adequate. Based on City of San Rafael’s Municipal Code, Article 14.16.295 - Sight Distance, the required “vision triangle” at driveways is fifteen feet from the curb return. Any improvements or vegetation within that established vision triangle shall be less than 3 feet from the street pavement. Sight Distance for the driveways at Shaver Street should also be adequate, given that landscaping on Shaver Street is maintained at the dimensions mentioned above. On-Site Circulation AMG assessed the on-site circulation at the project site based on the site plan provided by the client. The proposed project will have two driveways, that will allow entrance, parking, and exit of vehicles with a 30’ parking buffer. Both driveways access Shaver Street, that may cause congestion in the case of an emergency. Pedestrian entrances are provided on 4th Street and E Street, and 2 pedestrian emergency exits are provided in the basement. On-Site circulation is expected to be adequate, given that a parking management plan be provided by the project sponsor for tandem parking. Pedestrian, Bicycle & Transit Facilities The proposed project will seem to attract 10 PM peak hour non-vehicular trips as shown in Table 4. These trips will cause no reduction in quality of service on existing facilities and will not reduce safety or access to pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. Therefore, the proposed project impacts on these facilities have no substantial effect. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 18 Pedestrian Access: Sidewalks are provided along Shaver Street, 4th Street, and E Street in the vicinity of the project site. The width of the sidewalk ranges from 6 feet to 8 feet. Crosswalks mentioned in the Existing Conditions at the study intersections would also provide pedestrian access to the project site from other cross- streets. Currently, two driveways are located on 4th Street and one driveway on E Street. The proposed project will move these driveways to Shaver Street. Pedestrians would have increased safety on these two roadways. Based on AMG’s observations pedestrian access to the site is adequate. Bicycle Access There are Class III Bike facilities on 4th Street near the project site. These facilities include sharrow markings on the pavement and wayfinding signs to alert drivers that the roadway is shared with cyclists. The project will also provide bicycle parking with bike racks for eight bicycles on the sidewalk along 4th street. Currently, cyclists on the Class III facilities on 4th Street have the threat of vehicles coming in and out of two driveways on 4th Street. The proposed project will move these driveways to Shaver Street, increasing safety for cyclists on 4th Street. Based on these observations, bicycle access to the project site is adequate. Transit Facilities There are two transit stops in the vicinity of the project site. One bus stop is on 4th Street west of the intersection with E Street. Pedestrians and cyclists can access this bus stop by using the crosswalk located at the west leg of the 4th Street/E Street intersection. Another stop is directly across the project site on the north side of 4th Street. Pedestrians and cyclists can access this bus stop by using the crosswalk located at the north leg of the 4th Street/E Street intersection. Hence, transit access to the project site is adequate. Roadway Assessment Shaver Street is a 30-foot-wide local roadway that currently has on-street parking on both sides. The proposed project will remove on-street parking adjacent to the project on Shaver Street. Removing on- street parking on Shaver Street will increase roadway width from about 18 feet currently to about 22 feet wide (not including on-street parking), providing a safer roadway width for vehicles. Hence, the proposed roadway width for Shaver Street is adequate. As mentioned above, the current sidewalk width on Shaver Street is 6 feet to 7 feet. The proposed project sidewalk will 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 will be provided for additional safety of pedestrians. Hence, the proposed sidewalk for Shaver Street is adequate. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 19 Parking The proposed project provides 179 parking spaces including four handicap parking spaces within the basement parking of the project site. There will be 205 bike parking spaces provided on bike racks located within the basement parking of the project site. Table 6 summarizes the parking requirements for the proposed project based on City of San Rafael’s Downtown Precise Plan for buildings in the T4MS 50/70 Zone. Table 6: Parking Requirements Land Use Size Parking Demand Minimum Parking Spaces Required 1 Bedroom Unit 115 units 0.5 57.5 2 Bedroom Unit 43 units 1 43 Total 102.5 Based on the parking analysis conducted, the proposed project provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces per the City of San Rafael’s parking requirements. The proposed project will remove on-street parking adjacent to the project, and place 6 on-street parking spaces along 4th & E Street. There will be no net loss or net gain of on-street parking due to the proposed project. Intersection Queueing AMG evaluated 95th percentile queues in length for the site access study intersection to assess if the existing storage capacity is adequate with the proposed project demands. The 95th percentile queue was calculated using HCM 2000 methodology. Additionally, AMG reviewed the 95th percentile queue lengths at the northbound approach to ensure that the northbound approach queues do not extend past the first project driveway under existing plus project conditions. Table 7 summarizes the existing and existing plus project conditions queue lengths at the study intersection. Appendix E contains the Synchro 95th percentile queue length reports. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 20 Table 7: 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Analysis # Intersection Movements Existing Storage Length (ft) Existing Plus Proposed Project Storage Length (ft) Existing Conditions Existing Plus Proposed Project Conditions AM PM AM PM 2 4th Street & Shaver Street EBTR 0* 0 - - - - WBTL 0* 0 1 1 4 5 NBLR 0* 45** 12 9 31 16 Note: EBTR=Eastbound shared through and right-turn; WBTL=Westbound shared through and left-turn; NBLR=Northbound shared right-turn and left-turn; *Assumed based on existing Google Earth imagery. **Storage for NBL & NBR movement is measured from the intersection to the first project driveway Based on the 95th percentile queue length analysis, the existing storage capacity for the eastbound approach, northbound left-turn and southbound right-turn movements is adequate to accommodate the proposed project trips. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 21 VMT ANALYSIS In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743, which both streamlined review for transit-oriented infill projects and directed the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new practices and metrics to evaluate transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, SB 743 requires that Level of Service (LOS) metrics be replaced by VMT metrics for purposes of CEQA analysis. While SB 743 did not eliminate the ability of local agencies to continue using LOS as a planning metric in General Plans, it reflected a shift in perspective to more sustainable transportation planning that relies on metrics like VMT, which avoid discouraging infill development, and can help make non-automotive transportation faster, safer, and more reliable. The new guidelines require the use of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the metric for evaluating the significant traffic impacts to promote greenhouse gas emissions reductions, multimodal transportation networks and diverse land uses. Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg 2013) adds Public Resources Code Section 21099 to CEQA and changes the way that transportation impacts are analyzed to better align local environmental review with statewide objectives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill mixed-use development in designated priority development areas, reduce regional sprawl development, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California. The City of San Rafael has adopted VMT methodology for application within the city . The methodology has five screening criteria to determine if a project can be exempted from the VMT analysis. 1. Transit Priority Area (TPA): Projects located within ½ mile walkshed around major transit stops in San Rafael. The proposed project is not within ½ mile walkshed of a major transit stop. However, it does border the Downtown San Rafael TPA. 2. Affordable Housing: 100% restricted affordable residential projects in infill locations. The project is located within an infill location. 3. Small Projects: Small projects can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact. Small projects are defined as generating 110 or fewer average daily vehicle trips. The proposed project generates more than 110 daily vehicle trips. 4. Local Serving Public Facilities. Projects that consist of Local Serving Public Facilities that encompass government, civic, cultural, health, and infrastructure uses and activity which contribute to and support community needs. The proposed project is not a local serving public facility. 5. Neighborhood-Serving Retail Project. Neighborhood-serving retail projects that are less than 50,000 square feet, which serve the immediate neighborhoods. The proposed project’s retail has not been defined as a neighborhood-serving retail project. 6. Residential and Office Projects Located in Low VMT Areas. Residential and employment- generating projects located within a low VMT-generating area can be presumed to have a less- than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The proposed project is a residential generating project. Based on the information provided by the TAM model, the project is in a low VMT area per residents. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 22 Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. According to Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is generally the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, except for projects consisting of the addition of travel lanes to roadways. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project, regardless of the type of vehicle or number of occupants in a vehicle. Section 15064.3(b) establishes metrics and thresholds by which VMT can be evaluated for land use projects and transportation projects. The proposed project is a mixed-use development in a downtown location that will increase non- vehicular trips and is expected to lower emissions and VMT within the project area. Based on evaluation performed for the San Rafael General Plan 2040, housing projects in Downtown San Rafael will be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. Hence, this proposed project will not contain a detailed VMT. The project passes two of the criteria shown above, so it will not include VMT analysis. Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 23 CONCLUSIONS •The proposed project would generate approximately 807 daily trips, including 60 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 61 new trips during the p.m. peak hour. •Both study intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing conditions during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Under existing plus project scenario, the intersection is expected to operate with acceptable LOD D during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hours. The increases in delay under the existing plus project scenario are less than five seconds. Based on the thresholds of significance criteria adopted by the City of San Rafael, this increase in delay is not considered a substantial deficiency. •Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are adequate to serve the project site. •Site access to the project site is adequate. •Site Circulation within the project site is adequate. •Parking spaces provided at the project site are adequate. •The existing storage capacity for the project access street, and the shared northbound left and northbound right-turn out of the project site is adequate and will not result in spillover of traffic queues due to the addition of the project. APPENDIX A | Project Site Plan 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T POOL LOCATION & DIMENSIONS TBD CLUB ROOM +49.5'+51.75' +49.5' +49.5' RECEPTION OFFICE CONF RETAIL 1,230 SF RETAIL 3,760 SF STORAGE (9 @3'X5') PRIVATE PATIO PRIVATE PATIO PRIVATE PATIO PRIVATE PATIO GALLERY SPACE CIVIC AREA 1,630 SF CLUB ROOM MAIL ROOM PACKAGE ROOM +49.5' RETAIL 1,470 SF RETAIL 1,190 SF +50.75'+50.25' RETAIL 1,275 SF JAN 2 A3.2 1 A4.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A4.1 3 A4.1 WC WC COURTYARD STAIR B STAIR A STORAGE PRIVATE PATIOPRIVATE PATIO SLOPE DOWN +42.5' +30' +51.75' +48.19' +49.25' +45.4' +45.5' +46.65' +50'810 SF 1A 102 850 SF 1B 103 810 SF 1A 105 850 SF 1B 104 795 SF 1A 115 1,235 SF 2A 114 810 SF 1A 113 1,345 SF 2B 112 1,345 SF 2B 111 EXPANDED SIDEWALK CIVIC AREA 330 SF 38 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 3 " 11 ' - 0 " 62 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 35 ' - 9 " 11'-0"38'-5"11'-0"51'-6"11'-0"73'-6"11'-0"51'-6"38'-5" 33 ' - 9 " 11 ' - 0 " 35 ' - 9 " 10 ' - 4 " 5'-6"35'-0"35'-0"71'-5" 93 ' - 8 " 15 ' - 1 " PLAN AT GROUND LEVEL A2.1 1 - PLAN AT GROUND LEVEL - San Rafael, CA 1515 FOURTH STREET ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS. 2212JOB: SHEET: 2421 Fourth Street Berkeley, California 94710 510.649.1414 www.TrachtenbergArch.com TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS 10.10.2022 SB35 APPLICATION PLANS 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E TRASH MEP / MAINT 3 C Y BI N 3 C Y BI N 3 C Y BI N 3 C Y BI N 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E EXIT 1 EXIT 2 UNEXCAVATED AREA MEP / MAINT +30' +30' +30' 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E STAIR A 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE PARKING 80 SPACES (75 STANDARD + 5 TANDEM) 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T UNEXCAVATED AREA2 A3.2 1 A4.