HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2024-09-24 Agenda Packet
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 24, 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.
2
None
G. ACTION ITEMS
1. 5800 Northgate Drive (Northgate Town Square Project) – Study Session for the
proposed Northgate Town Square Project (PLAN 21-039) (also referred to as the
Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project), which includes requests for a Rezone to the
Planned Development (PD) zone (ZC21-001) and an associated Development Plan, a
Master Use Permit (UP21-007), an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED21-024),
a Vesting Tentative Map (TS21-002), State Density Bonus Law approvals including the
provision of one concession/incentive to increase the permitted height to 78-feet for all
buildings and structures in Phase 1 (2025) and Phase 2 (2040), and a Master Sign
Program (SP24-002) to allow a comprehensive redevelopment of the existing mall at 5800
Northgate Drive into a phased mixed-use development with approximately 217,520 square
feet of commercial space and 1,422 residential units on the 44.76-acre site. APNs: 175-
060-12, -40, -59, -61, -66, and –67 Applicant/Owner: Merlone Geier Partners, LLC
Recommended Action – Hold a public hearing to review the revised project and ask
clarifying questions about the project and review process to date.
Project Planner: Heather Hines, Consulting Planner
hhines@m-group.us
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
margaret.kavanaugh-lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
2. 1030 Third Street – A request to Amend the City of San Rafael Downtown Precise Plan.
The extent of the amendment will be to remove any and all references that designate 1030
Third Street as a historic resource. (PLAN24-156/ZO24-001)
APN 011-263-21; Applicant: City of San Rafael; Owner: Fasano Properties LLC et al
Project Planner: Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
margaret.kavanaugh-lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
Recommended Action – Hold a public hearing and recommend approval of the
Amendment of the Downtown Precise Plan to the City Council based on the facts
included in the staff report and Draft Resolution.
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.
3
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 $5,000 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.
1
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date:
September 24, 2024
Agenda Item: G. 1
Project Planner:
Heather Hines,
Consulting Planner
Margaret Kavanaugh-
Lynch, Planning Manager
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 5800 Northgate Drive (Northgate Town Square Project) – Study Session for the
proposed Northgate Town Square Project (PLAN 21-039) (also referred to as the Northgate Mall
Redevelopment Project), which includes requests for a Rezone to the Planned Development (PD)
zone (ZC21-001) and an associated Development Plan, a Master Use Permit (UP21-007), an
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED21-024), a Vesting Tentative Map (TS21-002),
State Density Bonus Law approvals including the provision of one concession/incentive to
increase the permitted height to 78-feet for all buildings and structures in Phase 1 (2025) and
Phase 2 (2040), and a Master Sign Program (SP24-002) to allow a comprehensive
redevelopment of the existing mall at 5800 Northgate Drive into a phased mixed-use development
with approximately 217,520 square feet of commercial space and 1,422 residential units on the
44.76-acre site. APNs: 175-060-12, -40, -59, -61, -66, and -67; General Commercial (GC) District,
Merlone Geier Partners, LLC, owner/applicant of entire site. In addition to these entitlements, the
applicant will also be required to enter into an affordable housing agreement, and a public access,
use, and maintenance agreement governing the privately owned, publicly accessible Town
Square.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project includes the phased redevelopment of the existing Northgate Mall on
approximately 45 acres of commercially designated land. Redevelopment of the site is complex
and requires careful consideration of a variety of components including demolition of existing
structures, coordination with existing leases and tenants, compliance with General Plan policies
and zoning regulations, and incorporation of community input. Given the size of the site and
complexity associated with redevelopment, the project design has been reviewed at several public
meetings over the past three years to provide opportunities for review and input by members of
the public and city review authorities, including the Planning Commission (PC) and Design Review
Board (DRB). The project has gone through several modifications and revisions since it was
initially submitted in 2021. Most recently, the project was reviewed by the DRB on September 6,
2023 (links to the recorded meeting and staff report are available below). At that meeting, the
DRB provided comments and recommendations on the project’s design (outlined in Exhibit 1 and
discussed in this report). Subsequently, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
project was released and a hearing to receive public input was held with the Planning Commission
on February 13, 2024 (links to the recorded meeting and staff report are available below).
Following the September 2023 DRB meeting and February 2024 Planning Commission meeting,
the applicant submitted revised plans in June of 2024. Those revised plans (Exhibits 2-9)
2
represent the final proposed project and are a culmination of revisions to address input provided
over the three-year planning process.
This staff report includes a background summary of prior public meetings and environmental
review, summarizes the project site, and includes a detailed description of the project as currently
proposed. Additionally, the staff report summarizes the most significant aspects of the June 2024
revised project in response to DRB comments provided at their September 2023 meeting and
provides commentary on the general consistency of those project elements with adopted policies
and regulations. While there have been a series of revisions to the project since the project was
originally submitted in 2021 and to respond to comments from the City, decision makers, and the
public, this report focuses mainly on the changes made in the most recent revisions submitted in
June 2024.
This Study Session provides the Commission with an opportunity to comprehensively review the
final proposed project. The background and context should be used to discuss the final proposal
which represents the final iteration of the project that seeks to balance review authority and public
input with the complexities associated with redevelopment of the site.
At the time of project submittal and throughout the project review process, DRB had authority for
reviewing and making recommendations on the project’s design. The DRB fulfilled their role as
an advisory body, and formal recommendations made by the DRB on the project design have
been responded to, in part or in whole, in the final project design, as further discussed later in this
staff report. In accordance with Chapter 14.02 (Organization, Applicability, and Interpretation),
Section 14.02.020 (General Rules for Applicability Of Zoning Regulations) Subsection (J) of the
San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC), because the project is seeking multiple permits, some of
which require PC approval (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Master Use Permit,
Environmental and Design Review Permit, Master Sign Program), and others require City Council
approval (Zoning Amendment), a final decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
project is the responsibility of the City Council. The PC’s role is to conduct public hearing(s) to
consider all permit applications together with the EIR and to provide a recommended action to
the City Council, who has the exclusive and final approval authority over the project.
The following discussion points are intended to guide the Commission in their review of the
revised project while recognizing that the project has gone through a series of revisions since the
project was originally submitted in 2021. Additional revisions from the applicant to the proposed
project are not anticipated.
• Review of Final Project Design. Does the Planning Commission have any questions
about the project as proposed or the chronology of modifications that have been made?
• Outstanding Issues or Concerns. Does the Planning Commission have any
outstanding issues or concerns that warrant additional discussion?
• Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Prior to review and consideration of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), does the Planning Commission have any
outstanding questions about the CEQA process? As discussed further below, the FEIR
is in process and will be made available for review with hearing materials for all project
entitlements, anticipated in late October 2024.
INTRODUCTION
There is no staff recommendation, formal action, or decision before the Planning Commission on
the project at this time, rather, the purpose of the study session is to provide an opportunity for a
comprehensive review of the final Northgate Town Square project proposal, ask questions of staff
3
and/or the applicant team about the final project proposal and the project’s evolution from initial
submittal in 2021 to now, including how comments from the PC and DRB have been addressed,
discuss any outstanding issues or concerns, and to ask questions of staff about the final stages
of the CEQA review process. The background and context included in this staff report should be
used to discuss the revised project which represents the final iteration of the project that seeks to
balance PC, DRB, and public input with the complexities associated with redevelopment of the
site.
Following this study session, it is anticipated that the project will return to the Planning
Commission in late October 2024 for consideration and recommendation to the City Council on
the FEIR and all project entitlements. Materials for that meeting will include a full complement of
recommending actions with required findings and appropriate conditions for the Planning
Commission to consider in their recommendation to City Council.
Following the Planning Commission hearing, the City Council will consider the Commission’s
recommendations and make a decision on the FEIR and project entitlements at subsequently
noticed public hearings through the end of 2024 and beginning of 2025. Notice of all future
meetings will be provided consistent with state law and the City of San Rafael requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the revised project and ask clarifying
questions about the project and review process to date. Additionally, the Planning Commission
may wish to provide additional feedback regarding revisions made in response to Planning
Commission and DRB feedback to date (Exhibit 1). It is recommended that the Planning
Commission use the study session to familiarize themselves with the final project as proposed
and provide feedback in preparation for formal public hearing and recommendation on all project
entitlements. As detailed above, ultimate discretion on the project entitlements, including
certification of the FEIR, is by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Prior Public Meetings
The Northgate project has been reviewed at a number of public meetings before the Planning
Commission and DRB, all of which are listed below. All comments provided by the Planning
Commission and DRB related to the project’s design are included in Exhibit 1 (PC and DRB
Feedback Matrix). Please note that comments provided by state agencies, local organizations,
and individual members of the public on the project’s environmental documentation prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be provided in the FEIR and will
be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council at a future public hearing.
• Planning Commission and Design Review Board – Joint Study Session, September 14,
2021
o Video
o Staff Report
• Design Review Board – May 17, 2022
o Video
o Staff Report
• Planning Commission Study Session – November 29, 2022
o Video
o Staff Report
4
• Design Review Board – July 18, 2023
o Video
o Staff Report
• Design Review Board – September 6, 2023
o Video
o Staff Report
• Planning Commission – February 13, 2024
o Video
o Staff Report
Many of the comments from previous DRB and Planning Commission hearings have been
addressed as part of revisions to the project made throughout the review process. The focus of
the most recently submitted revised project was to address DRB comments from the September
2023 meeting.
Environmental Review (DEIR and FEIR)
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, an EIR has been prepared for the project. A full
discussion of the DEIR is provided in the February 13, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report
(available for review at the link indicated above). As discussed in the Staff Report, a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) was mailed and published on December 9, 2021, opening a public review and
comment period. On January 11, 2022, the Planning Commission held a scoping meeting to
receive public comment on the scope of the environmental review. The DEIR, Notice of
Completion, and Notice of Availability were distributed on January 5, 2024, opening a 45-day
public comment period, which was later extended to 60-days to ensure legally required noticing.
The public review period ended on March 5, 2024.
The City received a large number of comments on the DEIR from public agencies, organizations
and city residents. The FEIR will include a comprehensive response to comments received on
the DEIR and any necessary revisions to the DEIR. The FEIR is in process and will come before
the Planning Commission concurrent with formal review of the project entitlements, anticipated to
occur in late October 2024. The City will release the FEIR as soon as it is completed to allow for
public review ahead of the Planning Commission hearing.
Requested Entitlements
The applicant is seeking approval of the following entitlements for the project, which includes a
variety of development activities over two distinct phases. As discussed in greater detail below,
Phase 1 (2025) includes demolition of existing commercial buildings, ongoing operation of some
existing commercial uses, construction of new commercial and residential buildings, and
installation of other site improvements. Phase 2 (2040) includes buildout of the project, which
encompasses additional demolition of existing commercial buildings, and construction of new
commercial and residential buildings. The project initially included an application for a
Development Agreement, however, that application was withdrawn by the applicant as part of the
revised project submittal.
• Zoning Amendment (ZC21-001) to rezone the site from General Commercial (GC) to
Planned Development zoning and associated Development Plan.
• Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TS21-002) to create 6 parcels for new residential
and mixed-use buildings and 18 parcels for existing and new commercial buildings and
existing parking lots.
5
• Master Use Permit (UP21-007) to designate the multiple uses of the site including a mix
of residential and commercial uses and privately owned, publicly accessible community
space.
• Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED21-024) for approval of the overall site
plan, building architecture, landscaping, and site improvements.
• State Density Bonus concessions and waivers, consistent with local and state density
bonus laws and based on the provision of onsite low-income deed restricted housing.
Concessions and waivers are approved as a part of the Master Use Permit and
Environmental and Design Review Permit.
• Master Sign Program (SP-2402) to establish uniform sign standards for all signage
associated with the overall Northgate Town Square project
In addition to the above listed entitlements, the applicant will also be required to enter into
an affordable housing agreement, and a public access, use, and maintenance agreement
governing the privately owned, publicly accessible Town Square.
As noted above, all of the entitlements and including certification of the FEIR for the project are
at the discretion of the City Council.
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 5800 Northgate
Drive
Northgate Mall at
the intersection of
Las Gallinas
Avenue and
Northgate Drive
Parcel Numbers: 175-060-12
175,060-40
175-060-59
175-060-61
175-060-66
175-060-67
Property Size: 44.76 Acres Neighborhood: San Rafael Town Center
Site Characteristics:
General Plan
Designation
Zoning Designation Existing Land Use
Project
Site:
Community
Commercial Mixed Use
General Commercial Shopping Mall, Movie
Theatre. Retail Stores,
Parking Structure
North: GC, O GC, C/O, O Commercial and Office
South: HDR, LDR, OS, O PD, O, R 7.5, P/OS, Single and Multi- Family
Residences, Offices, Park
East: GC, P/QP GC, O, P/QP Commercial, Office, Mt
Olivet Cemetery
West: OS, O, HDR, MDR,
LDR
O, PD, HR1.5, HR1.8,
OS
Multi-Family Residences,
Villa Marin Retirement
Community, Office
6
Notes: GC = General Commercial; O = Office; C/O = Commercial/Office; HDR = High Density
Residential; MDR = Medium Density Residential; LDR = Low Density Residential; OS = Open
Space; PD = Planned Development District; HR1.5, HR1.8 = Multifamily Residential Districts:
High Density; P/QP = Public/Quasi-Public; R7.5 = Single-Family Residential
Site Description/Setting:
The project site is currently developed with the Northgate Mall, which is generally oriented on a
north-south axis, with the main building located in the center of the project site and surrounded
by surface parking and standalone buildings and structures. The main mall building, which is a
total of approximately 605,283 square feet in size, consists of five sections: (1) Mall Shops East;
(2) Mall Shops West; (3) Century Theatre; (4) RH Outlet; and (5) Macy’s. West of the main building
is a Kohl’s department store, which also includes a small attached unoccupied retail space, a two-
level parking structure, and a vacant retail building. A Rite Aid, HomeGoods, and an additional
vacant retail building are located east of the main building. The existing gross leasable area (i.e.,
the total building square footage on the project site without the parking structure) is approximately
766,507 square feet. Currently there are a total of 2,899 parking spaces on the project site,
comprising 2,380 standard spaces, 22 handicap spaces, and 15 van-size spaces within the
surface parking lot, 473 spaces within the parking structure, and 9 on-street parking spaces
between the main building and Kohl’s building. Automobile access to the project site is provided
via driveways from Las Gallinas Avenue and Northgate Drive. Landscaping on the project site
consists of ornamental landscaping, including landscaping strips along the boundaries of the site
that contain street trees and shrubs, planters with trees within the surface parking lot, and some
mature trees located adjacent to the existing buildings. A total of 679 trees are located on the
project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PROJECT REVISIONS, AND STAFF ANALYSIS
The following includes a summary of the revised project submitted in June 2024 (see Exhibits 2
– 9). It includes identification of the primary revisions made in response to feedback from the
DRB’s September 6, 2023 meeting and discussion of the project’s consistency with applicable
regulations.
Final revisions to the project submitted in June 2024 include the following key revisions:
• Increase in size and enhancement of amenities in the Town Square
• Elimination of the private open space area adjacent to Major 1
• Elimination of the EAH affordable housing component on Residential 1 and replacement
with 38 townhomes
• Incorporation of onsite inclusionary housing units (10% of total project residential units
restricted to low-income households) throughout each residential parcel instead of
clustering on Residential 1
• Architectural changes to the cinema building
• Modification to Residential 5 (rental apartments) to increase the number of multi-family
units to maintain a total of 1,422 units in the project despite the reduction of units on
Residential 1 (for-sale townhomes), and including an increase in building height to 6-
stories
• Consideration of changes to Residential 3 to avoid privacy impacts
• Refinement in architectural design of the residential buildings primarily to add articulation
and pedestrian level interest
• Withdrawal of the application for a Development Agreement
7
• Submittal of the master sign program application
A full summary of the revisions submitted in June 2024 as provided by the applicant is outlined in
Exhibits 13 - 15.
