Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, yeah. No. No. No. Or.

Thank you. Welcome to the regular meeting of the San Rafael Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 13th, 2026. This meeting is called to order. Margaret, can you please call the roll? Commissioner Haveman.

Here.

Commissioner Alvarez. Here. Commissioner Summers.

Here.

Commissioner Salvamini.

Here.

Chair Rodby. Here. Commissioners Mercado and Sade have excused absences this evening.

Yeah.

Okay. Now to the order of the agenda. Are there any commissioners that would like to request changes to the order of the agenda? Okay, so 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 here, making the time this evening to participate Margaret, can you please tell us how public comment will work this evening.

Good evening, Chair Rodney. Tonight's meeting is being recorded and streamed live onto YouTube. Viewers can also watch directly through Zoom using the link on the agenda or by dialing 669-444-9171 and entering the meeting ID 836-5104-9034. We are offering closed captioning on this evening's meeting through Zoom. You'd want to select the live transcript button on Zoom to enable the feature. If you have any technical difficulties, please email me at margaret.kavanaugh-lynch at cityofsanrafel.org. I can see my email, so I can assist in real time. In order to provide oral testimony, speakers must be present. Displayed on the podium will be a timer to help you stay within your allotted timeframe. 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 an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide public comment virtually, please submit your request to me at least 72 hours in advance of a commission meeting using the email that I just previously stated for consideration.

THANK YOU, MARGARET. SO NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC. THIS IS REMARKS OR ITEMS THAT YOU WANT TO BRING UP THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE AGENDA ITEM 700. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTED TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY OTHER ISSUES? PLEASE COME UP. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. RIGHT HERE.

Okay.

Thank you. It's totally unrelated to this evening, but I'm just wondering regarding the little tent city that's in front of the city hall here now, if that is being addressed in any way and if it's going to be cleaned up anytime soon.

Margaret, do you have?

THROUGH THE CHAIR, THIS IS REALLY MORE OF AN ITEM RELATED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT REALLY BRING THAT ONE FORWARD. AT THAT TIME, THE CITY MANAGER, AND THEN WE HAVE OTHER DEPARTMENTS ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT ADDRESSING CERTAIN ISSUES RELATED TO THAT. AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LARGER SCALE STRATEGY APPROACH. And actually, if you look at the city's website, there actually are some approaches there in homelessness associated with the city's website. But as we know, this is an issue that we've been working through for some time. There are resources and approaches to this, but I think your question is probably better suited for that issue to the city council.

okay all right thank you thank you any other comments no okay so we'll move to the consent calendar and we have no items tonight so we're going to move to the action item for this evening is the public um to hear the environmental and design review permit for a new mixed-use 17-story building with 200 units at 700 Irving Street. Staff, can you please report?

So good evening, Chair Rodabee and Planning Commissioners. My name is Micah Hinkle. I am the City's Community and Economic Development Director. Tonight's project is one of many housing development projects that is currently in process with the City of San Rafael. The Planning Commission has evaluated housing projects pursuant to state housing laws, including Northgate Town Center, 1515 4th Street, 930 Irwin, 998th Street, along with the 13-story development adjacent to City Hall on 5th Street. THE ANALYSIS REQUIRED DEEP REVIEW AND SUPPORT FROM BOTH INTERNAL CITY DEPARTMENTS AND SPECIALIZED CONSULTANTS. BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO THE PROJECT LEAD, CHRISTINA RATCLIFFE, I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK THEM FOR ALL THEIR EXPERTISE AND SUPPORT IN REVIEWING THIS PROJECT IN TERMS OF ITS DEEP COMPLEXITIES. THIS HAS PROBABLY BEEN IN MY CAREER PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX PROJECTS THAT I'VE EVER ACTUALLY HAD TO EVALUATE OR REVIEW, AND THAT'S JUST GIVEN THE LAYERS OF REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO STATE LEGISLATION ALONG WITH CITY REGULATIONS. So supporting this review of the project, it was Connor McClain from Burke Williams Sorenson, Caitlin Tharp from Schaff and Wheeler, Eric Simonson, who is our acting chief building official from Wildan, our public works team of April Miller director, Sarah Toplitsky, uh assistant ced director greg minor um housing manager alexis captinian uh and all of our planning staff margaret cavanaugh lynch planning manager christina sdo principal planner and then our support staff aerolocuteers and then michael o'brien who's been really supporting on the back end this has actually been a big lift for the city in evaluating this project and the one thing i do feel confident is that we evaluate and review this project look at every stone look at every piece analyze the parts um and with that i'm going to turn over to I also do want to thank the applicant and their team for working through this project for the various items for submittals. If you see, there's a lot of background material contained within the staff report, and it really took a lot of effort to kind of move these things to this phase. So with that, I'll turn it over to Christina Ratcliffe.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, COMMISSION. HAPPY TO MEET YOU AND PRESENT THIS PROJECT TO YOU. NEXT, MARGARET. NOT AT MARGARET BECAUSE SHE HAS CONTROL OF THE POWERPOINT. Your environmental design review. These are just the overview items construction of a 201,700 square foot 17 story mixed use residential development. residential units of those 15 are affordable to. and 15 are affordable to moderate income households. It's up to 4,000 square feet ground floor commercial. We'll talk about that a little later. About 4,000 square feet, but it will be subject to downtown precise plan requirements and guidelines on what type of commercial will be allowed. proposing 226 vehicle parking spaces 60 bicycle parking spaces there are cantilevered elements over the creek side including the first floor terrace pedestrian boardwalk the commercial space and some residential living area we'll talk more about that later there are common amenities two terraces and two interior amenity spaces next I just wanted to give you some information about the background and the timeline on this. This was originally an SB 330 submittal that was back in November of 2024. At the time that was submitted, it was a preliminary submittal and it froze the... code at that time of what we could ask for. April 10th was the formal development application was submitted. I'm not going to read everything of these because there's two slides here, actually. There were resubmittals, the city's determination that it was incomplete, a resubmittal eventually determined that it was complete. The applicant also requested an AB 2011 processing, which would have been a ministerial process. The city did not find that the project met that criteria, so it is not being processed under AB 2011. On June 17th, the application was deemed invalid. I'm sorry, on July 14th, the application from June was deemed complete. On July 17th, the applicant invoked AB 130, which is a brand new application. piece of California legislation. It was passed along with the budget on June 30th, went into effect immediately on July 1st. The applicant submitted for that on the 17th of July. So this is the first application at AB 130 that the city of San Rafael has received. It has ramifications for CEQA. It also has ramifications for tribal consultation. And we'll talk about that more later as well. So, and more background, September 26th, the tribal consultation was initiated under AB 130. There's a limited timeframe for that. That has been completed without an agreement, an enforceable agreement. um the city did finally did issue a consistency review letter determining consistency on december 19th and on the 23rd of december the applicant submitted some clarifying materials at the city's request and here we are at the january 13th planning commission meeting so this project is PROCESSED UNDER THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND I KNOW THE COMMISSION IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT. CALIFORNIA STATE LAW PROMOTES INFILL DEVELOPMENT, LIMITS THE REVIEW TO OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE THAT ARE WRITTEN. It limits the ability of local government to deny projects or to reduce the density or to make infeasible housing development projects that comply with objective standards. AND I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AN EXAMPLE OF AN OBJECTIVE VERSUS A SUBJECTIVE STANDARD. NEXT SLIDE, MARGARET. THANK YOU. SO AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD WOULD BE FOR AN EXAMPLE, BICYCLE PARKING SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS HAVING 30 OR MORE PARKING SPACES AND FOR ALL PUBLIC QUASI-PUBLIC USES. IT'S VERY CLEAR It calls out a number. There is no room for interpretation of what that means, as opposed to a subjective standard, which is the development should provide good vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian circulation and access on-site, surrounding area, etc. so the problem with that is that so many so much of that is up for interpretation one person can interpret it one way another reasonable person can interpret in another so we cannot use those subjective standards that are in the zoning code or in the downtown precise plan when we're evaluating a project that's under the housing accountability act So you will see, and as you saw in the staff report, there are certain standards that are in the DPP that we simply could not use. When you're talking about a facade and it's a bottom middle top, it's not defined. And we can't use those terms, bottom middle top, when we're looking at that. So I also want to point out that in order to deny a project under HAA, the commission must make written findings that the project would have a significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact on public health or safety based on objective identified standards in our codes. And something that is written down, not something that, oh, in my opinion, they should do this. We cannot rely on that. It has to be written down as an objective standard. So I think Margaret went on, sorry, talking about, you're a little ahead of me. Sorry. Two seconds. Okay. Okay. And the project is also subject to the state density bonus law. So it was enacted in 1979, and intended to encourage construction of housing units. And it's been, you know, modifications to this, ABs and SBs all pretty much every year recently have changed this. And it allows incentives and concessions or waivers to reduce development standards in order to ease the way for affordable housing to be constructed. So a concession or an incentive is a reduction in development standards that results in identifiable actual cost reductions. And the number of concessions is based on the percentage of affordability units and the depth of affordability. And in this case, with 15 units of very low income rental housing and 15 units of moderate income rental housing, this requires or is allowed sorry, not requires, is allowed three concessions under state law. Waivers, unlimited number of waivers are allowed. The reduction or a waiver of development standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project. So as an example, height, if the 50 foot height limit was enforced, you could not get 200 units on this site. So therefore a waiver for height is being requested. Among other waivers, there are eight waivers in total being requested. I did also want to point out that the receipt of a density bonus or an incentive or a concession or a waiver is not a valid basis to find that the project is inconsistent. So if you say, well, the objective standard is 50 feet and they don't meet that, well, they have a waiver under the state law. So you can't say they don't meet that objective standard, so we can't do it. So if it's in a concession or a waiver, it's taken away from that objective consideration. Okay. And for this project specifically, there's three concessions, as I mentioned, that are being requested. One, and this is, I'm sorry, a concession from the city's affordable housing resolution 14890. They are requesting a concession from the unit dispersion. Instead of building wide distribution of affordable units, the affordable units are located solely between floors five and 11 in the 17 stories. UNIT MIX AND SIZE NEED TO BE, FOR THE RESOLUTION, NEED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR ONE-TO-ONE PROPORTIONALITY. THEY HAVE STUDIOS, ONE-BEDROOMS, TWO-BEDROOMS, AND THREE-BEDROOM MIX IN THE BUILDING. THERE ARE NO AFFORDABLE THREE-BEDROOMS. THE TWO-BEDROOMS ARE, THE MARKET RATE UNITS ARE LARGER That being said, the studios and the one bedroom, some of them are larger than, the affordables are sometimes larger than the market rate. Compatibility of design materials, amenities and appearance. There are fewer private balconies in the affordable units proportionally throughout the site. So those are the three concessions that they are requesting. And moving on Margaret to the waivers. So there are eight waivers, and this is on two slides. Not going to read every single one, but there are waivers for bicycle parking, both the size of the space, as well as the number proposed. There's a waiver requested for the parking space dimensions parking facility dimensions and this is because the applicant is using a mechanical parking apparatus machine which does not require the aisle width or the size of parking spaces that would normally be required. Next slide. They are also asking for another parking exception, which is the parking controls, which talks about aisle width and maneuverability issues there. Overall building height, as we talked about before, the height is 180 feet, excluding the parapet and mechanical equipment, which is how the protocol, the standard protocol for calculating height, whereas 50 feet would be the maximum height in this area. Step backs are not provided except for the rear. When I say the rear, I mean the canal side above 45 feet. And then frontage standards, the waiver of the requirement for the street facade to provide at least one frontage type of the facade. And that is not provided. NEXT SLIDE, THANK YOU. SO AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE. IT'S A CORNER OF IRWIN AND SECOND RIGHT AS THE FREEWAY OFF RAMP COMES OFF. IT'S ABOUT .58 ACRES. THE ZONING IS IN THE T5N 5070 TRANSECT. It's the neighborhood 5070 transect. There's an existing four story 26,000 square foot vacant office building there. And the site was identified as a housing opportunity site in the housing element. Next, here's some photos of the existing structure that from the top is the north facade facing Second Street. Bottom is the west facade facing Irwin. Next slide. And then the South facade faces the Creek and then the East facade adjacent to the taco bell, Kentucky fried chicken, uh, what's there right now. Okay. Um, so this, as we said, is the proposed project. They are going to demolish the existing, um, structure that's proposed construction of the 17 story. Um, and with state density, it's subject to state density bonus law. Eight waivers, three concessions for this. And I did want to mention, I'm sorry, Margaret, if you could go back to that. Thank you. You can see towards the bottom, the kind of site that's going off over the canal. And so that is an encroachment wheel into an area that is owned by the United States. The application, the most recent clarification on the plan set has an option for that if the applicant is unable to get permission from the U.S. or all the agencies that need to approve such construction, then there is an option to proposed which pulls the project in to within the property lines. So that is included in your packet. I also wanted to note that the upper floors of the building also encroach into the Second Street right-of-way. It is allowed to encroach up to four feet under the Chapter 11.04 of the Public Works Code. I'm sorry, Municipal Code dealing with Public Works Code. as a major continuing encroachment. So it would have to go through Public Works Review to obtain this, but that is permitted under that. And as noted, they have already requested a waiver to step backs for the building. Thanks. Next slide. So the proposed project, let's talk a little bit about number and type of housing units. So you can see the totals are highlighted in the kind of orange, total of 200 units. 30 of those are affordable. 170 or market rate. And there's a breakdown. You have most of the units are one bedrooms. There's also two bedrooms, very few three bedrooms. Those are more of the penthouse units and the building overall average square footage, the affordable square footage comparison with the market rate. Next slide, Margaret. And I wanted to talk a little bit about FEMA because this came up early on. The project was originally proposed as a strictly residential. Under that, they would not be allowed to have certain underground mechanical equipment or parking facilities. But by adding the commercial component, it meets the FEMA requirements as a mixed use. And so they have different requirements. They are still required to construct in a certain way. And I will let the, we have a floodplain manager who advised us online. So I will let her dig into that if you have questions on that. But the way it is proposed, it is compliant with FEMA requirements. Next slide. And I'm going to briefly go through the floor plans very quickly because I know the applicant is here and they have a presentation and will certainly be discussing the project in general. So I don't want to waste your time too much with that. But just to talk about the ground floor has a lobby. This is the commercial space, which is that lavender area. The lobby is the kind of orange area and some mechanical there. The canal site terrace has about 1,900 square feet. Vehicle parking here is about five. This is where the bicycle storage room is for 60 racks. This is one of the waivers. for both location or for both number and size. There's an auto park with auto court with car lifts for the mechanized parking trash and then utilities. And then real quick, so there's parking at levels, so there's the ground floor, there's parking at levels two, three, four, then parking and residential on the fifth floor is where we start with residential. Fifth floor is also where, floors five through 11 are where the affordable units are located. And then the sixth floor is a little different. It has an outdoor terrace and amenity rooms. Terrace is about 8,000 square feet. And the interior amenity rooms are about 4,500 square feet, plus or minus. And then floors seven through 12 are pretty much the same layout, as you can see here. And the terraces, of course, remains open. as we go up. 13 to 16, a little more. And then 17 has the penthouse dwellings. Thank you, Margaret. So I wanted to talk about, so this is a density bonus project, how we determine the density bonus. Normally, if you have a zoning code or a general plan that calls out specific densities, specific setbacks, you go with that. The downtown precise plan is a form-based code, so it doesn't have that information. So what we do is we tell the developer, go, give us a base project where you meet all the requirements of the area, the downtown precise plan, T5N area, and how many units do you get for that? So this is included as part of the plan package in your packet, but here is kind of a smaller version of that. So this version meets the 50-foot height limit, meets the setbacks. Now, we don't ask for a full-on architectural design presentation for that because this is a hypothetical-based project. can you reasonably fit that in it so this is what um the applicant was uh submitted and then next slide and so they came out with the base project says it's 100 units are possible observing all the objective standards that we have in the downtown precise plan Going back, we look at what type of affordability we're looking at, 15 units, very low income rental units, 15 units, moderate income rental units. With that density, and we're looking at state density bonus law, which is 65915. And with that, the very low density, I'm sorry, the very low income units um garner 50 a 50 bonus and if that's all they had that would be that would be it however they also have those 15 units for uh moderate income and that adds another 50 onto that for a total 100 density bonus so 100 100 units to start with 100 density bonus 200 units next thank you so when we look at a project doesn't matter if it's housing accountability or any other project we always go back to uh the the nuts and bolts of planning so the general plan this is downtown mixed use it allows for a mix of housing and retail uses it includes the highest development intense intensities in the city mix of housing unit offices retail public land no density um limit in the downtown which i said is again is why we calculated the base density um to do that and 700 urban was identified in the housing site inventory of the housing element as a site that you know could accommodate additional units next WE ALSO LOOK AT ZONING CODE AND THE DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN AND THERE AGAIN ALSO WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND WITH THE ZONING CODE AND WITH THE DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN, WE HAVE TO LIMIT IT TO THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA. WE CAN'T USE ANYTHING THAT IS SUBJECTIVE OR SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. Next. Here again, so I have some slides of architecture and design. Again, the applicant has a presentation that they are going to do, so I'll go through this fairly quickly. The building does have some articulation, ground floor recesses from the upper levels with some stoop entrances. Colors and materials are composite wood, wood slat screens, a mixture of concrete wall, glazing wood panels, an attractive modern building. Next slide. This is the north elevation. So this is the view looking from Second Street at the project. Next slide. The south elevation, which is the canal side. Just lay with the canal there. Got west side elevation, which is Irwin Street, or actually at this point, it's the freeway exit that you view. And then the east elevation, which is the adjacent property. Next slide. And briefly, a landscape plan. There is landscaping at the ground level in front as well as a courtyard on the canal side. And then again, the sixth floor terrace has hardscaping elements as well. Next slide. So the other thing in a planning nuts and bolts review is CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. So this statute was passed in 1970, statewide policy of environmental protection, which is actually environmental information to give the public information about any project. Requires state and local agencies to follow a process and analysis. And what we do is, you know, first to determine, is it a project? How can we process this? What is the best way to look at it? Is it categorically exempt, statutorily exempt, an initial study, or an EIR required? And here is where, next slide. Oops, too many notes. Here's where AB 130 comes in. So AB 130, if you'll recall, as I mentioned, was passed as a trailer bill to the budget June 30th. It went into effect July 1st. So no time lost. And July 17th, the applicant invoked AB 130 and said, we believe we fall under AB 130, which means that we are statutorily exempt from CEQA. So staff performed an evaluation. The criteria is an attachment to your staff report. There's 19 applicable exemptions. We went through all of them and found that, yes, the project met the criteria to be statutorily exempt under AB 130. So what that means is there is no initial study. There is no environmental impact report, and there is no, I think you've seen categorical exemption 32 reports before in other projects. There's none of that. It's a statutory exemption. That's it. Go ahead, Margaret, please. So I just want to talk a little bit about the Environmental Design Review, which is what this project is. This is the project entitlement. And the findings for approval that are required under San Rafael Code. That the design is in accord with the general plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of, well, this chapter, which is the zoning code. that the design is consistent with all applicable site architecture, landscaping, design criteria and guidelines for the district, that the project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts, and that 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 again, with all of these findings, Because this is an HAA project, you have to base it on everything that is objective in these references. Nothing subjective can be considered. Okay, next, excuse me. So as with most projects that are discretionary, there are conditions of approval. There are many conditions of approval on this project. One of them is the affordable housing agreement. Now this is an agreement that is included with any project that proposes any kind of affordability where they are getting concessions and waivers. So we are allowing changes to the development standards. They are providing affordable housing. We want an agreement that locks it in place. And this agreement is for 55 years that these rental units are affordable for 55 years. Also included in the conditions of approval, there are AB 130 standard conditions regarding cultural resources. And I want to touch back on the tribal consultation that went forward, part of AB 130. is it's this very fast streamlining process. But what the state recognized is, well, we want to be sensitive to the cultural resources. So they put in standard conditions to protect cultural resources and a time period for consultation. Now, the consultation time period passed. There was no enforceable agreement agreed to by the applicant and FIGR. However, we do know that the applicant and the tribe have been in communication. So we did also add a condition of approval that if that agreement is arrived at and if it is met, then that becomes a condition of approval. that that agreement becomes that. So we're still kind of waiting on that. Other conditions of approval are compliance with objective standards and requirements in the building code, the fire code, public works code, state requirements, the downtown precise plan, and the zoning code, and to ensure that those are met. Next. Thank you. So on January 5th, which was not yesterday, but a week ago, the applicant, I'm sorry, I should preface this. As a matter of protocol, staff sends the conditions of approval to an applicant, draft conditions of approval, so they get a chance to look at it. They're not caught flat-footed at a hearing. And if there are any issues, if there's, you know, something that, you know, is just wrong or something, they can bring that to staff's attention and can talk about that. SO, ON JANUARY 5TH, THE APPLICANT EMAILED STAFF REQUESTING REMOVAL OR MODIFICATION TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. STAFF MET WITH THE APPLICANT THE NEXT DAY ON THE 6TH, REVIEWED THE REQUESTS AND BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THE PACKET, REMOVED CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND MODIFIED OTHERS AND WE KEPT OTHERS. AND WE DID NOT, WITHOUT CHANGE OR MODIFICATION. Part of the request for the applicant was to remove two clauses from the affordable housing agreement, the subordination clause and the no condominium clause. So just really briefly, and the city attorney is here and our housing manager is here and they can go into greater detail. But the subordination clause is this is our agreement. It is the first agreement on this property. If somebody comes around and puts in another agreement for financial or lease or that goes bankrupt or whatever, we are not going to be second in line. and have that agreement be first. We want to be first so that we protect those affordable units for 55 years. So they had wanted us to remove that and that is still in the AHA. The other is the no condominium. So that is a requirement the apartments not be condoized or turned into condo, condominium map be not placed on that because then they're not rental units. They're for purchase and it's a different agreement. It's a different setup.