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A4.1 3 A4.1 +42.5' +30' +51.75' +48.19' +49.25' +45.4' +45.5' +46.65' +50' 22 ' - 0 " 87 ' - 9 " 24 ' - 0 " PLAN AT LEVEL P2 A2.0A 1 - PLAN AT SUBTERRANEAN BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL P2 - San Rafael, CA 1515 FOURTH STREET ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS. 2212JOB: SHEET: 2421 Fourth Street Berkeley, California 94710 510.649.1414 www.TrachtenbergArch.com TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS 10.10.2022 SB35 APPLICATION PLANS GENERAL NOTES: 1.IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY RENOVATED PARKING FACILITIES OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) OR MORE SPACES ELECTRICAL CONDUIT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING SUITABLE WIRING FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL AND AN AREA OF CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING SPACES AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. THE CONDUIT SHALL BE CAPPED AND LABELED FOR POTENTIALFUTURE USE. 4TH STREET SH A V E R S T R E E T E S T R E E T 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE BIKE ROOM (116 SPACES) POOL ABOVE 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E EXIT 2 EXIT 1 ELEC. / MEP 8' x 16' w/ 26' AISLE COMPACT 8' x 16' w/ 26' AISLE COMPACT 8' x 16' w/ 26' AISLE COMPACT UNEXCAVATED AREA MEP MEP / MAINT +39.5' +39.5' 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8' 6 " x 1 8 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8' x 1 6 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E CO M P A C T 8' x 1 6 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E CO M P A C T 8' x 1 6 ' w/ 2 6 ' AI S L E CO M P A C T 2 A3.2 1 A4.1 2 A3.1 1 A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A4.1 3 A4.1 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE 8'6" x 18' w/ 26' AISLE PARKING 99 SPACES (87 STANDARD + 12 TANDEM) STAIR B STAIR A +42.5' +30' +51.75' +48.19' +49.25' +45.4' +45.5' +46.65' +50' CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE 22 ' - 0 " 87 ' - 9 " 24 ' - 0 " PLAN AT LEVEL P1 A2.0B 1 - PLAN AT SUBTERRANEAN BASEMENT PARKING LEVEL P1 - San Rafael, CA 1515 FOURTH STREET ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS. 2212JOB: SHEET: 2421 Fourth Street Berkeley, California 94710 510.649.1414 www.TrachtenbergArch.com TRACHTENBERG ARCHITECTS 10.10.2022 SB35 APPLICATION PLANS GENERAL NOTES: 1.IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY RENOVATED PARKING FACILITIES OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) OR MORE SPACES ELECTRICAL CONDUIT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING SUITABLE WIRING FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL AND AN AREA OF CLEAN AIR VEHICLE PARKING SPACES AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. THE CONDUIT SHALL BE CAPPED AND LABELED FOR POTENTIALFUTURE USE. APPENDIX B | Traffic Volume Counts Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:22-080329-001 Day: City:San Rafael Date: AM 35 67 13 0 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 39 83 18 0 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0000 0 23015 0 248 0 327 000 0028012 10025 0 TEV 953 0 1051 0 200 238 0 315 0 PHF 0.82 0.95 59034 0 0000 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 0 859952 PM NOON 0000NOON AM 0 838410 AM 0 NONE 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 147 E St & 4th St Peak Hour Turning Movement Count E St Thursday SOUTHBOUND 11/3/2022 4:00 PM - 06:00 PMPE A K H O U R S 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 109 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM CO U N T P E R I O D S NONE 387 0 261 Totals (AM)145 Total Bikes (AM) 4t h S t EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D 4t h S t 445 0 372 CONTROL Signalized Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM) 0 138 NORTHBOUND E St Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON) NOONAM PM PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON NO O N PM AM NO O N AM PM NO O N AM PMNO O N PM AM 120 1 80 2 18 0 14 240 2 150 4 190 2 80 15300 4 0 14 10 9 1 0 1 0 101 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 5 00 3 0 1 0 0 010 23 248 2834 315 25 39 83 18 529985 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 15 327 1259 238 10 35 67 13 108483 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:22-080329-002 Day: City:San Rafael Date: AM 0000 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 0000 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0000 0 000 0 357 0 432 000 0014 0 8 000 0 TEV 780 0 779 0 100 306 0 362 0 PHF 0.85 0.94 9010 0 0000 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 013022PM NOON 0000NOON AM 0170 8 AM 0 NONE 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 0 Shaver St & 4th St Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Shaver St Thursday SOUTHBOUND 11/3/2022 4:00 PM - 06:00 PMPE A K H O U R S 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM CO U N T P E R I O D S NONE 385 0 314 Totals (AM)24 Total Bikes (AM) 4t h S t EA S T B O U N D WE S T B O U N D 4t h S t 449 0 370 CONTROL 1-Way Stop(NB) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM) 0 17 NORTHBOUND Shaver St Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON) NOONAM PM PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON NO O N PM AM NO O N AM PM NO O N AM PMNO O N PM AM 00 0 00 1 11 0 3 250 13 50 1 50 1 160 960 16 0 14 11 10 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 6 00 4 0 0 0 0 000 0 357 1410 362 0 0 0 0 22013 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 432 89 306 0 0 0 0 8017 APPENDIX C | Existing Conditions Synchro Reports Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 238 59 12 327 15 83 84 10 13 67 35 Future Volume (vph) 10 238 59 12 327 15 83 84 10 13 67 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -3% 3% 2% -2% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1883 1607 0 1816 0 0 1795 0 0 1788 0 Flt Permitted 0.960 0.979 0.715 0.947 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1815 1607 0 1782 0 0 1309 0 0 1703 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 120 6 4 35 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 355 335 214 214 Travel Time (s) 8.1 7.6 4.9 4.9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.79 0.49 0.60 0.87 0.63 0.83 0.66 0.83 0.46 0.56 0.49 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 325 120 0 420 0 0 239 0 0 219 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2244 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Act Effct Green (s) 45.8 45.8 45.8 20.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.12 0.39 0.68 0.46 Control Delay 8.9 2.1 9.7 33.5 21.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.9 2.1 9.7 33.5 21.1 LOS A A A C C Approach Delay 7.1 9.7 33.5 21.1 Approach LOS A A C C Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 0 90 96 69 Queue Length 95th (ft) 108 0 164 103 62 Internal Link Dist (ft) 275 255 134 134 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1108 1027 1090 445 599 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.12 0.39 0.54 0.37 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 75 Actuated Cycle Length: 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBWB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68 Intersection Signal Delay: 15.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 306 9 8 432 17 8 Future Volume (vph) 306 9 8 432 17 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 1% -3% 7% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1844 0 0 1887 1670 0 Flt Permitted 0.998 0.965 Satd. Flow (perm) 1844 0 0 1887 1670 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 307 355 271 Travel Time (s) 7.0 8.1 6.2 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.56 0.40 0.87 0.53 0.67 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 453 0 0 517 44 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th TWSC Existing Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 306 9 8 432 17 8 Future Vol, veh/h 306 9 8 432 17 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 1 - - -3 7 - Peak Hour Factor 70 56 40 87 53 67 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 437 16 20 497 32 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 453 0 982 445 Stage 1 - - - - 445 - Stage 2 - - - - 537 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 7.82 6.92 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.82 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.82 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1108 - 189 562 Stage 1 - - - - 543 - Stage 2 - - - - 476 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1108 - 184 562 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 184 - Stage 1 - - - - 543 - Stage 2 - - - - 464 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 24.9 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)225 - - 1108 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.196 - - 0.018 - HCM Control Delay (s) 24.9 - - 8.3 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 - Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 25 315 34 28 248 23 85 99 52 18 83 39 Future Volume (vph) 25 315 34 28 248 23 85 99 52 18 83 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -3% 3% 2% -2% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1883 1607 0 1800 0 0 1757 0 0 1786 0 Flt Permitted 0.960 0.925 0.757 0.935 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1815 1607 0 1675 0 0 1356 0 0 1682 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 48 11 20 35 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 355 335 214 214 Travel Time (s) 8.1 7.6 4.9 4.9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.97 0.71 0.64 0.94 0.72 0.73 0.83 0.81 0.64 0.80 0.61 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 353 48 0 340 0 0 299 0 0 196 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2244 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Act Effct Green (s) 44.4 44.4 44.4 21.4 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.29 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.05 0.34 0.75 0.39 Control Delay 9.8 2.9 9.7 34.1 18.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.8 2.9 9.7 34.1 18.8 LOS A A A C B Approach Delay 8.9 9.7 34.1 18.8 Approach LOS A A C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 0 75 113 57 Queue Length 95th (ft) 141 9 136 169 89 Internal Link Dist (ft) 275 255 134 134 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1074 970 996 472 592 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.05 0.34 0.63 0.33 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 75 Actuated Cycle Length: 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBWB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 Intersection Signal Delay: 16.8 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 362 10 14 357 13 22 Future Volume (vph) 362 10 14 357 13 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 1% -3% 7% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1840 0 0 1887 1628 0 Flt Permitted 0.998 0.977 Satd. Flow (perm) 1840 0 0 1887 1628 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 307 355 271 Travel Time (s) 7.0 8.1 6.2 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.50 0.70 0.94 0.54 0.79 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 401 0 0 400 52 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th TWSC Existing Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 362 10 14 357 13 22 Future Vol, veh/h 362 10 14 357 13 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 1 - - -3 7 - Peak Hour Factor 95 50 70 94 54 79 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 381 20 20 380 24 28 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 401 0 811 391 Stage 1 - - - - 391 - Stage 2 - - - - 420 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 7.82 6.92 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.82 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.82 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1158 - 255 609 Stage 1 - - - - 587 - Stage 2 - - - - 563 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1158 - 249 609 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 249 - Stage 1 - - - - 587 - Stage 2 - - - - 551 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 16.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 365 - - 1158 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.142 - - 0.017 - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.5 - - 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.1 - APPENDIX D | Existing Plus Project Conditions Synchro Reports Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 14 267 66 12 337 15 85 84 10 13 67 37 Future Volume (vph) 14 267 66 12 337 15 85 84 10 13 67 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 3% 3% 2% -2% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1827 1560 0 1816 0 0 1793 0 0 1784 0 Flt Permitted 0.945 0.978 0.707 0.947 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1734 1560 0 1780 0 0 1295 0 0 1700 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 135 6 4 37 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 355 335 214 214 Travel Time (s) 8.1 7.6 4.9 4.9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.79 0.49 0.60 0.87 0.63 0.83 0.66 0.83 0.46 0.56 0.49 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 371 135 0 431 0 0 241 0 0 224 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2244 Permitted Phases 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 Total Split (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Act Effct Green (s) 45.6 45.6 45.6 20.2 20.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.13 0.40 0.69 0.46 Control Delay 9.6 2.1 9.9 33.9 21.