Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 28th, 2026. This meeting is called to order. Margaret, can you please call the roll? Yes, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Alvarez. Here. Commissioner Salvamini.

Here.

Commissioner Summers.

Here.

Commissioner Saude. Here. Here. Chair Rodby.

Here.

You have a quorum, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, and I should say Commissioner Mercado has an excused absence this evening. Thank you.

So now to the order of the agenda. Are there any of the commissioners that would like to request changes to the order of the agenda? No? OK, thank you. So now we'll move to the meeting procedures. The city of San Rafael is committed for all to participate in our public meetings. I want to welcome everyone that are making the time this evening to participate. Margaret, can you tell us how public comment will work this evening, please? Yes, Madam Chair.

Tonight's meeting is being recorded and streamed live to YouTube. Viewers may also watch directly through Zoom using the link on the agenda or by dialing 669-444-9171 and entering the meeting ID 826-8602-8480. We are offering closed captioning for this evening's meeting on Zoom. please select the live transcript button on Zoom to enable the feature. And if you experience any technical difficulties, please email me at margaret.cavenaugh-lynch at cityofsandrafel.org. I can see my email and I'm able to assist while we're here this evening. In order to provide oral testimony, speakers must be present. Displayed on the podium is a timer to help you stay within the allotted time frame. You are invited, though not required, to introduce yourself and say what part of San Rafael you reside in or if you live outside the city. For future meetings, if you'd like to request accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide public comment virtually, please submit your request to me at least 72 hours in advance by using my email already noted for consideration.

Thank you, Margaret. So next on the agenda is oral communications for the public. Remarks during this period are on items not on the agenda and are welcome at this time and may be on anything within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. You may have up to two minutes. And please know that any remarks on the agenda item need to be heard at the time the item is discussed. Is there anyone that wish to speak on a non-agenda item tonight? No, not seeing any. We'll move forward to the consent calendar. We have no items on tonight's consent calendar. So we'll move to our action item. It's a public hearing to consider an environmental and design review permit for a new multifamily seven-story building with 190 units, all of which are below market rate at 555 Northgate Drive. Staff report, please.

I'd like to introduce Christina Rackley, our consultant planner, who will be presenting the project this evening.