Knowledge of the condo desire.

So we said, no, we want to protect, again, we want to protect those affordable rental units. So those remained. Next slide. Public comments. As you know, we have several, multiple public comments on this project. They were emailed to you all, also posted. Some of them came in time for the packet and were included in that. Some of them, the ones that came after were emailed and posted earlier this evening. multiple comments on the project, most expressed concern with the height of the building and the traffic. Some supported the project as addressing, as adding needed housing for San Rafael. Next. So I want to talk a little bit about your options tonight. So the first option is to approve the application as presented, subject to the conditions of approval, and that's the staff recommendation. Another choice would be to approve the application with certain modifications, changes, or additional conditions of approval. And a third option would be to deny the project and provide findings to support that action. Next. And here we are at the questions stage. As I said, the applicant is here. They brought their architect and traffic engineer and other. They are available as well. We have our floodplain manager here. ON THE LINE, ATTORNEY, THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL AND OUR HOUSING MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

NEW SPEAKER SO DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT? NEW SPEAKER NO. NEW SPEAKER NO? OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE

At this time, we're actually going to through the chair, we have lost the video feed to the council chambers. So we are working with our AV team. And we may need to take a momentary recess before the applicant makes a presentation. Just we want to make sure when on we're watching remotely can participate and visually see the hearing this evening. So possibly a five minute recess, Madam Chair.

MAYBE WE'LL SEE.

YOU DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF THE FLOCKER? I HAVE. WE'LL BE BACK OR WHATEVER. NO, I DON'T HAVE THAT.

RECORDING STOPPED.

Are you guys out of it? Thank you.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. They're all . is still accurate.

NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. Madam Chair and members of the public, thank you for your patience. We're ready to reconvene the meeting. Recording in progress. Okay, we are ready to start. Thank you.

WELL, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE 700 IRWIN STREET PROJECT. I AM CHRIS COLLINS. I'M HERE WITH MY PARTNER AND REPRESENTING THE SPONSOR, 700 IRWIN STREET PARTNERS. ALSO REPRESENTING OUR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, WHICH IS URBAN PACIFIC. URBAN PACIFIC HAS A LONG TRACK RECORD OF NOTEWORTHY AND SUCCESSFUL urban projects in our history. My own personal history is about 30 years in the business, living in San Francisco and working in multiple cities in California. Also on a personal level, a lot of history and connectivity here in San Rafael and Marin. Immediate family of mine lived in Peacock Gap and West Marin for a while. And more recently, we've been very fortunate to establish some great working relationships with some key stakeholders here in San Rafael, including BioMarin, Canal Alliance, the Chamber, and more recently, North Bay Leadership Council, latter two of which have endorsed the project, which we're very grateful for. We've also had meetings and conversations and are exploring opportunities to collaborate with others in this area, important stakeholders as well, CA Film, Marin Community Foundation, and the Federated Indians of Greaton Rancheria. So we're very thrilled to be here. I'm gonna just mention one quick thing. The conditions of approval that were mentioned earlier, we have a slightly different way to explain what we believe is needed, which are refinements, not removal of those conditions. So we would hope that within the review and discussion, we have an opportunity to share a little bit more on that. Our land use council is here, but more importantly, our design team to show you through more of the design elements. And my partner will speak briefly here first.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is David Crizier. I've spent 25 years in development and been searching until now for a site that can serve as Marin's best urban opportunity to do something meaningful. We've been studying the site for three years. It's at the bank of the canal at the bend of the 101, the beginning of the downtown or fell. We feel it's the best urban site in Marin and we can transform it from an unfriendly freeway exit into a welcoming entrance to central Marin. To do that, our goal is to enliven a boarded up site and into a timber built gateway and introduce a walkable waterfront community that reconnects the city with the canal, brings together both sides of the canal and brings together both sides of San Rafael across the 101. This has been done successfully in Napa, Petaluma, and Larkspur. We each had unattractive waterfronts and turned them into places that people wanted to be. The project is tripling the local affordable housing from 11 to 30 units, ensuring more people in Marin can stay here. AND WE'RE PROVIDING A PUBLIC BOARDWALK AND FLOATING WETLANDS YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT ALONGSIDE WHAT WE CALL A BOATHOUSE, WHICH IS A THIRD SPACE, WHICH WILL BE A SOCIAL ANCHOR TO GATHER AND BUILD COMMUNITY. BASICALLY, WE PROVIDE THE STAGE, AND WE'RE LOOKING TO PARTNER WITH GROUPS WHO CAN PROVIDE THE SOLE. WE'RE HERE TO CONNECT BOTH SIDES OF THE CITY, LITERALLY AND SOCIALLY. Our architects will share a little bit about the design and vision. Really appreciate your time that we can do this. Let me introduce our landscape architect, Renee Behan from SWA.