Each of the subsections below describe site and use components for Phase 1 (2025) and Phase
2 (2040) except where project components apply to the site as a whole (e.g. site access). The
discussion is generally organized by the significant components of the project, including:
• Planned Development Zoning
• Overall Use and Programming
• Inclusionary Housing
• Density Bonus
• Private Open Space and Landscaping
• Access and Circulation
• Parking and Loading
• Architecture
• Fences, Walls, and Lighting
• Signage
Planned Development Zoning
Description
The applicant has applied to rezone the Northgate property from the existing General Commercial
Zoning to PD Zoning specific to the Northgate Town Square project. The proposed Northgate
Town Square Planned Development (PD) District describes the proposed development standards
for the entire site, inclusive of Phase 1 and Phase 2, and the overall plans for development of the
site constitute a valid Development Plan pursuant to Section 14.07.060 (Required Plans and
Materials). The stated purpose of the PD District is to create a pedestrian-oriented, open-air main
street experience with interconnectivity to surrounding commercial and residential uses by:
• Promoting contemporary and innovative design by allowing flexibility in property
development standards
• Encouraging the establishment of new residential uses and related community amenities
and open space
• Encouraging a holistic approach to redevelopment by providing development standards
that apply across the site, reducing the rigidity and conflicts that would otherwise result
from applying development standards and procedures designed primarily for small lots
• Accommodating large-scale, complex, mixed-use, phased redevelopment of the site
The draft PD includes all regulations required of a PD zoning district pursuant to SRMC Section
14.07.030. These include regulations for allowable land uses, lot area and width, residential
density, floor area ratio (FAR), setbacks, private open space, building height, landscaping,
parking, residential access, lighting, and fences and walls. In general, the PD regulations are
similar to the existing General Commercial (GC) zoning district (see Table 1 for a comparison of
GC and the proposed PD zoning regulations). In addition, a narrative discussion of the differences
between existing and proposed zoning are provided below.
8
Table 1: General Commercial and Northgate PD Development Standards Comparison
Development Standards General
Commercial
Northgate Planned
Development
Minimum lot area (sq. ft.) 6,000 6,000
Minimum lot area/dwelling unit 1,000 1,000
Minimum lot width (ft.) 60 60
Minimum yards:
Front NR1 NR2
Side (ft.) NR NR
Street side (ft.) NR NR
Rear (ft.) NR NR
Maximum height of structure (ft.) 36 36
Maximum lot coverage NR NR
Maximum FAR (nonresidential) 0.3 0.3
Minimum landscaping % 15% 15%
Minimum Landscaping Depth in Front Setback 15 ft 10%
Usable outdoor area None Required None Required
Outdoor Area per Residential Unit (s.f.) None Required 150
Table Notes:
1 - Where the frontage of a block is partially in an R district, the front yard shall be the same as
required for that R district, and when the side and/or rear of the lot(s) abuts an R district, the
respective side and/or rear yard shall be ten feet (10′). Parking or maneuvering shall be
permitted within the required side and rear yards provided that a minimum six-foot (6′) wide
landscape buffer area, excluding curbs, is provided adjacent to the side and rear property lines.
2 - No minimum yards are required, except that, where the frontage of a parcel is located
directly across from the R7.5 district, the front yard setback shall be ten (10) feet, with an
average front yard setback across the affected parcel of fifteen (15) feet.
• Maximum residential intensity, maximum floor area ratio, minimum landscaping, and
minimum parking requirements apply across the entire site rather than for individual
parcels.
• Because the project site is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, Assembly
Bill (AB) 2097, signed into law in 2022, precludes the City of San Rafael from imposing
or enforcing minimum parking standards on the development project. The SMART
station located at 3801 Civic Center Dris considered a “major transit stop” pursuant to
AB 2097. AB 2097 defines “major transit stop” as including existing rail or bus rapid
transit stations, ferry terminals served by bus or rail, the intersection of two or more
major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during
morning and afternoon peak commute periods, and transit stops that are included in any
applicable regional transportation plan. The draft PD specifies that no parking minimums
apply to the site pursuant to AB 2097 and proximity to the SMART station which is a rail
station.
• Minimum front yard setbacks where parcels are located across from a residential (R)
district require a front yard setback of ten feet (10’), with an average front yard setback
across the affected parcel of fifteen feet (15’) rather than applying the setback of the R
district (in this case, R7.5 which requires a 15-foot front setback);
9
• Fences and retaining walls within the front and street side yard setbacks may be a
maximum of 5 feet rather than 4 feet.
• A minimum 150 square feet of private open space per residential unit, consistent with
the Multifamily Residential Districts: High-Density (HR1.8 and HR1.5) has been applied
to ensure appropriate provision of open space to create a livable mixed-use community.
• To ensure consistency with connectivity minimum bike parking standards have been
added to the PD where not typically required in the GC zoning district.
• Consistent with the project proposal, there are minimum sustainability elements for
development within the PD that exceed current building code standards.
Comments and Revisions
The DRB did not have specific comments regarding the proposed PD zoning. However, the PD
has been updated to capture the evolution of the Northgate project. Additionally, with the
withdrawal of the Development Agreement, the PD now includes provisions such as the
sustainability elements to ensure the continued inclusion of those items throughout development
on the site. Additionally, the PD has been updated to include items that are part of the proposed
project such as provision of private open space for residential uses and provision of onsite bike
parking to ensure that these standards are carried forward regardless of potential changes to the
project through construction.
Consistency
The San Rafael General Plan Policy LU-1.15 encourages the use of PD zoning for development
on parcels greater than five acres to provide flexible design standards that are more responsive
to site conditions as well as the transfer of allowable General Plan and zoning density between
contiguous sites under common ownership. The proposed Zoning Amendment to rezone the
overall property to the Northgate PD implements the direction of this General Plan policy.
Additionally, the proposed Northgate PD is consistent with the specific purposes outlined in SRMC
Section 14.07.010 and the application is being processed consistent with the requirements in both
SRMC Chapter 14.07 (Planned Development District) and Chapter 14.27 (Amendments), both of
which contain specific findings that must be made in order for the Planning Commission to
recommend and the City Council to approve the requested PD rezone.
Overall Use and Programming
Description
The Northgate Town Square project is broken into two phases, the first identified as the 2025
Master Plan and the second phase identified as the 2040 Vision Plan. The description below
outlines the overall components of each phase.
Phase 1 of the project includes demolition of the existing southern commercial structures (former
Sears) and construction of new commercial and residential buildings and associated site
improvements, including construction of the Town Square as discussed in more detail under
“Private Open Space and Landscaping”. Figure 1: Phase 1 (2025) Demolition Plan and Figure 2:
Phase 1 (2025) Development Plan depict the overall demolition and site development.
Commercial uses in Phase 1 are outlined in Table 2, and corresponds with Figure 1 and Figure
2. The table below also includes reference to the applicable floor plan sheets contained in Exhibit
2 (Retail Architecture Plans) for ease of plan review. Phase 1 of the project includes demolition
of approximately 309,000 square feet of existing commercial space primarily made up of the
10
former Sears, the mall center core (food court & main shop space) and Home Goods. More than
half of the existing commercial space (457,561 square feet of the existing 766,507 square feet) is
retained in Phase 1 and is increased by approximately 44,000 square feet of new commercial
space. In total, Phase 1 includes 501,941 square feet of commercial space.
New commercial spaces proposed in this Phase include expansion of the existing cinema, a small
brewery (Ounces), retail spaces (Shops 3 and 4), and two new restaurant pads (Pad 1 and Pad
2) situated along the Las Gallinas frontage. Pad 2 is intended to accommodate a drive-through
restaurant use and includes a 245-foot drive-through lane to accommodate stacking for 12
vehicles. As proposed, the drive-through lane complies with Section 14.16.110 (Drive-through
Facilities) of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
Table 2: Phase 1 (2025) Commercial Space
Space Floor Plans Category Existing
(sq ft)
Demolish
ed (sq ft)
Existing
to Remain
(sq ft)
New (sq
ft)
Total (sq
ft)
Sears -- Full Demolition 134,976 134,976 -- -- --
HomeGoods -- Full Demolition 29,538 29,538 -- -- --
Mall 1 RT-16 Partial
Demolition 199,792 144,432 55,360 -- 55,360
Macy’s -- Preserved 254,015 -- 254,015 -- 254,015
Major 1 RT-8 Preserved 79,051 -- 79,051 -- 79,051
Rite Aid -- Preserved 17,340 -- 17,340 -- 17,340
Shops 1 RT-13 Preserved 6,795 -- 6,795 -- 6,795
Cinema RT-2 Preserved/New 45,000 -- 45,000 20,000 65,000
Ounces -- New -- -- -- 480 480
Shops 3 RT-2 New -- -- -- 5,000 5,000
Shops 4 RE-50 New -- -- -- 6,200 6,200
Pad 1 RT-22 New -- -- -- 8,400 8,400
Pad 2 RT-26 New -- -- -- 4,300 4,300
Total 766,507 308,946 457,561 44,380 501,941
1 Includes Major 2, Shops 2, 2A, Restaurant, Police, Management.
11
Figure 1: Phase 1 (2025) Demolition Plan2
Applicants also propose Phase 1 include the construction of 864 residential units inclusive of 87
low-income units, to comply with the city’s inclusionary housing requirements. As proposed, each
building will individually contain 10% of the total units as affordable to low-income households.
Townhome units will all be for-sale and all apartment units will be available for rent. For sale and
rental units set aside for low-income households will be deed restricted in perpetuity. Townhome
units will be subject to a below market rate agreement addressing for-sale units and apartment
units will be subject to and a rental housing agreement. An overview of each residential parcel in
Phase 1 is included in Table 3. Floor plan reference sheets contained in Exhibit 3 are also
provided, which show the specific location and unit mix of proposed low-income units.
Table 3: Phase 1 (2025) Residential Buildings
2 Northgate Town Square Redevelopment Plan, prepared by Field Paoli Architects, Studio T Square, June 4, 2024, Sheet SD-3
Housing
Type Units Low-Income
Units
Unit Sizes
(square feet)
Floor
Plans
Residential 1 For-sale
Townhomes
38 Total Units:
6 one-bed
18 two-bed
8 three-bed
6 four-bed
4 Low-Income
1 one-bed
1 two-bed
1 three-bed
1 four-bed
1 bed: 470
2 bed: 1,503 – 1,575
3 bed: 1,441 – 2,019
4 bed: 2,107 – 2,124
RE-3 to
RE-5
Residential 2 For-sale
Townhomes
100 Total Units
10 one-bed
40 two-bed
30 three-bed
20 four-bed
10 Low-Income
1 one-bed
4 two-bed
3 three-bed
2 four-bed
1 bed: 470
2 bed: 1,503 – 1,575
3 bed: 1,441 – 2,019
4 bed: 2,107 – 2,124
RE-15
to RE-
17
12
Figure 2: Phase 1 (2025) Development Plan 3
Phase 2 of the project includes demolition of additional commercial structures and construction
of new commercial and residential buildings. Most site improvements implemented in Phase 1,
such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and vehicular circulation will remain the same. Figure 3:
Phase 2 (2040) Demolition Plan and Figure 4: Phase 2 (2040) Development Plan depict the
overall Phase 2 demolition and development.
Commercial uses in Phase 2 are provided in Table 4, including reference to floor plan sheets
contained in Exhibit 2 (Retail Architecture Plans). Phase 2 of the project includes demolition of an
additional 330,000 square feet of commercial space, largely based on proposed demolition of
Macy’s and Major 1 (Kohls). Phase 2 includes preservation of approximately 162,000 square feet
of existing commercial space, inclusive of existing and new Phase 1 commercial space, and
construction of approximately 57,300 square feet of new commercial space. At buildout, the
3 Northgate Town Square Redevelopment Plan, prepared by Field Paoli Architects, Studio T Square, June 4, 2024, Sheets SD-8, RT-
1, L-3, L-4
Housing
Type Units Low-Income
Units
Unit Sizes
(square feet)
Floor
Plans
Residential 3 For-sale
Apartments
280 Total Units
63 studio
164 one-bed
53 two-bed
28 Low-Income
6 studio
17 one-bed
5 two-bed
Studio: 620
1 bed: 680 – 1,315
2 bed: 1,130 – 1,655
RE-32
to RE-
38
Residential 4 Rental
Apartments
446 Total Units
41 studio
310 one-bed
95 two-bed
45 Low-Income
4 studio
32 one-bed
9 two-bed
Studio: 620
1 bed: 680 – 1,415
2 bed: 908 – 1,970
RE-48
to RE-
56
Total 864 87 --
13
project includes operation of 219,380 square feet of commercial space which is a reduction of
approximately 282,651 square feet from Phase 1 and approximately 35% of existing commercial
space in the current Northgate Mall.
New commercial spaces in Phase 2 include two new major retailers (Major 3 and Major 4), space
for two smaller retailers (Shops 5 and 6), and space for three new restaurant uses (Pads 3, 4,
and 5). Pad 4 is intended to accommodate a drive-through restaurant use.
Table 4: Phase 2/Buildout (2040) Commercial Space
Space Floor Plans Category Existing
(sq ft)
Demolish
ed (sq ft)
Existing
to
Remain
(sq ft)
New (sq
ft)
Total (sq
ft)
Macy’s -- Full Demolition 254,015 254,015 -- -- --
Major 1 -- Full Demolition 79,051 79,051 -- -- --
Shops 1 -- Full Demolition 6,795 6,795 -- -- --
Mall 4 RT-16 Preserved (Pre-existing) 55,360 -- 55,360 -- 55,360
Rite Aid -- Preserved (Pre-existing) 17,340 -- 17,340 -- 17,340
Cinema RT-2 Preserved (Phase 1) 65,000 -- 65,000 -- 65,000
Ounces -- Preserved (Phase 1) 480 -- 480 -- 480
Shops 3 RT-2 Preserved (Phase 1) 5,000 -- 5,000 -- 5,000
Shops 4 RE-50 Preserved (Phase 1) 6,200 -- 6,200 -- 6,200
Pad 1 RT-22 Preserved (Phase 1) 8,400 -- 8,400 -- 8,400
Pad 2 RT-26 Preserved (Phase 1) 4,300 -- 4,300 -- 4,300
Major 3 RE-70 New -- -- -- 10,000 10,000
Major 4 RE-88 New -- -- -- 25,000 25,000
Shops 5 RE-70 New -- -- -- 3,500 3,500
Shops 6 RE-88 New -- -- -- 5,000 5,000
Pad 3 RT-40 New -- -- -- 5,000 5,000
Pad 4 RT-43 New -- -- -- 3,800 3,800
Pad 5 RT-46 New -- -- -- 5,000 5,000
Total 501,941 339,861 162,080 57,300 219,380
4 Includes Major 2, Shops 2, 2A, Restaurant, Police, Management.
14
Figure 3: Phase 2 (2040) Demolition Plan
Applicant’s proposed Phase 2 of the project includes construction of an additional 558 residential
units inclusive of 56 low-income units. As with Phase 1, residential buildings constructed in Phase
2 are proposed to incorporate the required 10% inclusionary housing for low-income households
within each residential building. An overview of additional residential development in Phase 2, as
well as total residential units at project buildout (1,422 total units, inclusive of 143 low-income
units) is included in Table 5. The table below also includes floor plan reference sheets contained
in Exhibit 3 (Residential Architecture Plans).