Good evening, Commission. Happy to be here this evening and present this project. As you noted, as the Chair noted, this is at 555 Northgate. It is a multifamily, seven-story project, 100% affordable. Next slide. The project requires a major environmental design review. It includes a demo of an existing two-story office building that's currently on site, construction of a 235,701 square foot seven-story residential development. The bottom two stories are mostly parking, and then the top stories are all residential. It's 193 residential units, 153 low income units, and 38 moderate income units. Those are all considered affordable. And there are two manager units in addition to that. The project proposes 150 vehicle parking spaces, 122 bicycle parking spaces, and includes amenities such as mail room, community room, working space, fitness room, reading room, two courtyards, and dog run. Next slide. I'm sure it's coming. It's a picture of the existing office building which is proposed to be demolished. There it is. Thank you. So this is the existing site. It's an underutilized office building proposed to be demolished. Next slide. And this is a rendering from Northgate on the proposed project, the seven stories. Next slide. And this is just a brief overview. The first floor has parking, a leasing office, mail room, a co-work room. Second floor is parking and a community room. The third floor is residential and has two courtyards, A and B. Courtyard A includes a kids play structure and the reading room and fitness center open onto that particular courtyard. Courtyard B includes exercise equipment and both courtyards include landscaping and floors four through seven are all residential. Next slide. THIS IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AS FAR AS SIZE. IT'S BROKEN DOWN TO ONE BEDROOM AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS. PRIMARILY ONE BEDROOM UNITS. I BELIEVE IT'S 154 ONE BEDROOM UNITS TOTAL. 39 TWO BEDROOM UNITS AND THAT INCLUDES THE TWO MANAGER'S UNITS WHICH ARE BOTH TWO BEDROOM UNITS. AND AGAIN THE LOW INCOME UNITS 153 AND MODERATE INCOME 38. NEXT SLIDE. The project was submitted under SB 330 in the State Density Bonus Law. This allows developers to increase density in the residential mixed-use housing or mixed-use housing project, this is totally residential, above the maximum allowable in the city's general plan. It allows exceptions and benefits, concessions or waivers, In this case, the applicant, based upon the affordability and the location, is entitled to three exceptions or benefits. They are asking for unlimited density, an additional height bonus, and then there is no parking requirement because it is less than half a mile from the smart station. In addition to that, because of the level of affordability, they are entitled to five concessions. They have requested five. A concession is a reduction in development standards that results in identifiable actual cost reductions. And then because the applicant is requesting unlimited density, there are no waivers allowed and none are requested. And I just wanted to note that the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, or waiver under the SDBL, State Density Bonus Law, is not a valid basis to find the proposed project is inconsistent with applicable objective standards. Staff has reviewed this and finds that the project complies with all applicable objective general plan zoning objective design standards as modified by the density bonus exemption benefits and concessions under the state density bonus law. And just to go back a little bit, the density allowed without the exemption or concession or benefit is 97 units, 193 are proposed. Per the code, 60 feet in height is allowed. The proposed is 68 feet 3 inches. And parking would be required 309 spaces. No parking is actually required because of the nearness of the smart station. They are proposing 150 parking spaces. Next slide, please. This also falls under the Housing Accountability Act. a California state law that promotes infill development, limits the review, again, to objective development and design standards, and limits the ability of local government to deny projects in a way that would reduce density, make infeasible housing development projects that comply with objective standards. And if a court finds the city has violated the HAA, the court can order approval of the project, order the city to pay the petitioner's attorney's fees, and fine the city up to $10,000 per unit, which can be multiplied by five if the court also finds the city acted in bad faith. Next slide. This project qualifies, as mentioned before, for three exemptions benefits. One is the unlimited density because the site is located within half a mile from a major transit stop and provides 100% of the units as affordable to low and moderate income. This allows unlimited density. In addition, because it is a half mile from, within a half mile actually, it's less than that, from a major transit stop, it also qualifies for no parking, no minimum parking requirement, an additional 33 foot height bonus on top of the 60 that would be allowed in the zoning district, and up to five concessions from development standards. Next slide. The requested concessions are as follows. A requested concession from the front yard setback requirement of 20 feet. They would like four and a half feet. The maximum lot coverage, the maximum is 40%. The proposed is 45.2% coverage. Usable outdoor space, they would like to reduce the requirement from 19,300 square feet to 8,939 square feet. On-site parking location, relief from the standard to restrict parking to the rear half of the lot. Again, they don't have to provide parking, but they would like to provide it as an amenity. And relief from the facades and massing requirement from the objective design standards. This is a relief from a requirement to provide 10 foot long plane breaks at least every 50 feet of wall plane at a depth of at least five feet every 100 feet of wall facade. Next slide. and just a brief overview of the general plan consistency for this project and there is a full consistency analysis that is attached to the resolution. This does focus on high density housing on an underutilized site close to Civic Center Smart. The site is identified in Appendix B of the General Plan as underutilized and is in the site inventory and capacity report housing element. It meets the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And the neighborhoods element identifies this area around Northgate Mall as a high priority as a reimagined town center with a mix of uses. including maximizing the potential for affordable housing. Next slide. Again, briefly, the consistency with the zoning code and objective design standards. The proposal is consistent with applicable portions of the zoning code, including the base district regulations. It is in the office district, which does allow residential. The site use and regulations, including the affordable housing resolution, parking standards, and it's consistent with the objective design standards. Again, both zoning code, objective design standards, and any general plan policies, it is consistent with those as modified by the benefits and concessions under the state density bonus law. Next slide. And we're talking about CEQA now. The project qualifies, staff believes, for a class 32 exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. This is an infill exemption. There is a class 32 exemption report attached to the resolution as well. This was prepared by a consultant to the city and makes the five findings that it is consistent with applicable general plan designation and policies. that the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project of no more than five acres. The project site is 2.22 acres. The project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. As a concurrently developed site, there is no habitat there. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. WE DO HAVE STUDIES IN THE CLASS 32 EXEMPTION REPORT COVERS THAT. I WILL NOTE THAT A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. THE APPLICANT ANSWERED IT AND THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAS APPROVED THAT REPORT WITH NO IMPACT TO TRAFFIC FOR THE CITY. I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT TRAFFIC FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. That has also been verified. Next slide. As mentioned before, this is subject to environmental and design review findings that the project Design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of this chapter. The project design is consistent with all applicable site architecture and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located, and that the project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts. And the project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. And just a note as well, these must be based on objective standards that we have in the code. Cannot deny or impose subjective standards on the project. Next slide. The conditions of approval, the project has 138 conditions of approval attached with the resolution. In addition to that, we have an affordable housing agreement, a draft affordable housing agreement that is also attached. The conditions of approval ensure compliance with the objective standards and the requirements in all the city codes, policies, as well as the agency requirements, sewer, water, et cetera. trash state codes, and objective design standards. Next slide. Public comments, and I'm sorry, this was, we had approximately 22 when this PowerPoint was put together. I believe there's 24 right now. public comments on the project, most expressed concern with height and traffic. I do note that about 19 of those comments were submitted in May of 2025, and the rest of them we've received in the last 10 days since the noticing of the project and posting of the project. And I will add that a few of the comments also supported the project as providing needed affordable housing for San Rafael. Next slide. Planning Commission options. Staff recommendation option is number one, to adopt the draft resolution finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the environmental and design review permit in associated conditions of approval and the below market rate housing agreement for the project. A second option is to approve the application with certain modifications, changes, or additional conditions of approval. A third is to deny the project and direct staff to return with a revised resolution of denial. Next slide. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT ONE MINOR TYPO THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT. THERE IS AN ATTACHMENT 3 EXHIBIT 2 THAT IS LABELED AS PROJECT NARRATIVE. THAT'S A PREVIOUS PROJECT NARRATIVE. IT WAS SUPERCEDED BY ATTACHMENT 3 EXHIBIT 3, WHICH IS BOTH A NARRATIVE AND THE DENSITY BONUS AND CONCESSION REQUEST. So apologies for that oversight. You have a little bit more to read. I do know that the applicant is here. And I also note that on Zoom, we have Randy Metz, who is a fire services consultant, Eric Simpson, chief building official, and Sarah Toplitsky, associate civil engineer with the city, as well as Alex Kapitanian, who is our housing manager. So if there are any questions of staff, we're happy to respond.

