San Rafael City Council
May 8, 2023

City of San Rafael
Local Traffic Analysis for the
Proposed 1515 Fourth Street
Apartments Project
Project Report
May 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 1 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT STUDY AREA............................................................................................................................ 3 STUDY APPROACH ................................................................................................................................. 3 PROJECT STUDY SCENARIOS ...................................................................................................................4 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................4 FIELD REVIEW........................................................................................................................................ 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 5 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ............................................................................... 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................... 7 EXISTING STREET NETWORK ................................................................................................................... 7 STUDY INTERSECTIONS........................................................................................................................... 7 BIKE FACILITIES...................................................................................................................................... 8 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES .......................................................................................................................... 8 TRANSIT FACILITIES................................................................................................................................9 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................9 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS........................................................................................................... 11 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ..................................................................13 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT.......................................15 SITE CIRCULATION AND OTHER ISSUES ................................................................................17 SITE ACCESS ....................................................................................................................................... 17 SIGHT DISTANCE.................................................................................................................................. 17 ON-SITE CIRCULATION ......................................................................................................................... 17 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE &TRANSIT FACILITIES........................................................................................... 17 ROADWAY ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................... 18 PARKING............................................................................................................................................. 19 INTERSECTION QUEUEING..................................................................................................................... 19 VMT ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................21 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................23 Tables
TABLE 1: LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS BASED ON INTERSECTION DELAY ................................................... 10 TABLE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS LOS AND DELAY ....................................................................................... 11 TABLE 3: TRIP GENERATION ...................................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 4: TRIP REDUCTION AND NET TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................... 13 TABLE 5: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS LOS AND DELAY.................................................................. 15 TABLE 6: PARKING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................ 19 TABLE 7: 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE LENGTH (FT) ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 20 Figures
FIGURE 1: PROJECT SITE PLAN..................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: PROJECT STUDY AREA................................................................................................................. 3 FIGURE 3: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES........................................................................................................8 FIGURE 4: EXISTING TRANSIT NETWORK .......................................................................................................9 FIGURE 5: EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES, LANE GEOMETRY AND CONTROLS ............................................... 12 FIGURE 6: PROJECT ONLY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES, LANE GEOMETRY, CONTROLS, AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........ 14 FIGURE 7: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES, LANE GEOMETRY, AND CONTROLS......................... 16 Appendices
APPENDIX A | PROJECT SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B | TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
APPENDIX C | EXISTING CONDITIONS SYNCHRO REPORTS
APPENDIXD| EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS SYNCHRO REPORTS APPENDIX E | 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE LENGTH SYNCHRO REPORTS Redefining Mobility.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Local Traffic Analysis (LTA) is to evaluate potential transportation impacts associated with the proposed mixed-use development project located on 4th Street between E Street and Shaver Street in San Rafael, California. The proposed mixed-use development project consists of 162 dwelling units and approximately 9,000 square feet of retail.

Results
AMG determined that the project will have no significant impacts under existing plus project conditions. Based on the results of the analysis, the following is a summary of our findings:

Existing Traffic Condition:
• All the intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Condition:
• The project will generate 60 and 61 total trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • All the intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better.

Project Site Access and Circulation Assessment:
• Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are adequate to serve the project site. • Site access to the project site within the project site is adequate. • Site Circulation within the project site is adequate. • Parking spaces provided at the project site are adequate. • The existing storage capacity for the project access street, and the shared northbound left and northbound right-turn out of the project site is adequate and will not result in spillover of traffic queues due to the addition of the project.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 2

INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum presents the Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) for the proposed mixeduse development, 1515 Fourth Street Apartments project. The project site is located on 4th Street between Shaver Street and E Street in the City of San Rafael as shown in Figure 1. The proposed project will be a new construction of a 7-story mixed use housing development that will consist of 162 multifamily residential units, courtyard with a pool, workout area, approximately 9,000 square feet of commercial area, and gallery space. The new project includes 179 on-site parking spaces and 205 bicycle parking spaces. Appendix A shows the project site plan.

