Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-02-24_cityofsanrafael_b8db0a5032cd708bea4c882ae4839403
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