Thank you, Christina. Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff? Not yet? Okay. So the applicant has a presentation, please.

Thank you, Chairman, members of the Planning Commission Board. Thanks for taking the time to review our project. I know you're all volunteers. And we've been working with staff, I think, almost two years. They've done a great job, very diligent, pretty streamlined, very professional. It's been great dealing with them. And what I wanted to do was answer any questions that you have, but we have a brief presentation to go through the site plan and the elevations so that you can see the final product on what we're proposing. Okay, cool.

Can you go back one?

Yeah, okay, yeah. My name is, I'm sorry. My name is Alexis Kevorgian. I'm with AMG Land Development. We're out of Encino, California, and our primary development product is affordable housing. We're one of the largest producers of affordable housing in California. I've been doing this for about 25 years, and that's pretty much my background.

Thank you.

THIS IS THE ELEVATION AS YOU APPROACH FROM THE STREET. THIS IS THE SIDE THAT YOU CAN SEE THE COURTYARDS CUT OUT ON THE VERY RIGHT SIDE YOU CAN SEE THE TWO BUILDINGS BUT THERE'S A COURTYARD IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO BUILDINGS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. This is basically who we are, what we do. We've done over 10,000 units all throughout the western United States. We have some projects in Alaska. I would say 95% of our portfolio is affordable. And we take great pride in doing high quality projects generally if you see one of our projects in the city, you can't differentiate between a market rate project and an affordable project. One of our partners is the Pacific Companies out of Boise, and they are consistently ranked number one every year in California. They were number one in the U.S. two of the last 10 years, and again, their primary emphasis is affordable housing. This is where they rank for the past, I don't know, since 2012. That's the CEO of the Pacific Company's Caleb Roop. So basically the Pacific Companies is a vertically integrated development company. We partner with them. We primarily handle all the land use entitlements at the local level. And then we'll either sell the asset to them and be a partner. And they have asset managers that oversee property management companies, third party property management companies, and these are generally nationally recognized professional management companies that have a local presence. And then on each project we have generally between two and three on-site managers that live there. Sometimes they're there with their family, sometimes they're single. And we don't sell these projects. Generally, we have restrictions to selling the projects for at least 15 years with our investors. And the investors on these projects are not small mom and pop investors. They're generally institutions like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, large banks generally buy the tax credits. AND WE ALSO ISSUE PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS WHICH ARE AGAIN PURCHASED BY MAJOR INSTITUTIONS. THEY'RE USUALLY THE BIG MONEY CENTER BANKS LIKE CITY BANK, WELLS, CALIFORNIA BANK AND TRUST. SO IT'S NOT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER OVERSIGHT ON THE PROJECT IN ADDITION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS A BUNCH OF FEDERAL RULES. AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF IRS RULES. SO THESE PROJECTS ARE MAINTAINED PROPERLY PURSUANT TO THE REGULATORY AGREEMENTS, INCLUDING THE CITY'S REGULATORY AGREEMENT THROUGH THE FEE OR THE IRS. SO IF WE DON'T COMPLY, THEN OUR TAX CREDITS GET RECAPTURED UP TO 15 YEARS GOING OUT. THAT'S ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF FINANCING PROJECTS USING LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS. THIS IS A BIRD'S EYE VIEW, ARIEL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ATTRACTED US TO THIS SITE IS THE MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING ACROSS THE STREET. We think that it's gonna have good synergy with what's going on across the street in terms of stimulating the retail, any office that's there, and the employees that work at the mall. It's gonna be a real interesting urban environment, we think. That's what we're trying to create here. Well, this was pretty much covered by staff, so I won't repeat this. So the site is not perfectly flat. So that's the reason you have one and a half levels of parking. So when we talk about seven stories, it's really not seven stories because you have the sloping site. As you get to the back, the height of the building is less. So you have level one parking, level two parking, and then you have level three and above, which is all the residential. WE WILL OFFER THESE AMENITIES, LEASING OFFICE, MOST OF WHICH STAFF ALREADY COVERED, A DOG RUN, PARKING STALLS FOR BIKES, FITNESS ROOM, TWO COURTYARDS, LEASING OFFICE AND CO-WORK SPACE. This is the affordability matrix. And generally what we do is the projects aren't highly concentrated in one AMI level. we will spread it between 35% all the way to 80. So having that large band helps the city meet its RHNA numbers. And generally cities have a tough time meeting the deep affordability because that requires a deep subsidy. So we offset the deep subsidy 35s with the 80s. And that way you don't have a high concentration of one income level. These are the elevations, north elevation, west elevation, and you can see the slope on the west elevation there. And this is the opposite south elevation and east elevation. THAT'S IT. SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER. QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER. AND I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A AND I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE THINGS ON THE CEQA. COUPLE THINGS ON THE CEQA. WE DID SPECIAL STUDIES ON ALL OF WE DID SPECIAL STUDIES ON ALL OF THE AREAS THAT WE THOUGHT SHOULD THE AREAS THAT WE THOUGHT SHOULD BE STUDIED AND THE CITY HIRED BE STUDIED AND THE CITY HIRED A THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT THAT A THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT THAT GAVE US THE INSTRUCTIONS ON WHICH GAVE US THE INSTRUCTIONS ON WHICH AREAS TO DO A SPECIAL STUDY. AREAS TO DO A SPECIAL STUDY. That's pretty much what we've done on the environmental side.

Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant?

I have a question. So you mentioned that you have been working on this project for two years with staff. And I see some comments from the neighborhood that they weren't aware about this project. Can staff confirm that all noticing requirements were made?

I'm sorry, Commissioner Alvarez, I'm not following your question. Could you restate? Yeah.

So I'm hearing from residents that they weren't aware about this project. So can staff confirm that all noticing requirements were met?

Yes, sir. So this project has been noticed pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Code and state law. To go a bit deeper, if you think back two years ago, we were all just sitting down at our desks, basically, and we had the Northgate Shopping Center was finishing up, there was a lot going on, and Director Henkel and the rest of our staff, we were trying to think of other ways to help the public to be able to know about all the development projects that were coming in. There was a myriad of them, as you're aware. In the beginning, we absolutely met the minimum noticing and since that time, and in particular due to some of these comments that we received, we created the major projects page, we created the map so people can locate their neighborhood and see what's coming in. So we took those comments to heart and we tried very hard to make the website user friendly Also, this project was always in our permit software system, so track it and then OpenGov. It was always findable, but it wasn't user-friendly. So we really strive to make that a better opportunity on our website today.

Thank you.

I have a question for staff as well.

Oh, go ahead. You can go first.

Sorry, I didn't see.

Go ahead.

This question might be for Alex Kaptanian. She's our other, Alexis. Sorry, I didn't mean to say Alex. Given there are a lot of services at the Northgate, I think it's phase one development, or maybe it's phase two, at the affordable housing site, would some of these residents have access to the services that are going to be available at Northgate?

So I am hooking in Alexis Capitan as we speak. She's meeting with us virtually.

I might be able to answer that question. So Director Hinkle, Community Economic Development. As you recall for the Northgate project, actually the project proponent ended up not doing that EAH proposal. So they ended up doing a 100 townhomes instead. So there is not a supportive affordable housing project associated with the Northgate Mall project. So this would be a standalone affordable housing project. services provided really just for the housing component for the project applicant.

Thank you.

All right, so maybe a silly question, but so the parking, and I understand you're allowing or you have the availability of 155 spaces. the idea that there could be 228 bedrooms. How do you, I don't know if weeding out is the right word, but how do you find tenants that don't have cars or do you say, how does that get approached?

Sure, so it's generally on a first come first serve basis in terms of when they sign the lease. So as the project gets, each unit can only have one stall at the max. So the units that are leased towards the latter portion, those units, we'll disclose to them, we'll have them sign documents that, They know that there's not going to be a parking stall until something comes up. We also give preference to handicap and those who are most in need. And then as the owner operator, we also try to facilitate other parking stalls that we enter into parking management agreements. For example, there's a lot of vacant parking. UNDERUTILIZED OFFICE SPACE THAT HAVE PARKING AVAILABLE. WE FACILITATE AGREEMENTS WHERE THEY CAN PARK IN OTHER PROJECTS, INCLUDING ACROSS THE STREET, WE'RE GOING TO BROACH THE SUBJECT WITH THE MALL OWNER. THEY HAVE THOUSANDS OF STALLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE THERE. AND WE WORK OUT SOME KIND OF A PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TURNOVER AND WE'RE ABLE TO LEASE THE UNITS.

Just a follow up on that then. So 80% of the units are one bedroom. Is that based on market studies or is there another reason for that?

It's primarily driven by the market. There's a huge demand for one bedrooms and then we've coupled some two bedrooms in there also.

Is there an occupancy limit on the one bedrooms?

Yes. I believe it's four maximum.