How do we advance? Okay, great. Is it possible to go full screen on the images? It's fine. It's fine. Thank you. It's an honor to be here this evening. My name is Rene Behan. I'm the managing principal of SWA. SWA is a nationally recognized landscape architecture and urban design firm, eight studios nationwide, and proudly headquartered here in Marin County, Sausalito, for nearly 70 years. We focus on urban ecologies and particularly urban infrastructure. Some of our projects, Buffalo Bayou, over 30 years have transformed the city of Houston. Next, please. So I want to start with the site and the context. You know, the freeway off-ramp says Central San Rafael. When you come off today, it doesn't really feel like it's Central San Rafael, but it is. It's on a site which is well-positioned between downtown, the Canal District, and San Rafael. the evolving waterfront in San Rafael. It's an ideal site in terms of transportation. You can certainly drive there, you can bus there, you can bike there, you can train there, you can even take a boat there. It's also somewhat of a poster child for a term, the 15 minute city, in that in a 15 minute walking radius, you can get the majority of what you need done. You can shop at Trader Joe's, you can go downtown, you can grab a bus and get out of town if you need. Next, please. THE SITE IS ALSO IDEAL FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. IT IS WELL OUT OF THE URBAN WILDERNESS INTERFACE, THE FIRE ZONE, AND IT'S ALSO A TINY ISLAND THAT'S ACTUALLY ELEVATED ABOVE THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. The site as a landscape architect, it really has incredible potential to connect a lot of the different parts of San Rafael. It's an incredible community here. You have a sea to sky community and this site really hinges between all of them. So it's an opportunity to connect the canal and to connect downtown from a walkability perspective, but also to be this kind of hinge point between your waterfront, the canal itself, and big nature in Mount Tam. As I said, I think of St. Raphael, and I did live here for a brief period, as one of these incredible sea to sky communities in that you have incredible visual and physical access to Mount Tam. You also have incredible connectivity to the bay. um the only thing is is that point a to point b isn't really connected and i think this project is a catalyst to kind of rethink that to rethink how downtown connects to the canal and the waterfront but also to think vice versa how the canal connects um to downtown next please um as uh david had mentioned in addition to working with the city and uh that um CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HEALTHY CANAL DISTRICT. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CANAL ALLIANCE. AND WE ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF THIS PROJECT TO BE A CATALYST TO KIND OF REENVISION THE DISTRICT, TO HAVE A DISTRICT THAT'S CONNECTED, THAT'S WALKABLE, BUT THAT'S ALSO KIND OF ECOLOGICALLY CONNECTED, THAT THE CANAL ITSELF can have its first step of improvement through this project. We can start to talk about creating more walkable district. There's no reason that the underside of the freeway should be a backdoor. Cities across the country are bringing those back to life. And it's just a great opportunity to kind of re-envision this part of San Rafael. So what does that mean to connect? There's a physical connection, but there's also a cultural connection that's very important. Where people live and how they get from one place to another is very, very important. It's part of what Jane Jacobs described as the heart of the city, how people actually feel as they walk through these different neighborhoods. So not just physical, but also cultural connectivity.

Next, please.

And how this happens, you know, it's a building project, a building-driven project, but there's something called tactical urbanism. How this happens on the ground plane is equally important. Community involvement, getting people to kind of move from one space to another, people feeling oriented as they come off the freeway and come into San Rafael as a gateway. There's really a great opportunity, again, to kind of bring a layer of San Rafael culture and art to the district through this project, starting with this project anyway. Next. So one of the really important things I think about San Rafael is in fact the identity. Clearly, the mission has great identity. The existing business district has great identity. There's great signs and period pieces, but a building can also be part of creating an identity. Rather than looking at a decrepit canal and the back of a gas station, we can build through design community spaces where you enter a community. You enter kind of a living, healthy community with a healthy waterfront inside, public realm on the dock in front of it, and a building that's porous on the ground plane.

Next, please.

So the site plan is fairly simple. This is a ground floor floor plant here. Again, there is really no backside, no back door to this building. The architects will talk about the boathouse and the commercial space and the uses that can come to that. The first view off of the freeway is a public deck. Perhaps someday that deck could be connected across the canal to the canal alliance, that sort of thing. On 4th Street, the entry is very accessible, both physically but also visually. And you'll see that in the renderings as SCB comes forward. Next, please. So as a precedent, the image here is one of the tributaries to the Chicago waterfront. And this is a floating wetland. And I show this because these things aren't just visuals that we're showing. These are real projects. This can be done. We can improve the canal. We can improve San Rafael Creek. And this can be a catalyst for larger change kind of to what is San Rafael's really front door.

Next, please.

And then finally, again, this idea of not letting the freeway divide San Rafael, but coming up with an urban design, an urban plan where the pieces start to knit together. A project like this can transform not just the site, but the district and the neighborhood. Part of that is streetscape and street life. but it extends to the canal as it goes in to the city as well, connecting to Mahone Creek, to Albert Park, to Gerstle Park beyond. What this project really aims to do is to create a bigger vision for this part of San Rafael. Thank you.

Thank you. Through the chair, The regulations do say a 10-minute presentation, but the chair has the discretion to allow an additional time for a presentation if you so wish.

So five minutes? Wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, thank you very much for that. My name is Mike Kale, and I'm with SCB, and I want to talk a little bit about our inspiration and design ideas for the architecture. Should we go to the next slide?

Thank you.

So I'll start by highlighting, again, as Renee mentioned, Marin's famed relationship with nature and how green spaces and bodies of water are knitted right into the urban fabric. Our project aims to embrace its connection to the creek to create new community amenities, and our wood structural system is directly inspired by coastal redwoods. The nautical vernacular of the canal neighborhood architecture points to a building with weathered exterior materials like wood and steel, and we plan to use these in a refined way.

Next slide, thank you.

Like many local buildings before us, our project intends to let nature enhance and shape it in meaningful ways. In addition to the ground plane and canal restoration mentioned earlier, I'm sorry, could you go to the next slide?

Apologies for this.

There it is. Okay. Thank you so much. So in addition to the canal restoration, we also plan extensive planted roofs terraces and vertical surfaces, these will be visually attractive and provide biophilic benefits to residents, but also increase pollinator habitat and reduce urban heat island effect next slide. Another important sustainability feature of the project is the mass timber structural system that will significantly reduce its carbon footprint, speed construction, and further enhance biophilic benefits. For tonight, we prepared some very preliminary 3D views of the project, and I'd like to share them now. This one is obviously an aerial view from the south, and you can see downtown, oops, There we go Thank you, and you can see downtown and boyd park in the background and the next few is again from the south, but it's more from the freeway perspective and you can you can see the project and and the hills beyond. The third view. Is from the top of the hill at boyd park looking southeast across the canal district. And the next one is a closeup view from the east looking west. And you can see Mount Tam in the background. And then the final view is from the freeway above the Irwin Street off-ramp. And you can see some of the building's facade articulation and how it highlights the visibility and exposure given to the new canal boardwalk and boathouse.

Excuse me. Just a second. I just asked the public to keep the comments down on these. Please. Thank you.

As mentioned, the boathouse and boardwalk spaces are going to be full of life and community use, and they are going to be an important part of the Gateway experience that we've mentioned and will be a tangible reminder for anyone arriving to town or passing by of the vibrant community pulse in San Rafael. And the very last slide is a little diagram of some of the proposed projects. And our team is very excited to be part of an emerging new San Rafael skyline that is adding much needed housing and invigorating the downtown. So thank you all very much for your time, especially the extra time and this opportunity to share our vision with you.

Thank you. So now I'm asked the commissioners if they have any questions for the developer. Commissioners?

I don't have any questions. Can you ask about parking now?

That wasn't really brought up, but can you ask about the parking?

Through the chair. If the, any commissioner has a question for the development team, this is a good time, or they might want to hear public comment and then take, bring up all your questions at that time. It's really your, your, your prerogative.

Actually, do you have a quick question? Regarding, regarding the parking in the lifts, I see in your plan that, you know, it seems like only a couple of cars at a time are going to come down from the lift. So what, what rate do they come down? Like if there's 10 people waiting for their cars, like how many cars per minute come out of there? And this is actually important as it relates to traffic.

Chris Collins again. Yeah. so at this stage there's definitely more study that's needed to evaluate all of that although the hexagon traffic report does have data in it which is in the packet for the commission i can't quote what the exact numbers in that report are without looking at it myself but IN GENERAL, WE ARE FOCUSED ON WORKING WITH OUR FUTURE VENDORS. THERE WILL BE IDEALLY THREE, PERHAPS MORE VENDORS THAT WILL LOOK AT THE PROJECT AND WITH OUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT SEEK WAYS TO MAKE IT AS QUICK AND EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING in some scenarios looking at the ground level staging area within the building in one more kind of extreme scenario perhaps adding a third lift so we are at a 25 conceptual design level at this point so it is very early in the actual engineering of the city SAY THAT IT HAS BEEN DONE IN MULTIPLE BUILDINGS AND MORE AND MORE EACH MONTH OR HANDFUL OF PROJECTS THAT COME ALONG SO WE ARE JUST BASICALLY EARLY WITH THAT BUT AGAIN I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE PACKET THERE ARE SOME BASELINE NUMBERS I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION FROM A MATH BACKGROUND THEY DON'T HAVE THAT IN THERE WHAT THEY SAY IS HERE'S HOW MANY AT THE PEAK HOUR IN THE MORNING

the evening that can come through are you within threshold but we'll get into a lot of specs yeah i wasn't talking in detail but i mean this logic would dictate that you know cars aren't coming out every 10 seconds it's just not it's not feasible feasible per hour yeah during the peak yeah so it might actually slow the amount i mean this is could be to your benefit you're going to hear a lot about traffic tonight only so many cars can come out of that at a time so

Thank you. I do have, I'm going to piggyback on that real quick. Regarding parking and handicapped parking, there's five spots. So unless you go to a lift, is there, I didn't see any parking for that. And for this commercial space that is in quotations at this point, if it's a commercial space, is there parking for non-residents in this parking lot?

So I can speak to the accessibility. One of the spaces that is in the auto court is a fully accessible van space. And then every space in the mechanical system is accessible. So you put your car in, it doesn't care what your needs are, it can handle it.

And in regard to visitors for a commercial space, is there parking for commercial space visitors?

As we proceed, at the moment, there's 215 parking spaces in the design. Some of those will be available for commercial, but we also are going to, again, look at the ground level entry staging area, motor court. The exact use for the commercial space has not been really clarified yet it's a little early um because right now it's simply a designation for basically a use type yeah by the way it won't be traditional retail uh in the sense of you know let's say a restaurant with you know extensive services and it's not really set up it's more of a community amenity space that we're looking at when you design it when you design it perpendicular as opposed to parallel this has been done

where you're trying to pull people to a natural type of scenario. In this case, it's the canal. That's why we're trying to beautify it. So it's very counter to what a traditional retail would be.

Thank you. Margaret, we do have an opportunity to ask questions after the public comment. Is that true? Okay. I'm going to hold my questions until after the public comment. Thank you. So now I'm going to open it up to the public. And I want to remind everybody that they have two minutes. Please, please adhere to that. If you'd like to speak, please line up behind the podium. And I would ask that if the person in front of you is basically saying the same things as the comments you have, if you're so inclined, you might just say that you would like to support those comments. We have a full house, so two minutes. Thank you.

Chair, before I begin, I have a supplemental legal citation regarding the admissions on page 21 of the staff report that I'd like to submit for the record and provide copies to the commissioners.

Thank you.

Can I have the time reset, please?

Yeah. Can we have the time reset on that, please? Can we please get the time reset? You can. Oh, you can. I'm sorry.

CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING. STEPHEN BRYANT, SAN RAFAEL REAL ESTATE BROKER. THIS APPLICATION IS BLATANTLY DISCRIMINATORY. WE ENDED SEPARATE BUT EQUAL. THIS PROJECT RESTORES IT AS SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL. THE APPLICANT DEMANDS CONCESSIONS FOR A PROJECT THAT SEGREGATES AFFORDABLE FAMILIES TO THE LOWER LEVELS AND DENIES THEM BALCONIES. Page 21 of the staff report lists resolution 14890 as a development standard waivable under the density bonus law. That is legally incorrect because resolution 14890 is not a development standard. Development standards regulate geometry, height, setbacks, parking, things you can objectively measure or count. RESOLUTION 14-890 REGULATES EQUITY. IT IS NOT COUNTABLE. IT MANDATES COMPARABLE HOUSING. BECAUSE THIS IS A NON-WAVEABLE CIVIL RIGHT, IT CANNOT BE WAVED UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS LAW. IN ADDITION, THE SAME STATE LAW REQUIRES DENIAL OF ANY CONCESSION THAT IS CONTRARY TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. SEGREGATION AND DENIAL OF AMENITIES VIOLATE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, SPECIFICALLY GOVERNMENT CODE 12-955 AND THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT. APPROVAL IS NEVER AUTOMATIC. YOU ARE THE FAIL SAFE. THE DENSITY BONUS LAW WAVES GEOMETRY, NOT CIVIL RIGHTS. THE COMMISSION CANNOT WAVE CIVIL RIGHTS. RESOLUTION 14-890, GOVERNMENT CODE 8899.50, THE DENSITY BONUS LAW ALL REQUIRE YOU TO DENY THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE IT PERPETUATES SEGREGATION. and that violates the law. Do not let separate and unequal become the legacy of San Rafael. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Archbishop Bronzo King, Archbishop of the African Orthodox Church and founder of the St. John Coltrane Global Community. I wanted to stand and say that I did meet David in San Francisco in the Western edition that was going through a transformation from redevelopment agency, which devastated that community. And there were diverse communities coming together. And I worked with him on an art trail in San Francisco, which was really beneficial in healing some of the differences and some of the wounds of different communities coming together. I'm very much in support of this. And that also, I'm also a part of the Coltrane Institute in Art and Culture. And I think that it would be a place that we and others would be glad to be a part of and bring in the healing that comes from music and culture and arts. Also, it seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity for healing to take place in this county, in this community, with differences if they're properly resolved, and that we speak the truth, and that our love supreme be the ruling principle of our resolutions. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Sharna Deemer. I live in the Montecito area. There are so many things to object to this project. The objection I'm going to make is based on the very ground upon which this building is proposed to sit. I refer to the report of February 28, 2025 by Rockridge Geotechnical paid for by 700 Irwin Street partners, the report concludes quite, quote, the primary geotechnical issues affecting the proposed development include the presence of up to 30 feet of soil with low strength underlying site, some of which are potentially liquefiable. This soil under this proposed building is called Bay Mud. But it's not just any mud. On December 15, 2023, Rock Ridge supplied a liquefication susceptibility map which showed that 700 Irwin is located on a very high liquefication susceptibility zone. This means that the proposed project would be on land that is extremely prone to temporarily behaving like liquid during an earthquake. To build a 17-story building on the land that would turn to liquid during an earthquake is crazy. Since January 1 of this year, There have been hundreds of small earthquakes in San Ramon, California, 35 miles away. On January 5th, there was an earthquake in San Pablo across the bay. On January 8th, there was a 4.2 earthquake in Cloverdale. Today, there was a 4.4 earthquake in Willis. The ground is shaking under us. So on December 10th, the city was threatened with a lawsuit if it did not approve this project. Nobody likes a project. But threats should not intimidate the city of San Rafael. The city should not approve a big, ugly building planned on mud. Thank you. Your time is up.