The purpose of a Local Transportation Analysis is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of a proposed project and assess if any improvements would be required to mitigate these impacts based on the level of significance criteria established by the City of San Rafael. Vehicular traffic impacts are typically evaluated by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use is expected to generate and distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project. The existing street system is then evaluated using the new traffic to assess the impact of the proposed project. Additionally, parking requirements, sight evaluation, site circulation, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access are also qualitatively evaluated.

Figure 1: Project Site Plan
Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 3 Project Study Area
This study evaluates 4th Street roadway between the intersections with E Street and Shaver Street. The following 2 intersections as shown in Figure 2 were selected for analysis:

1. 4th Street and E street (Signalized Intersection)

2. 4th Street and Shaver Street (Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection) Figure 2: Project Study Area
Study Approach
The following are key steps of the study approach:
• Conduct traffic counts to establish baseline traffic conditions • Conduct trip generation and distribution of project trips • Determine the traffic conditions for the following scenarios:
 Existing Traffic Condition
 Existing Plus Project Traffic Condition
• Determine the impact of project trips based on established Significance Criteria • Determine the impact of proposed project driveways
Legend:

Study Intersections
Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 4 Project Study Scenarios
This study evaluates the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic conditions for the following scenarios:

1. Existing Conditions:

The existing conditions scenario evaluates weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with existing lane geometry, traffic control and traffic volumes.

2. Existing plus Project Conditions:

The existing plus project conditions scenario adds proposed project trips to the existing conditions traffic models and evaluates the impact of the proposed project at the project intersection and study segments. This scenario recommends mitigation measures, based on the City of San Rafael TA guidelines, to mitigate any significant impacts that may occur due to the proposed project.

Data Collection
AMG collected the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement counts (TMC) on November 3, 2022, for the two study intersections. Counts were collected during the typical weekday AM peak hour, occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and PM peak hour, occurring between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. These counts are shown in Appendix B.

Field Review
AMG conducted a field visit to observe any potential issues with queuing or traffic operations under the existing conditions. At the time of site visit, no pedestrians or bicyclists were observed at the intersection.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 5

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Significance Criteria for the City of San Rafael
The City of San Rafael has established criteria to determine the level of significance of traffic impacts based on standards set in the San Rafael General Plan 2040, the Downtown Precise Plan, and the Draft 2021 Congestion Management Program Update, by the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM).

Based on these planning documents, a traffic impact is considered significant if the project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

The following policies/goals are applicable to the proposed project:

Policy M-2.5: Traffic Level of Service
Maintain traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards that ensure an efficient roadway network and provide a consistent basis for evaluating the transportation effects of proposed development projects on local roadways. For most intersections, the citywide LOS Standard from the San Rafael General Plan 2040 is LOS D. For the study intersections, LOS D or better is the threshold.

For this analysis, significant impacts to an intersection are:
• If baseline traffic volumes are operating at an acceptable LOS and it deteriorates to an unacceptable operation with the addition of project traffic.

However, Point C from Policy M-2.5 in the San Rafael General Plan 2040, states that intersections within the boundaries of the Downtown Precise Plan are not subject to LOS Standards, if proactive measures are taken to address and manage congestion, and functionality of these intersections are insured. Both study intersections are within these boundaries, but LOS Analysis will be completed to quantify congestion caused by the proposed project.

Goal M-3: Cleaner Transportation
Reduce transportation impacts on the environment by supporting higher vehicle efficiency standards and reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by San Rafael workers and residents.

Special exemptions for VMT Analysis are provided for mixed use and infill developments in downtown San Rafael. Since this project meets the description above, it is exempt from VMT Analysis per Program M-3.2A in the San Rafael General Plan 20401
.

Goal M-4: High Quality, Affordable Public Transit
Offer a safe, convenient, and affordable transit system that will become a competitive alternative to driving.