Table 5: Phase 2/Buildout (2040) Residential Buildings
Housing
Type Units Low-Income
Units
Unit Sizes
(square feet)
Floor
Plans
Residential 1 Townhomes
38 Total Units:
6 one-bed
18 two-bed
8 three-bed
6 four-bed
4 Low-Income
1 one-bed
1 two-bed
1 three-bed
1 four-bed
1 bed: 470
2 bed: 1,503 – 1,575
3 bed: 1,441 – 2,019
4 bed: 2,107 – 2,124
RE-3 to
RE-5
Residential 2 Townhomes
100 Total Units
10 one-bed
40 two-bed
30 three-bed
20 four-bed
10 Low-Income
1 one-bed
4 two-bed
3 three-bed
2 four-bed
1 bed: 470
2 bed: 1,503 – 1,575
3 bed: 1,441 – 2,019
4 bed: 2,107 – 2,124
RE-15
to RE-
17
Residential 3 Apartments
280 Total Units
63 studio
164 one-bed
53 two-bed
28 Low-Income
6 studio
17 one-bed
5 two-bed
Studio: 620
1 bed: 680 – 1,315
2 bed: 1,130 – 1,655
RE-32
to RE-
38
15
Figure 4: Phase 2 (2040) Development Plan
Comments and Revisions
One of the most significant revisions to the overall project layout in the June 2024 submittal is the
removal of the EAH affordable housing component on Residential 1 and the associated addition
of 38 townhomes. This modification changed both the overall affordable housing programming
as discussed below, but also resulted in a reduction in massing on Residential 1. These
modifications were selected by the project applicant as an alternative approach to meeting the
City’s inclusionary housing requirements. Additionally, the applicant determined that the
modifications would help address complexities associated with timing for project implementation.
The elimination of the five story EAH building on Residential 1 also helped to address general
Housing
Type Units Low-Income
Units
Unit Sizes
(square feet)
Floor
Plans
Residential 4 Apartments
446 Total Units
41 studio
310 one-bed
95 two-bed
45 Low-Income
4 studio
32 one-bed
9 two-bed
Studio: 620
1 bed: 680 – 1,415
2 bed: 908 – 1,970
RE-48
to RE-
56
Phase 1 (2025)
Total 864 87 --
Residential 5 Apartments
309 Total Units
52 studio
190 one-bed
67 two-bed
31 Low-Income
5 studio
19 one-bed
7 two-bed
Studio: 620
1 bed: 680 – 830
2 bed: 1,130 – 1,150
RE-3 to
RE-5
Residential 6 Apartments
249 Total Units
36 studio
160 one-bed
53 two-bed
25 Low-Income
4 studio
16 one-bed
5 two-bed
Studio: 620
1 bed: 680 – 830
2 bed: 1,130 – 1,150
RE-15
to RE-
17
Phase 2 (2040)
Total 558 56 --
Buildout Total 1,422 143 --
16
feedback concerned with the overall massing of the project, especially in relation to neighboring
lower density residential uses.
Figure 5: Residential 1 Site Plan (Original and Revised)
Figure 6: Residential 1 Rendering (Original and Revised)
ORIGINAL
REVISED
17
Another significant change in the revised project related to the overall programming of the site is
modification to the Town Square which is discussed in greater detail in the Open Space and
Landscaping section below.
Consistency
The overall uses and programming of the Northgate Town Square project is consistent
with General Plan Policy NH-4.2 which calls for strengthening the role of the North San
Rafael Town Center through revitalization of the Northgate Mall property and including a
distinctive and vibrant mix of uses, allowance of residential housing, and providing
additional outdoor public places that support public gatherings.
Inclusionary Housing
Description
The proposed project includes the provision of onsite inclusionary housing equally distributed on
each of the six residential parcels. All of the below market rate (BMR) units will be affordable to
lower income households and will generally match the size and bedroom count of the market rate
units on each parcel, as shown in Table 5 above.
Comments and Revisions
The proposal for providing inclusionary housing as part of the revised project is a significant
change from the previous proposal which had concentrated the required 10% low-income units
as part of Phase 1 (96 units) into a single multi-family apartment building on Residential 1, to be
built and operated by EAH.
Though not considered consensus items, comments from some members of both the Planning
Commission and DRB expressed concern that the EAH building was not of similar design or
quality as other residential buildings and that the approach did not appropriately distribute
affordable housing throughout the site consistent with the City’s requirements. Additionally, there
were comments both from Planning Commission and DRB members and members of the public
opposing the clustered approach to the provision of affordable housing within the project based
on the City requirements to evenly distribute BMR units within a project, consistent with affordable
housing guidelines adopted by the City Council through Resolution 14890 (Guidelines for the
Administration of the Affordable Housing Requirement Program), on February 16, 2021 (the
“Affordable Housing Guidelines”). Ultimately, the applicant elected to modify Residential 1 from
apartments to townhomes, and to distribute inclusionary housing units across all residential
buildings.
The applicant modified the proposal in the revised project to eliminate the EAH building on
Residential 1, replacing the 96-unit apartment building with 38 three story townhomes that
together with Residential 2 provide a total of 138 for-sale townhome units. To maintain the 1,422
units in the overall project, an additional 58 apartment units have been incorporated into the
revised Residential 5. This modification resulted in architectural modification to Residential 5 to
including an increase in building height from 5-stories to 6 stories.
18
Figure 7: Residential 5 (Original and Revised)
Consistency
The revised project is consistent with the City’s Affordable Housing Guidelines which require that
residential development projects between two and 15 units meet the specified Primary and
Secondary requirements. The Primary Requirement requires projects of greater than 15 units to
make 5% of the proposed units (excluding density bonus units) affordable to and occupied by a
low-income household. The Secondary Requirement may be satisfied through construction of
additional on-site affordable housing units (5% for low income), payment of in-lieu fees for
residential development, construction of off-site affordable housing, or through donation of land
to the City. The Northgate Town Square Project meets these requirements by proposing to
provide 10% (143 units) of the residential units on site as affordable to low-income households,
thereby complying with the 5% on-site Primary Requirement, and 5% on-site Secondary
Requirement. This means that the affordable units must be sold or rented to households earning
50-80% of the Area Medium Income (AMI) in Marin County. Currently, AMI in Marin County is
$186,000/per household per year. Households in Marin qualify as low income if the household
earns between $109,700 and $206,800 annually, depending upon the size of the household
($109,700 for a one-person household, and up to $206,800 for an eight-person household.).
Consistent with the City’s Affordable Housing Guidelines, all the low-income units must be
dispersed through the project and represent a similar mix of type to that of the residential
development of the project as a whole, including the same or substantially similar mix of unit size
(number of bedrooms and square footage) and compatible in terms of design, materials, and
amenities as the market rate units. The affordable units shall be constructed prior to or concurrent
with the construction of the market rate units on each of the residential parcels. The proposed
below market rate units include for 14 for-sale units as part of the townhome portion of the project
on Residential 1 and 2 and 129 rental units as part of the multi-family portion of the project on
Residential 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Pursuant to Subsection E (Initial Occupancy, Control of Resale and Continued Adorability of
Adorable Housing Units in Residential Development Projects) of the City’s Affordable Housing
Guidelines, the affordable units must be deed restricted so that they cannot be sold or rented to
a household that does not qualify as a low income household, in perpetuity, except that the City
Council in its sole discretion may reduce the affordability timeframe to not less than 40 years if it
makes a finding of financial need or infeasibility. There is no additional affordable housing
requirement for the commercial portion of the Northgate Town Center project based on SRMC
Section 14.16.030.D.1.c. which exempts a mixed-use project when the affordable units provided
for the residential component exceeds the housing requirement for the commercial based on the
formula provided. In other words, the applicant can satisfy its affordable housing requirements
for the project as a whole through the proposed provision of inclusionary units and need not
contribute any fees or additional affordable housing units as a part of the commercial portion of
the project.
ORIGINAL REVISED
19
Density Bonus
Description
The project qualifies for a 20% density bonus, one incentive/concession, and unlimited waivers
under the State Density Bonus Laws (SDBL, or Government Code section 65915 et seq.) based
on the provision of 10% of the residential units as affordable to low-income households. The
application does not request to use the density bonus. The proposed density is consistent with
Community Commercial Mixed Use land use designation for the site (which allows for 21.8 to 43.6
dwelling units/net acre). The project proposes an overall residential density of 32 units per acre.
The project includes a request to use the incentive/concession to increase the maximum building
height across the site, including structures in Phase 1 and Phase 2 to a maximum height of 78
feet as shown in project plans. An additional 12 feet for projections for non-habitable space would
allow for further increase of the building height to allow for the provision of private recreational
amenities, utilities, mechanical appurtenances, etc. as allowed as part of SRMC Section
14.16.120 (Exclusions to the maximum height requirement).
Comments and Revisions
Although there was feedback about the overall height and massing of the project,
incentive/concession for a height increase is consistent with the provisions of the SDBL. Also of
note, as part of previous revisions to the project and in direct response to public concern about
massing along Northgate Drive and in proximity to existing low density housing, the applicant
reduced building height along Northgate Drive (townhomes) and increased building heights at the
interior of the site to minimize impacts to existing residential structures.
There were no changes specific to the Density Bonus application as part of the revised project.
Consistency
The SDBL provides for incentives/concessions to building standards to facilitate the provision of
affordable housing in developments. The SDBL defines incentives/concessions as:
• A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural
design requirements, such as a reduction in setback or minimum square footage
requirements; or
• Approval of mixed use zoning; or
• Other regulatory incentives or concessions which actually result in identifiable and actual
cost reductions.
The intent of concessions and incentives is to lower the cost of the construction of housing in
order to provide for the affordable housing. The number of incentives/concessions to which an
applicant is entitled is based on the percentage of affordable units in the project. Because the
applicant proposes 10% low-income units, the applicant is entitled to one incentive/concession.
The applicant intends to use this incentive/concession to increase the allowable height on the
project site. Pursuant to Figure 3-3 (Height Limits) of the San Rafael General Plan 2040, the
current allowable height is 36 feet, and the applicant seeks to utilize its incentive/concession to
modify this height limit to 78 feet.
The applicant has requested the incentive/concession to building height to apply across the site
and not only to residential buildings. This provides the applicant with flexibility should the project
design change, thereby allowing the incentive/concession to apply to another building or area on
20
the site. However, the application of this concession does not exempt the applicant from
compliance with their approved Environmental and Design Review Permit or to seek additional
future discretionary review should there be a desire to substantially change the approved design
of the project. Table 6 below summarizes the height of all buildings proposed by the project.
Table 6: Building Height Summary
Lot Building Height Notes
Lot 1 Town Square Pavilion 45’ 3” -
Lot 2 Residential 1 35’ 0” -
Lot 3 Residential 2 35’ 0” -
Lot 4 Residential 3 62’ 0” 67’ 6” measured to parapet
Lot 5 Residential 4 72‘ 0” 77’ 6” measured to parapet
Lot 6 Shops 4 - Ground floor of Residential 4 mixed-use bldg.
Lot 7 Rite Aid - No change, existing building
Lot 8 Pad 2 20’ 4” 27’ 4” measured to tower
Lot 9 Pad 1 28’ 3” 36’ 10” measured to tower
Lot 10 Pad 4 25’ 0” -
Lot 11 Pad 3 30’ 6” Measured to roof pitch
Lot 12 Pad 5 24’ 6” -
Lot 13 Residential 5 62’ 0” 67’ 6” measured to parapet
Lot 14 Major 3 - Ground floor of Residential 5 mixed-use bldg.
Lot 15 Shops 5 - Ground floor of Residential 5 mixed-use bldg.
Lot 16 Residential 6 72‘ 0” 77’ 6” measured to parapet
Lot 17 Major 1 (2025)
Shops 1 (2025)
Major 4 (2040)
46’ 5”
34’ 6”
-
-
-
Ground floor of Residential 6 mixed-use bldg.
Lot 18 Shops 6 - Ground floor of Residential 6 mixed-use bldg.
Lot 19 Parking Garage 27’ 0” 40’ 0” measured to tower
Lot 20 Surface Parking Lot - -
Lot 21 Major 2
Shops 2/2A/Restaurant
39’ 7”
41’ 6”
-
-
Lot 22 Surface Parking Lot - -
Lot 23 Cinema 46’ 8” -
Lot 24 Shops 3 33’ 0” -
Private Open Space and Landscaping
Description
The project includes provision of two types of open space, including privately owned, publicly
accessible open space (this largely includes the Town Square as discussed in more detail below)
and private open space as part of each residential parcel. Additionally, the project includes
landscaped areas and plantings throughout the project that have been designed with different
objectives of providing gathering spaces, increasing shade, providing screening, etc.
Phase 1 includes a total of approximately 78,000 square feet of privately owned publicly
accessible open space (town square, bike hub, seating areas and plaza), 143,000 square feet of
private open space in the residential parcels (pools, BBQ areas, private patios, etc.), and about
304,000 square feet of landscaping/planting areas.
21
Phase 2 will result in a net increase of 98,305 square feet of private open space associated with
the construction of Residential 5 and 6. Minor increase in planting area throughout the site result
in approximately 325,000 square feet of landscaping/planting areas overall at the build out of
Phase 2. No additional privately owned publicly accessible open space is proposed as part of
Phase 2. Usable open space and landscaping are further discussed below and Table 7: Open
Space Calculations (Phase 1 and Phase 2) includes a breakdown of proposed open space areas.
The private open space as part of the residential components of the project is for the exclusive
use by residents of each residential parcel and includes common indoor and outdoor areas as
well as private areas such as balconies and patios. Because it is anticipated that each residential
parcel will be owned by a separate entity, there is no shared use agreement planned for tenants
of the different residential buildings. Under the current zoning of General Commercial there is no
requirement for private open space. However, with the adoption of the Northgate PD, a minimum
requirement of 150 square feet of private open space per residential unit has been added to be
consistent with other high density residential districts in the City (HR1.5 and HR1.8). Common
indoor and outdoor usable open space includes a variety of amenities such as lawn and other
lounge areas, swimming pools, BBQ and outdoor kitchens, gaming areas, clubhouses,
courtyards, roof decks, clubrooms, co-working spaces, and fitness areas. Private open space
includes outdoor patios and balconies.
The revised project includes a 56,975 square foot Town Square located in approximately the
center of the site and to be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the overall project. This amenity is
proposed as privately owned, publicly accessible open space that will be an amenity for new
residential users, commercial patrons, and the general public. The Town Square contains a
variety of amenities including a fenced dog park, playground, seating areas, natural turf lawn,
stage, and fountains. Public access to the Town Square will be provided through recordation of
public access, use and maintenance agreement. A condition of approval will be included in the
entitlement package to require installation of the amenities identified on Sheets L-19 and L-20 of
Exhibit 4 (Landscape Plans) as well as minimum standards for annual event programming in the
Town Square.
Adjacent to the Town Square located in front of the cinema building is an approximately 10,000
square foot bike hub plaza that includes a bike fix it hub, seating areas, and shade structures.
Retractable bollards are proposed between the Town Square and the bike hub to allow for closure
of the area to vehicular traffic during special events.
Landscaping includes a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses, groundcovers, and stormwater
treatment species. As proposed, Phase 1 includes planting of a total of 960 trees and Phase 2
includes planting of an additional 983 trees. A full list of species and overall planting plans are
included on Sheet L-1 (Phase 1) and Sheet L-36 (Phase 2) of Exhibit 4 (Landscape Plans).