I JUST HEARD ABOUT THIS PROJECT, SO I'M NOT PREPARED, BUT I KNOW THAT THE TRAFFIC, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE TRAFFIC REPORT AND HAVE IT AUDITED BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THEM FALSIFIED BEFORE WHEN THERE'S PROJECTS COMING THROUGH, SO I'D LIKE THE CITY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE INDEPENDENT PEOPLE LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC REPORT. YOU COME NORTH, THERE ARE TWO PLACES WHERE THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE CANAL, THERE'S 13,000 LOW INCOME PEOPLE LIVING IN THE CANAL. THERE'S TWO CHOKE POINTS ON THE TRAFFIC. One is Central San Rafael exit. The other one is that other exit that goes to the East Bay. They can't get home. So that first lane that wraps right around this project is constantly congested. And sometimes there's traffic accidents and things like that there. And it's kind of dangerous. And that just, maybe when they have the lifts, if they slow down the exiting of the 200, 400 cars, then that'll help. We don't want them to be able to get their cars quickly. We want them to get them slow so it doesn't affect the traffic because we're going to have 15 low-income units that are going to affect 13,000 people who live in the canal who can't get in and out of work. Well, it's going to make it harder for them. It's going to make their commute 40 minutes to go a 10-minute drive. And the other thing that she had said was the definition of public welfare, which we cannot interfere with, is it includes health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general well-being of the community, including traffic safety and circulation, congestion, accident risk, emergency vehicle access, access to schools, parks, and utilities. That's all included in what we can... And also this lovely sky-to-ground connection that this building is going to give us is going to be impeded by a big 17-story building that's going to cut San Rafael in half. I love the idea of the lower levels and a public building, but that extra 15 feet where we separate the rich people in these penthouses from the poor people down below, that's not okay. Thank you. You have two minutes, Sarah. Okay.

Hello there.

My name is Stephanie short people. My name is Stephanie Burkhardt. I live in the Dominican area and I also sit on the Dominican black Canyon neighborhood association board of directors. Um, As you drive into San Rafael and you have just come through the hills, the 101 freeway creates a swath. It just cuts a swath through into our town that already shows through industrial area. And then you get off at the central San Rafael exit and we have more beauty in the mountains and things. In talking with many of my neighbors, other people in the community, there's a feeling that coming in off the freeway, seeing a 17-story building does not go with the aesthetic of San Rafael. Unfortunately, on that corner, we also have the problem of traffic. If any of you commute and come in and you're going northbound, you know that we just went through that big freeway exit project. for many years, and now we have two lanes to turn right. However, that area is still backed up constantly. In the drawing that we saw, we had seven cars on the Irwin exit, and we had seven cars on Second Street, and that might be at three in the morning, but I don't think that those are normal times that our peers are actually exiting the freeway. So there's a lot of concern with that I am definitely not against progress. I am not against revitalization to our downtown area. I think that the green aspect brings somewhat of a utopian concept to the area, but I think it's just too high. And when we take a look at this, I... also believe we're somewhat marginalizing anyone that lives in the canal because we're now having them wait even further because let's not forget the project itself will take a lot of time and we'll have to get through that as well so thank you very much for your time and obviously there's lots more we can all say but i'm sure it'll get covered tonight thank you

Hi there. I'm Debra. I live a few blocks that way. Oh no, that way. Sorry, West End. I didn't do a lot of drugs in college 50 some odd years ago, but I feel like I'm on drugs right now. You guys are intelligent, articulate, you've made fabulous presentations, and I think you're all on drugs. You don't live here.

You're not going to live here.

And this building.

I'm sorry, just briefly on the timer. For public comment, please only address the Planning Commission. Don't turn. Thank you so much.

Be respectful and include you. This building is a nightmare. I'm already sitting in traffic in that area of town. The light turns red, it turns green, it turns red. And what are you considering low income and moderate income? Nobody's going to be able to afford to live there who's actually low income in Marin County. I'd like to know what those numbers are. And again, as the woman before me said, what is the traffic study? It's delusional. It's bureaucratic, profit-making delusion to think that this is appropriate. Every time these people said the word urban, my head exploded. I don't live in San Francisco. I left Manhattan 54 years ago. I don't want to live in urban. Suburban works for most of us. This is wrong, and you know it. And thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Nick Sokoloff. I was born in Los Ranchitos, and I lived here through high school. I moved back in 1999. I live up on Bretthar Road, up on the hill. And I'm not crazy about having the composition of San Rafael change in this way, but I think that we need to, you know, I think that housing is an enormous problem. My son is 31 years old. He's married. His wife's newly pregnant. And what they bought in Los Angeles for what they paid and what they got is terrible. It's a bad statement about our society. And I think that we... here in San Rafael, in Marin County, in San Francisco, in the Bay Area, in California, in the nation, need more housing. And we need to put less impediments to housing. And we need to allow it to happen. I think it's a reasonably conceived project. And it's at a location that makes sense. So I support the project. I know nothing about it. I know none of you ever, whatsoever. And that's my, so thank you for letting me share my opinion.

Thank you.

Good evening all. My name is Michelle Hasid and I serve on the Government Affairs Committee of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber strongly supports the proposed 200-unit multi-family housing development at 700 Irwin Street. The project is an important step towards meeting San Rafael's housing goals and strengthening our local economy and community. After careful review, Our Government Affairs Committee and Board of Directors voted to endorse this project for three key reasons. First, it addresses critical housing needs. Affordable and market rate housing is essential for our workforce and residents, and this helps develop and close that gap. Second, it revitalizes a key gateway to our city. The current site is vacant. It's deteriorating, and it leaves a poor impression of our city. This project will transform it into a modern, welcoming, and great entry point to San Rafael. And third, it reflects a strong community collaboration. Urban Pacific has engaged local organizations since the early planning stages, including Canal Alliance, the Chamber, and the Marin Community Foundation. It's building broad support. THE PROJECT REPRESENTS PROGRESS FOR HOUSING, BUSINESS FATALITY AND THE FUTURE OF SAN RAFEL. WE RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BO BLANCHARD, CHAIR OF THE CHAMBER BOARD. AND FOR DECADES, SAN RAFAEL HAS FACED HOUSING PRODUCTION STAGNATION. AS NOTED IN THE MARINNE INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, THE CITY PRODUCED A MERE 10 HOUSING UNITS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2021. THE 700 IRWIN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WILL REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN BY ADDING 200 NEW UNITS INCLUDING 30 BELOW MARKET RATE HOMES, BRINGING RESIDENTS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BACK TO THE AREA. ITS ARTICULAL DESIGN WILL ENHANCE THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF DOWNTOWN, REPLACING BLIGHT WITH PRIDE AND CREATING A GATEWAY LANDMARK THE COMMUNITY CAN EMBRACE. WHILE THE STATE HAS INTERVENED WITH DENSITY BONUSES, MINISTRIAL APPROVALS TO SOLVE THE CALIFORNIA PROBLEM, 700 IRWIN GOES BEYOND MERE COMPLIANCE, REJECTING THE BOXY STUCKO AESTHETIC THAT TREATS HOUSING AS A COMMODITY. INSTEAD, BY PROPOSING A PROJECT THAT CARES ABOUT THE PUBLIC REALM BY CONNECTING THE STREET WITH THE CANAL, ULTIMATELY CREATING A WELCOMING PLACE OF BELONGING. STRATEGICALLY POSITIONED WHERE THE CANAL DISTRICT, DOWNTOWN AND THE REGIONAL TRANSIT CENTER CONVERGE. THE DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIZES TRANSIT-ORIENTED DENSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND PLACEMAKING ACTIVATION. It also adds an expanded boardwalk, floating wetlands, and a boathouse space that cantilevers over the water. By revitalizing this entrance, San Rafael can introduce and surpass ambiance and aesthetics as done by the premier perimeter north base cities showcasing San Rafael's sophisticated legacy of art, film, culture at the forefront of the visitor experience. The project will significantly boost the downtown economic by increasing local business support, raising foot traffic and attracting new investment. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Robert Sandoval, and I'm speaking tonight as a San Rafael resident and in my personal capacity as a Marin County Planning Commissioner. I just want to begin by acknowledging a lot of the comments that have been expressed tonight about size and traffic, and I hear that. But I think it's important to talk about this as planning commissioners. We need to recognize that new state laws strongly favor housing production, including density bonus law and CEQA exemptions, especially for projects that meet objective standards. When a project qualifies under these statutes, the discretion available to our local planning commissions is limited, unfortunately at times. But I appreciate that this commission and city staff are applying those requirements transparently and thoughtfully today. At the same time, I don't think that acknowledging the laws means that we should lose sight of the broader opportunity in front of us. That site sits at a major gateway into San Rafael. And as people enter the city, it's one of the first places that really shapes your impression of our community. And in that context, projects like this should be seen not only as providing housing, but also as opportunities to work WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENHANCE AND BEAUTIFY THE SURROUNDING AREA. I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO EXPECT THAT A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE WILL MEANINGFULLY INVEST IN THE SURROUNDING PUBLIC SPACES AT THIS GATEWAY. AND I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THIS APPLICANT IS WILLING TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY AND OUR COMMUNITY DESPITE THE STATE LAWS REALLY SAYS A LOT ABOUT THIS PROJECT. in a positive way. And I hope that we can actively pursue that kind of collaborative relationship moving forward. Ultimately, I think that this is about holding two ideas at the same time. So I think we can comply with the state laws and I think we should and will use the tools available to us to secure tangible public benefits for our community that really will improve the entrance to San Rafael. And I appreciate your time and I would encourage the city to keep working with the community and the applicant to make this area of San Rafael a real asset that we can be proud of. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Omar Carrera, and I serve as the CEO of Canal Alliance. Our headquarters at 711 Grand Avenue sits directly across the water from this side. So I'm here tonight both as a neighbor and as a community leader to express my strong support for the 700-year-win project. Addressing marine housing crisis is not the responsibility of any single sector. It requires bold, coordinated action, government, businesses, developers, and nonprofits working side by side. What I appreciate most about this project is its commitment to transformation. We have the chance to replace a vacant four-story office building currently at the dead zone for our streetscape with a modern 17-story residential gateway that finally welcomes people into Santa Fe. For too long, concerns about traffic, height, or parking have stalled progress. The design of this project shows that smart planning can solve challenges rather than stop solutions. Urban Pacific has also demonstrated true collaboration throughout the process, engaging early with the stakeholders like Canal Alliance and the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and Marine Community Foundation to ensure that the project reflects community needs. When we support housing, we are choosing to value both our history and the people who contribute every day to making San Rafael vibrant and resilient. It's time to stop letting change be the reason we say no and start letting collaboration be the reason we say yes. I respectfully urge the Commission to approve this project and help us continue building a more inclusive and equal Center of Health. Thank you.

My name's Diane Newhouse and I've lived in San Rafael for 50 years and Fairhills and I don't have a prepared speech but being that I've lived here for 50 years I've seen a lot of changes in this city and I've also seen a lot of mistakes as well as good things done here but this is a big mistake and the problem is we have one road up and down this county it's 101 and We live in earthquake country. We have to consider those things. I am not against housing. I'm in favor of the building you've approved on A Street, 5th Street, or 5th Avenue. And I think that what you're talking about at Northgate and other places are very good ideas. But this one is not. It is too high. And furthermore, it is on very unstable land, and we have to consider that where we live. And so I have to say these things. There's been a lot of flowery speech here tonight, a lot of bureaucratic jargon also, but the one thing that seems to be missing is sanity.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Jennifer Garcia. I'm a Glenwood resident. Hi, Jack. I have been a resident of Santa Fe for 25 years. I'm not against growth and I'm not against housing. My husband and his family bought a house here in 1964 out in Glenwood. At the time, it was one lane. It was the sticks. and as things grew the the lanes went to two lanes each way and there's been more density 17 years i commuted into the city and the worst part of my commute was united market to the freeway and that was before the train so six years ago i quit commuting to the city i now work at united markets I'm the office manager, and our office is located at 851 Irwin Caddy Corner to the proposed site. And speaking of traffic, I get to watch traffic all day long outside the window and accidents and other things. I sent pictures taken Sunday at the lowest of all the king tides showing the flooding in that area when it wasn't raining. And there is... safety hazards to that. If the traffic reports are not taken into consideration, there's times you can't turn right there. People get frustrated, angry, block intersections. That's without this. This size is just too big. And again, besides the parking elevators, which are very cool and they do work well, I've seen them in other buildings that friends of mine live in, in the city. There's delivery factors. You know, how many Amazon orders are going to 200 homes? Where are those trucks going to park? Where is all of that stuff going to happen? So just to consider that people, my neighbors moved from the city to be in suburban area once they had children.