So there is the potential for them to have at least two cars in a one bedroom. Yeah. That'll be extra. So do you charge or do you charge more for an apartment that has a parking space?

No.

No. Okay. You answered the question on the parking. Oh, and also, we did receive a public comment from the senior housing next door, and they were worried about their dementia patients and noise, and I read the noise study, and it looks like you've done almost everything you can do, but just wondered if there's anything more that can be done for the dementia patients next door.

Noise from the residents?

THE CONSTRUCTION.

THE CONSTRUCTION. I GUESS WE'LL FOLLOW THE SAN I GUESS WE'LL FOLLOW THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE IN TERMS OF RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE IN TERMS OF WORKING HOURS. WORKING HOURS. WE'RE NOT DOING ANY PILES OR We'll look at the hours that are permissible and then we'll meet with the neighbors to see like is there any particular days that they have events where they don't want us to make so much noise but we'll work with our neighbors.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions?

Yeah, a little more on noise, because when I was looking at your plan, just the way it's designed, the location of staging for the trash pickup and all that, that's been kind of a problem on these big projects sometimes when they're directly adjacent to, say, A single family residence. So, I mean, you've got your trash rooms right here, literally in someone's backyard. So I guess when they come at four in the morning or whatever, five in the morning, we're going to make a bunch of racket for those people. Was there thought on locations of those services to maybe be more locate them in more sensitive areas to not bother, say, Almavia or a single family house?

Well, we can look into that. I haven't heard that issue, but we can look at small thing, but it could be a big thing for some people. No, that's OK. We'll we'll look into that. And we have we generally hire a trash consultant and we could raise this issue.

Perfect. Thank you.

In terms of design, so is there any more details in why these volumes looks like that or why that kind of materials? I would like to know a little bit more about the design.

Well, we tried to make it interesting with different textures and different colors. It does have a certain amount of articulation, and that's the architectural design that the architect rolled with, but we tried not to make it boring, and that's the design that we decided to go with.

Thank you.

Any others? No? Thank you. You're welcome. So now we'll open for the public comments. Each person will have up to two minutes to provide testimony. You are invited but not required to state your name and address for the record. Please.

Good evening.

My name is Patrick Gannon, and I'm a long-time resident of Terralinda. My big concern is the traffic issues. We have to understand the impact on the Ring Road, Northgate Drive, in the context of all the other development that will be happening in the mall. So I don't understand how the traffic study found that there would be no impact on the Northgate Drive with 1,400 units going up in the southern part of the mall. Now we have 190 units right across the street. How can this not be impacted? How can the traffic not be impacted? You've got people from Alma Via walking around with their caretakers in many cases. the guide dogs for the blind walking their dogs around. You've got a high school just up the road from Northgate. I don't understand how the traffic report could find that there would be no impact. Am I missing something here in terms of what the traffic report is finding? This doesn't make sense to me because you're looking at 1,600, probably close to 1,600 units going in over the next couple of years. With no expansion of the roadway, how can this not be impacted? I don't know who to address this to. It's okay.

Does anyone on staff want to address a traffic report?

Through the chair. I think we should let all the people who want to comment speak. If there's anyone else here, I'm not sure if there is, but then we can, we do have members of our Department of Public Works team ready to address comments.

Okay, thank you. Were there any others to make public comment? Seeing none.

through the chair. I just wanna note that I believe the applicant's traffic consultant is online as well. And they may be able to explain the report and then our own city engineer could weigh in on that as well.

Ms. Ratcliffe, can you remind me the name of the traffic engineer?

Sorry, it starts with a K, I'm sorry.

Also through the chair, if there's no other public speakers who want to address this, you might close public comment.

Thank you. So now no other public speakers to public comment period is closed. Thank you.

Might it be Justin Tucker? Sorry.

I think it's RK.

Justin Tucker, JT at RKAengineers.com.

Good evening. Justin Tucker, principal with RKA Engineering Group. We're located down in Newport Beach. I was the principal in charge of overseeing the traffic study efforts for this project. The general process for those unaware of a traffic study is, The first phase is a rigorous scoping process with the city. You know, I don't live in San Rafael, so this is, you know, quite possibly the most important part of the entire traffic study scope, you know, get Sarah and the rest of the public works departments inside on what some of the main concerns would be for this forthcoming analysis. We work through the The scope and phase and then proceeded with the analysis, which included layering in the traffic from the large Northgate Town Center redevelopment. That is compared, project compared to the traffic generated by this project is about 10 or 20 acts. So really the growth of traffic in the near term is really associated with the Northgate MALL PROJECT, AND WE SPECIFICALLY ASSESSED THE IMPACT FROM JUST THIS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. WE STUDIED NORTH GATE DRIVE FROM NOVA ALBIAN WAY TO THE WEST OVER TO LOS RANCHITOS ROAD TO THE EAST, INCLUDING THE PROJECT DRIVEWAYS, ONE OF WHICH SHARES ACCESS WITH THE MALL ACROSS THE STREET. The city of San Rafael adheres to a minimum acceptable standard of LOSD, D as in dog, for their intersections. And based off the methodology and approach exactly outlined in the city's traffic study guidelines, all intersections analyzed are forecast to operate adequately and no impacts were identified in the report.

