The URL can be used to link to this page

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