For this analysis, significant transit impacts would be:
• If demand is significantly increased and existing standards are not maintained • If access to public transit facilities is reduced
Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 6 Goal M-6: Safe Walking and Cycling
Encourage walking and cycling as the travel mode of choice for short trips, prioritize pedestrian and bicycle safety, and provide greater access to pedestrian and cycling amenities.

For this analysis, significant cycling/walking impacts would be:
• If safety and quality of service of existing pedestrian/cycling facilities are reduced • If access to pedestrian/cycling facilities are reduced The analysis conducted in the following sections of the report show that there is no significant impact to the study intersection with the proposed project based on the City of San Rafael’s thresholds of significance criteria.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 7

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing Street Network
4th Street is a two-lane east-west minor arterial roadway serving downtown San Rafael. It extends from Union Street to 2nd Street where both streets merge. It is adjacent to the project site and serves as a major transit route in San Rafael and Marin County. 4th Street has Class III bike facilities and on-street parking in both directions. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. The speed limit is 30 mph.

E Street is a two-lane north-south minor arterial roadway that is east of the project site. Sidewalks and on-street parking are available on both sides of Shaver Street. The speed limit is 30 mph.

Shaver Street is a north-south two-lane local street that provides access to the proposed project parking lot with two driveways adjacent to it. Sidewalks and on-street parking are available on both sides of Shaver Street. The speed limit is 25 mph.

Study Intersections
The intersection of 4th Street and E Street is a signalized intersection with four approaches. The intersection is currently operating with two-phase signal control and left turns are permitted.

The intersection of 4th Stret and Shaver Street is an unsignalized intersection with three approaches.

Both legs on 4th street are free, while the leg on Shaver Street is stop-controlled.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 8 Bike Facilities
Bicycle facilities are classified by Caltrans into four distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally described below:
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a separate right-of-way and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian crossflow minimized. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Provides a restricted right-of-way and is designated for the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian crossflow are permitted.
• Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Provides for a right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles. • Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway/Cycle Track). Provides a cycle track or protected bike lane, is for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature.

Class III facilities with sharrow markings are available on 4th Street near the proposed project as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Existing Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the project area include sidewalks, crosswalks, and ADA curb ramps. Sidewalks along the study roadways vary in width from 5 to 12 feet, meeting the minimum city standards for sidewalks and wider through zone areas (4th Street).
4th Street/E Street has crosswalks and ADA curb ramps at every intersection leg. 4th Street/Shaver Street has a crosswalk and ADA curb ramps on the west leg of the intersection. A ladder crosswalk, curb extension, and ADA curb ramps are available on the south leg of the intersection.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 9 Transit Facilities
Transit Service within the study area is provided by Marin Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART). The project site is located near the intersection of 4th Street and E Street which includes bus stops for Marin Transit (Lines 22,23 and 68), and Golden Gate Transit (Line 132). The downtown San Rafael SMART transit station is approximately 0.60 miles from the proposed project and connects multiple cities in Marin County to cities in Sonoma County.

The existing transit network is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Existing Transit Network
Level of Service (LOS) Methodology
This study uses two different methods to determine LOS. For the signalized intersection, the percentile method was used. For the unsignalized intersection, the LOS criteria established in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition published and updated by the Transportation Research Board for unsignalized intersections.

The HCM 6th Edition methodology in Synchro 11 does not provide delay or LOS when signal timing includes non-standard ring-barrier structures (NEMA phasing). Therefore, the percentile delay method was used for analysis. The percentile delay method is based on HCM 2000 methodology that Synchro uses for optimization.

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) assigns intersection level of service (LOS) based on average control delay. Signalized intersection LOS is defined in terms of weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be reduced into three intersection types:
all-way stop control, two-way stop control, and roundabout control.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 10 All-way stop control intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Two-way stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well as critical major-street left-turns. Roundabout control LOS is expressed using both average control delay for the intersection as well as LOS for the worst performing lane.