Your minutes are up, so please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I live in Santa Fe. I was on one of the first committees when we were trying to figure out what was going to happen with Santa Fe, which is a long time ago. And I am definitely opposed to this. The Marin IJ, when they wrote the story, they said it would be jarring and looking at it. It would be jarring. I think that there's so much arrogance involved with these people that want to put this 17-story place where it is. It's unbelievable that they think they want to redo Santa Fe and make a better place for walking. And they can walk to the grocery store as well. I've got to tell you, I can walk to a grocery store, but I wouldn't be able to carry my groceries home. So, you know, it's like there's just so much stuff that they put out. And I will tell you that being jarred, I would be jarred looking at this place day and night because I can see from my deck San Rafael. And at night, it'll all be lit up. So you'd be looking at this, I don't know, lit up Felix and we're... whatever, and I would be jarred every time I drove by it going to get my groceries. This is not the welcoming, open your arms gateway that needs to represent Santa Fe. And if we needed another gateway, which is fine, then we should have all been involved in figuring out how we wanted to see that happen. Those of us that live here and we live here and it's our bits and they haven't talked to us about it. My neighbor didn't even know that there was gonna be a skyscraper built and that's what it is. So, and I think that there are ways of creatively being able to have housing done in a way that we would all like. So I want you to not approve this place or put it on pause because I think this California, the state of California is actually, I think they're doing something that's authoritarian and illegal. And I think they need to be challenged that they allow these people to do this kind of thing. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Felicia Schomborn, and I live in the Santa Venetia neighborhood, but I have a weekly service business, so I drive all over. And I find that many times when I am trying to go north, the traffic that's trying to exit for downtown San Rafael is so backed up that it's going to make a big impact. I'm curious how many guest parking spaces there are, since there's no street parking in that area. delivery parking san rafael fire department do they have ladders of that height do we have any other 17 story buildings in marin i couldn't find any um how does low and very low income rentals remain that way for 55 years is there some format for that um What's the mechanism for that? If cars are coming out of the lifts and cars are coming into the building trying to go up the lifts, is there space inside the building for them to jockey or are they going to back up onto second? And my final, this just doesn't feel right at all. I think it's basically San Rafael needs housing, but I don't think this is really the appropriate place for it. And I don't think this is the appropriate size for it either. Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, commissioners, my name is Garrett Tom. I'm a former deputy police chief in San Francisco, and I met David Grozier some 20 years ago when he started building one Rincon Center or one Rincon Hill. And back then there was nothing there. And David was a pioneer. Now if you look at the neighborhood, it's bustling, it's exciting, it's a big boost to this economic portion of the city. Looking at his rendition right now, and maybe not all of you agree, but I think it's a beautiful building. It's a timber structure. And it's offering affordable housing, so important, and workforce housing. When David started, when he built One Rincon, the price is very reasonable, so people like police officers and firefighters and postal workers could afford them. You know, we have to build housing in California, and I think this is a good project. You might not agree, but I think it's a great project, especially this location where it's near the off ramp of the freeway. So this means there's no crosstown traffic delays for people. And it's incredibly important because it's close to Whole Foods, Trader Joe's downtown, and public transit's only a block away. So I think this is a big economic boost for the city of San Rafael. And David, when I knew David, no one was more caring about the community. He raised $50,000 for the Hamilton Family Center. He also had homeless kids that he mentored. He had professional musicians who mentored homeless kids in the city. So I think we're very fortunate to have a developer like David Cruz here. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Susan Bradford. I live in the West End. I've been here for 49 years as a business owner and mother and You know, just the name itself, Urban Pacific, is probably great for San Francisco and Houston, but we're suburban here. And in my mind, this is truly the definition of a sore thumb. It just sticks up like that. My suggestion for a refinement is remove the top 12 stories. I'm fine with change. I'm a big change maker, but not with changes for the worse. Traffic is already a nightmare. You can't get from the West End to Trader Joe's in less than a half an hour when it should take five minutes right now. This is going to take something that is a nightmare and turn it into a hell. The problem truly is not housing, it's affordability. How about making every single unit affordable? Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Jennifer Menyar and I'm up on Bretthart Road. I would like to speak to the scale and the size of this building. I'm all about understanding what urban infill is like, but I certainly don't want to see urban blight brought here to San Rafael. As has been suggested by so many others that are here today, getting off the freeway, traffic, accessibility with the train and everything else that's going is absolutely impossible. I am, however, in support of affordable housing, just not another scar on our community. I would please ask that you find ways to object to this project or to scale it back. And also we are going to, as a community, take our opposition to the California legislature as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Mario Ernesto Lopez. I'm a proud resident of Canal Waterfront here in Centerfell. In fact, I grew up here in Centerfell. This is home. For many of my friends, my classmates, my community members, they had to leave Centerfell. Why? Because of the housing shortage that we have here in our city. In fact, as mentioned earlier, we built 10 units in a little bit over 10 years. It's unacceptable. And quite frankly, it doesn't meet the need in our community. I was able to return back home here to San Rafael and purchase a home in Canal Waterfront, which, by the way, is directly in the area where the traffic is being talked about today. And I can tell you, to me, maybe spending an extra minute or so is absolutely worth it. for the benefit of having my friends, my community members, be able to call San Rafael home, to be able to stay in this community, for us to be able to have additional affordable housing units, in addition to all the other spillover benefits for the community, benefits in partnership with Canal Alliance, benefits with economic development, benefits of enriching our community with folks that want to call our city home. MANY OF US HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. LET'S MAKE SURE OTHERS HAVE THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY. SO I ALSO WANT TO MENTION REGARDING THE DESIGN, I'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THE WORLD AND SEE VERY BEAUTIFUL DESIGN. AND I CAN TELL YOU, BASED ON THE RENDERINGS, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT I REALLY LIKE THE BUILDING DESIGN. WHY? BECAUSE IT USES CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, DESIGN PRACTICES TO MAKE DESIGNS AESTHETICALLY BEAUTIFUL, APPEALING, AND ALSO CONFORMING TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE ARE NOT AN URBAN COMMUNITY. THIS BUILDING IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT TO SAN FRANCISCO. SO I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT. I'M EXCITED, THOUGH, ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ACTUALLY MEET OUR MISSION OF MAINTAINING THAT WE ARE AN ACCESSIBLE CITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER MY NAME IS MATT GUTHRIE. I'M A 50-YEAR RESIDENT BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT 50 YEARS IN THE PRACTICE OF PLANNING, DESIGN AND REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY. I DO OBJECT TO THIS PROJECT. I THINK IT IS A BASTARIZATION OF YEARS OF COMMUNITY WORK IN CRAFTING A GENERAL PLAN THAT GOES TO GREAT LENGTH TO PROVIDE FOR ABAG REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS. ALL WITHIN A DESIRABLE URBAN DESIGN THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED BY CITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES. I'M WELL AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS THAT THE STATE HAS PLACED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IN REVIEWING AND TAKING ACTIONS ON THESE PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS PROPOSAL. I ATTENDED YOUR PUBLIC MEETING AT THE STORY PROPOSAL ON URBAN STREET AND I'M WELL AWARE OF YOUR AND THE COUNCIL'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS ON YOUR ABILITY TO EXERCISE LOCAL CONTROL ON THESE PROJECTS. At that previous commission meeting, community development director was very clear regarding the significant number of projects and units taking advantage of the density bonus provisions that are in the pipeline. What does not appear clear is the number of additional properties that could result if these properties were also to be developed in accordance with those density bonus provisions. THE TOTALITY OF POTENTIAL UNITS WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON FIRE, POLICE, WATER, SEWER, PARAMETRIC SERVICES AS WELL AS IMPACTS ON SAFE CIRCULATION ON CITY STREETS. THE CITY MAY NOT HAVE OPTIONS IN PROCESSING THE PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE. BUT WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CITY TO DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AN EVEN GREATER NUMBER OF UNITS? AS THIS TURNOUT SHOWS, THERE IS SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY CONCERN FOR THE OVERWHELMING PROJECT INTENSITIES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. WHERE IS THE EFFORT TO RESPOND TO THOSE CONCERNS? IS THE CONCERN SUFFICIENTLY GREAT TO TAKE SERIOUS AND EXTENSIVE EFFORTS TO RESPOND? WHY FOR INSTANCE COULDN'T THE CITY RECONVENE THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE? AMEND THE LAND USE PLAN. ELIMINATE THE NON-DENSITY SPECIFIC FORM-BASED ZONING AND RE-ESTABLISH PREVIOUS ZONING STANDARDS FOR DENSITIES SPECIFYING AN ACTUAL NUMBER OF UNITS FOR EACH PROPERTY.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER TIME IS UP.

NEW SPEAKER WHEN THESE DENSITIES ARE COMBINED WITH THE DENSITY BONUS CONCUSSIONS NEW SPEAKER I'M SORRY YOUR TIME IS UP. NEW SPEAKER WE HAVE ONE MORE MINUTE. NEW SPEAKER NO I'M SORRY. NEW SPEAKER PLEASE MA'AM. Let me make one last comment, please. Please, wrap up. As you look at these pictures and you see this project and you see the Chicago water line, picture this project at KFC, at the Grand Landing building, and all the way down through Montecito. The city has to realize that potential and deal with it in the future. Thank you. Thank you.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DARYUSH DAVIDI AND I SERVE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT SAM RAFEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. SAM RAFEL HAS STRUGGLED WITH LIMITED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PRODUCING JUST 10 UNITS FROM 2011 TO 2021. THE 700 URBAN HOUSING PROJECT WILL BRING IN 200 NEW UNITS INCLUDING 30 BELOW MARKET RATE HOMES REVITALIZING DOWNTOWN AREA BY ATTRACTING RESIDENTS AND ECONOMIC VITALITY. Featuring a distinctive architectural design, the project replaces blighted area and creates a new landmark and gateway for the city. The development encourages walkability, supports local businesses, and promotes diversity through mixed income housing. While meeting the state requirement, 700 urban emphasizes quality design and public spaces, connecting the street to the canal and fostering a sense of belonging. Located at the Highway 101 and the canal, the project serves as a central access to Pointe du Marais, adding features like a boardwalk, floating wetlands, a boathouse over the water. I am mindful that the freeway exit near the 700 Urban Street is a gateway to our community in East San Rafael. I encourage the developers to work with the city to come up with creative ways to create traffic solution. However, its location, the intersection of the key districts, the abundance of transit access, environmental stewardship, and placemaking. The project enhances San Rafael cultural identity, boosts the economy, increases the tax base, and generates jobs through the construction and increased commercial activity. Our employers, my employers, are desperate for workforce to live locally, and a project like this achieves that goal. As a resident, as a business owner, and as a board member of San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, I support this project. We encourage the Planning Commission to please support this project as well. Thank you. Thank you.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M HERE TO READ A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM BUSINESS OWNER STEPHANIE PLANT. DEAR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I'M WRITING IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 700 IRWIN STREET IN SUPPORT OF ADDING MUCH-NEEDED HOUSING IN SANTERFEL. I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 77 GRAND AVENUE NEIGHBORING THE 700 IRWIN STREET AND I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE LONG-TERM VITALITY OF THIS COMMUNITY. I AM AWARE THERE HAS BEEN PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND ABOUT GROWTH IN GENERAL. WHILE I RESPECT DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS, MY EXPERIENCE SERVING FOR THREE YEARS AS THE STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIR FOR SANDERFELD'S 2040 GENERAL PLAN GROUNDS ME IN THE REALITY OF OUR HOUSING SITUATION. Between 2011 and 2021, San Rafael produced only 10 housing units in total. We only built one housing unit per year for 10 years. While we may not want San Rafael to become a big city like San Francisco or Oakland, we do want it to stay vibrant, to have a lively downtown that attracts new businesses and restaurants, to be a town for future generations. If you don't build it, they won't come. Concerns about preserving community character are understandable, but it is also important to recognize that communities must evolve to remain healthy and viable. Housing is needed in many forms and thoughtful redevelopment can be a benefit rather than a threat. In 2024, early in the development process, I met with the developers and other neighboring stakeholders. THESE EARLY DISCUSSIONS ARE AN EXAMPLE OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO RESEARCH AND STAKEHOLDER INVESTMENT. THE PROPOSED 200 UNITS AT 700 IRWIN REPRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE A LONG, VACANT, FENCED-OFF BUILDING WITH HOUSING THAT BRINGS ACTIVITY AND PURPOSE BACK TO THE SITE. THIS PROJECT ALONE WOULD DELIVER 20 TIMES THE NUMBER OF UNITS SANTERFELD PRODUCED OVER AN ENTIRE 10-YEAR PERIOD. I ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SUPPORT 700 IRWIN PROJECT AND TO CONTINUE ADVANCING HOUSING SOLUTIONS THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS OF SANTERFEL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. STEPHANIE PLANT.