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.6 2.1 9.9 33.9 21.0 LOS A A A C C Approach Delay 7.6 9.9 33.9 21.0 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 75 Actuated Cycle Length: 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBWB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Intersection Signal Delay: 15.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 306 10 22 432 22 48 Future Volume (vph) 306 10 22 432 22 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 1% -3% 7% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1844 0 0 1881 1615 0 Flt Permitted 0.995 0.982 Satd. Flow (perm) 1844 0 0 1881 1615 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 307 355 254 Travel Time (s) 7.0 8.1 5.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.56 0.40 0.87 0.53 0.67 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 455 0 0 552 114 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 306 10 22 432 22 48 Future Vol, veh/h 306 10 22 432 22 48 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 1 - - -3 7 - Peak Hour Factor 70 56 40 87 53 67 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 437 18 55 497 42 72 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 455 0 1053 446 Stage 1 - - - - 446 - Stage 2 - - - - 607 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 7.82 6.92 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.82 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.82 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1106 - 163 561 Stage 1 - - - - 542 - Stage 2 - - - - 534 - Platoon blocked, % - - - 1 Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1106 - 152 561 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 152 - Stage 1 - - - - 542 - Stage 2 - - - - 497 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 26.1 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 282 - - 1106 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.401 - - 0.05 - HCM Control Delay (s) 26.1 - - 8.4 0 HCM Lane LOS D - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.8 - - 0.2 - Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 27 327 37 2 28 274 23 91 99 52 18 83 Future Volume (vph) 27 327 37 2 28 274 23 91 99 52 18 83 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 3% 3% 2% -2% Storage Length (ft)0000000 Storage Lanes 0100000 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1827 1560 0 0 1800 0 0 1757 0 0 1780 Flt Permitted 0.955 0.914 0.738 0.936 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1752 1560 0 0 1657 0 0 1323 0 0 1678 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 52 10 19 38 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 355 335 214 214 Travel Time (s) 8.1 7.6 4.9 4.9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.97 0.71 0.25 0.64 0.94 0.72 0.73 0.83 0.81 0.64 0.80 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 367 52 0 0 375 0 0 308 0 0 202 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 2 2222 44 44 Total Split (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Act Effct Green (s) 44.0 44.0 44.0 21.8 21.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.29 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.06 0.38 0.77 0.39 Control Delay 10.3 2.8 10.4 36.2 18.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 10.3 2.8 10.4 36.2 18.5 LOS B A B D B Approach Delay 9.3 10.4 36.2 18.5 Approach LOS A B D B Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 75 Actuated Cycle Length: 75 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBWB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 43 Future Volume (vph) 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 Grade (%) Storage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 0 Taper Length (ft) Satd. Flow (prot) 0 Flt Permitted Satd. Flow (perm) 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.61 Growth Factor 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Total Split (s) Total Lost Time (s) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Intersection Summary Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 362 14 50 357 15 41 Future Volume (vph) 362 14 50 357 15 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 1% -3% 7% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Satd. Flow (prot) 1837 0 0 1876 1611 0 Flt Permitted 0.992 0.983 Satd. Flow (perm) 1837 0 0 1876 1611 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 307 355 254 Travel Time (s) 7.0 8.1 5.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.50 0.70 0.94 0.54 0.79 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr)000000 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 409 0 0 451 80 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/28/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 362 14 50 357 15 41 Future Vol, veh/h 362 14 50 357 15 41 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 1 - - -3 7 - Peak Hour Factor 95 50 70 94 54 79 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 381 28 71 380 28 52 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 409 0 917 395 Stage 1 - - - - 395 - Stage 2 - - - - 522 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 7.82 6.92 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.82 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.82 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1150 - 211 606 Stage 1 - - - - 584 - Stage 2 - - - - 486 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1150 - 195 606 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 195 - Stage 1 - - - - 584 - Stage 2 - - - - 448 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 18.3 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 349 - - 1150 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.228 - - 0.062 - HCM Control Delay (s) 18.3 - - 8.3 0 HCM Lane LOS C - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.2 - APPENDIX E | 95th Percentile Queue Length Synchro Reports Queue Analysis Existing Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/29/2022 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 306 9 8 432 17 8 Future Volume (Veh/h) 306 9 8 432 17 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 1% -3% 7% Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.56 0.40 0.87 0.53 0.67 Hourly flow rate (vph) 437 16 20 497 32 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 vC, conflicting volume 453 982 445 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 453 925 445 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 88 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1108 263 613 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 453 517 44 Volume Left 0 20 32 Volume Right 16 0 12 cSH 1700 1108 312 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.02 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 12 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 18.4 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 18.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Queue Analysis Existing Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/29/2022 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 10 14 357 13 22 Future Volume (Veh/h) 362 10 14 357 13 22 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 1% -3% 7% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.50 0.70 0.94 0.54 0.79 Hourly flow rate (vph) 381 20 20 380 24 28 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 401 811 391 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 401 780 391 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 93 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 1158 341 657 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 401 400 52 Volume Left 0 20 24 Volume Right 20 0 28 cSH 1700 1158 460 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.02 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 9 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 13.8 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 13.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Queue Analysis Existing Plus Project Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.AM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/29/2022 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 306 10 22 432 22 48 Future Volume (Veh/h) 306 10 22 432 22 48 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 1% -3% 7% Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.56 0.40 0.87 0.53 0.67 Hourly flow rate (vph) 437 18 55 497 42 72 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 vC, conflicting volume 455 1053 446 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 455 999 446 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 95 82 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 1106 228 612 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 455 552 114 Volume Left 0 55 42 Volume Right 18 0 72 cSH 1700 1106 377 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.05 0.30 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 31 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 18.6 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 18.6 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Queue Analysis Existing Plus Project Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St.PM Peak 1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report AMG 11/29/2022 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 14 50 357 15 41 Future Volume (Veh/h) 362 14 50 357 15 41 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 1% -3% 7% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.50 0.70 0.94 0.54 0.79 Hourly flow rate (vph) 381 28 71 380 28 52 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 355 pX, platoon unblocked 0.94 vC, conflicting volume 409 917 395 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 409 877 395 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 94 90 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 1150 279 654 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 409 451 80 Volume Left 0 71 28 Volume Right 28 0 52 cSH 1700 1150 445 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.06 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 5 16 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 14.9 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 14.9 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Belmont Village of San Rafael Senior Housing Project NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 1515 Fourth Street, San Rafael, California March 6, 2024 ♦ ♦ ♦ Prepared for: Greystar 450 Sansome Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Prepared by: Fred M. Svinth, INCE, Assoc. AIA 429 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931 (707) 794-0400 Job No.: 24-026 Page 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This report presents the results of an environmental noise assessment completed for the proposed 7 story 183-unit senior housing project 1515 4th Street in San Rafael, California (see Figure 1)1. The purpose for this noise assessment is to evaluate the compatibility of the development with respect to the environmental noise levels at the project site and evaluate noise impacts upon sensitive receptors in the area. The study also makes comparisons of the relative impacts of this and the 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project that was previously proposed on the site. The Setting Section of this report presents the fundamentals of environmental noise and vibration, describes regulatory criteria that are applicable in the project’s assessment, and summarizes the results of a survey of the existing noise environment at the project site and vicinity. Figure 1: Project Site, Vicinity and Measurement Locations SETTING FUNDAMENTALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception 1 This project was originally proposed on the same and within the same building footprint as a 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project in 2023. This report utilizes portions of the analysis of the ENVA completed for that project in 2023. LT-1 LT-2 ST-1 ST-2 Page 2 characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave. In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales, which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement, which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1. There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period. EFFECTS OF NOISE Sleep and Speech Interference. The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA Ldn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses. Typical structural attenuation is 12-17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57-62 dBA Ldn with open windows and 65-70 dBA Ldn if the windows are closed. Levels of 55-60 dBA are common along collector Page 3 streets and secondary arterials, while 65-70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75-80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. To achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed, those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows. Table 1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20. Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro-Pascals (or 20 micro-Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 micro-Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter. Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz. A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. The hourly Leq used for this report is denoted as dBA Leq[h]. Day-Night Level, Ldn The equivalent noise level for a continuous 24-hour period with a 10-decibel penalty imposed during nighttime and morning hours (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). Community Noise Exposure Level, CNEL CNEL is the equivalent noise level for a continuous 24-hour period with a 5-decibel penalty imposed in the evening (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm) and a 10-decibel penalty imposed during nighttime and morning hours (10:00 pm to 7:00am) L1, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998. Annoyance. Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA Ldn. At a Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the Page 4 population is highly annoyed. When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25-30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between a Ldn of 60-70 dBA. Between a Ldn of 70-80 dBA, each additional decibel increases the percentage of the population highly annoyed by about 3 percent. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the Ldn is 60 dBA, approximately 30-35 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed. Table 2: Typical Noise Levels in the Environment Common Outdoor Noise Source Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Noise Source 110 dBA Rock band Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet 100 dBA Gas lawn mower at 3 feet 90 dBA Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA Large business office Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime 30 dBA Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 20 dBA Broadcast/recording studio 10 dBA 0 dBA Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), Caltrans, November 2009. Page 5 FUNDAMENTALS OF GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), and another is the Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration. In this section, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous vibration levels produce. The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Table 3: Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings for Continuous Vibration Levels Vibration Level, PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006 to 0.019 Threshold of perception, Possibility of intrusion Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of the vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations begin to annoy people Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage to normal buildings 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings Threshold at which there is a risk of “architectural” damage to normal dwellings such as plastered walls or ceilings. 0.4 to 0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations Vibration at this level would cause “architectural” damage and possibly minor structural damage. Source: Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences), Technical Advisory, Vibration TAV- 02-01-R9601, California Department of Transportation, February 20, 2002. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows. Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generate the highest construction related ground-borne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the peak particle velocity descriptor (PPV) has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans. The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life are evaluated against different vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated Page 6 ambient vibration levels such as people in an urban environment may tolerate a higher vibration level. Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, or may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure. REGULATORY BACKGROUND The State of California and the City of San Rafael have established regulatory criteria that are applicable in this assessment. The State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Zoning Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below. State CEQA Guidelines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in: (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Checklist item (c) is not applicable to this project because the project is not located within an airport land use plan, is not within two miles of an airport or in the vicinity of a private air strip. 2022 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2. The current version of the California Building Code (CBC) requires interior noise levels attributable to exterior environmental noise sources to be limited to a level not exceeding 45 dBA Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. California Building Cal Green Code, Title 24, Part 11. The Green Building Standards of the State of California Code of Regulations (Title 24, Part 11) establishes mandatory exterior sound transmission control standards for new non-residential buildings as set forth in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code Sections 5.507.4.1 and 5.507.4.2 Exterior noise transmission as follows 2: 5.507.4.1 Exterior noise transmission, prescriptive method. Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building envelope shall meet a 2 Exception: Buildings with few or no occupants and where occupants are not likely to be affected by exterior noise, as determined by the enforcement authority, such as factories, stadiums, storage, enclosed parking structures and utility buildings. Page 7 composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 in the following locations: 1. Within the 65 CNEL noise contour of an airport. Exceptions: 1. Ldn or CNEL for military airports shall be determined by the facility Air Installation Compatible Land Use Zone (AICUZ) plan. 2. Ldn or CNEL for other airports and heliports for which a land use plan has not been developed shall be determined by the local general plan noise element. 2. Within the 65 CNEL or Ldn noise contour of a freeway or expressway, railroad, industrial source or fixed-guideway noise source as determined by the General Plan Noise Element. 5.507.4.1.1 Noise exposure where noise contours are not readily available. Buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB Leq-1-hr during any hour of operation shall have exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composite STC rating of at least 45 (or OITC 35), with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 (or OITC 30). 5.507.4.2 Performance method. For buildings located as defined in Sections A5.507.4.1 or A5.507.4.1.1, wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building envelope shall be constructed to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq-1Hr) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hour of operation. 5.507.4.2.1 Site features. Exterior features such as sound walls or earth berms may be utilized as appropriate to the project to mitigate sound migration to the interior. 5.507.4.2.2 Documentation of compliance. An acoustical analysis documenting complying interior sound levels shall be prepared by personnel approved by the architect or engineer of record. City of San Rafael General Plan (adopted 8.02.2021) The Noise Element of the City of San Rafael’s General Plan provides the following Goals, Policies, and Programs which are relevant to the proposed project: GOAL N-1: Acceptable Noise Levels Protect the public from excessive unnecessary, and unreasonable noise. Excessive noise is a concern for many residents of San Rafael. This concern can be addressed through the implementation of standards to protect public health and reduce noise conflicts in the community, including the Noise Ordinance. Policy N-1.1: Land Use Compatibility Standards for Noise Protect people from excessive noise by applying noise standards in land use decisions. The Land Use Compatibility standards in Table 9-2 are adopted by reference as part of this General Plan and shall be applied in the determination of appropriate land uses in different ambient noise environments. Program N-1.1A: Residential Noise Standards. Maintain a maximum noise standard of 70 dBA Ldn for backyards, decks, and common/usable outdoor spaces in residential and mixed- use areas. As required by Title 24 insulation requirements, interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA Ldn in all habitable rooms in residential units. Policy N-1.2: Maintaining Acceptable Noise Levels Use the following performance standards to maintain an acceptable noise environment in San Rafael: Page 8 (a) New development shall not increase noise levels by more than 3 dBA Ldn in a residential area, or by more than 5 dBA Ldn in a non-residential area. (b) New development shall not cause noise levels to increase above the “normally acceptable” levels shown in Table 9-2. (c) For larger projects, the noise levels in (a) and (b) should include any noise that would be generated by additional traffic associated with the new development. (d) Projects that exceed the thresholds above may be permitted if an acoustical study determines that there are mitigating circumstances (such as higher existing noise levels) and nearby uses will not be adversely affected. Program N-1.2A: Acoustical Study Requirements. Require acoustical studies for new single family residential projects within the projected 60 dBA Ldn noise contour and for multi-family or mixed-use projects within the projected 65 dBA Ldn contour. The studies should include projected noise from additional traffic, noise associated with the project itself, and cumulative noise resulting from other approved projects. Mitigation measures should be identified to ensure that noise levels remain at acceptable levels. Program N-1.2B: Approval Conditions. Establish conditions of approval for activities with the potential to create significant noise conflicts and enforce these conditions once projects become operational. Policy N-1.3: Reducing Noise Through Planning and Design Use a range of design, construction, site planning, and operational measures to reduce potential noise impacts. Program N-1.3A: Site Planning. Where appropriate, require site planning methods that minimize potential noise impacts. By taking advantage of terrain and site dimensions, it may be possible to arrange buildings, parking, and other uses to reduce and possibly eliminate noise conflicts. Site planning techniques include: (a) Maximizing the distance between potential noise sources and the receiver. (b) Placing non-sensitive uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the source and receiver. (c) Using non-sensitive uses such as garages to shield noise sensitive areas. (d) Orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources. (e) Incorporating landscaping and berms to absorb sound. Program N-1.3B: Architectural Design. Where appropriate, reduce the potential for noise conflicts through the location of noise-sensitive spaces. Bedrooms, for example, should be placed away from freeways. Mechanical and motorized equipment (such as air conditioning units) should be located away from noise-sensitive rooms. Interior courtyards with water features can mask ambient noise and provide more comfortable outdoor spaces. Program N-1.3C: Noise Barriers. Where appropriate, use absorptive noise barriers to reduce noise levels from ground transportation and industrial noise sources. A barrier should provide at least Ldn 5 dB of noise reduction to achieve a noticeable change in noise levels. Program N-1.3D: Noise Reduction through Construction Materials. Where appropriate, reduce noise in interior spaces through insulation and the choice of materials for walls, roofs, ceilings, doors, windows, and other construction materials. Page 9 Policy N-1.4: Sound Walls Discourage the use of sound walls when other effective noise reduction measures are available. Vegetation, berms, and the mitigation measures in Policy N-3 are the preferred methods of absorbing sound along roads, rail, and other transportation features. Where there are no other feasible options (for example, along many sections of US Highway 101), the City will review and comment on sound wall design. Sound walls should be aesthetically pleasing, regularly maintained, and designed to minimize the potential displacement of sound. Policy N-1.5: Mixed Use Mitigate the potential for noise-related conflicts in mixed use development combining residential and non-residential uses. Program N-1.5A: Disclosure Agreements. Where appropriate, require disclosure agreements for residents in mixed use projects advising of potential noise impacts from nearby commercial enterprises, such as restaurants and entertainment venues. Policy N-1.9: Maintaining Peace and Quiet Minimize noise conflicts resulting from everyday activities such as construction, sirens, yard equipment, business operations, night-time sporting events, and domestic activities. Program N-1.9A: Noise Ordinance. Maintain and enforce the noise ordinance, which addresses common noise sources such as amplified music, mechanical equipment use, and construction. Updates to the ordinance should be periodically considered in response to new issues (for example, allowing portable generators during power outages). Program N-1.9B: Construction Noise. Establish a list of construction best management practices (BMPs) for future projects and incorporate the list into San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13 (Noise) The City Building Division shall verify that appropriate BMPs are included on demolition, grading, and construction plans prior to the issuance of associated permits. Program N-1.9C: Noise Specifications. Include noise specifications in requests for equipment information and bids for new City equipment and consider this information as part of evaluation of the bids. Policy N-1.11: Vibration Ensure that the potential for vibration is addressed when transportation, construction, and non- residential projects are proposed, and that measures are taken to mitigate potential impacts. Program N-1.11A: Vibration-Related Conditions of Approval. Adopt Standard conditions of approval in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13 (Noise) that apply Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various building types. These conditions should: (a) reduce the potential for vibration-related construction impacts for development projects near sensitive uses such as housing, schools, and historically significant buildings. (b) reduce the potential for operational impacts on existing or potential future sensitive uses such as uses with vibration-sensitive equipment (e.g., microscopes in hospitals and research facilities) or residences. Vibration impacts shall be considered as part of project level environmental evaluation and approval for individual future projects. If vibration levels exceed FTA limits, conditions of approval shall identify construction and operational alternatives that mitigate impacts. Page 10 City of San Rafael Municipal Code. The City’s Municipal Code contains a Noise Ordinance that limits sound levels at adjacent properties. Section 8.13.040 states the allowable sound pressure level at various land uses during the day and night for intermittent and constant noise. The general noise limits are given in Table 8.13-1. Page 11 TABLE 8.13-1—GENERAL NOISE LIMITS Property type or zone Daytime limits Nighttime limits Residential 60 dBA Intermittent 50 dBA Intermittent 50 dBA Constant 40 dBA Constant Mixed-use 65 dBA Intermittent 55 dBA Intermittent 55 dBA Constant 45 dBA Constant Multifamily residential (interior sound source) 40 dBA Intermittent 35 dBA Intermittent 35 dBA Constant 30 dBA Constant Commercial 65 dBA Intermittent 65 dBA Intermittent 55 dBA Constant 55 dBA Constant Industrial 70 dBA Intermittent 70 dBA Intermittent 60 dBA Constant 60 dBA Constant Public Property Most restrictive noise limit applicable to adjoining private property Most restrictive noise limit applicable to adjoining private property Section 8.13.050 of the Municipal Code establishes allowable hours of construction between 7am. and 6pm. Monday through Friday and between 9am. and 6pm. on Saturdays, unless permission is granted with a development permit or other approval from planning commission, or the activity belongs to one of the exceptions stated in Subsection B of Section 3.13.050 (Standard Exceptions to general noise limits) of the City of San Rafael’s Municipal Code. No construction activities are permitted on Sundays and holidays. Additionally, noise levels at any point outside of the property plane of the project are limited to a maximum level of 90 dBA. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT The proposed project is located on the southern side of 4th Street between Shaver and E Streets in San Rafael and is bordered by Cains Tire, an automotive service (tire) shop, and multifamily residences to the west across Shaver Street, a single-family residence and retail/commercial shops to the north opposite 4th Street, a dental office and parking to the east across E Street and a law office, parking area ns an AT&T service center on the property line to the south. The existing noise environment on the project site results primarily from vehicular traffic on 4th, E and Shaver Streets along with equipment/repair noise from Cains Tire to the west, with distant noise from other area roadways and business also contributing to background sound levels. Noise monitoring surveys were conducted on the site and surrounding areas between 12 pm on Thursday January 19th and 12pm on Monday January 23rd 2023, to quantify the existing noise environment on and around the project site. The noise monitoring survey included two long- term (LT-1 and LT-2) and two short term (ST and ST-2) noise measurements as shown in Figure 1. The noise measurements were conducted with Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Type I Model LXT Sound Level Meters. All meters were equipped with ½-inch pre-polarized condenser microphones and windscreens and were calibrated with a Larson Davis Model CA250 precision acoustic calibrator prior to and following the measurement survey. Long-term noise measurement, LT-1 was made on the trunk of a tree at a height of 12 feet above grade and approximately 20 feet from the centerline of Shaver Street adjacent to the multifamily residences west of the project site (see Figure 1) and directly opposite the AT&T service yard south of the site. The measured noise levels at this location, including the energy equivalent noise level (Leq), maximum (Lmax), minimum (Lmin), and the noise levels exceeded 10, 50 and 90 percent of the time (indicated as L10, L50 and L90) are shown on Chart 1, following. Page 12 A review of Chart 1 indicates that the noise levels at site LT-1 followed a diurnal pattern characteristic of traffic noise, with the typical nighttime noise level reduction limited by a constant noise source (likely due to mechanical equipment operating at the AT&T service center). During the 96-hour noise measurement period, the average daytime noise levels ranged from 50 to 67 dBA Leq and the average hourly nighttime noise levels ranged from 46 to 61 dBA Leq. The overall average Day/Night noise Level (Ldn) for the monitoring period at position LT-1 was 59 dBA, with the respective full day [Friday(1/20), Saturday(1/21), and Sunday1/22)] Ldn levels at 61 dBA, 58 dBA, and 56 dBA. The maximum hourly noise level measured at this location was 70 dBA. Long-term noise measurement LT-2 was made on the trunk of a tree at a height of 12 feet above grade in the existing parking area south of 4th Street at and approximately 40 feet from the roadway centerline (see Figure 1). Noise level at this location represent the existing noise exposure at the lower-level 4th Street project facades. The measured noise levels at this location, including the energy equivalent noise level (Leq), maximum (Lmax), minimum (Lmin), and the noise levels exceeded 10, 50 and 90 percent of the time (indicated as L10, L50 and L90) are shown on Chart 2, following. A review of Chart 2 indicates that the noise levels at site LT-2 also followed a diurnal pattern characteristic of traffic noise. The average daytime noise levels at this monitoring location ranged from 49 to 61 dBA Leq and the average hourly nighttime noise levels ranged from 46 to 58 dBA Leq. During the 96-hour noise measurement period, the average daytime noise levels ranged from 56 to 70 dBA Leq and the average hourly nighttime noise levels ranged from 49 to 66 dBA Leq. The overall average Day/Night noise Level (Ldn) for the monitoring period at position LT-1 was 66 dBA, with the respective full day [Friday(1/20), Saturday(1/21), and Sunday1/22)] Ldn levels at 68 dBA, 66 dBA, and 62 dBA. The maximum hourly noise level measured at this location was 67 dBA. Short-term noise measurements were made concurrently with the long-term measurements at long term positions LT-1 and LT-2 at two locations on January 23rd, 2023, between 11:40 and 12:00pm. The first measurement (ST-1 as shown in Figure 1) was made on the western site edge opposite Shaver Street from Cains Tire to document noise from its operations and Shaver Street traffic noise. The second short-term measurement (ST-2 as shown in Figure 1) was made on the eastern site edge opposite E Street from the dental office building to document traffic noise at the southeast site edge. The existing Ldn at each of these short-term locations was estimated by correlating the short-term measurement data to the data gathered during the corresponding time period at positions LT-1 and LT-2. These measurement results and estimated Ldn levels are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data, dBA Noise Measurement Location Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq Ldn ST-1: Western (Shaver Street) site edge: facing Cains Tire. [1/23/2023 11:40am to 11:50am] 76 69 63 57 53 60 61 ST-2: Eastern (E Street) site edge: facing dental office building. [1/23/2023 11:50am to 12:00pm] 70 67 64 57 52 59 63 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Additionally, observations and measurements made during the measurement at ST-1 on the western edge of the site opposite Cains Tire indicate that shop activities produce occasional maximum noise levels of 60 to 69 dBA from the use of pneumatic wrenches, 60 to 75 dBA from dropping of metal items and tools, 60 to 65 dBA from the all-call system, and 55 to 59 dBA when filling tires and performing other shop activities at the proposed project building setback. All project traffic will access the parking garage via Shaver Street. Based on a review of the the original traffic report for the prior mixed use residential project proposed on the site 3 and an updated memo of this traffic report 4 of the new use of the site, the new use would increase existing sound levels on Shaver Street by up to 2 dBA, which is 1 dBA less than that anticipated for the previously proposed (mixed use residential) use of the site. This increase would result in existing plus project traffic noise levels of 63 dBA Ldn at position ST-1. FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT The future noise environment on the project site would continue to result primarily from traffic on the adjacent roadways, noise from Cains Tire to the west and more distant noise from other area roadways and business. Based on a review of the original and updated traffic reports, under existing plus project conditions traffic from the project will not increase noise levels along 4th or E Streets but will increase traffic noise on Shaver Street between the parking lot exit and 4th Street by 2 dBA, increasing the average day/night noise level on Shaver Street to 63 dBA Ldn. Though the project traffic study does not include predictions of future traffic volumes on these roadways to assess the future noise environment we have assumed a conservative 1-2% annual increase in traffic volumes along these roadways because of general area and regional growth over the next 10 to 15 years. With this increase in traffic volumes estimate, the future noise environment on the site and in the project area, would be expected to increase by approximately 1 decibel over existing noise levels. Considering this, without any site improvements, we expect noise levels at the 4th Street project façades will be 67 dBA Ldn, those at the Shaver and E Street project façades will be 64 dBA Ldn under future conditions. The proposed project will also include an emergency diesel generator at the level B1 parking garage. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if noise levels conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans or if noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers over a permanent or temporary basis. A significant impact would be identified for a proposed land use if it were exposed to noise levels exceeding established guidelines or standards for noise and land use compatibility. A substantial permanent noise increase would occur if the noise level increase resulting from the project is more than 3 dBA Ldn in a residential area, or more than 5 dBA Ldn in a non-residential area as established by the San Rafael General Plan. Generally, a substantial temporary noise level increase would occur if noise levels exceed 60 dBA Leq and the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq at adjacent land uses in the project vicinity for a period of one year or more. Additionally, per the per the City Municipal Code a substantial temporary noise level increase would occur where maximum noise levels from construction activities exceed 90 dBA Leq outside of the property 3 AMG, “Local Traffic Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartments Project: Draft Project Report”, December 2022 4 AMG, “Technical Memorandum re: Trip Generation Estimates for the Proposed Belmont Village Senior Housing /Residential Care Facility for the Elderly in the City of San Rafael”, February 2024 Page 16 plane of the project. Vibration levels generated during demolition or construction activities would be significant if they exceed FTA limits. NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 1a: Exterior Residential Noise and Land Use Compatibility. Residential uses developed at portions of the project site would be exposed to normally acceptable noise levels. This is a less-than-significant impact. Current project drawings indicate that residential uses on the site will be on the ground through seventh floors on the Shaver Street project frontage and on the second through seventh floors on the 4th and E Street project frontages. Project plans also show that the common outdoor use areas for the project will be on the first level at the block interior and on the seventh level at the southern end of the building along Shaver Street. In these locations the common open spaces will receive acoustical shielding from intervening project structures. Based on a consideration of noise shielding and the results of our measurement survey and future noise projections, sound levels in the project common open space areas are expected to be below 65 dBA Ldn under future conditions. Such exterior noise levels are considered “normally acceptable” for multifamily residential land uses by the City of San Rafael General Plan Noise Element. This finding remains unchanged from that found for the prior 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project proposed for the site. Mitigation Measure 1a: None Required. Impact 1b: Interior Residential Noise and Land Use Compatibility. The project facades along 4th Street would be exposed to “conditionally acceptable” noise levels such that the interior noise levels may exceed the City and State required 45 dBA Ldn level. This is a less-than-significant impact with the incorporation of noise control measures in the project design. Interior noise levels within residential buildings of normal construction are typically 15 dBA lower than exterior noise levels with the windows partially open. With the windows closed, standard residential construction typically provides 20 to 25 decibels of exterior to interior noise reduction. Considering this, where exterior day-night average noise levels are 65 dBA Ldn, or less, interior noise levels can typically be maintained below the City and State interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn with the incorporation of forced air mechanical ventilation systems to provide adequate fresh air when residents wish to keep their windows closed for noise control. Where noise levels exceed 65 dBA Ldn, forced-air mechanical ventilation systems and sound- rated building elements are normally required. Residential units on the 4th Street project façades will be exposed to exterior noise levels of up to 67 dBA Ldn under future conditions. Additionally, residential units on the Shaver Street project façades will be exposed to intermittent maximum daytime noise levels of up to 75 dBA from Cains Tire operations. Considering this, the following noise control measures are assumed to be included in the final project design: Exterior to Interior Noise Control Design Measures: 1. To allow all the residents of the residential units on the 1st through 7th floors adjacent to Fourth and Shaver Streets to keep their windows closed for noise control. These apartments will be equipped with a mechanical ventilation systems to supply fresh air to the units such as an acoustically rated straight air transfer duct such as the Fresh 80, 90 or 100-dB units by Fresh Ventilation (or equal) or a standard central air conditioning and/or a Page 17 central heating system with adequate fresh air supply, which is equipped with a ‘summer switch’ to allow the fan to circulate air without cooling or heating operation, or other systems satisfactory to the local building official, which provide adequate mechanical ventilation to the residences with closed windows. 