Table 1 provides the relationship between LOS rating and delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections based on the San Rafael General Plan 2040 thresholds.

Table 1: Level of Service Thresholds Based on Intersection Delay Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay (sec) Unsignalized Intersection Delay (sec) A 0 ≤ D ≤ 10 0 ≤ D ≤ 10
B 10 < D ≤ 20 10 < D ≤ 15
C 20 < D ≤ 35 15 < D ≤ 25
D 35 < D ≤ 55 25 < D ≤ 35
E 55 < D ≤ 80 35 < D ≤ 50
F 80 < D 50 < D
Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 11 Existing Conditions Analysis
AMG developed existing conditions traffic simulation models using Synchro 11 software using existing lane configuration, traffic signal timings and traffic volumes. Existing conditions level of service (LOS) and delay were evaluated for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

The results of the LOS and delay analysis conducted for the existing conditions scenario are summarized in Table 2. Appendix C contains the existing conditions Synchro analysis reports.

Table 2: Existing Conditions LOS and Delay
# Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
Existing Conditions
Average Delay
(sec) LOS
1 4th Street & E Street Signal
AM 15.0 B
PM 16.8 B
2 4th Street & Shaver Street1 One Way Stop
AM 1.2 / (24.9) A / (C)
PM 1.2 / (16.3) A / (C)
Notes:

1. First number shown is the intersection delay, number inside the () is the highest delay movement Based on the results of the existing conditions analysis, both study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

XX
(XX) 35
39 67
83 13
18 10
25 238
315

59
34 15
23 327
248

12
28 83
85 84
99 10
52 432
357

8
14 17
13 8
22 5
City of San Rafael - Local Traffic Analysis for 1515 4th Street Mixed Use Development Project Existing Peak Hour Volumes, Lane Geometry and Controls
Figure
Intersection #1
4th Street( Street
Intersection #2
4th StreetShaver Street

ADVANCED

MOBILITY
GROUP
1 Legend
6WXG\,QWHUVHFWLRQ
7UDIILF6LJQDO
6WRS6LJQ
$03HDN+RXU9ROXPH
303HDN+RXU9ROXPH
Project
Site
2 1
306
362

9
10 Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 13

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Trip Generation is defined as the number of “vehicle trips” produced by a particular land use or project.

A trip is defined as a one-direction vehicle movement. The total number of trips generated by each land use includes the inbound and outbound trips.

The trip generation estimates for the proposed land uses (Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) & Variety Store) were calculated using the standard reference, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

The estimated potential trip generation of the proposed project is shown in Table 3. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 60 and 71 trips during the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

Table 3: Trip Generation
Land Use ITE Code Size1 2
Daily Weekday A.M. Weekday P.M.

Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Apartments ITE 221 162 DU 2.93 475 0.28 7 39 46 0.26 31 12 43 Commercial
Variety Store ITE 814 9 KSF 37.27 333 1.47 8 16 14 3.1 14 14 28 Total - 807 - 15 45 60 - 45 26 71
Notes:

1. DU = Dwelling Units

2. KSF = 1000 Square Feet
The San Rafael Transportation Analysis Guidelines state that projects within the downtown area and projects of mixed-use development are allowed to trip rate reductions as internal trips. The proposed project will be a mixed-use development and is within the downtown area, so it will allow for internallycaptured trips. Internal trip reductions were calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The estimated trip reduction and net project vehicle trip generation are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Trip Reduction and Net Trip Generation
AM Trips PM Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Gross Project Trip Generation 15 45 60 45 26 71
Internal Trip Reduction 0 0 0 5 5 10
Net Project Trip Generation 15 45 60 40 21 61
Percent Reduction 0% 0% 0% 11% 19% 14%
Figure 6 illustrates the project trips for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and the trip distribution through the study intersection based on existing peak hour turning movement counts.