Preliminary stormwater control plans are included on Sheet C-4.10 (Phase 1) and Sheet C-4.20
(Phase 2) of Exhibit 5 (Civil Plans).
Table 7: Open Space Calculations (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
Open Space Type Area
Residential Usable Open Space – Phase 1
Residential 1 (Sheet RE-7) 7,314
Residential 2 (Sheet RE-19) 22,303
Residential 3 (Sheet RE-40) 42,979
Residential 4 (Sheet RE-58) 70,401
22
Open Space Type Area
Phase 1 Subtotal 142,997 square feet
Residential Usable Open Space – Phase 2
Residential 5 (Sheet RE-77) 54,688
Residential 6 (Sheet RE-96) 43,617
Phase 2 Subtotal 98,305 square feet
Total Residential Usable Open Space at Buildout 241,302 square feet
Publicly Accessible Open Space – Phase 1 & 25
Town Square (Sheet L-2) 56,975
Bike Hub Plaza (Sheet L-2) 9,604
Restaurant Entry Plaza (Sheet L-2) 8,984
Corner Monument Rest Stop (Sheet L-2) 2,093
Corner Monument Rest Stop (Sheet L-2) 508
Other6 9,676
Total Common Open Space at Buildout 87,840 square feet
TOTAL USABLE OPEN SPACE AT BUILDOUT 329,142 square feet
Residential Landscape Areas – Phase 1
Residential 1 (Sheet L-10) 18,133
Residential 2 (Sheet L-12) 35,532
Residential 3 (Sheet L-14) 25,451
Residential 4 (Sheet L-21) 45,368
Phase 1 Subtotal 124,484 square feet
Residential Landscape Areas – Phase 2
Residential 5 (Sheet L-52) 39,008
Residential 6 (Sheet L-45) 18,844
Phase 2 Subtotal 57,452 square feet
Total Residential Landscape Areas at Buildout 181,936 square feet
Non-Residential Landscape Areas – Phase 1 & 2 7 142,934 square feet
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREAS AT BUILDOUT 324,870 square feet
Comments and Revisions
There were a number of comments from members of the public, DRB, and Planning Commission
that were the focus of revisions to the Town Square. A common theme was the request for
enlargement of this common amenity. Additional comments asked for inclusion of features for all
5 Common Usable Open Space was calculated by taking the sum of the known residential usable open space values for both phases
(241,302 sf) and subtracting this from the total usable open space area listed on Sheet SD-14 of Exhibit 9 (329,142 sf).
6 Other was calculated by adding the sum of the known values for the Town Square, Bike Hub Plaza, Restaurant Entry Plaza, and
the Corner Monument Rest Stops (78,164 sf) with the sum of the known values of residential usable open space (241,302 sf),
and subtracting the total of that value from the known value of usable open space (329,142).
7 Non-residential landscape areas were calculated by taking the sum of the known residential landscape areas (181,936 sf) and
subtracting this value from the total landscape area listed on Sheet SD-14 of Exhibit 9 (324,870 sf).
23
ages; including young children, consideration for elimination of the dog park, elimination of faux
grass and rocks from the design approach, and reduction in the amount of parking surrounding
the Town Square.
The revised project increased the size of the Town Square from 48,075 square feet to 56,975
square feet by incorporating a row of parking to the west of the Town Square. The applicant has
committed to use of natural grass and eliminated the seating boulders in the lawn area to allow
for more flexible use of the lawn area for activities. The dog park was relocated within the Town
Square away from the children’s play area but remains in the project based on market demands
for the residential uses being introduced on the site. Modifications to landscaping in the Town
Square better utilizes specimen trees for shading and interest.
Figure 8: Town Square (Original and Revised)
Figure 9: Town Square Pavilion and Dog Park
24
The revised project eliminated the smaller private publicly accessible open space area next to
Kohl’s that in the previous version of the project was proposed to be installed as part of Phase 1
and later removed as part of Phase 2 with the development of Residential 6. The approximately
20,000 square foot “public lawn” shown in the original site plan below is now part of a plaza
associated with the Ounces brewery and includes space primarily for customers of the proposed
brewery. There are also some amenities and retail seating for general users of the site. Under
Phase 2, these amenities will be removed for development of Residential 6.
Figure 9: Ounces Public Lawn (Original and Revised)
Consistency
While the current General Commercial zoning district does not require minimum private open
space standards for residential uses, PD zoning requires any residential development to provide
“adequate open space” where applicable (SRMC Section 14.07.090) (separate from any park
dedications or in-lieu fees). The same requirement applies for nonresidential uses (SRMC Section
14.07.090). The applicant has proposed a minimum standard of 150 square feet of private open
space per residential unit in the PD zoning regulations, consistent with other high-density zone
private open space requirements. As part of the overall Development Plan, the project also
includes construction and ongoing operation of privately owned, publicly accessible open space.
Any future modifications to the PD Zoning and Development Plan, including any modifications
that would, reduce, eliminate, or otherwise substantially alter the privately owned, publicly
accessible open space, would require subsequent review, consistent with the requirements of
SRMC Section 14.07.150 (Amendments to PD Zoning and Development Plans — New
Application). As proposed, the project is consistent with this requirement.
There is no applicable requirement for public open space for the project in the San Rafael
Municipal Code. The proposed project includes privately owned, publicly accessible open space
as part of the project as well as options for additional public amenities such as a community room,
library satellite branch location, and public restrooms, all located on the ground floor level of
Residential Parcel 4, facing the Town Square. In that there is no code requirement, and that the
applicant has increased the size and amenities in the Town Square as part of the recent revised
project submittal, the project is responsive to public input and exceeds open space requirements.
All of these amenities are to be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the project and will be
conditioned as such.
25
In addition to the Town Square, Phase 1 also includes installation of bicycle and pedestrian paths
throughout the site and “rest stops” adjacent to Residential 4 (508 square feet) and Pad 1 (2,093
square feet) with pet waste stations, bike racks, drinking fountains, water filling stations, and
benches. There is also an approximately 9,000 square foot public entry plaza proposed at the
front of the restaurant pad adjacent to Major 2 with an outdoor lounge and seating areas. All of
these amenities will remain as publicly available open space areas under Phase 2 of the project.
Access and Circulation
Description
The overall access and circulation of the project and specifically the incorporation of bike and
pedestrian connectivity in and through the site is intended to encourage residents, commercial,
and recreation users of the site to utilize alternative modes of transportation. The bike and
pedestrian connectivity has been revised significantly through the project’s review process and in
response to comments received from DRB, Planning Commission, organizational stakeholders,
and members of the public.
The majority of access and circulation improvements are proposed as part of Phase 1 as
described in detail below.
Vehicular access to and from the site is provided at the locations shown in Figure 2: Phase 1
(2025) Development Plan and Figure 4: Phase 2 (2040) Development Plan. The numbering in red
provided in these figures correspond with the following, starting at the northwest corner of the site
and rotating clockwise:
1. Signalized intersection of Las Gallinas Ave/Del Presidio Blvd (inbound only)
2. Las Gallinas Ave Driveway 1 (between Rite Aid and Pad 2 surface parking area);
3. Las Gallinas Ave Driveway 2 (between Rite Aid and Macy’s surface parking area);
4. Signalized intersection of Las Gallinas Ave/Merrydale Rd;
5. Los Ranchitos Rd Driveway 1 (between Residential 4 and Residential 3)
6. Northgate Dr Driveway 1 (between Residential 3 and Residential 2)
7. Northgate Dr Driveway 2 (between Residential 2 and Residential 1)
8. Parking Structure Entrance (intersection of Northgate Dr/Thorndale Dr)
9. Northgate Dr Driveway 3 (between parking structure and Major 1)
10. Northgate Dr Driveway 4 (between Major 1 surface parking and Pad 1 surface parking)
The multi-modal site connectivity map at Sheet SD-5 in Exhibit 9 (Site Development Plan) shows
bike and pedestrian connection to the site. Sheet L-3 and L-4 in Exhibit 4 (Landscape Plans)
shows bike and pedestrian connectivity within the site, including a variety of different multi-modal
paths and bike lanes. These are further enhanced with bike parking and storage and landscape
design. Sheets L-38 and L-39 show some modifications to bike and pedestrian connectivity as
part of Phase 2.
Transit access to and from the site is provided by Marin Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and Sonoma
Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART). As shown in Figure 2, three existing bus stops are located
along the eastern property frontage. The Civic Center SMART station is located at 3801 Civic
Center Drive (Marin Civic Center Stop), approximately 0.3 miles east of the project site. Currently,
pedestrians traveling between the project site and the station must either cross over the freeway
to access the sidewalk along Civic Center Drive or walk in the roadway along Merrydale Road. A
multi-use trail to close this gap is planned in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The
Merrydale Conceptual Design Informational Report was prepared by the City in April 2022 to
address alternative designs, which generally include a 12-foot-wide shared-use trail along the
north and east sides of Merrydale Road between Las Gallinas Avenue and the Sonoma-Marin
26
Area Rail Transit (SMART) station. Currently, the applicant is proposing a $500,000 contribution
to support trail enhancements. Additionally, the project proposes improvements including a bench
and trash receptacle at the existing bus stop near the Rite Aide to enhance the existing bus stop.
Comments and Revisions
At the last DRB meeting in September 2023 there were several comments acknowledging and
commending the applicant on changes that had been made to enhance the multi-modal
connectivity of the project. No specific comments from the DRB focused on the multi-modal
aspects or vehicular circulation of the site with the exception of parking reduction suggestions in
order increase the size of the town square and to increase the use of alternative transportation to
the site, both of which are discussed more below under the parking discussion.
Consistency
The San Rafael General Plan’s mobility element includes policy language about maximizing the
benefits of the SMART train service (Policy M-4.3), encouraging walking and biking for short trips
(Policy M-6.1), developing pedestrian and bicycle networks that connect residents to major activity
and shopping centers (Policy M-6.3), and encouraging high density employment and residential
uses near transit hubs (Policy M-3.8). The Northgate Town Center is consistent with this policy
direction in building a dense mixed-use redevelopment in proximity to the Civic Center SMART
station and supporting future City plans to enhance the Merrydale connection from the site to the
SMART station. Additionally, the project has incorporated a robust multi-modal connectivity plan
to ensure safe access to, around, and through the project site to encourage walking and biking.
As such, in addition to the standard traffic studies for vehicular access, vehicle miles traveled and
level of service, the project has been revised and improved to incorporate opportunities for multi-
modal connection, consistent with the General Plan.
Parking
Description
The Northgate Town Square Project incorporates onsite parking for the project as a whole utilizing
surface parking and parking structures as well as short and long term bicycle parking. Table 8
and Table 9 below summarize the number of parking spaces for each phase of development,
divided between commercial and residential uses, and including electric vehicle (EV) facilities and
infrastructure.
The existing parking structure serving commercial uses will remain with some design
enhancement and the addition of solar to help power onsite lighting. Additional commercial
parking will be provided as surface parking along the interior roadways and around the perimeter
of the Town Square. Parking for the new residential uses will be provided in internal multi-story
parking structures for the rental units and in individual garages and surface parking for the
ownership (townhome) units.
Table 8 and Table 9 below shows provision of electrical vehicle (EV) chargers as well as spaces
that are EV Ready. The provision of EV parking within changed commercial parking areas on
site is compliant with Tier 2 thresholds adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) and as referenced in the FEIR.
Bike parking is provided with clusters of bike racks distributed throughout the site, including at the
common bike hub next to the Town Center. No long term covered bike parking is provided for
27
commercial tenants or users. At least one bike room is incorporated into the ground floor of each
multi-family building providing secure parking for tenants.
Table 8: Commercial Parking Supply
Phase VEHICLE PARKING BICYCLE
PARKING
Total EV
Charger
EV
Ready
Clean
Air
Vehicle
ADA
Spaces
Compact
Spaces
Short
Term
Long
Term
2025 1,841 201 67 223 56 22 102 96
2040 1,301 276 92 306 61 33 72 96
Net Change -540 +75 +25 +83 +5 +11 -30 0
Table 9: Residential Parking Supply
Residential
Area
VEHICLE PARKING BICYCLE PARKING
Total EV
Charger EV Ready ADA
Spaces
Short Term Long Term
Phase 1 (2025) Residential Parking Supply
Residential 1 81 4 19 5 8 --1
Residential 2 215 7 38 5 12 --1
Residential 3 471 71 400 21 24 2882
Residential 4 845 127 718 32 44 4763
2025 Total 1,612 209 1,175 63 138 764
Phase 2 (2040) Residential Parking Supply
Residential 5 535 95 440 19 28 3164
Residential 6 4395 66 373 126 22 2767
2040 Total 974 161 813 31 50 592
2025/2040
Total
2,586 370 1,988 94 188 1,356
Notes:
Phase 1 (2025)
1 Long-term bicycle parking for Residential 1 and Residential 2 are provided within individual garages and
are not included in the overall calculations.
2 Provided within two bike rooms (see Sheet RE-33 of Exhibit 3)
3 Provided within two bike rooms (see Sheet RE-50 of Exhibit 3)
Phase 2 (2040)
4 Provided within two bike rooms (see Sheet RE-70 of Exhibit 3)
5 120 assigned residential stalls within adjacent parking structure
6 3 ADA assigned residential stalls within adjacent parking structure
7 Provided within one bike room (see Sheet RE-88 of Exhibit 3)
Comments and Revisions
Reduction in parking was another theme of the comments received from both members of the
public and the DRB. The comments focused on the viability of the redevelopment project as a
transit oriented development when an excess of vehicular parking was readily available as well
as the suggestion that reduced parking would allow increase in publicly accessible open space
and other amenities.
The revised plans did not specifically alter the proposed parking other than the elimination of a
single row of parking to the west of the Town Square to facilitate the expansion of the footprint of
the Town Square itself. However, as part of the environmental review process, the amount of EV
chargers and EV ready spaces was increased to meet the Tier 2 thresholds recommended by
BAAQMD.
28
Consistency
Proposed parking in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 meets the City’s standard parking requirements
for both commercial and residential uses. However, as explained above, based on the project
site’s location within one half mile of the SMART station, no onsite parking can be required by the
City consistent with AB 2097.
The City does not have adopted parking maximums and therefore cannot require the applicant to
reduce onsite parking for the proposed project. The draft PD zoning regulations reference parking
requirements outlined in the SRMC, notes that those parking requirements may be satisfied
across the total site area of the PD and do not need to be satisfied on a lot-by-lot basis.
Additionally, the draft PD regulations reference existing flexibility to reduce parking requirements
consistent with SRMC Section 14.18.080 (Parking requirements for reciprocal uses with shared
parking facilities) at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. Consistent with state law and the
desire to see reduced parking in future development in proximity to transit, the draft PD also
references the flexibility to reduce or eliminate onsite parking pursuant to the allowance under AB
2097.
The provision of EV chargers and EV ready spaces encourages electric and other low carbon
emission vehicles and enhances available infrastructure to support the transition to low carbon
transportation, consistent with General Plan Policy M-3.6.
There are no bike parking standards for residential development currently required by SRMC
Section 14.18.090 (Bicycle parking). All of the multi-family residential buildings have interior bike
rooms to provide secure covered bike parking for tenants. No covered bike parking is provided
in Residential 1 or Residential 2 for the 138 townhomes. Bike racks are provided throughout the
proposed project to provide short term bike parking for both residential and nonresidential uses
on the site. A bike parking requirement for residential units has been included in the draft PD
regulations to memorialize the proposed bike facilities as part of the project.