Hi, John. I have a question for you, Commissioner Jack Salvamini. So this is the first time that in my meeting, in my commissions, that we've actually spoken to somebody in your expertise. So do you... Would you at some point say we need to put a signal at this intersection that doesn't exist currently? How does that work for you? I mean, with the increase in cars, is that something that you would suggest or are you looking at just the impact of traffic?

Yeah, I appreciate the question, and it absolutely is something we would assess. In this case, and backing up just a tad bit, both of these, and I'm assuming you're mentioning the two project driveways, both of which currently exist. They serve currently the existing office development that's there now, so there are no new intersections. But as part of any traffic study, especially for unsignalized locations, we would analyze the need for signalization. However, it's not a easy answer. There's a whole, it's called the signal warrants. It's outlined in a manual. There's nine different warrants. And they're pretty rigorous to meet. You don't want to just start throwing in traffic signals everywhere. That's going to totally mess up congestion and even introduce possible safety concerns if there's not enough spacing between intersections. So as with any study, we'll do a check on unsignalized intersections for appropriateness for signalization. In this case, both driveways are A, TO CLOSELY SPACED TO EXISTING SIGNALS. THE CITY HAS STANDARDS FOR MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN SIGNALS BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY JUST DON'T WARRANT THE VOLUME TO TRIGGER OR JUSTIFY THE NEED MARRIED WITH THE FACT THAT THE INTERSECTIONS OPERATE ADEQUATELY PER CITY STANDARDS WITHOUT ANY IMPROVEMENTS.

And then thank you for that. And then just to follow up, I'm pretty aware of that area, and I think there's an island there, but are we gonna have a left-hand turn lane into the facility?

I can speak to that too. So I don't know if you're looking at a map, but the easternmost driveway, or let me start with the westernmost driveway. The westernmost driveway is proposed right turn only. So right in, right out. So that's a moot point. We can move past that. There's no left turns at the western driveway. At the eastern driveway, there are proposed left turns. That's going to be a full access signal. Currently that driveway operates with left in and those left turn from Northgate Drive. The project is not proposing modifying the median to provide this left turn and it was a point of conversation through the traffic study for the need of it and as part of the traffic study, might be the last chapter of the traffic study, it went through the different considerations for whether there really is a need for this left turn or not, and we showed that there really isn't. I'm not gonna sit here and say that in a vacuum, a left turn is likely always the best answer, but in this point, it's probably a little overkill given the setting. We looked at stopping sight distance, the overall volume, the speed of Northgate Drive, all indicated that there really just isn't a need for exclusive left turn lane there.

Thanks.

I actually have a question for Justin, if I can. Okay. Hi, Justin. Thank you for your work on the project. I have a couple questions. One is regarding the baseline. So it'd be good to understand the baseline that was for office and then what we're comparing it to. And then can you also remind me if the vehicles, I forget what it's called, like the vehicles traveled, is it higher for office or is it higher for residential? Like where does, how does that compare?

Yeah, so to answer your last question first, I believe you're referring to vehicle mileage traveled. DMT, which is the new I mean, not so new anymore. 2020 is when it took over the CEQA's transportation threshold for analysis. It's office and residential in my experience with VMT are two of the more constrained VMT wise out of all the uses, you know, compared to something like, you know, if a small commercial use goes in here, that's typically local serving. Those trips are really serving the adjacent residents in this case. But with office and residence, you have the commute trips, which are really the killer. And residential and office are specifically called out in most guidelines as really the most sensitive when approaching VMT analyses. In this case, this being 100% affordable housing unit, housing project rather, the state when developing their guidance on VMT in an effort to help expedite the process, identified certain projects that immediately would screen out from requiring any VMT analysis and then 100% affordable housing project is one of those projects that immediately screened out. So I don't know in this specific case what the office, for example, generated VMC because the project just screened out immediately from needing any VMC. And there's reasons why affordable was listed as one of those uses. But in this case, the project screened out from a full VMC analysis. And then your other question is baseline. Is the question baseline from, you know, existing traffic volumes?

Correct. Like, you know, if the site was unchanged, if it stayed office, like what would that baseline be? Like even just like rough numbers like one to two or, you know, compared to what we're looking at for this proposed project.

yeah it's so when we were first introduced to the project the site was basically closed and we we actually collected real counts out there as opposed to just calculating the you know what we think the trips could be we actually went out there collected driveway accounts to see okay at the time of the traffic study what were the trips that this site is currently generating. And those trips were negated from the existing traffic volumes we collected at the nearby intersections. It was minimal, under 10 peak hour trips. If we went back in time and the office was currently fully occupied and fully operational, It's somewhere in the third to half. The residential project is about 2 to 3x what the office, the maximum potential office was.