XX
(XX)
4
2 0
0 0
0 4
2 29
12 7
3 0
0 10
26 0
0 2
6 0
0 0
0 0
0 14
36 5
2 40
19 
City of San Rafael - Local Traffic Analysis for 1515 4th Street Mixed Use Development Project Project 2nly Peak Hour Volumes, Lane Geometry Controls and Trip DistriEXtion Figure
Intersection #1
4th Street( Street
Intersection #2
4th StreetShaver Street

ADVANCED

MOBILITY
GROUP
1 Legend
6WXG\,QWHUVHFWLRQ
7UDIILF6LJQDO
6WRS6LJQ
$03HDN+RXU9ROXPH
303HDN+RXU9ROXPH
7ULS'LVWULEXWLRQ
Project
Site
2 1
0
0 1
4 5%
10%
15%
10%
Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 15

EXISTING CONDITIONS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
As aforementioned, existing plus project conditions scenario adds proposed project trips to the existing conditions traffic models and evaluates the impact of the proposed project at the project intersection and study segments. Figure 7 illustrates the existing plus project turning movement counts, lane geometry & traffic controls.

The results of the LOS and delay analysis conducted for existing plus project conditions scenario are summarized in Table 5. Appendix D contains the existing plus project conditions Synchro analysis reports.

Table 5: Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS and Delay # Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Proposed
Conditions
Average
Delay (sec) LOS Average Delay (sec) LOS
1 4th Street & E Street
AM 15.0 B 15.0 B
PM 16.8 B 17.4 B
2 4th Street & Shaver Street1
AM 1.2 / (24.9) A / (C) 3.0 / (26.1) A / (D)
PM 1.2 / (16.3) A / (C) 2.2 / (18.3) A / (C)
Notes:

1. First number shown is the intersection delay, number inside the () is the highest delay movement The results of the existing plus project conditions analysis show that there is no significant impact with the addition of the project trips, both intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better. There is a slight increase in delay during both AM and PM peak hours at intersection 2, but the intersection overall will continue to operate at LOS A. There is also a slight increase in delay at the worst intersection approach delay during both AM and PM peak hours, but it will still operate at LOS D and better.

XX
(XX)
37
43 67
83 13
18 14
27 267
327

66
37 15
23 337
274

12
28 85
91 84
99 10
52 432
357

22
50 22
15 48
41 
City of San Rafael - Local Traffic Analysis for 1515 4th Street Mixed Use Development Project Existing PlXs Project Peak Hour Volumes, Lane Geometry and Controls Figure
Intersection #1
4th Street( Street
Intersection #2
4th StreetShaver Street

ADVANCED

MOBILITY
GROUP
1 Legend
6WXG\,QWHUVHFWLRQ
7UDIILF6LJQDO
6WRS6LJQ
$03HDN+RXU9ROXPH
303HDN+RXU9ROXPH
Project
Site
2 1
306
362

10
14 Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 17

SITE CIRCULATION AND OTHER ISSUES
Site Access
The project site would be located along 4th Street between E Street and Shaver Street. Vehicle access to the apartments will be provided by two driveways along Shaver Street. This approach would be the only access point to on-site parking and is expected to be adequate. Pedestrian access to the project will be provided through multiple entrances along 4th Street and E Street.

Sight Distance
AMG conducted stopping sight distance analysis in the field to ensure that there is sufficient distance for a driver to effectively apply the brakes and stop the vehicle without colliding with a vehicle/obstruction on the road. At driveways, a clear line of sight should be provided between the vehicle waiting at the driveway and the approaching vehicle. The vehicle waiting to either cross, turn left, or turn right, through the driveway should have sufficient time to make that maneuver without requiring the through traffic to drastically alter their speed.

Based on AMG’s field observations and The Highway Design Manual, July 1, 2020, Chapter 200 - Geometric Design & Structure Standards, Table 201.1 Sight Distance Standards, which recommends a stopping sight distance of 150 feet for a design speed of 25 mph, the sight distance for the west leg of the intersection on Shaver Street is adequate.