Architecture
Commercial Architecture
Description
New and existing commercial buildings feature modern architectural design. Each building is
varied in its form, colors, and materials and is appropriate for the types of commercial uses it is
intended to accommodate (e.g. large- and small-scale retail, restaurants, etc.). Where commercial
buildings have multiple tenant spaces, varied roof forms and alternating colors and materials are
used to differentiate these spaces. The visual and spatial relationship of the multi-tenant
commercial buildings create a strong sense of pedestrian entry by using ground-floor glazing,
awnings, and varied application of horizontal and vertical elements to further differentiate
commercial tenants, and effectively reduce the mass of the overall buildings. Single-tenant
commercial buildings, including Pads 1 and 2 (Phase 1) and Pad 4 (Phase 2) feature decorative
towers to create a sense of entry and visual interest as well as covered outdoor seating areas to
create an activated storefront area. These single-tenant building are designed to create visual
interest along each elevation through the use of varied colors and materials, building stepbacks,
and alternating roof forms.
Colors and materials vary among commercial buildings. The overall aesthetic creates a cohesive
design through use of primarily neutral tones, with some accent colors, as well as brick, stone,
metal, and fiber cement façade materials which create various complimentary textures and add
to the overall visual interest of each building.
29
Cinema Building
The cinema building is one of the larger commercial tenant spaces in the revised project,
especially in Phase 2 when the existing Macy’s and Kohls buildings would be
demolished/modified. The cinema building also directly relates to the Town Square and adjacent
bike hub at the center of the overall project and backs up to the townhome component on
Residential 2.
The cinema building is enlarged from the existing by approximately 20,000 square feet as part of
Phase 1 and has a maximum building height of 46’-8”. Detailed plans for the Cinema Building can
be found in Exhibit 3 (Residential Architecture Plans) at plan sheets as referenced below.
Cinema/Shops 3 RT-3 RT-4 RT-5, RT-6, RT-7
Comments and Revisions
The cinema was one of the most discussed commercial buildings at the DRB meeting in
September 2023. Specific feedback from the DRB included the suggestion to consider alternative
design features on the east facing elevation as an alternative to the mountain relief and to consider
30
providing a landscaped green screen or other design solution to break up the rear façade of the
cinema structure across from the town homes. In response to that feedback the revised project
includes the following design modifications.
• Removal of the mountain relief feature on the east elevation
• Addition of a trellis and more robust tree planting along the east side of the building
• Addition of windows and sunshades on the south elevation, facing the townhomes
• Increased planting along the south elevation to further screen the elevation from the
neighboring townhomes
• Increased landscaping along the west elevation to screen and provide relief from the
large massing
These modifications are shown in the elevations in Figure 10 below and generally in the
renderings in Figure 11.
Figure 10: Cinema Building (Original and Revised)
31
Figure 11: Cinema Rendering
Consistency
In general, commercial buildings are designed consistent with the San Rafael Design Guidelines
for Nonresidential development related to building form, entryways, towers, awnings, colors, and
materials. Similarly, commercial buildings meet the applicable design-related zoning criteria.
Residential Architecture
Description
Residential 1
As previously discussed regarding the inclusionary housing for the project, Residential 1 includes
38 three-story townhomes. The townhomes are arranged in six buildings each with 5 to 7
townhomes. The majority of the front entries to the townhomes are outward facing to roadways
with rear access to tuck under garage parking. Eight surface parking spaces are provided for
guest parking within the townhome cluster on Residential 1. Buildings 5 and 6 are arranged
around a small common open space area and many of the townhomes have private patio space.
The townhomes range in size from 470 square foot one-bedroom units to approximately 2,100
square foot four-bedroom units. Ten percent of the units will be deed restricted for low-income
households as discussed in more detail above and as conditioned to ensure that the 4 BMR units
are appropriately located and sized to match the distribution of market rate units. Detailed plans
for Residential 1 can be found in Exhibit 3 (Residential Architecture Plans) at plan sheets as
referenced below.
Building
Type
Building
Height
Roof
Plan Sections Building
Entry Elevations Perspectives
Residential 1 Townhomes 35 ft RE-6 RE-8, RE-9 RE-10 RE-11, RE-
12 RE-13
Residential 2
Residential 2 includes 100 three-story townhomes of the same design as Residential 1. The 100
townhome units are arranged in fifteen buildings each with 5 to 8 townhomes. Similar to
Residential 1, front entries are outward facing with tuck under garage parking oriented toward the
32
rear of the buildings and away from public view. Forty (40) surface parking spaces are provided
for guests and are dispersed throughout the interior portions of the lot. Two common outdoor
areas are situated in the central portion of the site and the majority of units have private patio
space.
Townhome sizes range from 470 square foot one-bedroom units to approximately 2,100 square
foot four-bedroom units. Ten percent of the units will be deed restricted for low-income
households as discussed in more detail above and as conditioned to ensure that the 10 BMR
units are appropriately located and sized to match the distribution of market rate units. Detailed
plans for Residential 2 can be found in Exhibit 3 (Residential Architecture Plans) at plan sheets
as referenced below.
Building
Type
Building
Height
Roof
Plan
Sections Building
Entry
Elevations Perspectives
Residential 2 Townhomes 35 ft RE-18 RE-22, RE-
23 RE-24 RE-25 to
RE-28
RE-29, RE-
30
Residential 3
Residential 3 includes 280 apartment units in a single, six-story (67.5 feet tall) building. The height
of the building exceeds the maximum 36-foot height identified in the proposed PD which, as
described above, is achieved through utilization of the incentive/concession available for the
project under SDBL. Units range from 620 square foot studios to 1,655 square foot two-bedroom
units. The building is designed to step down in height at its closest point to Northgate Drive (across
which is an existing assisted living facility). As shown on Sheet RE-41 of Exhibit 3 (Residential
Architecture Plans), at this location the building incorporates step backs between 32-feet and 42-
feet (10-foot step back), between 42-feet and 52-feet (25-foot step back), and between 52-feet
and 62-feet (45-foot step back). These step backs help to reduce the overall height and mass of
the building in proximity to existing residential uses along Northgate. The southeast corner of the
building where the apartment lobby is located provides additional architectural features to reduce
the perceived building mass including a storefront awning at the ground level and a roof deck with
trellis on the fourth floor.
In addition to the fourth-floor roof deck located at the southeast corner, Residential 3 includes two
interior ground floor courtyards, a small ground floor outdoor area at the northwest corner of the
building, and a sixth-floor roof deck. Parking is located on all levels (basement floor to sixth floor)
and is accessed along the north and east sides of the building.
Ten percent of the units will be deed restricted for low-income households as discussed in more
detail above and as conditioned to ensure that the 28 BMR units are appropriately located and
sized to match the distribution of market rate units. Detailed plans for Residential 3 can be found
in Exhibit 3 (Residential Architecture Plans) at plan sheets as referenced below.
Building
Type
Building
Height 8
Roof
Plan Sections Building
Entry Elevations Perspectives
Residential 3 Apartments 67.5 ft RE-39 RE-41, RE-
42 RE-43 RE-44, RE-
45 RE-46
Residential 4
8 Density Bonus incentive/concession requested to increase the height limit for the entire site to 78 feet with an additional 12-foot
projection for features such as elevator penthouses, etc.
33
Residential 4 includes 446 apartment units in a single, seven-story (77.5-foot tall) mixed-use
building. The height of Residential 4 exceeds the 36-foot height maximum which, as described
above, is achieved through utilization of the incentive/concession available for the project under
SDBL. Units range from 620 square foot studios to 1,970 square foot two-bedroom units. The
east elevation of the building (facing Las Gallinas Ave) incorporates architectural elements to
create visual interest such as brick veneer on the first and second floors, third floor trellises, a
vertical tower element with natural wood color fiber cement paneling, glass and metal balcony
guardrails, and various roof forms between levels five and six, and levels six and seven. The
ground floor of the west building elevation (facing the Town Square) contains three shopfronts, a
pedestrian entry to the parking garage, a library and community center, the apartment lobby,
leasing area, and a coworking space.
Common usable open space is provided on the ground floor along the length of the eastern side
of the building, within an interior courtyard at the southern portion of the building, and a roof deck
on the top floor. The building also contains a co-working space, clubroom, roof lounge, and
community center. Parking is provided on all levels (two basement levels through level seven)
and is accessed from an entry point along the west elevation.
Ten percent of the units will be deed restricted for low-income households as discussed in more
detail above and as conditioned to ensure that the 45 BMR units are appropriately located and
sized to match the distribution of market rate units. Detailed plans for Residential 4 can be found
in Exhibit 3 (Residential Architecture Plans) at plan sheets as referenced below.
Building
Type
Building
Height 9
Roof
Plan Sections Building
Entry Elevations Perspectives
Residential 4 Apartments 77.5 ft RE-57 RE-59, RE-
60
RE-61,
RE-62
RE-63, RE-
64
RE-65 to RE-
67; RE-85
Residential 5
Residential 5 includes 309 apartment units in a single, six-story (67.5-foot tall) mixed-use building.
The height of Residential 5 exceeds the 36-foot height maximum which, as described above, is
achieved through utilization of the incentive/concession available for the project under SDBL.
Units range from 620 square foot studios to 1,150 square foot two-bedroom units. The east
elevation (facing Las Gallinas Ave) incorporates large tree species at the southeast corner to
partially screen the building from the public right-of-way, and incorporates various features to
create visual interest such as a glass guardrail at the fifth-floor roof deck, metal guardrails at
recessed balconies, and varied colors and materials between floors two and three and floors five
and six. Shopfronts and the apartment leasing area are located along the south elevations, and
additional shopfronts, the apartment lobby, co-working space, and fitness area are located along
the west elevation.
Common usable open space is provided within three ground floor courtyards, a third-floor
courtyard, a fifth-floor roof deck, and a sixth-floor roof deck. This apartment-style building also
contains a co-working space, fitness center, clubroom, and sixth-floor lounge adjacent to the roof
deck. Parking is provided on levels one through six and is accessed from the north side of the
building.
9 Density Bonus incentive/concession requested to increase the height limit for the entire site to 78 feet with an additional 12-foot
projection for features such as elevator penthouses, etc.
34
Ten percent of the units will be deed restricted for low-income households as discussed in more
detail above and as conditioned to ensure that the 31 BMR units are appropriately located and
sized to match the distribution of market rate units. Detailed plans for Residential 5 can be found
in Exhibit 3 (Residential Architecture Plans) at plan sheets as referenced below.
Building Building
Type
Building
Height 10
Roof
Plan Sections Building
Entry Elevations Perspectives
Residential 5 Apartments 67.5 ft RE-76 RE-78,
RE-79
RE-80,
RE-81 RE-82, RE-83 RE-84, RE-85
Residential 6
Residential 6 includes 249 apartment units in a single, six-story (67.5-foot tall) mixed-use building.
The height of Residential 5 exceeds the 36-foot height maximum which, as described above, is
achieved through utilization of the incentive/concession available for the project under SDBL.
Units range from 620 square foot studios to 1,150 square foot two-bedroom units. Architectural
features include ground floor canopies, recessed outdoor decks with mixed material guardrails on
the upper floors, and trellis features at the upper floor common outdoor areas. Facing the Town
Square, Residential 6 is articulated through varying roof heights that are greater at the outside of
the structure and decrease moving toward the center. Ground level glazing, canopies, and
landscaping are also provided along the east elevation (facing Town Square) to provide visual
interest.
Common usable open space is provided within two third-floor courtyards, and a fifth-floor roof
deck. A co-working space is provided on the first floor and a clubroom is located on the third floor.
Parking is provided on the basement level, floor 1, and floor 2, with the remainder of dedicated
residential parking provided in the parking garage south of Residential 6. Parking within
Residential 6 is accessed from the south side of the building.
Ten percent of the units will be deed restricted for low-income households as discussed in more
detail above and as conditioned to ensure that the 25 BMR units are appropriately located and
sized to match the distribution of market rate units. Detailed plans for Residential 6 can be found
in Exhibit 3 (Residential Architecture Plans) at plan sheets as referenced below.
Building Building
Type
Building
Height 11
Roof
Plan Sections Building
Entry Elevations Perspectives
Residential 6 Apartments 77.5 ft RE-95 RE-97,
RE-98 RE-99 RE-100, RE-
101 RE-102
Comments and Revisions
Residential 1
The DRB feedback related to the EAH apartment building on Residential 1 included:
• Consensus that this was the DRB’s least favorite of the residential building
• North elevation and south elevation lack articulation
• Limit use of CMU to base level only or not at all
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
35
• The design of the exterior of the lobby needs to be more clearly defined
• Use “warmer” colors and materials
• Consider including another material and/or color such as a warm colored trespa or tile
• The proposed green screen at the garage level will need planting details as part of
building permit submittal to ensure success
• Consider different design approach instead of green screen to break up garage level
In response to these comments as well as in response to critique of the clustering of the 96 BMR
units in a single building and timing challenges, the applicant revised project included significant
changes to Residential 1, as discussed earlier in this report. The revised project eliminated the
previous Residential 1 and incorporated 38 three townhome structures of similar design as those
proposed in Residential 2 and together increasing the ownership product to a total of 138
townhomes ranging in size from 470 square feet to 2,100 square feet and from one bedroom to
four-bedroom units.
Residential 2
The DRB feedback related to the townhomes on Residential 2 included:
• Consider increasing building setback on Northgate Drive
• Evaluate addition of greenscreen or greater articulation on rear elevation of cinema
building facing townhomes
• Consider flipping units facing cinema such that their front doors no long face the cinema
No specific changes were made to Residential 2 but DRB comments were addressed by proposed
modifications to the cinema building as discussed above and specifically including the addition of
glazing and shade structures on the rear façade which helps break up the large massing and
create articulation at the pedestrian scale. Additionally, the increased planting along the rear
façade of the cinema building helps to screen and soften the interface of the townhomes and the
cinema.
Figure 12: Townhomes from Northgate Drive
36
Figure 13: Townhome Rendering from interior roadway
Residential 3
The DRB feedback related to the apartment building on Residential 3 included:
• Add greater variation in the material and color palettes
• Consider reorientation of the roof deck or provide other means to screen it to minimize
impacts t0 the senior living community south of the proposed building
• Add horizontal break at pedestrian level and additional stepping on the east elevation
along Los Ranchitos
• Exterior of the lobby areas need additional articulation
• At the corner of Northgate Drive and Los Ranchitos Road, introduce additional material
and/or color to break up the cream stucco
• Consider stepping building back on the upper levels on the west elevation
The revised project responds to the DRB comments specifically by adding a new color of fiber
cement siding and slate stone veneer, adding a one-story stone base to the east and north
elevations to create articulation at the pedestrian level, and adding architectural canopies on top
of the northwest corner lobby to provide greater articulation. The applicant indicated that they
looked at potential privacy impacts from Residential 3 to the senior living facility across Northgate
Drive, but determined that the existing step back at the corner and the orientation of the existing
senior living center had already addressed potential privacy concerns and no additional
modifications to this part of the building were made as part of the revised project.
37
Figure 14: Residential 3 Rendering from intersection of Northgate and Los Ranchitos
Residential 4
The DRB feedback related to the mixed-use building on Residential 4 included:
• Consider stepping building back on upper levels
• Consider bringing warmer colors further up the building to reduce the layer cake
appearance of the building
• Consider adding gables canopies at the lower levels
• Consider a different variety of materials to provide scale at the pedestrian level
In response to the DRB’s feedback, the revised project incorporates both material and color
changes to reduce the “layer cake” effect mentioned by the DRB. Additionally, gable canopies
were added to the lower level to compliment the upper gables on Residential 4 as shown below
in Figure 16.