Okay, and this might be for Public Works, but if I can recall correctly, for Northgate Mall, we understood the baseline for the traffic to be the mall fully occupied, like it was when it was up and running. So I guess what I'm hearing is there's maybe a different way of looking at this. I mean, this is more accurate for sure, but for today's comparison, you know, and I think that's what a lot of residents tend to see when or think when they see the traffic study. I don't think there's like it's even hard for me to understand really like how that baseline is actually created and how we're comparing it. It looks like there's a little bit of difference.

Yeah, I can jump in there. Good evening, everyone. My name is Sarah Toplitsky. I'm an associate civil engineer with the Public Works Department. So the traffic study that was done for this project was done under the City of San Rafael's transportation analysis guidelines. It was not a transportation impact report for CEQA's purposes. And so the baseline was set based on the city's own guidelines. My understanding for the North gate town square project is that the the traffic report done for that project was a was a sequel based report and the baseline was set based on what is allowable under sequel which looks at what what is allowed to be used on the site without any further permits or entitlements.

Thank you. And while I have you here, another question would be regarding the studies that are happening at the turnaround. And I know there's some talks with potentially with Caltrans. There's some things that are maybe in the very beginnings or just really what we're looking at. I'm guessing, I mean, maybe anecdotally, do you see how that could, I mean, I don't even know how you'd answer that, but how that could potentially change the way traffic occurs on that site? I mean, I also would assume that a low-income housing project, a lot of those people could work at the mall, you know, work at the new project. So hopefully they're walking or they're riding their bike somewhere, but...

I'm not quite sure how to answer that question. I will say that our guidelines, they have a project look at the current conditions. If there's a known project that is already designed and planned for, we might ask the applicant to include that consideration in their study. But for things that are just in talks and unknown at this time, there isn't a good way to evaluate that.

Thank you.

Sorry, if I can just add, you know, when we look at all the cumulative impacts for projects, those are accounted for in our traffic modeling systems. For the Northgate project, you have to remember this is a regional served mall. And the adjacent office complex and all the other office complex around here had significant traffic allocation in the prime time of office. There actually has been a reduction. We recognize that. But when they built and paid into the transportation systems and the design systems, they were said at that period or that thresholds of really what the traffic generation factors were. The housing conversion is still within those traffic factors. That's why if you look at the mitigation or the traffic cost components tied to this project, they're pretty minimal because there's existing trip allocation associated with a prior office complex because of what it paid into the transportation system before. So they're paying their fair share adjustment on this, and there's a cost tied to it. That was based on the study and the city's review. But recognizing the system itself, there was a lot of traffic designed for this particular neighborhood with the regional service mall and the adjacent office complexes that surround this ring, basically North K Drive.

So, no more questions from commissioners? No? Okay. Well, let's take it back then and we'll deliberate the project. So, let's start with you.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate all the work that staff has done and all our consultants. It's a great deal of work to review all these projects individually along with all the other things you guys are doing in the background to help us get all of our codes up to date and our processes. I wanna say I support this project. I think what wasn't recognized and maybe notable is that the project is like 22 feet lower than what was allowable under the amount of affordability. And I think that's been the other big challenge with these housing projects, that people are just really not comfortable with the heights, which I completely understand. I think the project is within scale with the new development at Northgate. And as that project phases, it'd be great to see projects like this happen at a quicker pace or smaller size. They're hopefully a little easier to get done And I really appreciate that it's an affordable and moderate income project. I think that is what we need in San Rafael. We're seeing a lot more of the senior housing, but this is like the workforce housing that we all want and need to make sure we're economically viable. And so I would just support the project.

Yeah. I would agree with what Samina just said. You know, I'm the resident architect on the board, so I'm going to kind of just focus in on the building. And, you know, she's absolutely right. We are seeing a lot of these projects that are just going to the absolute max these days. And this one didn't. It didn't go up another two floors, which they were entitled to. They didn't use one of the concessions to build this building with no setback variances or rear setback variances. So, I mean, the way they cited it, you know, to some degree, yes, it's a big building, but they cited it and kept the rear and the sides significantly away from their neighbors. And, you know, that's another thing we're not seeing a lot in these big projects. So I think they did strike somewhat of a balance here where, you know, we need these projects. The affordable housing components, really great. And then they did, like I said, they did strike more of a balance on this one than a lot of what we're seeing. I don't know if I should be judging the fact that this one has done less than some of the ones that we've seen max. It's almost like, you know, we're so conditioned to seeing these things that are just like massive that, you know, now this is OK, because maybe five years ago we wouldn't have been saying that about this. But I think they've done a pretty good job. The architecture is good. I like the how the if you build the building like this with this quality with windows punched in and how the building articulates the courtyards in they did carve it up and did a lot of the things we used to ask for on the design review board. So I appreciate that. So, you know, I'm supportive of it. And I'm no expert on traffic. So I have to listen to the the engineers here.