2. The exterior wall assemblies & window/door STC ratings of the residential units on the 1st through 7th floors adjacent to Fourth and Shaver Streets, will be designed to maintain interior noise levels at or below 45 dBA Ldn and to reduce maximum noise levels from adjacent tire shop activities to the fluctuating noise speech interference threshold of 55 dBA Lmax (see discussion on page 2) with closed exterior doors and windows and the exterior wall assemblies & window/doors. 3. Based on typical residential construction, it is expected that the windows and doors in residential units facing or with a view of either 4th Street traffic or Cains Tire opposite Shaver Street, will require STC ratings of between 26 and 30, however the specific determination of sound isolation ratings of the exterior wall assemblies and window/door assemblies will be determined during the project design. These findings and exterior to interior noise control design measures remain unchanged from those found for the prior 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project proposed for the site. Mitigation Measure 1b: No additional measures required. Impact 1c: Interior Non-Residential Noise and Land Use Compatibility. The interiors of the community (non-residential) uses in along 4th Street could be exposed to an Ldn level of 72 dBA. Following the State of California Cal Green Building Code standard, exterior sound transmission control must be incorporated in the design of these buildings using either the prescriptive (section 5.507.4.1) or performance (section 5.507.4.2) analysis methods. This is a less-than-significant impact. Under the performance method wall, window and roof-ceiling assemblies facing noise sources need to be constructed to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq-1Hr) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hour of operation. A review of the noise measurement of existing conditions indicates that the existing peak hour Leq level is 70 dBA. Considering a possible increase of 1 dBA over existing noise conditions under future traffic conditions, the future peak hour Leq -1Hr level is expected to be 71 dBA. Considering this, the exterior façades of the non-residential uses along 4th Street will need to reduce the exterior to interior noise level by 21 dBA to meet the 50 dBA Leq-1Hr standard. A review of building elevations indicates that extensive use of storefront glazing is planned at the lower-level commercial/retail spaces. Though some of this glazing is expected to be spandrel glass, under worst case condition without spandrel conditions (full glazing), storefront glazing systems with a minimum STC rating of 26 would meet the interior hourly equivalent noise level (Leq-1Hr) limit of 50 dBA during any hour of operation of these businesses. Because an STC rating of 26 is typical of standard operable thermal insulating glazing systems, and standard fixed storefront glazing systems meet, and many exceed, this rating, this report finds that the interior hourly equivalent noise level (Leq-1Hr) limit of 50 dBA during any hour of operation with a standard, non-STC rated, thermally insulating fixed storefront glazing system. These findings remain unchanged from those found for the prior 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project proposed for the site. Mitigation 1c: None Required. Page 18 Impact 2: Project Operational Noise Generation Noise due to the use and occupation of the project residences on adjacent noise sensitive uses is not expected to significantly increase or alter the existing noise environment at these uses. This is a less-than-significant impact. The proposed project would place new residential uses within 70 feet of an existing multi-family residential unit to the west opposite Shaver Street and within 95 feet of an existing single-family home to the north opposite 4th Street. The occupation and use of the proposed residences is expected to result in the typical noises associated with residential development, including voices of the new residents, residential maintenance activities, barking dogs and children. The Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and other mechanical equipment associated with the multifamily residential development and the project’s emergency generator. will also add noise to the existing environment. A review of the project plans indicates that the outdoor HVAC equipment will be installed on the roof of the proposed 7 story building. Based on noise measurements made at similar projects the individual outdoor condensing units at the proposed residences may produce constant sound pressure levels of 60 to 65 dBA Leq at 1 meter (3.3 feet) and under worst-case conditions with all units running at the same time could produce sound pressure levels of 55 to 60 dBA Leq at the roof edge during both daytime and nighttime hours. Considering this noise level, that the rooftop parapet wall and building structure itself would provide at 10 decibels (or more) of noise reduction, and the distances to the adjacent residential uses, noise from the project rooftop HVAC equipment is expected to be below ambient noise levels at these adjacent residences and not exceed the Municipal Code noise limits at these residences. Though the size of the emergency generator needed for the project is not available, in I&R’s experience, similar sized senior assisted care facilities have required emergency generators with a capacity of up to 250 kW. Generators of this size typically produce noise levels of about 89 dBA at 23 feet when installed within a weather enclosure and between 75 to 81 dBA at 23 feet with a typical manufacturer’s specified sound enclosure. During emergency situations, the noise produced by the operation of generators is typically exempt from City noise restrictions, however, generators are typically tested for a period of a few hours every month. During these testing periods, ambient noise levels would temporarily increase and would be required to meet the 50 dBA constant use daytime threshold at nearby residential land uses. With the emergency generator installed inside level B1of the garage near the transformer room, the solid structure of the building itself is expected to provide a minimum sound loss of 20 dBA from the inside of the garage to the nearest residential uses to the north and west. Considering this attenuation and the increased distance from the generator installation to these residences, the sound levels at the closest offsite residential uses to the project during the testing of a 250 kW generator installed in a typical manufacturer’s specified sound enclosure is expected to be 48 dBA or less. In addition, though noise resulting from occupation of the new residences may noticeably change the noise environment in some adjacent residential areas, these sources are not expected to increase noise levels in any surrounding areas by 3 or more dBA and the noise associated with the proposed residences is not incompatible with the surrounding land uses. Considering the above discussions, project operation is not judged to result in a noise impact on adjacent noise sensitive uses. This finding remains unchanged from that found for the prior 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project proposed for the site. Mitigation 2: None Required. Page 19 Impact 3: Project-Generated Traffic Noise. The proposed project would not substantially increase noise levels on a permanent basis at noise sensitive uses in the vicinity. This is a less-than-significant impact. A significant impact would be identified if traffic generated by the project would substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receivers in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if the project traffic on area roadways where to result in a noise level increase of 5 dBA Ldn or greater at the multi-family residences west of the project site along Shaver Street, or by 3 dBA Ldn or greater at the single-family home north of the project site opposite 4th Street. A review of the traffic report for the prior mixed use residential development indicated that under existing conditions project traffic would result in a less than 1 dBA increase in noise levels on 4th Street and a 4 dBA or less increase in noise levels on Shaver Street. Considering that the proposed project will likely have a lower demand for parking and vehicular trips, as many residents may not have a vehicle (especially those in memory care and some assisted living units), we would expect a lesser (or possibly equal) increase in area traffic noise due to the currently proposed project. Therefore, project traffic is not judged to result in a noise impact. This finding indicates that the proposed project would produce a noise increase of 1 dBA less than that of the prior 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project proposed for the site at adjacent residential uses along Shaver Street. Mitigation 3: None Required. Impact 4: Construction Noise. Noise levels generated by project construction activities would temporarily elevate ambient noise levels at sensitive land uses in the vicinity. Major noise generating construction activities would be limited to less than one construction season or less. This is a less-than-significant impact. The construction of the project would generate noise and would temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent residential receivers. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment operating on site, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction of the project would involve site improvements, such as the establishment of utilities, excavation of foundations, building erection, paving, and landscaping along with home construction. The hauling of excavated material and construction materials would generate truck trips on local roadways. Construction activities are typically carried out in stages. During each stage of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating. Construction noise levels would vary by stage and vary within stages based on the amount of equipment in operation and location where the equipment is operating. Typical noise levels which during the construction of housing at 50 feet are shown in Table 6, which gives the average noise level ranges by construction phase. Site work and housing construction noise ranges from of 65 to 88 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The nearest noise sensitive (residential) uses will be 75 feet from close-in on-site construction. Average noise levels produced by construction activities at this distance would range from 78 to 86 dBA, with an average level of 82 dBA. These noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor, such that noise levels produced during most site construction activities, which would occur at distances of 200 feet or more from adjacent noise sensitive uses, would produce average noise levels of 66 dBA or less during by construction activities Page 20 TABLE 6: Typical Ranges of Leq Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, dBA Construction Stage Domestic Housing Office Building, Hotel, Hospital, School, Public Works Public Works Roads & Highways, Sewers, and Trenches I II I II I II Ground Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 84 Excavation 88 75 89 79 88 78 Foundations 81 81 78 78 88 88 Erection 81 65 87 75 79 78 Finishing 88 72 89 75 84 84 I - All pertinent equipment present at site, II - Minimum required equipment present at site. Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973. A review of the construction schedule indicates that the project would take more than 1 year to complete, with site work expected to take about 3 months and building construction occurring for about up to 19 months. Though this timetable indicates a 2 year total construction period, based on the construction noise levels at various distances discussed above, and a consideration that once intervening structures are built, they would provide noise attenuation at the residences opposite Shaver and 4th Streets, we expect that the existing residences adjacent to the project site would not be exposed to construction related noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq for a period of greater than one year. Additionally, in keeping with the intent of the General Plan to ‘establish a list of construction best management practices’, the following commonly adopted best practice controls along with the allowable hours of construction from Section 8.13.050 of the Municipal Code are assumed to be included in the project: • Noise‐generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on Saturdays. No construction shall occur on Sundays or holidays. • All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-‐generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. • Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction related noise sources and noise-‐sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • The required construction related noise mitigation plan shall also specify that haul truck deliveries are subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment. • Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing. • The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Page 21 With the implementation of these controls, and the limited duration of the noise generating construction at the adjacent noise sensitive uses, the substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels associated with construction activities would be less-than-significant. This finding remains unchanged from that found for the prior 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project proposed for the site. Mitigation Measure 4: No additional measures required. Impact 5: Exposure to Construction Generated Groundborne Vibration. Residences in the vicinity of the project site are not expected to be exposed to perceptible vibration levels from construction activities. This is a less-than-significant impact. Construction activities would include the demolition of existing buildings, site preparation work, foundation work, paving, and new building framing and finishing. The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. Construction techniques that generate the highest vibration levels, such as impact or vibratory pile driving, are not expected at this project. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation uses a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec, PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards and 0.2 in/sec, PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern. Project construction activities such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Building framing, exterior and interior finishing, and landscaping activities are not anticipated to be sources of substantial vibration. Based on a review of the site plan and surround uses, construction activities would generally occur at distances of 75 feet or more from the nearest residences to the west, 100 feet or more from the residence to the north and 60 to 70 feet from area non-residential uses. Construction activities may extend over two construction seasons, but construction vibration would not be substantial for most of this time except during vibration generating activities (as discussed above). Table 7 presents vibration source levels for typical construction equipment at distances of 40 and 60 feet. Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.017 to 0.009 in/sec PPV, drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.044 to 0.024 in/sec PPV, and vibratory rollers generate vibration levels of 0.104 to 0.056 in/sec PPV at 60 feet. Based on this, construction vibration levels would be well below the 0.20 in/sec and 0.50 in/sec PPV damage criteria at the closest structures. In areas where vibration would not be expected to cause structural damage, vibration levels may still be perceptible. However, as with any type of construction, this would be anticipated and would not be considered significant given the intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (jackhammers and vibratory rollers). By use of administrative controls such as notifying adjacent land uses of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration to hours with least potential to affect nearby residences, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum and as such would not result in a significant impact with respect to perception. This finding remains unchanged from that found for the prior 7 story 162-unit mixed-use housing project proposed for the site. Page 22 TABLE 7 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 5 Equipment PPV at 60 ft. (in/sec) Clam shovel drop 0.054 Hydromill (slurry wall) in soil 0.008 in rock 0.017 Vibratory Roller 0.056 Hoe Ram 0.024 Large bulldozer 0.024 Caisson drilling 0.024 Loaded trucks 0.020 Jackhammer 0.009 Small bulldozer 0.004 Mitigation 5: None Required 5 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. 1 Public Comments 2 Felix St Augustine Dear Margaret: As a resident of this community for over 50 years, and as an Architect who has practiced in this community for over 20+ of those years, I am appalled that this project is even being considered. The scale of this project is inconsistent with anything along 4th Street, and certainly with any other building located in the West End. Everything else in this area is 2 to 3 stories typically, with I believe one 4 story down around H street. The closest equivalent may be the Court Street project, however, that is located on the North side of the street, and as such does not shadow the street. THIS project, however, appears to be 7 to 8 stories with no setback from 4th. I anticipate it will completely shadow 4th street in this area by mid -day, and certainly block views towards Mt. Tam. It is completely insensitive towards the community and the neighboring properties, and substantially out of scale and character with anything at that end of our town. Has a shadow study been requested? What about parking and traffic? Has anyone considered how massive and out of character this is with the existing architecture in West End? As an architect who spent much of his career designing multi -family and senior housing projects, I do understand the need. I do. However, what I cannot understand is complete disregard for how it will impact the character of our town and community in West End. Had the project stepped back at mid level away from 4th Street by at le ast half the depth of the project, it would still be massive, but at least a bit less prominent. There is little-to-no sensitivity to the scale of the design, a design which clearly is aimed at exploiting the boundaries of what should otherwise be considered unreasonable. There are little to no setback requirements, no scaling elements, etc. It is wrong for this community, and the “City" should reconsider permitting this type of monstrosity in our town. It is simply too big, too tall, and without setbacks. It will become a precedent for all future development along 4th Street, and in West End in particular. I think you are making a grave mistake. I don’t want to live in a town like Oakland or San Francisco where these types of structures are the norm. San Rafael has always had a small town character. The yearly events calendar on 4th Street supports that character with events such as the hot rod/classic car show, the bicycle race, farmers market, the Italian Street Painting, etc. THIS project is not in character with that small town vibe. Not at all. In contrast, this 7-8 story project is more in character with ticker tape parades and lines of yellow cabs. That is NOT our town. The rendering is not even correct and is mis -leading. It does not show realistic shadowing, except perhaps at noon on June 21st. As a building on the south side of the street, it is going to cast long shadows across 4th street, especially in fall and win ter months. It will be VERY imposing and massive in an area of town that is otherwise modest in scale and character. Please, please reconsider your approvals, and more importantly, your long -term vision of what this town should become. Because if this project becomes a precedent, we will no longer be that quaint small town in central Marin where American Graffiti was fi lmed, and where some sense of nostalgia for the simpler life still remains. Please do not destroy what makes San Rafael, my town, so incredibly special. Regards. 3 Felix St. Augustine Architect Linda Seabright Please reconsider this 7-8 story housing development. This is a neighborhood street with shops and restaurants that cannot sustain more traffic and parking issues. Not to mention the sheer volume of residences planned. Terrible idea. Linda Seabright Randi Reiremo I hate the overwhelming size of big cities and I agree wholeheartedly with the letter from the architect Patti Mitchell of Sun Valley (San Rafael). It is not worth the money to ruin a charming city. If this is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people, this is NOT IT! Sue Burrell and Donald Kerson Dear Planning Commission Members: Last year, many of us in the community learned of the gargantuan development planned for 1515 4th Street too late to effectively advocate against it. My husband and I wrote a letter at that time expressing concern over impact the sheer number of units (162) would have on the neighborhood, as well as the fact that the development itself would be out o f scale with the character of the neighborhood. Now we have learned that a new proposal would build even more units on the same spot and bring in even more pe ople on a daily basis. In proposing assisted living and memory care units for the same footprint of land, the new proposal is even worse. It would have 183 (as opposed to the previously proposed 162) units. There would be many more staff and other helpers vying for parking and congesting the streets. As with the previous proposal, the building comes right up to the street with no setbacks. Think of what this would do to the poor merchants adjacent to or across the streets (Cains, Bordenaves, etc.) – they would no longer have air and sunshine as this behemoth filled their sky. The concerns we expressed in our May 7, 2023 letter are equally present here: “As residents of nearby Gerstle Park, the impact of so large a residential development will have a dramatic effect in worsening the already terrible traffic and parking issues we experience in that 4 area.” The congestion we saw during the Third Street road work would become a permanent scenario in which cars stack up on Third and Fourth Streets and the tiny cross streets in that neighborhood Our letter also noted that ,“Beyond the traffic and congestion issues, the plan is out of scale and character for the wonderful historic West End neighborhood. We love the old buildings, and this seven-story monstrosity, built on top of a hill and right up to the curbs, will destroy the very feeling that attracts people to that neighborhood.” And finally, as residents who may someday need assisted living, we do not like the idea of building mega-institutions for the elderly. It would be very different if this were proposed as a real community – like the Redwoods in Mill Valley – but this proposal reflects an effort to use every inch to cram more units into the proposal. Please use this second chance to downsize whatever is approved for that spot, and make it something that will fit with the infrastructure capacity and character of the community. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely yours, Sue Burrell and Donald Kerson Larry Lauter 1515 4th St. Project. I just saw renderings of this proposed project. I am shocked that this is even in the planning stage. This project is out of context for the whole West End neighborhood, The scale of this project is inconsistent with anything along 4th Street, and certainly with any other building located in the West End. It will destroy the neighborhood ambiance that the residents and Marin citizens so appreciate. It is the wrong project in the wrong neighborhood. Not to mention adding traffic, water and population issues for the neighborhood. Please reconsider this out of place project. Larry Lauter Eileen Dervisevic Hello, Ms Kavanugh-Lynch I would like to express my proposal to this development. While I understand, housing needs to be provided in this county, all of these for-profit, long-term memory care, institutional owned developments are not with this County needs! The amount of rent that will be charged in this 5 facility is anything but “affordable” for those aging out in the county. we also need housing for the disabled in this county and those who don’t have the luxury of affording, long -term healthcare insurance or having children with high enough incomes to af ford a place like this. How in the world does something like this get approved? In the location that it gets approved? Charging the rent it charges? We need to start locally to Wall Street from owning Main Street, and it starts exactly with projects like this! Look at EAH Housing, I’m sure they would be happy to some that’s actually affordable and benefits the neighborhood. Thank you for listening. Best, Eileen Toal-Dervisevic Carol Duke Hello, I agree with the following letter. I am opposed to a 7 -8 story building in San Rafael,.. it is out of scale and character for our town. Carol duke Dear Margaret: As a resident of this community for over 50 years, and as an Architect who has practiced in this community for over 20+ of those years, I am appalled that this project is even being considered. The scale of this project is inconsistent with anything along 4th Street, and certainly with any other building located in the West End. Everything else in this area is 2 to 3 stories typically, with I believe one 4 story down around H street. The closest equivalent may be the Court Street project, however, that is located on the North side of the street, and as such does not shadow the street. THIS project, however, appears to be 7 to 8 stories with no setback from 4th. I anticipate it will completely shadow 4th street in this area by mid -day, and certainly block views towards Mt. Tam. It is completely insensitive towards the community and the neighboring properties, and substantially out of scale and character with anything at that end of our town. Has a shadow study been requested? What about parking and traffic? Has anyone considered how massive and out of character this is with the existing architecture in West End? As an architect who spent much of his career designing multi -family and senior housing projects, I do understand the need. I do. However, what I cannot understand is complete disregard for how it will impact the character of our town and community in West End. Had the project stepped back at mid level away from 4th Street by at least half the depth of the project, it would still be massive, but at least a bit less prominent. There is little -to-no sensitivity to the scale of the design, a design which clearly is aimed at exploiting the boundaries of what should otherwise be considered unreasonable. There are little to no setback requirements , no scaling elements, etc. It is wrong for this community, and the “City" should reconsider permitting this type of monstrosity in our town. It is simply too big, too tall, and without setbacks. It