38
Figure 15: Residential 4
Figure 16: Residential 4 Canopies (Original and Revised)
Residential 5
The DRB feedback related to the mixed-use building on Residential 5 included:
• The corner of the building with white bricks needs articulation at the base level
• Consider providing additional articulation/treatment on the northeast corner to reduce
blocky appearance
• Reconsider redesign/relocation of the common outdoor area to minimize shading
impacts
Several changes to Residential 5 were incorporated into the revised plans both to respond to DRB
comments and to accommodate 58 additional residential units to maintain the project total of
1,422 units with reduction of units on Residential 1. Most notably this modified Residential 5 from
a 5-story building to a 6-story building. The revised project also relocates the private common
open space amenities to the roof of the building to address the shading impacts from their ground
floor location in the previous version of the project and in direct response to DRB comments.
Additional refinement was made to storefront awnings as shown below in
Figure 18 to enhance the pedestrian experience and articulate the base level at the corner.
ORIGINAL REVISED
39
Figure 17: Residential 5
Figure 18: Residential 5 (Original versus Revised)
ORIGINAL
40
Residential 6
The DRB feedback related to the mixed-use building on Residential 6 included:
• Consider integrating horizontal variety to avoid the appearance of one white horizontal
element and one dark horizontal element
• Consider improving the pedestrian scale of the southwest corner
• Consider a more continuous detail to replace or augment the awkward screens in the
openings
• Consider making the lobby more prominent to make it clearer that it is a lobby
• Bring more variety in color between the ivory plaster and the tile
Changes to Residential 6 were incorporated into the revised plans to respond to DRB comments,
including changes in exterior materials, adding a greater variety in exterior color palette, and
providing greater articulation through the addition of trim, trellises on the second level, and
screens at the garage level.
REVISED
41
Figure 19: Residential 6
Consistency
In general, all residential townhomes and apartments meet the relevant San Rafael Residential
Design Guidelines related to scale, building height, roof shapes, building entrances, windows,
driveways and parking areas, landscaping, and lighting. Residential townhomes and apartments
are also generally consistent with applicable zoning regulations contained in Chapters 14.16 (Site
and Use Regulations), 14.18 (Parking Standards), 14.19 (Signs), 14.22 (Use Permits), and 14.25
(Environmental and Design Review Permits.
Fences, Walls, and Lighting
Description
The revised project includes detail regarding the use of fences and walls throughout the site, as
part of both Phase 1 and Phase 2, and for a variety of objectives such as to create privacy, buffer
adjacent uses or separate public space from private space. More detail can be found on Sheet L-
5 (Phase 1 Fence and Wall Plan) and Sheet L-40 (Phase 2 Fence and Wall Plan) of Exhibit 4
(Landscape Plans).
Commercial, residential, and town square fencing is discussed below and representative images
of the various fence types are shown in Figure 20 to Figure 22 and included on Sheet L-44 of
Exhibit 4 (Landscape Plans). More specifically, commercial fencing includes a variety of 3.5-foot
barriers where restaurant uses are proposed. This fence type is intended to comply with the
alcohol beverage control (ABC) requirements for businesses selling alcohol in association with
restaurant uses. Figure 20 includes representative images of this fence type.
42
Figure 20: 3.5-Foot Commercial Barrier Fencing
Fencing on residential and mixed-use lots includes private patio fencing, pool fencing, and 6-foot
multi-family residential steel fencing. In addition, retaining walls are located along the Northgate
frontage of Residential 1. Figure 21 shows representative images of residential fence type.
Figure 21: Residential Fencing Types
The Town Square includes fencing around the proposed play area as well as the proposed dog
park. This open fencing creates separation of different users without creating solid barriers that
43
visually segment the town square open space. Figure 22 provides representative imagery of these
fence types.
Figure 22: Town Square Fencing
Lighting is included throughout the site and includes a variety of fixtures appropriate to the use
and objective. Full lighting plans for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are included in Exhibit 6 (Lighting
Plans).
Comments and Revisions
An early comment from the DRB had been to include detail about fencing and lighting as part of
the overall project. While there have not been specific changes to these aspects of the project
as part of the revised project, the level of detail has increased throughout the review process to
demonstrate a consistent yet differentiated design approach to the mixed-use Northgate project.
Consistency
The lighting and fencing has been reviewed for consistency with applicable code requirements.
The proposed Northgate PD contains some differentiation from fencing standards applicable to
the General Commercial zoning district, including allowing fences up to five feet tall for the
residential buildings.
The project will be conditioned to ensure that all applicable lighting standards are satisfied when
building permit plans are submitted to ensure that all light fixtures are shielded, foot candle
intensity is limited, and post installation inspection is required to verify compliance.
Sign Program
Description
The proposed project includes a request for a master sign program to establish uniform sign
requirements for the entire site. The proposed sign program (Exhibit 7) includes an overview of
the variety of types of signs proposed as well as approved color palette and available font options
for tenants. The discussion below provides a general overview of the types and design of
proposed signage as submitted with the revised project.
There are a total of six 25 foot freestanding pylon signs proposed at the primary entrances to the
site. Pylon A is a larger entrance sign and two are proposed as part of Phase 1 at the intersections
of Northgate Dr / Las Gallinas Ave and Del Presidio Blvd / Las Gallinas Ave. Four Pylon B signs
will also be installed in Phase 1 and include one along Las Gallinas Ave near the existing Rite
Aid, one at the site entrance at the intersection of Las Gallinas Ave / Merrydale Rd, one at the
corner of Las Gallinas Ave / Northgate Drive (near Residential 3), and one on Northgate Drive
north of Thorndale Drive (near the parking structure). This sign type features a natural stone base
with painted aluminum and will be back- and halo-lit.
44
Figure 23: Pylon A and Pylon B Signs
The sign program includes two types of freestanding monument signs including three single-face
signs and one double-face sign, all of the monument signs are slightly under 8 feet tall and are to
be installed as part of Phase 1. The three single-face monument signs are located on Las Gallinas
Drive between the existing Rite Aid and Residential 4, at the intersection of Las Gallinas Ave /
Merrydale Road, and on Northgate Drive south of Pad 1. The two-sided monument sign is
proposed on Las Gallinas Avenue between the surface parking area and the existing Rite Aid.
Similar to the proposed Pylon Signs, tenant monument signs feature natural stone bases and
pilasters with painted aluminum. Tenant names will be backlit and pilaster caps will be illuminated
in a lantern-style.
Figure 24: Monument Sign
A series of vehicular and pedestrian wayfinding signs are proposed to orient users to the overall
layout and locations of specific shops and amenities. Both the vehicular wayfinding and
pedestrian directory signs are freestanding and approximately 7-feet tall while the pedestrian
wayfinding signs are a smaller massing but up to 9-feet in height. All of the wayfinding signs are
designed with the similar design features and lighting. Six vehicular wayfinding and two pedestrian
directory signs are proposed as part of Phase 1. The pedestrian wayfinding signs are located
throughout the site to provide general directional location of various uses on the site. In Phase 1,
wayfinding signs are located within the Town Square, Bike Hub Plaza, Ounces Plaza, and
45
adjacent to Major 2. In Phase 2, the wayfinding sign in the Ounces Plaza is removed to allow for
development of Residential 6 and new commercial uses.
Figure 25: Wayfinding Signage
Comments and Revisions
The specifics of the sign program were submitted as part of the revised project. Because it was
not part of the original application there was no specific comments from DRB or Planning
Commission.
Consistency
SRMC Section 14.19.046 provides for the establishment of a sign program as an alternate to the
sign standards and provisions elsewhere in the code and provides that sign programs are
permitted specifically for shopping centers and in a planned development district. The proposed
sign program has been reviewed for consistency with required findings for approval of a sign
program in that the sign program has been developed with common design elements in scale with
the size and scope of the overall Northgate Town Square project.
DISCUSSION
Standards for Review
Under each of the key revision areas staff has provided initial consistency discussion to
outline both standards for review and identify if the proposal is consistent with the
applicable standards. Given the scope of the project and the number of entitlements
that are requested, there are a number of standards of review that apply to the project,
including the following:
• San Rafael Municipal Code: Title 14 – Zoning
o Chapter 14.07 (Planned Development District)
o Chapter 14.16 (Site and Use Regulations)
o Chapter 14.18 (Parking Standards)
o Chapter 14.19 (Signs)
o Chapter 14.22 (Use Permits)
o Chapter 14.25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits)
o Chapter 14.27 (Amendments)
• San Rafael Municipal Code: Title 15 – Subdivisions
o Chapter 15.02 – Major Subdivisions
o Chapter 15.06 – Subdivision Design Standards & Miscellaneous Requirements
46
• San Rafael General Plan 2040
• San Rafael Design Guidelines
• San Rafael Objective Design Standards
Staff Analysis Overview
Staff has reviewed the revised project for compliance and consistency with the standards for
review listed above. Overall, the project is consistent with all regulations of the San Rafael
Municipal Code, General Plan, and Design Guidelines. When each entitlement is brought before
the Planning Commission for consideration and formal recommendation, they will be
accompanied with resolutions that outline required findings, applicable standards of review, and
any conditions appropriate to ensure consistency.
There is no formal action before the Planning Commission at this time. The September 24th study
session is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to comprehensively review the final
proposed project. The background and context should be used to discuss the revised project
which represents the final iteration of the project that seeks to balance review authority and public
input with the complexities associated with redevelopment of the site.
The following discussion prompts may be helpful to guide the Planning Commission in their review
of the revised project and to prepare for consideration of formal recommendation at a subsequent
hearing:
• Review of Final Project Design. Does the Planning Commission have any questions
about the project as proposed or the chronology of modifications that have been made?
• Outstanding Issues or Concerns. Does the Planning Commission have any
outstanding issues or concerns that warrant additional discussion?
• Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Prior to review and consideration of the FEIR,
does the Planning Commission have any outstanding questions about the CEQA
process? As discussed previously, the Final EIR is in process and will be made available
for review with hearing materials for all project entitlements, anticipated in late October
2024.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Exhibits 1-15
Exhibit 1 – Planning Commission and DRB Feedback Matrix
Exhibit 2 – Retail Architecture Plans
Exhibit 3 – Residential Architecture Plans
Exhibit 4 – Landscape Plans
Exhibit 5 – Civil Plans
Exhibit 6 – Lighting Plans
Exhibit 7 – Sign Program
Exhibit 8 – Fire Access Plan
Exhibit 9 – Site Development Plan
Exhibit 10 – Applicant Prepared Density Bonus Narrative
Exhibit 11 – Applicant Prepared Project Narrative
Exhibit 12 – Waste and Recycling Plan
Exhibit 13 – Applicant Prepared Site Development and Retail Revisions Narrative
Exhibit 14 – Applicant Prepared Residential Revisions Narrative
Exhibit 15 - Applicant Prepared Landscape Revisions Narrative
- 1 -
Community Development Department – Planning Division
Meeting Date: September 24, 2024
Agenda Item: G.2
Case Numbers: PLAN24-156
ZO24-001
Project Planner:
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning
Manager Margaret.kavanaugh -
lynch@cityofsanrafael.org
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 1030 Third Street. Request to consider an Amendment to the City of San Rafael’s
Downtown Precise Plan. The extent of the Amendment will be to remove any and all
references that designate 1030 Third Street as an historical resource.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of San Rafael is requesting that the Planning Commission consider an Amendment to the
Downtown Precise Plan (DPP). The extent of the Amendment will be to remove any and all references
that designate 1030 Third Street as an historical resource . Based on a peer-reviewed Historic Resource
Evaluation included as Exhibit 2, it has been determined that the subject property does not qualify as an
historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore the DPP and
supporting documents should be updated to reflect that fact.
The project is determined to be exempt from review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) as it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect
on the environment.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this Amendment o f the
Downtown Precise Plan to the City Council based on the facts included in the staff report and Draft
Resolution which is Exhibit 1 of this report.
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Precise Plan was adopted in August of 2021 . It was prepared by a team of consultants
led by Opticos Design. This team included Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., a San Francisco-based
architecture firm that specialized in historic preservation . They were charged with gathering information
on the historic resources in the Downtown Precise Plan area. This body of work can be found on the
city’s website, here.1 As part of their effort, they identified 1030 Third Street, formerly Wells Fargo (now
First Federal Savings Bank), as “Eligible as an individual resource” and therefore an historical resource
for the purposes of CEQA.
In December of 2022, the Planning Division was contacted by Monahan Pacific Corp oration regarding
the designation of 1030 Third Street as an historical resource . They objected to the designation and
1 https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/downtown-historic-preservation/
- 2 -
inquired about the process to challenge it. Staff informed them that pursuant to California Code
Regulation Section 15064.5.a (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined
in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource
survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to
be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies mu st treat any such resource as significant unless
the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
Staff further explained that a typical way to provide a “preponderance of evidence ” is through the
preparation of a Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by a professional that meets the National Park
Service Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History. That evaluation would need to
provide sufficient evidence to show that the building does not meet the Criteria for Designation for the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).
Monahan Pacific Corporation commissioned a Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Mark Hulbert,
Preservation Architect and submitted it to the City in March of 2023. That document, included as Exhibit
2, concluded the subject property and building at 1030 Third Street was not eligible for the California
Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and therefore was not a potential historical resource
under CEQA. The evaluation was then peer-reviewed by City staff that also hold the credentials listed in
the National Park Service Professional Qualification Standards . Based on this evaluation, city staff
agreed to sponsor an Amendment to remove any and all references that designate 1030 Third Street as
a historic resource in the Downtown Precise Plan.
ANALYSIS
Summary of Historic Resource Evaluation
The Historic Resource Evaluation outlines in detail the evidence that was assembled by Mr. Hulbert. As
stated previously, the evaluation was then peer-reviewed by qualified City staff and it was found to be
sufficient to remove the site and building(s) from consideration as an historical resource. Below is a brief
summary of the California Register criterion and Mr. Hulbert’s analysis provided in the evaluation:
To be eligible for listing on the California Register (CR), a resource must be historically significant at
the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four CR eligibility criteria, each
of which are listed and thereafter addressed:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage.
In its mid-20th century commercial development context, there are no development patterns of
any potential historic importance associated with this property and its branch bank building, so
1030 Third St. does not meet CR criterion 1.
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
In the course of this intensive research effort, anonymous banking institutions were directly
associated with the development and ownership of the subject site and its building, but to which
no specific persons were identifiably associated. Consequently, the subject commercial property
and building do not meet CR criterion 2.
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
The basic and heavily altered building at 1030 Third St. lacks distinctive design and construction
character and characteristics of its type, period or region, and there are no distinctive methods of
construction. As demonstrated above and based on the defined characteristics of commercial
- 3 -
Midcentury Modern architecture, the 1030 Third St. building exhibits few and which features are
more typical than distinctive of the style.
4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Relative to potential historical resources, the subject property has not yielded and at this
juncture, beyond the contents of this report, does not have any potential to yield additional
information of any historical importance . Consequently, 1030 Third St. does not meet CR criterion 4.
Proposed Amendments to the Downtown Precise Plan
Staff reviewed the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) and identified the following references in which the
subject property was identified as a historic resource:
Chapter 5:
1. Figure 5.6 on page 111
2. Figure 5.10 on page 115
In addition, there are three references to the subject property in Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan
Historic Resources Inventory Summary Report (HRISR):
1. Table 4-5: Downtown Core Historic Resources outside of Eligible Districts
2. Table 5-1: Properties Covered by Chapter 5 Fact Sheets or Pending Fact Sheets
3. 1030 Third Street Fact Sheet, page 5-83
Each of these references will be amended to clarify that the subject property is not an historical resource.