I'm going to echo what my previous two commissioners said here. I do really enjoy the fact that it is a 100% low income housing. I live in the neighborhood. I drive that road fairly often and I don't see a lot of traffic now, so my gut is that I don't think it's going to be a huge problem, because there's not a lot of cars on that road very often. I hope it's not, but my intuition is that it won't be overly crowded. I agree that I like the look of the building. I think it's done nicely. I really enjoy the fact that I wish we had more projects like this because I think it fits in well. I think it'll look great next to the Northgate Mall and I'm in support of it.

I'm gonna echo all the comments that my other colleagues say. So I just wanna say that I support the housing and this project has a lot of balance and different elements and yeah, so I recognize also that the housing goals of the projects in processing under the state laws. Yeah.

Yeah, I also support the project because we desperately need low-income housing. There were some comments made in the public that I think I just want to clarify Low income in Marin County is not really low income. I mean, if you're four people, so you have a couple, two kids, low income is $154,000 in Marin County, and it's based on the medium income. for a family of four of 185,000. So, you know, we are in the upper level in the Bay Area, and the people that are going for low- or qualify for low-income housing are our teachers, our nurses, our, you know, store people, everybody that runs the economy. We need to be able to provide them with housing. And I think that should be our number one priority right now. And I talk to young people, just getting out of college, trying to, their first job. I mean, you know, they don't, they're not gonna, one person, 108,000 is low income. I don't know too many starting jobs that start at 108,000. So I think as a community, and I realize there's a lot of frustrations with the traffic, I get that. But I think as a community, we owe this to the people that are making our economy run. So thank you. Are we ready for a motion? I have this here, trust me.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the resolution. of the San Rafael Planning Commission approving an environmental and design review permit to allow development of a multi-family residential building with the 193 residential units, including 191 affordable units and two manager units located at 555 Northgate. And determining the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to section 15332 of the state CEQA guidelines. I have a second.

I second.

Thank you.

Roll call, please. Commissioner Alvarez? Yes. Commissioner Salvamini?

Yes.

Commissioner Summers?

Yes.

Commissioner Saade? Yes. Chair Rodby? Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. So any interested party, so the motion passes. Any interested party may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission within five working days of this decision to the City Council. The appeal must be filed with the planning, with the staff, I'm sorry. Appeal must be filed within how many days? This was cut off, I'm sorry.

Sorry, five days. Five days, that's what I thought.

The fee is $376, a flat fee plus an additional deposit of $5,374 due at submittal for a total of $5,750. Please contact the planning manager if you have any questions. Thank you. So next we'll move into the director's report.

Good evening. Greg Miner, Community Economic Development Department. I have two scheduling updates, or tentative scheduling updates. The first is for the county-wide training for planning commissioners that the county of Marin is facilitating. The tentative date is June 1st. And I also have a tentative agenda for planning commissioners that I can read here, which is, again, the training's roughly from 2 o'clock to 8 p.m. Dinner will be provided. But the training consists of an overview of state housing law. You might have heard of it. What's required versus what's discretionary. Commission purview and defensible findings. How local decisions connect to countywide regional requirements. objective design standards, and climate adaptation and hazard planning for project review. So that's the tentative agenda and tentative schedule. As soon as anything's confirmed, we'll let you know. A location? My presumption is it's at the civic center, but I'll confirm that as well unless anyone else has heard otherwise. The second scheduling update is the second City Council housing study session. So commissioners may recall earlier in this year, in response to the different state housing laws and new regulatory landscape for housing projects, our department was asked to facilitate a study session with the City Council to give the public and City Council space to ask questions and get everyone up to date speed in terms of what the new landscape is. And our planning manager, Margaret Cavanaugh Lynch, led that first discussion, which was focused more on the new state laws and how that changes local land use approvals, as you all are intimately familiar with at this point. The second study session, that one took place on February 2nd. The second one will most likely take place on June 1st as well, but it hasn't been finalized. It'll be recorded, just like all city council meetings. And that one will focus on the city's affordable housing requirements, as well as some follow-up from the first study session. Margaret or Mike, if you want to add anything, feel free. But the date is tentatively the same time later in the evening, but it may be a different date in June. Once either or both of those dates are finalized, we will let you know, as well as the public.

And then Micah Hinkle, Community Economic Development Director. I do have a staffing announcement I want to share with the commission, which is we have actually filled our assistant director, chief billing official position. His name's Lou Kirk. He'll be starting mid-May. So we're excited to have that critical vacancy filled. Really have been supported by our acting CBO, Eric Simonson. We're still actually continuing on a contract for transition. But as I said, for all the activity we're having, it's really having that key critical position supporting the department and the operations. So thank you.

Thank you. Do any of the planning commissioners have any communications they wish to discuss? No? Okay, then this meeting is adjourned at 8.08. Thank you.