this is not an urban environment the current highest building as i understand it is eight stories you are proposing something that is almost double that this is not contextual to san rafael The shadows, as well as the height, don't benefit the canal residents. It throws them in shadow and further separates them from downtown. With regard to the traffic, if the lifts take time, as Stuart asked earlier, a large number of the tenants that show up at the same time, traffic will back up onto the central San Rafael exit, making the current improvements null and void. There's been many mentions of this boathouse. What is it? What does it provide and who would manage it without a clear plan for these amenities? They fail. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Andrea Valentine. For 41 years, I've lived about a nine minute walk from the 700 Irwin Street site. I have no objection to having housing at the site. They keep it about the same height as what's there now. And right now there's a parking on the first floor that wouldn't really add to the traffic that's already been there in the past when it was used as an office building. Because of the major gridlock in this area that we've all talked about, why don't we get that fixed first or have a solid proposal to fix that before we add a lot more vehicle traffic here. Another thing, parking. I'm sure that there are gonna be a lot more cars that the tenants own that they're estimating. Plus they will have a guest parking. I believe that we know that there's no on-street parking for several blocks in every direction. And I'm pretty sure that both the Taco Bell parking lot and the United Market Park parking United Market parking lot will become their common parking places for both tenants and guests. I think that's something we should look into. Emergency vehicles, we've already talked about, it's already difficult now with the gridlock for them to get through at times. Also with the height of the building, we've talked about, does the San Rafael Fire Department have the ability to take care of a fire in a 17 story building? Another thing, in October of 2019, we had our five day planned power outage. And I would like to know how those car lifts are gonna work during the five day outage. My friend lives in a high rise in San Francisco where they just had that recent power outage. And for three days, they had no water and no elevators because they didn't have enough power to get water or regular elevators. So how are they gonna get cars up and down when there's no power? I'm sorry, your time's up. It's up? Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE SANTERFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. I JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT THE COST OF HOUSING IS REALLY DEPENDENT ON SUPPLY AND DEMAND. I'M SPEAKING TODAY BECAUSE THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS EXACTLY THE KIND OF THOUGHTFUL COMMUNITY-MINDED INVESTMENT SANTERFIELD NEEDS IF WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN AND REMAIN A HEALTHY, VIBRANT, AND ECONOMICALLY STABLE CITY. THE SANDERFELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WHICH REPRESENTS HUNDREDS OF LOCAL EMPLOYERS AND BUSINESSES, HAS FORMALLY ENDORSED THIS PROJECT BECAUSE HOUSING IS NOT JUST A SOCIAL ISSUE, IT'S AN ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE. RIGHT NOW, THE SINGLE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FACING OUR BUSINESSES IS FINDING AND KEEPING WORKERS WHO CAN ACTUALLY AFFORD TO LIVE HERE. WHEN PEOPLE CANNOT LIVE HERE, LIVE NEAR WHERE THEY WORK, EXCUSE ME WE SEE LONGER COMMUTES HIGHER TURNOVER AND A WEAKER LOCAL ECONOMY ADDING 200 NEW HOMES INCLUDING BOTH MARKET RATE AND AFFORDABLE UNITS DIRECTLY SUPPORTS WORKFORCE STABILITY LOCAL SPENDING AND LONG-TERM ECONOMIC HEALTH MAIN STREET AMERICA A NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK AND NETWORK FOCUSED ON REVITALIZING DOWNTOWNS AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ESTIMATES THAT EVERY SINGLE NEW HOME REPRESENTS ABOUT TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AN ANNUAL INVESTMENT INTO THE LOCAL DOWNTOWN ECONOMY THROUGH SPENDING AT SHOPS RESTAURANTS AND SERVICES THAT MEANS THIS PROJECT ISN'T JUST ABOUT HOUSING AGAIN IT'S ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL TOOLS WE HAVE FOR ECONOMIC VITALITY AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION THIS PROJECT TRANSFORMS A SITE THAT IS CURRENTLY DOING OUR CITY NO FAVORS 700 IRWIN STREET IS A LONG VACANT UNATTRACTIVE BUILDING AT A MAJOR GATEWAY INTO SAN RAFEL REPLACING THAT DEAD THAT DEAD ZONE WITH HOMES ACTIVITY IN A MODERN WELCOMING DESIGN CREATES A FAR BETTER FIRST IMPRESSION FOR OUR CITY. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PEOPLE HAVE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT HEIGHT, SCALE, AND TRAFFIC. THOSE CONCERNS ARE UNDERSTANDABLE. HOW OUR CITY LOOKS AND FEELS DOES MATTER, BUT THE CHALLENGE WE'RE FACING IS NOT JUST AESTHETIC. IT'S ABOUT WHETHER THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE SAINT RAFEL WORK CAN CONTINUE TO BE A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY. WHEN PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO LIVE FAR AWAY, TRAFFIC CONGESTION DOES INCREASE. WHEN PEOPLE CAN LIVE NEAR WHERE THEY WORK, THEY SPEND LESS TIME ON FREEWAYS, INVEST MORE LOCALLY AND ARE MORE CONNECTED TO THIS PLACE. I SEE MY TIME IS UP. I HAVE ONE MORE THING TO SAY. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE URBAN PACIFIC. THEY'VE ENGAGED WITH US AND HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY COLLABORATIVE AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED. But lastly, this project aligns with the housing goals of San Rafael that we've already adopted. We've said more that we need housing, especially in underutilized spaces. San Rafael Chamber, we urgently support or recommend that you support this project. Thank you. Thank you.

good evening commissioners my name is john rising uh center fell native uh i own a home here i own a business here my father owned a business here my grandfather owned a business here so i've got some roots in the community um i'm also on the sea level rise committee which is a collaboration between the city center fell the multicultural center and i was at this property uh on january 4th when we had the king tides and it was underwater It's not called sea level sink, it's called sea level rise. And this is going to be a problem moving forward. I did not hear one comment about sea level rise. I heard some fancy talk about wetlands and stuff like that. The U.S. government owns the canal, and so far they've been stonewalling us on doing anything. This is going to be a billion-dollar project to make sure the canal is not going underwater in the years coming forward. It's called the Boathouse because you might need a boat to get out of there when the seal rides comes, right? I'm all for infill. I'm all for yimbyism and something like that. But when I read the brief, it was like there were so many red flags, I couldn't see the project. um one other thing that i saw was i guess the city will will issue a certificate of occupancy and then do a traffic report that seems really backwards to me that seems like putting the cart before the horse i mean i now my daughter goes to center fell high i live on the other side of the freeway and it's a nightmare you guys got to figure out the traffic and the homeless situation before we go talking about these fancy places for people to live you know i i did a rendering for myself you know and i and there's a lot of chatter on next door about this too uh it's quite amazing um i did a major renovation on my own house in santa fe a couple years ago and i was stymied by the the planning process and if i hear yeah there's only 10 new houses built i believe it because they wouldn't let me put a foot above my house Oh, you can excavate all day long, but not a foot. And all these extra things, the building process is broken here.

I'm sorry, your time's up. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Reid Baxter. I'm also on the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, North Bay Leadership Council. I work in commercial real estate and I've campaigned for affordable housing across Marin for years. I'm also a housing provider to thousands of residents. So I've learned a few things over the years. Even though this project competes with the properties that I provide, I'm here in support of the project on Irwin Street because it is consistent with the city's general plan and the intent of the underlying zoning for this area. The proposal represents an appropriate infill development that makes efficient use of an existing site, provides workforce housing that we desperately need. supports employment generating uses and a location plan for them. From a land use planning perspective, projects like this help reinforce economic vitality while minimizing pressure on residential neighborhoods and greenfield areas. Based on my experience, developments that align with adopted plans and zoning standards contribute to long-term community stability. I appreciate the work the staff and the applicant has done, respectfully encourage the commission to support the project. Thank you.

Thank you.

hello my name is Clive indris I'm a longtime resident of San Rafael I'm a landscape architect I enjoyed the presentation by your architects how the project will embrace the waterfront connect to the city downtown it's all a great thing but the building is just too tall it's 10 stories too tall I just, I don't understand completely why there's no CEQA document. I know it's, you gotta know that world, but there's no environmental impact statement. There's no visual assessment. What about the small town character of San Rafael, the mission city? So that's basically what I have to say. I'm opposed to the project unless you lower the building. ONE THOUGHT OCCURRED TO ME BECAUSE, AGAIN, I'VE LIVED HERE 50 YEARS. I BOUGHT AN OLD HOUSE IN SAN RAFEL YEARS AGO. I'M ALWAYS REBUILT QUITE A BIT OF IT. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY ALWAYS MADE ME PUT UP STORY POLLS. EVERYTHING WAS BY A PERMIT. SO I HAD TO PUT UP TWO-STORY STORY POLLS. SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE STORY POLLS 17 FEET HIGH OUT HERE FOR THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.

Thank you. I've lived in San Rafael for probably over 40 years, and one of the things no one has brought up is that instead of lessening the number of injury accidents, pedestrian traffic accidents, which I was a victim, I was almost killed at 3rd and Lincoln Avenue as a pedestrian in 2021. And certainly the plan will exacerbate the problem that we already have. So that was one issue. And then the other issue was I did go to the planning commission, was told that the EIR traffic study was done in 2021 when the city plan was adopted, the general plan was adopted and that it was not repeated. It was my understanding for today's standards. In 2021, we were post pandemic. There was nobody, there were people working remotely. Nobody was going to work on the roadways and the freeways. There was nobody on the freeways either one. I don't understand how those standards could be applied to today and all that's happened today and the future that this planning commission envisions. The other issue for me is that I remember when the building was built at 700 Irwin and I think it was limited in height because of landfill, it was on landfill. And so it's pretty hard to understand that a 17-story building would not sink into the landfill at some point. We've seen it happen in San Francisco. And the very last thing is I also interviewed the fire department. They don't have a truck at this point that goes 17 stories high. They have a truck, their trucks go to 100 feet, which is about 10 stories. So I questioned them about how they plan to access the top floors, the 10th through the 17th. And they said that what they would do is have two trucks there and they would take the equipment, the firefighting equipment up to the very top of the first truck and transfer it laterally to the second truck.

to try to get it as far as they could.

So I cannot understand how this plan could move forward when that major issue, all these are major issues. And some of these major issues have just not been dealt with.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners, my name is Ken Dickinson and I'm a 27 year resident and business owner of San Rafael. I'm speaking tonight because the staff report makes clear this project is no longer about whether housing is allowed. It's about the extraordinary number of exemptions being granted to make it work. and whether that is consistent with the city's own adopted priorities. San Rafael's strategic plan commits the city to context-sensitive growth, to ensuring infrastructure and public safety keep pace with development, and to transparent, accountable decision-making. This project raises serious questions under all three. THE PROJECT RELIES ON THREE CONCESSIONS AND MULTIPLE WAIVERS TO RAISE HEIGHT FROM 50 TO ROUGHLY 180 FEET, ELIMINATE SETBACKS, CUT BICYCLE PARKING FROM 271 TO 60 SPACES, AND APPROVE A PARKING SYSTEM THE CITY SAYS MAY EXCEED PEAK CAPACITY AND RISK QUEUING ONTO SECOND STREET. THESE ARE NOT MINOR ADJUSTMENTS. THEY FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE SCALE, OPERATION AND SAFETY PROFILE OF THE PROJECT. particularly in a constrained area near a freeway and major intersection. State law does not require cities to approve every waiver requested. Waivers may be denied or conditioned when they create specific adverse impacts to public safety or circulation. At a minimum, you as a Commission should require clear enforceable conditions with monitoring and corrective triggers for parking operations and emergency access. Given the scale and number of exemptions, I respectfully ask the Commission to formally recommend that the City Council agendize a public review of these waivers and their consistency with the strategic plan. If exemptions of this magnitude are becoming routine, that is a policy decision, and policy decisions belong with the City Council and on the public record. Thank you.

Thank you.

I've spoken before, but I just want to mention that the Chamber of Commerce has gotten up five times to speak and it's not fair. There should be one representative for the Chamber of Commerce only.

Okay, thank you.

I'll be quick.

My job tonight is not to get arrested because I'm really angry. I sued you on CEQA. The reason this is happening right now is because you threw CEQA out. But CEQA is what protects the residents from fire, from overbuilding, from traffic, from bay mud, all of those things that you are glibly throwing away and leaving us vulnerable. That's what you do. You leave us vulnerable when you don't follow the law.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rick Taff, longtime resident of San Rafael. And I have a few questions here. The building is, I think, way too high, personally. But forgetting that for a moment, I believe there's about 400 other units on the books to be built in San Rafael. Right down the street at Irwin Street, 9-something Irwin, they tore that building down. Around the corner at Tamalpais and 3rd Street, they've torn that building down. What's this going to do to the traffic in the future? This company builds this thing and then they leave. All the other companies are going to be right there behind them. They want the same type of thing. They want traffic. They don't want traffic, but it's going to be traffic, traffic, traffic. And it's tough to get through Santa Fe right now, let alone with 400 more units after these 200 go in. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Mark Lachman. I'm a 51 year resident of San Rafael. I've worked for many years, myself and my company in 700 Irwin. And there definitely was the mud issue. They had to do an extensive construction project to stabilize the building. So I know that from experience. And from all the years that I was in that building, the traffic kept increasing and it's still increasing. And I'm all for the housing development. However, not on that site because of the traffic. Now up at 1235th Avenue, there's another 188 units going in, 930 Irwin, 210 units going in, 900 A Street, another 131 units going on. So San Rafael is doing a good job in addressing housing. I don't think this building, which I loved working at 700, I don't think it's an unattractive building at all. I just think that the impact with all that traffic would be a nightmare, as other people have said. So I sincerely hope you reject this project.

Thank you.

My name is Michael Williamson. I live about four blocks that way since 1977. I worked on Irwin Street. My real estate office has been there since 1985. I'm struggling with this word affordable housing, and I really hope I'm wrong because what I hear from the developers is, And I've developed houses and apartment buildings and own Section 8 housing and stuff. So I kind of want to see more housing. But this deed restriction is confusing for me because it's based on the area median income. Brent's average income is $130,000. AND THE LOWEST OF THE DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING AMOUNT IS 50% OF MEDIAN INCOME. THAT'S $65,000. I'M MISSING HOW $65,000 IS LIKE WORKING THE AVERAGE WAGE ON FOURTH STREET IS ABOUT 20 BUCKS AN HOUR. So how is $65,000 low-income housing? Thank you.

Hi, Paul Caspar. I've lived in Summerville for about 30 years. I want to start off by thanking the Planning Commission or consultant who's not a employee of the city, but regardless. I've been in sales most of my life. I've learned a couple of things. Number one, you don't learn anything when you're talking. So I've been listening, and I've learned a couple of things. And the other thing I've learned is when I'm being sold. And I kind of think that that's what's happening here with just the floral descriptions of this building and relating it to nature and enhancing the natural environment of Marin. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the CEQA getting absolved of CEQA was based predominantly on the fact that they were going to have commercial space. Is that correct? Or that was one of the things that, no. Okay. Well, it just seems like there's so many nebulous things that can go and things that can go wrong with this development. They brought up the parking spaces, Amazon deliveries. I live in a cul-de-sac. It's a freeway of Amazon, FedEx, all day long. 200 houses. I have five houses in the cul-de-sac. Where are these trucks going? The mechanized parking seems like a disaster waiting to happen. What happens if everyone has to get out of that building? If there's a fire, an earthquake, a flood, and they need to get in their car, how are they going to get out? How are they going to get out? We live in a fragile environment here in Marin. It doesn't take much for things to get backed up. And my time's over. Peace.

Hi, Brendan Deamer, Montecito Area Resident Association, which our building will be. One way, we would love to see 200 more people who might take an interest in our community. But when we invited, when the Montecito Area Resident Association wrote a letter to the group and asked to meet with them, they flatly refused no. So we didn't get a chance to put any input from our neighborhood into it. So I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.

Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Henry Warren. I was born at what we used to call Marin General the year that it opened, and I've lived in San Rafael for quite a long time. One question that might be rhetorical is why don't we have any 17 story buildings in San Rafael? That was because of the good guidance and intelligence of the city council, the planning commission and community members themselves when they put the general plan together. An earlier speaker spoke about the general plan. I won't try to add on to what he said. It was very articulate and right on. Why 17 stories instead of six or eight? Well, A couple things we know, and then there's the elephant in the room. First of all, your hands are tied because of the exemptions and the bonuses on density that have already been addressed. Five years ago, you never would have approved anything 12 stories high, let alone 17. So two reasons are, one, three floors devoted to parking. I assume that's because it would be too expensive and challenging to build subterranean parking. So instead of a 14 story building to house 200 units, we're going to go 17. So we can have three floors of automobiles occupying three of the floors. uh it's remarkable and the other elephant in the room is litigation it hasn't been mentioned tonight but i understand that's also why your hands are tied clearly if people read the newspaper article by richard halstead or the report itself we know how your hands are tied regarding that i'd like to draw your attention to and the people in the audience. The city can only deny the project or condition its approval on decreased density if the city can make written findings that the project would have a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact upon public safety public health or safety based on objective identified written public health or safety standards. I just like to mention National Fire Protection Association's standards 1710. It sets minimum standards for the organization and deployment of fire departments as far as their services for firefighting, emergency medical services, and special operations to the public from a career department. I'll take a little bit of the chamber of commerce this time there. No, I'll make, I'll make this extremely quick. Thank you. This city's enjoyed a class one rating since 2015 for our fire department. They worked really hard at it. The fire department operations, including response times represent 50% of the rating that people are given when they're rated class one or whatever they're rated by the rating agency. I'd like to point out that for the 2,800 homes from Montecito on out east to Peacock Gap, those 2,800 homes represent 11% of the units in San Rafael. The nine to 10 to 11,000 people that live out there represent upwards of 10% of San Rafael's population. And while we have a fire station at the Cove, at the Point San Pedro Road Station, and there's a second one at Union Street that won't have impeded access, I would like to point out that the one coming from Castro Street with truck 54, the one coming from downtown across the street are all gonna have to transit on Second Street unless they divert. Response times are going to be significantly affected during the construction phase, The reason I can't quantify it for you, the reason I can't make it quantifiable is nobody has mentioned what the duration of the construction project is going to be, and nobody has addressed the number of trucks, cranes, and other equipment that's going to be in there for earth hauling, for excavation, for concrete pouring, for delivering reinforcing steel, for delivering electrical materials, insulation materials, all the other building materials, and where the workers are going to park. But I'll guarantee you that if people are having trouble negotiating Second Street, not Fourth Street, Second Street, to get to our retail places that the Chamber of Commerce recommends, or to the 10% of houses that are out east of there, It's gonna be wild and it is gonna affect response times for the following units. We need the basic response and this is it. Four engines, a truck, a medic unit, and two command personnel on any first alarm response in the city of San Rafael from our class one fire department. The ones from Union Street and Point San Pedro will get there quickly if they're home. It's gonna be much longer. It's gonna be much longer for the balance of the unit and it will affect the class one rating.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there any other comments? I have to, I'm closing the public comment segment and bringing it back for a deliberation for the commission. Thank you.

So, commissioners, we have- Through the chair, it may be possible to get like a quick little recess. We've been sitting here through- Oh, sure.

We're going to take a five-minute recess. Thank you. Sorry, could we have actually a gate?

Recording stopped. RECORDING IN PROGRESS.

RUN THE SHOW. PICK HIM FIRST.

I'VE USED THEM OVERSEAS. THEY WORK REALLY WELL. THEY REALLY DO.

Thank you. We're back in session and we've closed the public comment and we will do our deliberations now. Thank you. I'd like to ask the applicant to come up. We'll be asking questions about traffic and the fire issue, the fire department issue, as well as the soil analysis. So if you could.

Thank you. So I guess I'll start with some of the technical things related to the building, not related to parking. We're going to get a little help from our land use attorney on that. And I might be able to also add some detail. It's of course worth people bringing up questions. I don't begrudge them that. It's just high rise construction, anything over 85 feet is considered a high rise. There are no buildings around the world that are taller than that, that have a ladder truck that would go to the tippy top. That's not how you design buildings in today's world. That's why you see high rise buildings in New York and San Francisco and global cities. So the building is actually designed for life safety in ways that are advanced aggressively every year, especially in California. California is incredibly thoughtful and thorough when it comes to not just high rise life safety, but fire life safety, smoke evacuation, sprinklering. Sometimes you have a building condition on the exterior perimeter wall. that might be close to a neighbor or a property line. Those conditions are easily mitigated, albeit with expensive systems. This building will, without question, be the safest building in the entire county. Unquestionable, including geotech. It's, again, worthwhile to ask. It seems kind of wild that you could build in the mud. As a nearby example, the entirety of Eastern Soma is built on fill. People who have been in the Bay Area, as many of these speakers have said for 50 years, probably know how much of the Bay has been filled in. The canal community, by the way, is an area like that too. So our geotech is one of the best in the Bay Area, as is our structural designer. So two things, the foundation system is designed for the soil conditions. And what happens if you have a lens of soil that's not ideal, which is very, very common, you go through that. You pretend it's not there. You build essentially footings that are fat enough that they don't mind not being surrounded by solid dirt. This is also how you get buildings that are actually literally built in the water. And take a look at what's happening in the Middle East. Everything is built in basically made-up land on the bay. So that's not an issue at all. There's processes to look through. Another important factor, the timber structure is one-tenth the weight of a concrete building. So not only is it gonna provide the environmental benefits that were described earlier, it is significantly lighter. That also means easier on the foundation system. And guess what? It's faster. It's an erector set. Oakland has a groundbreaking high rise that was built with timber. I believe it's 19 stories tall. The same group is proposing a 21 story building. The fire officials have scrubbed those projects to death. They were able to build that project from the ground level to the top, again, 19 stories in less than 12 months. That's also gonna be probably twice as fast as concrete, which means reduced impact in the neighborhood due to construction and things like dust, which concrete is messy business. The podium is the only thing in this project that's concrete. And I guess I could segue there because that's where our garage is. And perhaps there's a couple questions there, but we could also talk a little bit about traffic. But I'm happy to answer any further questions. I did study some engineering, but I just explained most of what I can tell you, so.

Thank you. Commissioner, how many did you have?

Sure. A concern was raised about sea level rise as well. And if you want to address that, that'd be great.

Yeah, again, it's worth, I think, centering the most vulnerable community in San Rafael at this moment. That's the canal neighborhood. Everybody knows the King Tide was a national event for media. Corte Madera was underwater. okay bay area sea level rise is an issue around the entire bay it is far from unique to 700 erwin more importantly the the communities that really are in trouble are already at or below where the bay is now or in a big storm and again that's the canal community so i think the interventions that are going to be needed are way bigger then this group will be able to solve. I think my understanding is San Rafael does have an excellent resiliency coordinator or expert on staff. I know it's a regional issue. But basically, the study groups and the list of things that I'm aware of include interventions at the bay's frontage, which could be levees. It could be a variety of interventions that are done in other parts of the world. So I don't think, again, it's really not about a project. It's about the entire bay. So our project, by the way, is built to be above where it's really required to be, by about a foot. So we're trying to meet not only the future plan for San Rafael's code, but also, like I said, the whole building. There's very little underground in the basement, intentionally. That's why there's no cars there. we're mitigating some of the risk by also designing MEP systems and anything that is below grade to be resilient for, by the way, ground level rise, which is also there. So these are issues we're aware of. And again, I think we're gonna have an example project for other people to follow.

Okay, do you have any questions?

Yeah.

PUSHING THE BUTTON. THERE WE GO. BACK TO PARKING AND TRAFFIC. A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF ST. ARFEL, A LOT OF PEOPLE SPOKE AND I've been here for over 50 some odd years. So Second Street, you're taking a right as you come out of the process. It's a one-way street. So you're taking a right. You've got to immediately get over three lanes to make a right-hand turn to get back to 101. I see Third Street and Grand as a major... We talked about underneath the freeway, getting off the freeway is bad, but if anybody's traveled 3rd Street and Grand, that intersection is a pretty bad intersection. All that traffic is going to have to go down Grand, make a left on 2nd to get back to 101 going south or north. um that that is the increase that i don't know if people have thought about like you know coming off the freeway is going to be bad enough and i've heard we heard a lot of comment tonight about that um but i see that as a major major issue and i'd like to know if the city um it was brought up and i don't know the actual date of when the traffic report was done but um if we do we have anything on the traffic report post 2021

Are you referring to the San Rafael study or the project? Project study. We weren't working on that in 2021. Okay. Yeah.

Commissioner Andrew Junius, Ruben Junius and Rose were the land use counsel for the project. It's really an honor to be here and a pleasure to be in front of you tonight on this project. Excellent points. We all know traffic is a very, very big deal here in San Rafael. You heard a lot about that. You also heard a lot of support that housing mandates and needs outweigh some traffic issues. But on the specific legality of the traffic world that we're working with right now and the traffic studies, as your excellent staff report started the evening, we're not working under old CEQA rules. We're not doing any AR here. This project cleared CEQA with the staff under AB 2011, which is a new statutory exemption. And if you look at that checklist and you go down the list, you'll notice one very clear thing. Traffic's not on the list. So CEQA, I think the state legislature recognized how difficult traffic issues are for communities and how easy it is for housing projects to be derailed and stopped because of traffic. And traffic is an issue, there's no question about it. But traffic, if every housing project has to go through a massive traffic study and then come to you for your discretion over whether a traffic issue or not should outweigh some housing, we'll never get any housing built. That's why there's no housing. in San Rafael for the last decade. But the issue with respect to analysis though, we'd actually did in April of last year, when we filed our application, we submitted a traffic analysis. Back in the day, the CEQA world in Sacramento moved from a level of service, which you probably all remember that, the traffic studies with very complex level of service and turning motions and intersections, that went away a while ago. And it was replaced with vehicle miles traveled. Our study specifically looked at San Rafael's traffic guidelines, calculated the vehicle miles traveled, the VMT for this site and this project, and unequivocally came away with, it's fine. It's less than significant because of its location. It's located next to the freeway. It's located, it's an unblockable neighborhood and it's near transit. Those are the laws you're dealing with and kind of you're in a tough spot. I agree, but you're faced with some difficult challenges here, but the law is the law.

I have some questions. Madam Chair, sorry. Council over here. Just a clarification. The Applicants Council had mentioned AB 2011, but I think- Oh, I'm sorry.

I meant AB 130. I apologize. The statutory exemption under AB 130. That's the checklist that's in your packet. Thank you, City Attorney.

Okay, I thank you for that. I do have some further questions on the parking and traffic. So supposedly your driveway is entrance and exit and two car capacity per side. And it takes 48 to 66 vehicles per hour in your parking system. So if you only have capacity for two in the driveway, there's no doubt that the queuing is going in during rush hour going to be going back towards where people are getting off the freeway. This is already happening. So is that correct?

FIRST OFF IS THAT CORRECT THERE'S ONLY QUEUEING FOR TWO CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY ON EACH SIDE SO THE QUEUE IS DESIGNED TO GO OUT THE DRIVEWAY AS YOU KNOW AND THEN THE PROJECT ANTICIPATES A LOADING ZONE WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THE PROJECT WHICH WILL ALSO HANDLE SOME OF THE AMAZON DELIVERIES AND SO FORTH but that's potential additional queuing if there is more traffic. As the sponsor mentioned, we are only at 25% design. We are still vetting the capacity of the system, and there's a possibility that we might add an additional elevator if that's deemed necessary. But the queue issues were deemed, I believe, insignificant by the report.

I BELIEVE THE REPORT HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT INCLUDED ACTUALLY ADDING A THIRD ELEVATOR.

YES, AS I MENTIONED IN MY REMARKS, IT IS SOMETHING WE WANT THE BUILDING TO BE FUNCTIONAL FOR OUR OWN PURPOSES AND EVERYONE WHO LIVES THERE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN BEFORE OUR BUILDING WAS BUILT.

Now, I don't know if this is for city or applicant, but it calls for a Tier 3 transportation analysis within five years from occupancy. It seems like an awful long time to wait after a building is occupied to get a Tier 3 analysis.

Well, I think that's a great question, Commissioner. One of the things I think we haven't talked about yet is in addition to the study that we did and the two studies that will be post approval, this project will be contributing $840,000 to the city's transportation mitigation fund. So that money, I think, is going to be essentially tied to those studies, either the pre-occupancy study and the post-occupancy study, to help, you know, Sanderfeld do a better job with their traffic. And so that's where, you know, that's where those, I think that's really the idea there is, and I think the city would support that conclusion as well.

You know, I think it's a great project, but I think all of us have had lived experience of getting off in central San Rafael. It's a thoroughfare to east San Rafael. I mean, that is the main point. And it's almost unbearable now, literally unbearable during rush hour. I had one question about the bike parking. You're putting all 60 bikes into a covered room, correct? Is that the idea?

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay. What about electric bikes, which seem to be coming some more?

We'll have some capacity for those as well.

And is there any studies that show of putting bikes into an enclosed room and having the electric charging? Is that safe? Well, I'm not having an outside space or in the parking garage itself.

Sure. So the code actually requires for the parking bike parking to be secure. AND SO ON THE PLANS YOU SEE A SECURE ENCLOSURE, WHETHER OR NOT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR PERHAPS THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AS WE CONTINUE TO ENGINE THE PROJECT MIGHT RECOMMEND VENTILATION OR EXTRA FIRE PROTECTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE WILL CERTAINLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER GO AHEAD. NEW SPEAKER AS QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THE WATER RIGHTS FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND A FEW OTHER THINGS, AND YOU SAID YOU'RE AT 25% COMPLETION OF THE ROUGHLY? YEAH. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, HOW DO WE OKAY A PROJECT WHEN IT'S NOT 100% IN FRONT OF US? SO THAT'S MY CONCERN AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER

Very, very good question, I think it was I thought it was clear in the report that that is an option that we believe is absolutely going to happen, and if we want to talk about one of my partners is here to talk about those permits which you know there's is a permit process with the army corps of engineers and other agencies but. The project doesn't need that, and it can go ahead without the big boardwalk, the big cool boardwalk. We all want that. We're going to process that. We think it's very feasible. We've worked with the U.S. government and the Army Corps before. We know that process. So it's an option because it's not in your control, which is why the city, I think, presented it this way. But I'm very confident we're going to get that done.