The figures will be updated in the Downtown Precise Plan to remove the designation, further in the
Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan Historic Resources Inventory Summary Report the subject property
address will be stricken in each Table and removed the Fact Sheet from the report.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is determined to be exempt from review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) as it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect
on the environment.
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 printed in the newspaper and
mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site 15 calendar days
prior to the date of this hearing. No comments have been received as of the date of this report.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Recommend approval of this Amendment of the Downtown Precise Plan to the City Council based
on the facts included in the staff report and Draft Resolution (staff recommendation).
2. Continue the project and request staff to bring back specific information that the Planning Commission
needs in order to make a recommendation to amend the Downtown Precise Plan.
3. Deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution of denial.
- 4 -
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution
2. 1030 Third St., San Rafael Historic Resource Evaluation – March 4, 2023
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 24-005
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN TO
RMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO 1030 THIRD STREET AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE
(APN 011-263-21)
(PLAN24-156/ZO24-001)
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael adopted the Downtown Precise Plan in August of
2021; and
WHEREAS, the creation of the Plan included the task of completing a comprehensive
review and update of the list of historic resources located in the Plan area; and
WHEREAS, while the City and its agents diligently performed the task of updating the
list of historic resources, there is a process to re-examine any specific designation; and
WHEREAS, in December of 2022, the Planning Division was contacted by Monahan
Pacific Corporation regarding the designation of 1030 Third Street as an historical resource; and
WHEREAS, the Monahan Pacific Corporation felt that this conclusion was made in error
and inquired as the process to reconsider the designation; and
WHEREAS, city staff identified that California Code Regulation Section 15064.5.a(2)
provided the process by noting the standard of “preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it
is not historically or culturally significant”; and
WHEREAS, city staff further explained that a typical way to provide a “preponderance of
evidence” is through the preparation of a Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by a
professional that meets the National Park Service Professional Qualification Standards for
Architectural History; and
WHEREAS, Monahan Pacific Corporation retained the services of Mark Hulbert, a
Preservation Architect and holds the credentials listed in the National Park Service Professional
Qualification Standards to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Mark Hulbert was peer-
reviewed by City staff that also hold the credentials listed in the National Park Service
Professional Qualification Standards; and
WHEREAS, The project is determined to be exempt from review pursuant to CEQA
Guideline 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with all noticing requirements for an Amendment to
the Downtown Precise Plan, including a notice of public hearing that was printed in the
newspaper and mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the
subject site 15 calendar days prior to the date of this hearing; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which this decision is based, is the Community and Economic Development Department.
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends to
the City Council adoption of the Amendment to the Downtown Precise Plan as follows:
Chapter 5 of the Downtown Precise Plan:
1. Figure 5.6 on page 111
2. Figure 5.10 on page 115
Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan Historic Resources Inventory Summary Report
(HRISR):
1. Table 4-5: Downtown Core Historic Resources outside of Eligible Districts
2. Table 5-1: Properties Covered by Chapter 5 Fact Sheets or Pending Fact Sheets
3. 1030 Third Street Fact Sheet, page 5-83
Each of these references will be amended to clarify that the subject property is not an
historical resource. The figures will be updated in the Downtown Precise Plan to remove
the designation, further in the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan Historic Resources
Inventory Summary Report the subject property address will be stricken in each Table
and removed the Fact Sheet from the report.
This recommendation is based on and supported by the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the General Plan in that:
a. This action would be consistent with and implement the following General Plan
policies:
1) Policy CDP-5.2 Inventorying Historic Resources
Maintain and periodically update inventories of local historic resources,
using methods that are consistent with state and federal criteria.
Balance these criteria to reflect local values and avoid unreasonable
constraints on property rights. Historic resources may include sites
associated with important historic events or people, archaeological
resources, and landscape elements, in addition to older buildings.
2) Policy NH-1.1: A Thriving Downtown
Sustain and improve Downtown San Rafael as a safe, attractive,
convenient, well-maintained place to visit, shop, recreate, work, and
live.
3) Policy NH-1.2: Economic Success
Encourage the success of Downtown businesses by limiting regulatory
barriers, encouraging private investment, and making Downtown an
inviting place for new and established businesses, customers, and
patrons. Local regulations and programs should recognize the
importance of being responsive to market changes and should help
business weather economic downturns.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare would be served by the adoption of the
proposed Amendment to the Downtown Precise Plan as it is consistent with the
General Plan as noted above.
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was adopted at the regular City of San Rafael Planning Commission
meeting held on the 24th day of September 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: ________________________________
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Secretary
446 17th Street #302 Oakland CA 94612
510.418.0285 mhulbert@earthlink.net
March 4, 2023
1030 Third St., San Rafael
Historic Resource Evaluation
This report provides an historical evaluation of the commercial property and building located at the
above address. The purpose of this evaluation effort is to determine if the subject property and its
buildings do or do not qualify as historic resources under the California Register of Historical
Resources criteria as per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This historical evaluation effort is based on site visits to record extant conditions, including of the
subject property’s setting and related downtown properties; building permit research at the City of
San Rafael; telephone directory searches (@loc.org); general and specific architectural research;
and the review of prior records for the subject and related properties.
Evaluation Summary
As detailed herein, the subject property and building have previously been evaluated for historic
resource potential. However, its re-evaluation is warranted by inaccuracies in the prior record and
which the focused historical documentation presented herein clarifies and develops.
As concluded herein, based on the preponderance of evidence, the subject property and building at
1030 Third St. in San Rafael is not eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CR) so
is not a potential historic resource for planning purposes under CEQA. In sum, under the four CR
eligibility criteria:
1. In its mid-20th century commercial development context, there are no development patterns of
any potential historic importance associated with this property and its branch bank building.
2. Anonymous banking institutions were directly associated with the development and ownership of
the subject site and its building, but to which no specific persons were identifiably associated.
3. The basic and heavily altered building at 1030 Third St. lacks distinctive design and construction
character and characteristics of its type, period and region, and there are no distinctive methods
of construction.
While the building was designed by an architectural firm of identifiable historic importance, in the
context of the work of John Carl Warnecke and Associates, the subject branch bank building is a
negligible representation. As documented herein, it is also unarguable that the extant building
has been substantially and very visibly altered from the original mid-20th century work so is
therefore neither a distinctive nor representative example of the Warnecke firm.
4. Relative to potential historical resources, the subject property has not yielded and at this
juncture, beyond the contents of this report, does not have any potential to yield additional
information of any historical importance.
Summary Description (figs.1-3, 4-8)
Located at the northeast corner of Third and A streets in downtown San Rafael, the subject parcel
(APN 011-263-21) houses a 1963-64 Wells Fargo branch bank building on its southern third. The
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P2
remainder of the generous parcel (approximately 150 feet wide [east-west] by 150-200 feet deep
[north-south]) is an open and moderately landscaped parking lot with vehicular access points at its
southeast and northwest corners.
The 1030 Third St. building is a rectangular plan structure, its first floor some 115 feet wide (east-
west) by 57 feet deep (east-west), with a flat roof that overhangs the first story and a partial second
story that sits atop the roof plane with substantial setbacks south and north. The single-story building
has an exposed concrete post-and-beam frame that subdivides the walls into 5 equal bays
lengthwise and 2-1/2 bays deep.
First story exterior walls consist of either concrete panels with exposed aggregate or plain stucco
(“Dryvit”) plus a range of windows, some vertically oriented, others horizontal bands, all with
projecting, bullnosed and stuccoed window sills. Entry doors are located at the south, from Third St.
and north, from the parking lot, the former including a revolving door alongside a single, glazed entry
door, the latter a pair of glazed doors. The south entry has a broad set of concrete steps that rise up
from the sidewalk. At the north door, a circular opening in the roof is capped with a domed skylight
with a weathervane.
Above the concrete roof plane, the partial second story, also flat-roofed, has walls that are slightly
canted and that consist of metal panels with battened seams, with 5 regularly spaced, vertically
oriented openings north and south plus another opening centered in the east wall. At the northeast
corner of the second floor is a half-height mechanical screen of matching metal panels.
Planting beds edge the narrow south and west sides of the building. An entry drive and several
parking spaces lie in the narrow eastern setback between the building and the property line. To the
north, the generous site is predominately asphalt paved parking with concrete walks and several
minor, concrete-curbed planting beds.
Stylistically, 1030 Third St. is a Midcentury Modern building, identified by its low, horizontal form and
concrete post-and-beam frame with a flat and deeply overhanging roof plane. The original building
walls had larger and more numerous windows set within a vertical grid of concrete wall panels with
an exposed stone aggregate finish.
Summary History
The following summarizes the recent history of the subject property and its extant building.
The 1030 Third St. site and building were permitted for construction for a Wells Fargo Bank in 1963,
shortly prior to which the parcel was occupied by five store buildings, one on Third St. and the others
on A St., and which were presumably removed for the 1963-64 development. Designed and
constructed for Wells Fargo by San Francisco architects John Carl Warnecke and Associates and
San Rafael contractors Spiliotis and Company, the subject building was operated as a Wells Fargo
branch until 1987 when it was converted to a First Federal Savings. In that duration of time, a wide
range of exterior changes were made to the building, as further described below. The building was in
turn operated by First Federal until 2021. At this juncture, the former branch bank building is vacant.
Though no original drawings or photos have been located, current research included the acquisition
of City of San Rafael permit records that retain a partial set of 1987 permit plans. Based thereon,
identifiable and, up to 1987, cumulative exterior alterations included:
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P3
• Additions at the front (south) and northwest corner (1966), which additions removed original
exterior walls and windows.
• Addition at west side (1980) for automatic teller, since altered.
• Infill of former entrance opening at the west side, north corner (1966).
• All original entry doors removed and replaced (1987), including the addition of the revolving
south entry door.
• Addition of the domed skylight at north entry (1987).
• All original windows at first story, including original drive-up windows (at north side), removed
and replaced (1987).
• Original unpainted, exposed aggregate concrete wall panels painted (1987).
• Replaced all original exterior lighting and signage, parking and site circulation (1987).
• Added a new roof layer atop the existing (c2021, which new layer is visible and deepens the
original roof profile).
Additionally, there is some potential that the extant south entry from Third St. was added, as the
building likely had its primary entrance at its northwest corner from both the parking lot and street.
The original drive-thru banking, removed in the 1980s, may also have included a structural
component then removed.
Even without those two possible changes, the building exterior has been heavily altered. Well over
50% of the original first story exterior has been removed, replaced and added to, including all doors
and windows. Original windows were evidently more numerous and full height, replaced with fewer
and smaller windows with bullnosed sills and plastered aprons and/or solid plaster walls. This extent
of primary alterations is delineated in the attached elevations based on the 1987 permit drawings
(fig.9) along with existing conditions photos (figs.10-16).
In sum, what remains visible of the original building exterior is: its concrete posts and roof slab; a
range of the original exposed aggregate concrete wall panels (which were certainly unpainted yet
those that remain have all been painted); and the mansarded second story (presumably metal and
also repainted), including its windows and vents. Many of the alterations, specifically the domed,
cylindrical and rounded features of the extant building are anathema to and divergent from its
original, strictly orthogonal modern style, as was the overall repainting that further obscured what
remained of the original architecture.
Architects
The 1963-64 Wells Fargo branch bank was designed by John Carl Warnecke and Associates. While
there is a great amount of documentation on that architectural firm, there are no architectural
monographs that provide an overview of the firm’s history and projects. The one unique document
that has been referenced is a promotional brochure for the firm, with a cover imprinted “John Carl
Warnecke & Associates,” otherwise unpaginated and undated yet evidently from the late 1970s, and
which provides background information for the firm and its then leadership, including John Carl
Warnecke, summarizes the full range of projects types, and highlights a number of projects with
photos and data.1 This brochure is referenced herein as JCW&A Brochure.
1 Printed, unbound copy available at University of California, Berkeley, College of Environmental Design,
Environmental Design Library, NA737.W3.J6.
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P4
John Carl Warnecke and Associates is recognized as an important 20th century planning and
architecture firm, most pertinently in the modern architectural context statement prepared by the City
of San Francisco (hereafter SF Modern).2 That reputation is based on numerous, large scale
planning projects and high-profile civic design projects, which primary work is summarized in the
following profile of the firm (from JCW&A Brochure):
John Carl Warnecke and Associates gained its early reputation for excellence with its designs for
schools, colleges, and universities. The firm then achieved national recognition through major
commissions such as the American Embassy in Bangkok in 1956, the Hawaii State Capitol in 1960,
and the design of Lafayette Square, awarded by President Kennedy in 1962. To serve these new
clients, the firm opened offices in Honolulu and Washington, D.C. In 1966, a major office was
opened in New York. This office has grown to become one of the largest offices in the East. Today
John Carl Warnecke and Associates, with offices on both coasts, is engaged with important
commissions throughout the country.
In SF Modern, two of Warnecke’s San Francisco projects are identified: the Golden Gate Federal
Building (1959) and the Hilton Hotel Tower (1971). Curiously yet tellingly, a headquarters building for
the Great Western Savings Bank in downtown SF (1968) goes unmentioned though it is one of the
individual project examples in the JCW&A Brochure.
In Marin County, in addition to the subject branch bank building, several other Warnecke projects are
identifiable, including a master plan and dormitories for the SF Theological Seminary in San
Anselmo (1957-1960) and the public housing complex in Marin City (1960), both of which were
collaborations. A third was a private residence in Sausalito (1962).
Individually, several federal projects in Washington D.C. are what primarily distinguish the Warnecke
firm, which projects are also cited in SF Modern: the John F. Kennedy Eternal Flame Memorial
Gravesite, Arlington, VA (1967); and the Lafayette Square Renovation, Washington, D.C. (1969).
Each of the other citations are large scale civic projects, including the Hawaii State Capitol Building
(1960) and the U.S. Embassy, Thailand (1957). Otherwise, s a part of their focus on school and
campus planning and design, the Warnecke firm also produced many planning and design studies
and buildings for John Carl Warnecke’s alma mater, Stanford University.
John Carl Warnecke and Associates were a prolific planning and architectural firm with national
reach and output along with a primary office in San Francisco. As noted, their reputation is based on
early school buildings followed by larger scale plans and designs as well as important federal
projects.
In this context, the range of local branch bank buildings produced by the Warnecke firm in the early
to mid-1960s are of negligible interest. In the JCW&A Brochure, 1 project page out of 32 lists their
bank experience spanning the years 1952-1968. Of 19 completed bank projects, 11 were Wells
Fargo branch banks in California, all completed between 1964 and 1965. Of those buildings, at least
7 remain, inclusive of the San Rafael branch. Per the JCW&A Brochure, none of their banks
received architectural awards. None of the Warnecke firm’s branch banks were published either
individually or typologically. All were a typical project type and standard practice for many
architectural firms in the post-WWII era, as exemplified by a 1963 statement about bank
2 Mary Brown, San Francisco City and County Planning Department. San Francisco Modern Architecture and
Landscape Design 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement, September 30, 2010, pp.250-251.
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P5
architecture, which concluded that “…a large number of banks are being constructed today; and
nearly every architectural office finds itself, sooner or later, with a commission for a bank.”3
Excepting a 1967 computer center and office building in Oakland, the Warnecke firm was not
enlisted for Wells Fargo’s more prestigious commissions – their headquarters or large regional office
buildings in San Jose (arch. Edward Durrell Stone, LA and NY, 1965, extant), San Francisco (arch.