will become a precedent for all future development along 4th Street, and in West End in particular. I think you are making a grave mistake. I don’t want to live in a town like Oakland or San Francisco where these types of structures are the norm. San Rafael has always had a small town 6 character. The yearly events calendar on 4th Street supports that character with events such as the hot rod/classic car show, the bicycle race, farmers market, the Italian Street Painting, etc. THIS project is not in character with that small town vibe. No t at all. In contrast, this 7-8 story project is more in character with ticker tape parades and lines of yellow cabs. That is NOT our town. The rendering is not even correct and is mis-leading. It does not show realistic shadowing, except perhaps at noon on June 21st. As a building on the south side of the street, it is going to cast long shadows across 4th street, especially in fall and winter months. It will be VERY imposing and massive in an area of town that is otherwise modest in scale and character. Please, please reconsider your approvals, and more importantly, your long -term vision of what this town should become. Because if this project becomes a precedent, we will no longer be that quaint small town in central Marin where American Graffiti was film ed, and where some sense of nostalgia for the simpler life still remains. Please do not destroy what makes San Rafael, my town, so incredibly special. Sherry Jacobs Dear Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch: As a homeowner in Gerstle Park for over 30 years I am writing to express my concern regarding the building that is being considered for 1515 Fourth Street in San Rafael. My primary concern is that this large building will significantly affect traffic, which is already bad, especially during commute hours. It will also reduce parking availability for local businesses and residents. Additionally the building that is being proposed does not fit the small town character of San Rafael. The 7-8 story apartment complex is much taller than any other building in the West End area of Fourth Street. Please consider those of us who chose to purchase homes in San Rafael because of the small town vibe that it exudes. We have dutifully paid property taxes for many years and are heavily invested in our homes. Building the proposed development will strongly affect our way of life and the city in which we live. I beg of you NOT to destroy bea utiful San Rafael and HALT the development of the proposed 1515 Fourth Street Senior Living Project. I am sure that another location can be found for this facility. Thank you. Sherry Jacobs Alyce Piper Dear Ms Kavanaugh, Please reconsider the size and depth of the building you are reviewing to approve in San Rafael. It is massive and many stories too high — this will overtake the charm and character of the West End. Yes we need more housing for seniors, but as designed, it will block views and create dullness with shadowing on 4th Street. I am a homeowner of a home in the West End and this building as designed will be an eye sore and be a detriment to SR and our long time 7 residents. Please reconsider approving this building as currently submitted. Thank you! Respectfully, Alyce Piper Lisa Lavrisha Dear Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch, This letter is about proposals for multi-story housing units in the west end of San Rafael. I understand the need for dense housing in our urban/ suburban areas. Building multi -story housing in this area will create significantly more problems than it will solve. I have lived in the Sun Valley neighborhood for 24 years. Had I not moved in then, a nd been able to get housing under market, I would not be able to live here. So I really appreciate the move to build affordable housing as well as housing for our aging population. For the many reasons you have heard from others: the projects are going to make this end of SR horrible due to density, shadows, TRAFFIC! The congestion will not just be the residents, but the employees and staff who work in the building if it is for senio r housing. As it is now, I often takes 20 minutes to get from H street to the freeway. I am not exaggerating! We do need some dense housing options, but building downtown is not the solution. We need to be creative to solve these issues. The area that currently is poorly used businesses and warehouses along Kerner, E. Francisco, closer to Target area is significantly under utilized. In the very lease, the city could re -develop that into another area of dense housing, shops and restaurants. There is a building on Kerner and Morphew that is barely utilitized. I commuted via public transportation to the East bay for years and never saw any cars in their parking lot. In addition, there are many industrial storage areas in that area that could b e relocated. Creative development: that are could handle not just tall multi unit housing options and a small community with shops and restaurants. It is near the bay and trails and small parks could make it quite beautiful. And there are many lots with open parking that could be re assigned. The industrial area of SR may need to be moved futher out in the county or elsewhere. This section of central Marin should not have land used for storage and companies' fleets. Land is too precious. There could be more transporation shuttles to downtown. B ut if developed properly, it will become its own thriving community. Think creatively and for the future! Suburbia cannot just transform to urban density. It will be horrible for all. We need to create more communities with their own hub with services. 8 I am sure there are other industrial areas of SR that could be transformed. The city took many of their areas and transformed it to housing and neighborhoods that are now thriving. Please reconsider the proposals. Sincerely, Lisa Lavrisha Laurene Schlosser Dear Margaret: It appears that there's no long -term vision in San Rafael, and if there is, it's a nightmarish one. The scale of this project is inconsistent with anything along 4th Street, and certainly with any other building located in the West End. THIS project, however, appears to be 7 to 8 stories with no setback from 4th. I anticipate it will completely shadow 4th street in this area by mid -day, and certainly block views towards Mt. Tam. It is completely insensitive towards the community and the neighboring properties, and substantially out of scale and character with anything at that end of our town. It looks like a horrible institution that does not fit in with the surrounding buildings. All I know is that what the residents (tax pay paying citizens) have to say is not heard by our City officials. Going to meetings is a waste of time. Classic bait and switch We have to deal with the monstrosity on Mission and Lincoln that took no one into account – the project just went ahead and was built. My heart breaks for the nearby buildings especially the one next door with what used to be a beautiful balcony but now is a couple feet away from a massive wall. Just appalling. I feel so hopeless though. I don’t feel like we are being heard even when we speak up. The planners for our city will just plough through it all like a freight train. Look at the Redwoods in Mill Valley - it is by far the best designed and most thoughtfully run. It shows in the quality of life and well-being of the residents too, and their inclusion into the community. This isn’t impossible or even difficult. In contras t, the big box storage facility plan I see here is bad news. We can do this, we should, we deserve to have our elders in our community. Off street parking must be added, that neighborhood already see's bad conflicts over scarce street parking. We need affordable housing. But it must really be affordable (who enforces that long term?). And we must have adequate off -street parking no matter what the legislature mandates. No one is giving up their car. It just never has and never will happen! No one in in City and County planning has ever given up their car. Why not build something this big in the area over by Target, along E Francisco?? It could be redeveloped to incorporate such housing and include shops and a few restaurants, and the city could increase shuttles or public transport over to downtown. Adding tall structures and multi- unit buildings in this small downtown corridor to solve the housing and state mandates is going 9 to be terrible. While I whole -heartedly agree with all of your design points, the traffic nightmare to all of us living west of that area is going to cause chaos. Develop the poorly utilized space over on Kerner. There is an office building nearly empty on Kerner and Morphew. So much space over there to build a small community. Please, please reconsider your approvals, and more importantly, your long -term vision of what this town should become. Because if this project becomes a precedent, we will no longer be that quaint small town in central Marin where American Graffiti was filmed, and where some sense of nostalgia for the simpler life still remains. Please do not destroy what makes San Rafael, my town, so incredibly special. In gratitude, Laurene Schlosser Sun Valley resident since 1997 Harold Sloane Dear Ms Kavanaugh I am an almost 30-year resident of San Rafael. I love this town and call it home. This project has just come to my attention. I am absolutely opposed to it. The building is out of character to the rest of the neighborhood, and indeed, t he rest of the city. It sets a dangerous precedent that threatens to alter the character of the rest of the city. Parking, already scarce in the area, will become far worse. Not only will there need to be parking for residents and staff, but also visitors. Considering the size of the structure and the probable number of residents/staff, it’s unlikely there will be enough. I have personal experience with the elder care/assisted living/memory care/skilled nursing industry. And “industry” it is. This facility will NOT provide much-needed housing and shelter for our aging seniors. It will, however, provide extraordinarily expensive ($8 -10,000 per month) services to the least needy, while reaping large profits and not materially improving the quality of our community. Please also know that the workers in these facilities are as a rule overworked, underpaid, taken advantage of. There is no advantage to our town, and many many negative impacts that will result if this project is allowed to be built. I strongly urge you to reject the plan in its entirety, and find a use for the property that will truly benefit the community, and perhaps even provide genuine relief for the countless elderly members who are facing possible homelessness or displacement from a community that they may have called home for most of their lives. 10 Please, do something that truly benefits this community, makes it a better place to live for ALL concerned. Do not approve this project. Thank you Harold Sloane Elizabeth Lopez Dear Margaret, As a resident of the San Rafael community and as a neighbor of the site where this project is being proposed (1515 4th street), I’d like to express my concerns about this project and I urge the City of San Rafael to please re -consider the approval of this project. In simple words, I oppose this project at the scale it’s being proposed. Considering only the scale of the design of the project, this is insensitive to the community. If we add to it the lack of setbacks, the traffic it will create, the loss of character of the West End neighborhood, anyone can clearly conclude that the project will negatively impact the community instead of improve it. This project may benefit a few investors but it will be detrimental to the community in San Rafael including myself. I ask you and the City to please re -consider the approval of this project. The rendering is misleading. The approval of it patches a dark future for the city of San Rafael because it will set a precedent that these kind of buildings (which are out of chara cter) will be allowed. this project represents the opposite to what the city has historically represented. I urge you that you don’t destroy the historic legacy of San Rafael and the West End neighborhood by approving this magnificent project that will set the new standards for greedy builders and developers. We have been fighting homeless people for a long time, and these kind of projects only create more inequality and inequity than inclusion for the community. Please do not approve this project. Thanks for your attention and your consideration. Best regards, Elizabeth Lopez Martha Walters Hi Margaret, 11 I wanted to get some clarification about the 1515 4th Street Project in San Rafael. Last year, the City of San Rafael approved a plan for a seven story mixed use building. Two days ago, I saw a sign posted on this property about a Notice of Application for this site for a new use; as a residential care facility for the elderly containing 155 senior and independent and assisted living units and 28 secured memory care units. The sign posted indicated that there will be a meeting held by the San Rafael Planning Commission on July 23, 2024 at 7pm. The sign also states that the "new project" has been found to be consistent with the previous project by the Director of the Communi ty and Economic Development and has been determined "categorically exempt" under CEQA. First, this is a significant change to the previous mixed use proposed by developer Tom Momahan and it is troublesome that the City did not reach out to the "community" directly, i.e., the local businesses and people living in the West End and Gerstle Par k neighborhoods. Second, how was the Cat Ex determined and I would like for you to send me this Cat Ex document immediately. Third, I would suggest holding this Planning about this site and the significant changes to this project until this September after the City has completed a thorough public outreach process and it is after the summertime when very few people are now in tow n. I look forward to your prompt response.