No, and it sounds like a great thing. My concern is, as a planning commission, we're going to approve this building that, you know, obviously the public comment here outside of some of the chamber people and a few realtors were all for it. Everybody else was not. And so public comment, to me, is more against than pro. And as a longtime San Rafael resident, it's hard for me to see this project. I wish it were an eight-story building, to be honest. I do understand the need for housing. I wish it were an eight-story building. That aside, I just find it odd that your planning is 25, 30% done or your plans are 25, 30% in the process, but yet we're going to approve a building that we don't really know exactly what it's going to be when it's finished.

So what I would say, I think the first couple of QUESTIONS I HEARD WERE RELATED TO THINGS LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE. WE STUDY THAT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT FOR CAPACITY REASONS. THERE'S BASIC FEASIBILITY, WHAT WE CALL FATAL FLAW ANALYSES, AND WE HAVE, AMONG OTHERS, AN EXPERT, BKF, CIVIL ENGINEER, LOCAL SAN RAFAEL OFFICES, ALL OVER THE the Western United States do this. They studied the capacity issues that exist and what oftentimes needs to be thought of in advance. That can be done now, and it has been done for the reasons that we need to know now, all of us. Another version of that, we have a consultant named S2S Consultancy, and the individual that we work with spent 35 years with PG&E working on easements and permits under to get governmental approval to go underwater, over water through landscapes where many of these homeowners live and basically figure out how to get these things permitted. And so this is somebody that we rely on. Now, by the way, I would also say there's an existing wood dock in the, on the property line it's not in our property but it is there's no reason why we couldn't just leave it there and maybe we fix it up and it's already there and it has footings into the into the mud you know our preference would be to not have that and make the bay and the canal cleaner but we could do that

And just again, to respond to the 25% question, every project of this magnitude that comes to a planning commission, yours in the recent months that you've seen projects of this size, they all come at the schematic level. You're approving the height and the bulk, the size of the project. The rest of the other 75% of the drawings come after that money is spent after you approve the project and after we have a project. So I apologize for the confusion about the 25%. This project is fully designed, fully baked. You have the architects here to answer any question you have about the architecture of the project. But it's a go. So thank you.

So I have a question. I know there is a big concern about traffic and I see support from some organizations around there, but I'm just curious about if you already have conversations with local businesses where they are already parking and probably is going to be affecting if these buildings go on. And I'm just curious if you already have conversations with that local

Excellent question, and yes, I didn't list all of the various neighbors and businesses and individuals that we've spoken with, but right in our immediate vicinity, each of our neighbors, including United Markets, including Grand Landing, we've met with, and we're going to continue to meet with. And so I think honestly we're going to be expanding the outreach as well. We're very close with the Canal Alliance and trying to center their interests because this truly is their neighborhood. And so, you know, what I hear though is unfortunate is the existing situation with traffic is already there. And so I think we have another issue that needs to be a regional topic with san anselmo i mean folks are not just san rafael traffic is affecting this neighborhood so we'd love to contribute to that conversation and be a part of it work with the city family and again try to work on it together

Thank you. And another question is about the design. So because this building is high, is there any use on the roof or not? Because I see some panels, solar panels, and I don't know, I'm just curious.

We have the ground level, which was described in the presentation. What wasn't discussed is right above what we call the podium is a large outdoor terrace. There's also another terrace opportunity that's further up in the building. And a commenter earlier in the meeting did not understand that basically all of these amenities are available to every single resident in the building. And so we will be activating those spaces. The space above the podium is something like 7,000 square feet. So it's huge.

Thank you.

Any additional questions? Okay, so there's no more discussion. Did you?

I just make one final comment. I very much appreciate your attention. I think one of the final commenters kind of hit it on the head. You know, in some respects, your hands are tied here. You're really between a rock and state law. It's a complicated project, but your staff has done a great job. the staff reports complete the motions complete the waivers are justifiable i think it's going to be very hard for you to make any changes to this project so i'm happy to answer more questions about the applicability of state law your staff's here as well we very much hope that you'll approve this project and let us move forward quickly thank you thank you i'm sorry public comments closed for now okay i'm sorry no um

Okay. If there's no more comments, then can I please have a motion and a second?

Well, we're going to discuss the project. Oh, you have more? Okay. Okay.

YEAH, IF I MAY, SO I SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME ON THIS PROJECT THIS AFTERNOON, AND PART OF WHAT I DID WAS I WENT TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS SUBMITTED, WHICH I APPRECIATE, BUT I FOUND MYSELF REALLY NOT CARING VERY MUCH. AND THAT'S NOT BECAUSE THIS ISN'T GOING TO ADD TO THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, WHICH ARE ALREADY SIGNIFICANT, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE OR ARE ABOUT TO APPROVE 1,100 UNITS IN DOWNTOWN SAN RAFEL. WE'VE GOT SEVEN PROJECTS THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF 100 UNITS, TWO MORE THAT ARE AROUND 50. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE INTRODUCING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC TO SAN RAFEL. AND IF YOU ADD IN NORTH SAN RAFEL, THERE'S ANOTHER 2,000 UNITS THAT WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, ALREADY APPROVED. THAT'S INCREASING SAN RAFEL'S RESIDENT STOCK BY ABOUT 13%. AND THAT'S ALL GOING TO COME ONLINE IN THE NEXT FIVE TO TEN YEARS. SO I'M NOT THAT CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ONE OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS. I'D LIKE TO SEE A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING. WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY REALLY TRANSCENDS THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. we're addressing the housing problem in San Rafael, right? All the enthusiasm for each one of these and oh, it's increasing housing. It is, but we have done a lot to increase housing. 13% is a non-trivial change. What we're doing is we're generating a traffic problem that in the next five to 10 years is really going to be a big deal and is probably going to require as draconian moves as we've seen on housing with regard to traffic, right? Downtown San Rafael already has a traffic problem. Lots of thought has to start going into traffic mitigation. I don't know what that might be. Is that a lot more public transit? Do we need more ferry terminals? But what I do know is that a lot of people in these 1,100 residences that are going to be in downtown Centerfield, a lot of them are going to be driving to San Francisco. A lot of the people who are going to go into new projects that have been approved in Novato are going to be driving to San Francisco. It's all going to bottleneck at the Golden Gate Bridge, and there's not much we can do about the capacity of the Golden Gate Bridge. SO WHAT DO WE NEED? I'M NOT SURE, BUT IT'S A BIG CALIFORNIA PROBLEM, MORE EXTREME IN SOME PLACES THAN OTHERS, AND I THINK HERE IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY EXTREME. LIVING HERE IS ATTRACTIVE, AND HENCE BUILDING HERE IS ATTRACTIVE. AND SINCE BUILDING HERE HAS BECOME SO EASY, WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A LOT OF IT. my plea, I guess, really is to state legislators who probably have more control over this than local, right? The dramatic increase in housing is going to dramatically increase the state tax base. I sincerely hope that some of that increase in tax revenue gets devoted to transportation and congestion mitigation because I have a feeling we're going to need it.

That's my two cents.

okay i won't repeat all that because i agree with just about everything he just said um i don't think this one project's gonna make too much of a dent in the traffic but what he said makes complete sense in fact you know when that building was an office building and 50 or 60 people were probably all leaving at the same time and getting to work at the same time that was probably a worse traffic congestion problem at those peak times than the people that are going to be metering in and out of this building i don't think anybody that everybody that lives there is going to be leaving and coming at the same time so i have a little faith that maybe that in itself is going to is going to be okay and then the metering of how those lifts work you know i'm not so concerned about it but cumulative cumulatively yes and you know all those sites that are you know adjacent to it someone said those can get developed the united market site guess what that's a recognized housing site. That market, that piece of land's on the block right now. It could get sold as a housing site. So there could be another one right there. So cumulatively, we need to know what's going on there. I like the building in terms of its design. I think it's too big like everybody else, but hey, we don't get to talk about that. Design-wise, I didn't mean to scoff when you put it on the screen, but those renderings, we hadn't seen them before, and it was like, wow, it's really big. So, yeah, it's going to be the biggest building in San Rafael. And I grew up here. I've been here 58 years. And change is really hard. This is a tough one. But it is a well-designed building in itself. It's just going to be really big and hard to swallow. Welcome to the party. Here we are. Our hands are tied. We probably didn't need to be reminded of that. So I don't know. We already know that. So we don't need to be told that. I don't like hearing that when we already know. So just maybe advice on your next one of these. Sea level rise. You know what? I remember my buddies windsurfing down Third Street when I was in high school because of the floods. So it isn't new. We've had the floods. We've had these king tides. This project isn't going to... It shouldn't be penalized because we have sea level rise and it floods down there every 40 years. I mean, it's just... It's just one of those things. They can design the best they can around it. In terms of the technical aspects of the building to the public, I think I'm going to trust the engineers to build a building there that isn't going to fall over in an earthquake. I have a lot of faith in geotechnical engineers, and it's probably going to be better built than anything around here because of today's codes, because the codes are pretty rough. So I think the engineering is going to be good. Moving forward, Matt Guthrie hit it on the head. What are we going to do moving down the line? We as a city need to take a hard look at our general plan. We need to take a hard look at the objective design standards moving forward on these projects that will give us more control over these projects. We don't have it now, so we don't get to talk about it. But if we develop them carefully, maybe we won't see some of this on 4th Street and in areas where people are really going to be upset. So those are my comments.

So I recognize that there are concerns regarding traffic density and neighborhood compatibility, but I had the opportunity to review the materials and complies with the regulations and the state law. And I expect that we will be addressing a less impact on this project. I'm supporting housing. This is a big issue that we need to address first now at this moment. Thank you.

All right. Well, I echo what John and Stuart both said regarding some of the issues that we're dealing with, that we're going to deal with. And I do put it on the state. JOHN HAS SAID IN PAST COMMISSION MEETINGS THAT WE ARE HAND TIED AS A COMMISSION. I FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES WE RUBBER STAMP THINGS BECAUSE IT'S APPROVED AND IT FITS WITHIN THE STATE MANDATES AND THE CITY MANDATES. SO AS A COMMISSION, ALL WE CAN DO IS SAY YES, THAT IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. HAVING BEEN A LONG TIME SANTERFIELD RESIDENT, IT I'M NEW ON THIS PANEL, IF ANYBODY DOESN'T KNOW THAT, AND I GOT ON THIS COMMISSION BECAUSE I THOUGHT I'D MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN SAN RAFEL, AND, YOU KNOW, I'M PROGRESSIVE. I LIKE NEW THINGS. I THINK THAT THIS BUILDING IS TOO BIG, BUT WE ARE HANDSTRUNG, AND WE'RE ‑‑ THERE'S I thought I was going to make a difference on this board, and it doesn't seem like I'm making choices for the residents of San Rafael that are here now. I feel like I'm making choices for developers from out of town. So that's my comment on that.

Thank you. So I too think the building's too large, but I think that the developers have presented a good plan, not that I'm against it, but I still in my head, I know you said regional traffic is, Yes, it is. But also, I know how backed up that freeway gets at certain times of the day. And you're backed up until the next exit down on the cars. And I don't know. I see it as a major problem that we continue to... to use vehicle miles traveled and these stats that don't really apply to the local issues. I mean, we're the ones that are sitting there. It took me, and in addition to the traffic, you have the students coming from the high school. And if you've ever tried to cross the street when the students are out of school, it takes 30 minutes just to get to a right turn onto Grand. So it is an issue. Traffic is an issue, so. thank you safety issue okay thank you okay so if there's no more discussion we'll try this again um can i please have a motion and a second um

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE GOTTEN TO READ THIS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE STANDARD FIELD PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT ED25-031 TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MIXED USE BUILDING WITH 200 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE LOCATED AT 700 IRWIN STREET. And determining the project is statutorily exempt from the CEQA review pursuant to public resources code section 21080.66.

As Commissioner Haven, I will second the motion.

Thank you. Margaret, can you do a roll call, please? Certainly, Madam Chair. Commissioner Haven.

I WAS TOLD EARLIER THIS IS BULLETPROOF, SO MAYBE I SHOULD DUCK DOWN THERE, BUT YES.

COMMISSIONER ALVAREZ? YES. COMMISSIONER SUMMERS?

YES.

COMMISSIONER SALVAMANI?

YES.

CHAIR ROBBIE?

I HAVE THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THIS, BUT I REALLY HAVE TO VOTE NO. THANK YOU. SO MOTION PASSES. SO IT DOES PASS. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE NOW. Any interested party can appeal the decision of the planning commission within five working days by filing a cover form, a letter stating the reason for the appeal and the corresponding fee found on our master fee sheet at the community and economic development department public counter located on the third floor of city hall. Please note the business hours are eight to four Monday through Thursday and Friday eight to 1230. Please contact the planning manager if you have any questions. And thank you for your participation and your comments tonight. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Madam Chair, could I just make one correction on City Hall hours? I believe the front doors are open 8.30, so the filing time is 8.30 to 4. Okay. Okay.

I NEED TO SAY THAT?

THERE WAS A SLIGHT CORRECTION. THE DOORS TO THE OFFICE DON'T OPEN UNTIL 830, NOT 8. MY MISTAKE.

NEW SPEAKER Well, we could have had two nos. So we're actually still meeting. Okay. We're not done yet. Okay. So we'll move to the director's report. Thank you.

So directors, we're going to keep the director's report short and appreciate really the participation of Rhonda. I know we're trying to obtain a quorum earlier and I really do appreciate you coming on. I know you're not feeling 100% along with Aldo. So I know it's a volunteer position and really your expertise and guidance and support for this community is very much appreciated. So thank you once again. So with that, that'll end the director's report.

Okay, so last, do we have, Planning Commission have any communications they'd like to disclose?

Do we have any non-housing large projects coming forward?

Or are they all these? Well, with that question back into the director, I will say that we actually will be, I believe Kaiser hospitals in for new hospital development. So we'll see how that actually moves forward, but waiting for the final application submittal, but that'll be commercial wise and also a large scale project, but also a needed investment for Kaiser for seismic retrofit. So, okay, cool. We got to hang on to Jack.

So you have no communications that you want to discuss? I do have one. And I did take a call with the developer and his spokesperson, Joshua, which lasted about 30 minutes.

Pardon me. I did meet with the developers as well. Commissioner Haven.

Okay. Meeting is adjourned. Recording stopped.