John Graham & Co., Seattle, 1967, extant) and Sacramento (arch. Henry J. Devine, Inc.,
Sacramento, 1967, demolished[?]).
Historic Context – Mid-20th Century Branch Banks
Branch banks were a ubiquitous U.S. and California building type in the mid-20th century.
Underscoring their ubiquity, in SF Modern, Midcentury Modern bank buildings and supermarkets
together received a typological and stylistic description.4 As succinctly summarized therein: “The
post-World War II building boom fueled the re-birth of the banking sector and led to a competitive,
mass-market industry. As banks aggressively pursued new customers, the prevailing view of bank
architecture shifted again with bank design attempting to emulate modern retail storefronts, including
large expanses of plate glass.”
Under this context, locally, in 1963, downtown San Rafael had 6 branch banks, Mill Valley 4, San
Anselmo 3 and overall, Marin County had some 30 branch banks. In the SF Bay Area as a whole,
these quantities were exponential. And many more would be constructed over the subsequent
decade. For example, even in Oakland, with its challenged socio-economics of that period, there
were 12 branch banks constructed between 1961 and 1975. That branch banks reproduced so
regularly is evidence of banking competition in the post-WWII American boom as well as the
capacity of banking institutions in the capitalist realm of opportunistic property acquisition.
Historic Context – Mid-20th Century Modern Architecture
Mid-20th century branch bank buildings were all in a modern design style, most if not all by
architects, many by known architects, some buildings and their architects somewhat more traditional
modern, others strictly modern, as modern design was then the norm. Thus, the developmental
context of the subject and directly related branch bank buildings is mid-20th century commercial
design and construction.
Relative to which, SF Modern provides the most complete and useful contextual information for
regional modern planning, architecture and landscape architecture. Therein, the most applicable
design style relative to the subject and related group of branch bank buildings is the Midcentury
Modern style. While the Corporate Modern style is also in part applicable, the subject branch banks
are commercial, not corporate. Neither do these small, local buildings exhibit the typically vertical,
sleek, curtain-walled and/or glass-boxed design and construction characteristics of the
Corporate/Miesian Modern style. Were such branch bank buildings glazed pavilions under floating
roofs, then the Corporate/Miesian Modern style would apply, but they are not. Consequently, the
Midcentury Modern architectural style is the most applicable.
3 From George T. Pierce Jr., FAIA, “Comprehensive Architectural Practice – Bank Building,” in the Journal of the
American Institute of Architects, May 1963, p.77.
4 SF Modern, pp.122-125.
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P6
Per SF Modern, “Midcentury Modern and late interpretations of the International Style were the
primary styles applied to everyday residential, commercial, and institutional buildings.” 5
Character-Defining Features:6
1. Projecting eaves and exposed rafters
2. Cantilevered overhangs
3. Flat, shed or low-pitched gable roof forms
4. Vaulted roofs and overhangs
5. Articulated primary facades
6. Stucco, wood (often vertical), or corrugated siding
7. Stacked Roman brick or stone often used as accent material
8. Expressed post and beam construction
9. Strong right angles and simple cubic forms
10. Projecting vertical elements
11. Large steel- or wood-framed windows
12. Canted windows
13. Painted finish is often stained, earth tone, or brightly colored
14. Projecting boxes that enframe the upper stories
15. Atrium or courtyard entryways
16. Overhanging trellises, sunshades, and pergolas
Of these 16 characteristic features, the 1030 Third St. building fully exhibits three (2, 8, 9) and
partially exhibits two (1, 3).
Evaluation
The subject property and its building were previously evaluated for historic resource potential when
they were documented in a May 2021 Historic Resource Inventory of a partial range of downtown
San Rafael resources.7 That effort assigned potential historical significance to the 1030 Third St.
building based on its modern design and found that the building is “probable [sic] eligible as
landmark, designed bv John Carl Warnecke.” A supplemental note to that inventory record further
concluded that “the building is eligible for the NRHP as an example of Modern Commercial
Architecture and the work of a Master.” The prior recordation was also supplemented by State of CA
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) historical inventory forms, dated 2020, and which was a
part of the 2020-2021 downtown inventory.8 It is therein that the 1030 Third St. building is identified
as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the bases of its Commercial Modern
architecture along with its architect, John Carl Warnecke, and with the following range of character
defining features (without reference to any typological standards):
• Flat concrete roof with wide extending eaves
• Penthouse with slanting sides
• Copper siding on penthouse
• Interspersed vertical and long horizontal windows on all facades
5 SF Modern, pp.115-116.
6 SF Modern, pp.181-182.
7 City of San Rafael, Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan: Historic Resources Inventory Summary Report, May 2021,
p.5-83.
8 Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.; Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms 523A & 523 B, 1030 Third Street;
June 30, 2020, 7 pages (@https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/downtown-historic-preservation/)
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P7
• Revolving entrance door
• Wide, low concrete steps
In addition to significance findings, the prior evaluation record noted that the resource “appears to
retain integrity, further study needed.” Such commentary suggested that, in the context of a
downtown survey, the subject resource was not fully researched and evaluated. While a set of DPR
forms was simultaneously prepared, that documentation is cursory and provides minimal factual
evidence about the extant building.
While the prior evaluation stated that the “composition of elements that constitute the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of the building are unaltered; therefore, the building retains integrity of
design;” and that the “building’s integrity of materials and workmanship is evident in the survival of
exterior architectural features,” the building has in fact been substantially altered, both interior and
exterior, the latter the focus of historical potential. As summarized above, 1030 Third St. was altered
in 1982 and even more extensively in 1987, which alterations fall outside any potential historical
period. Several earlier alterations, which were not completed with the Warnecke firm, are also
without any potential importance.
Those identifiable alterations were not addressed in the 2020-21 evaluations, nor is there evidence
that the permit history was researched. In the 2020 DPR forms, while identified as character defining
features, the interspersed vertical and long horizontal windows on all facades and the revolving
entrance door were later alterations. The front (south) entry stairs were assumed to also be original,
yet there is the possibility that that entry was added in the 1980s, as the original building entry was
likely at its northwest corner and the 3 central bays of the south elevation each glazed. Another
identified feature is the copper clad penthouse, which material is not copper. Additionally, the
domed, cylindrical and rounded features added to the building go unnoticed in the inventory record,
curiously so, since those forms are anathema to the original modern architectural style. Moreover,
the principal characteristics of the original building is its concrete post-and-beam structure with
exposed aggregate wall panels, whereas the only mention of concrete in the evaluation record is the
“concrete roof.” Altogether, the only extant feature that was accurately identified as character-
defining is the penthouse with its slanted wall.
Other discrepancies in the DPR forms – which are recorded as “intensive” but inhabited by boiler
plate information irrelevant to the specific resource and which unedited, cut-and-paste quality carries
through the document – include:
• The architect is identified as John Carl Warnecke, rather than, more accurately, John Carl
Warnecke and Associates.
• More substantively, Warnecke is also attributed as the builder, whereas the Warnecke firm were
planners and architects, not contractors (who were clearly identified in the original permit
records).
• The References section has no citations specific to this resource while having included an
assessment record for a residential property under a different parcel number.
• The Location Map is for a different property.
• The Evaluation section refers to a “house” and a “residence,” not a commercial building.
• It also appears that the evaluators depended on remote images of the property rather than field
work, as each of the published photos are Google Earth, further explaining some of the simple
discrepancies.
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P8
In sum, the record demonstrates inaccuracy and yet, based thereon, the subject building is currently
considered an historic resource by the City of San Rafael. Per the Historical Resources Guidelines
under the California Public Resources Code: “… an historical resource is a resource listed in, or
determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical
resources included in a local register of historical resources… are presumed to be historically or
culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant” (from sec. 21084.1).
Given the prior cursory evaluation and its inaccuracies, the current effort readdresses the subject
resource based on focused documentation and evaluation. To be eligible for listing on the California
Register (CR), a resource must be historically significant at the local, state, or national level, under
one or more of the following four CR eligibility criteria, each of which are listed and thereafter
addressed:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage.
In its mid-20th century commercial development context, there are no development patterns of
any potential historic importance associated with this property and its branch bank building, so
1030 Third St. does not meet CR criterion 1.
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
In the course of this intensive research effort, anonymous banking institutions were directly
associated with the development and ownership of the subject site and its building, but to which
no specific persons were identifiably associated. Consequently, the subject commercial property
and building do not meet CR criterion 2.
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
The basic and heavily altered building at 1030 Third St. lacks distinctive design and construction
character and characteristics of its type, period or region, and there are no distinctive methods of
construction. As demonstrated above and based on the defined characteristics of commercial
Midcentury Modern architecture, the 1030 Third St. building exhibits few and which features are
more typical than distinctive of the style.
Also per SF Modern, based on the firm’s design output, John Carl Warnecke is appropriately
listed under International Style architects (p188). The rigid design of 1030 Third St. verges on
that style, yet its small scale and material effects differ.
For John Carl Warnecke and Associates, 1030 Third St. was one of a dozen such commissions
by Wells Fargo Bank in the early 1960s, alongside a few other small branch banks of the same
period. Of those, some seven are readily identified as surviving (figs.17-20). No two are the
same designs though they are all low, rectangular plan commercial buildings with concrete
frames infilled with concrete wall panels and relatively generous full-height windows along with
deeply overhanging concrete roofs. A number have popped-up second stories set in a surround
of hipped roofs. All appear to have or have had corner entries. Given their period, all necessarily
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P9
had parking lots and each originally had drive-up banking lanes and windows, which were
covered in some form
Of these directly related projects, the closest design resemblance to 1030 Third St. is the
Mountain View branch (fig.21-22). Though its roof overhangs are more shallow and there is no
second story pop-up, the exposed post-and-beam concrete frame, walls of panelized concrete
and concrete roof are the same. The exposed aggregate wall panels and full height windows of
the Mountain View example also appear less altered so, by comparison, that example
demonstrates the original versus altered exterior of 1030 Third St., in contrast to which each of
the other examples also retain their more generously glazed exteriors. While it appears that
these surviving, early 1960s Wells Fargo branches have been altered and added to, even then,
most appear to be better examples of the Midcentury Modern genre by simply being more
original than 1030 Third St.
Altogether, the range of early 1960s branch banks attributed to the Warnecke firm are
Midcentury Modern commercial building designs, some more rigidly modern and others more
suburban-ranch-like, the differences simply depending on their rooflines.
Those branch banks are not collectively or individually unique or distinctive works of period
architecture. They are typical examples of a building type and design typical of the 1960s. As
demonstrated, many examples exist including in San Rafael, in particular the former Crocker
Bank (now Wells Fargo) at 1203 Fourth St. (fig.23) and which also dates to 1964 (Robert W.
Severin, arch.), which extant building visually demonstrates far more intact and better Midcentury
Modern attributes (1203 Fourth has been historically evaluated, at least in part, yet without
conclusive information or determination). Finally, there is another Midcentury Modern building in
central San Rafael, the extant design qualities of which far exceed the 1030 Third St. building –
San Rafael’s City Hall (1966, San Rafael Associated Architects), which association included the
aforementioned Robert W. Severin9 and which building distinctively employs an actual copper
mansard roof treatment (fig.24) – yet that building has apparently not been historically evaluated.
While John Carl Warnecke and Associates are historically recognized modern architects, the
firm’s range of bank buildings, especially their small commercial branch banks, are not their
claim to fame. The basis of their fame is their prominent, large-scale International Style planning,
architectural and landscape architectural commissions.
While the building was designed by an architectural firm of unequivocal historic importance, in
the context of the work of John Carl Warnecke and Associates, the subject branch bank building
is a negligible representation. It is also unarguable that the extant building has been substantially
and very visibly altered from the original mid-20th century work so is therefore neither a
distinctive nor representative example of the Warnecke firm.
Other architects/designers associated with the subsequent alteration projects included Keith
Johnson (1982) and Andrew James Ring (1987). Neither of those architects are of any potential
historical importance. Additionally, both cumulatively altered the original design.
9 Per the existing City Hall plaque, San Rafael Associated Architects consisted of Carl F. Gromme, Ralph B.
Priestley, George W. Banning, Felix M. Warburg, Eugene E. Crawford, Gordon A. Phillips and Robert W. F.
Severin.
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P10
Further, there is no identified landscape architects or any landscape design of any potential
historical importance, and the site and its building do not embody any artistic intent or artistry.
Therefore, 1030 Third St. has no identifiable design or construction significance under CR
criterion 3.
4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Relative to potential historical resources, the subject property has not yielded and at this
juncture, beyond the contents of this report, does not have any potential to yield additional
information of any historical importance (and pre-history is not a part of this historical evaluation
effort). Consequently, 1030 Third St. does not meet CR criterion 4.
Conclusion
The subject building at 1030 Third St. in San Rafael does not meet any CR criterion so lacks
potential historical significance and is, therefore, not an historic resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Signed:
Mark Hulbert
Preservation Architect
attached: Figs.1-24 (pp.11-21); copies of permit records (10pp.); MH professional qualifications (3pp.)
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P11
Fig.1 – 1030 Third St. (highlighted) – Location aerial (Google Earth, 2022, north is up)
Fig.2 – 1030 Third St. (highlighted) – Site aerial (Google Earth, 2022, north is up)
FOURTH STREET
THIRD STREET
A ST
RE
E
T
THIRD STREET
A ST
RE
E
T
HW
Y
.
1
0
1
DOWNTOWN
SAN RAFAEL
SECOND STREET
FOURTH STREET
C ST
RE
E
T
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P12
Fig.3 – 1030 Third St. (highlighted) – from Assessor’s Parcel Map
Fig.4 – 1030 Third St. – South side from Third St. (Google Earth, 2021)
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P13
Fig.5 – 1030 Third St. – West side from A St. (figs.5-8, MH 2022)
Fig.6 – 1030 Third St. – East side from Third St.
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P14
Fig.7 – 1030 Third St. – North side from A St.
Fig.8 – 1030 Third St. – East and north side from site
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P15
Fig.9 – 1030 Third St. – Primary cumulative exterior changes shaded in blue (from 1987 permit drawings,
Andrew James Ring III, arch.)
North Elevation
East Elevation
West Elevation
South Elevation
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P16
Fig.10 – 1030 Third St. – South addition (figs.10-15, MH 2022)
Fig.11 – 1030 Third St. – South entry alteration and addition
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P17
Fig.12 – 1030 Third St. – South wall alterations
Fig.13 – 1030 Third St. – North entry
and roof alterations
Fig.14 – 1030 Third St. – West side addition and
entry alteration
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P18
Fig.15 – 1030 Third St. – North side addition
Fig.16 – 1030 Third St. – North side alterations
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P19
Fig.17 – Wells Fargo Bank, Belmont
(figs.16-22 - John Carl Warnecke and Associates, arch., 1964 - Google Earth 2022)
Fig.18 – Wells Fargo Bank, Chico
Fig.19 – Wells Fargo Bank, Saratoga
Fig.20 – Wells Fargo Bank, Warm Springs
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P20
Fig.21-22 – Wells Fargo Bank, Mountain View
1030 THIRD ST., SAN RAFAEL
MHPA – HR EVAL – 030423 – P21
Fig.23 – Crocker Bank (current Wells Fargo), San Rafael (Robert W. Severin, arch., 1964 - MH 2022)
Fig.24 – San Rafael City Hall (San Rafael Architects Associated, 1966 - MH 2022)