Based on City of San Rafael’s Municipal Code, Article 14.16.295 - Sight Distance, the required “vision triangle” at driveways is fifteen feet from the curb return. Any improvements or vegetation within that established vision triangle shall be less than 3 feet from the street pavement. Sight Distance for the driveways at Shaver Street should also be adequate, given that landscaping on Shaver Street is maintained at the dimensions mentioned above.

On-Site Circulation
AMG assessed the on-site circulation at the project site based on the site plan provided by the client.

The proposed project will have two driveways, that will allow entrance, parking, and exit of vehicles with a 30’ parking buffer. Both driveways access Shaver Street, that may cause congestion in the case of an emergency. Pedestrian entrances are provided on 4th Street and E Street, and 2 pedestrian emergency exits are provided in the basement. On-Site circulation is expected to be adequate, given that a parking management plan be provided by the project sponsor for tandem parking.

Pedestrian, Bicycle & Transit Facilities
The proposed project will seem to attract 10 PM peak hour non-vehicular trips as shown in Table 4.

These trips will cause no reduction in quality of service on existing facilities and will not reduce safety or access to pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. Therefore, the proposed project impacts on these facilities have no substantial effect.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 18 Pedestrian Access:

Sidewalks are provided along Shaver Street, 4th Street, and E Street in the vicinity of the project site.

The width of the sidewalk ranges from 6 feet to 8 feet. Crosswalks mentioned in the Existing Conditions at the study intersections would also provide pedestrian access to the project site from other crossstreets.

Currently, two driveways are located on 4th Street and one driveway on E Street. The proposed project will move these driveways to Shaver Street. Pedestrians would have increased safety on these two roadways. Based on AMG’s observations pedestrian access to the site is adequate.

Bicycle Access
There are Class III Bike facilities on 4th Street near the project site. These facilities include sharrow markings on the pavement and wayfinding signs to alert drivers that the roadway is shared with cyclists. The project will also provide bicycle parking with bike racks for eight bicycles on the sidewalk along 4th street.

Currently, cyclists on the Class III facilities on 4th Street have the threat of vehicles coming in and out of two driveways on 4th Street. The proposed project will move these driveways to Shaver Street, increasing safety for cyclists on 4th Street. Based on these observations, bicycle access to the project site is adequate.

Transit Facilities
There are two transit stops in the vicinity of the project site. One bus stop is on 4th Street west of the intersection with E Street. Pedestrians and cyclists can access this bus stop by using the crosswalk located at the west leg of the 4th Street/E Street intersection. Another stop is directly across the project site on the north side of 4th Street. Pedestrians and cyclists can access this bus stop by using the crosswalk located at the north leg of the 4th Street/E Street intersection. Hence, transit access to the project site is adequate.

Roadway Assessment
Shaver Street is a 30-foot-wide local roadway that currently has on-street parking on both sides. The proposed project will remove on-street parking adjacent to the project on Shaver Street. Removing onstreet parking on Shaver Street will increase roadway width from about 14 feet currently to about 22 feet wide (not including on-street parking), providing a safer roadway width for vehicles. Hence, the proposed roadway width for Shaver Street is adequate.

As mentioned above, the current sidewalk width on Shaver Street is 6 feet to 7 feet. The proposed project sidewalk will be widened to 8 feet to accommodate for the project driveways. An 18-inch planting strip flush with the sidewalk and adjacent to the building will be provided for additional safety of pedestrians. Hence, the proposed sidewalk for Shaver Street is adequate.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 19 Parking
The proposed project provides 179 parking spaces including four handicap parking spaces within the basement parking of the project site. There will be 205 bike parking spaces provided on bike racks located within the basement parking of the project site.

Table 6 summarizes the parking requirements for the proposed project based on City of San Rafael’s Downtown Precise Plan for buildings in the T4MS 50/70 Zone.

Table 6: Parking Requirements
Land Use Size Parking Demand Minimum Parking
Spaces Required
1 Bedroom Unit 115 units 0.5 57.5
2 Bedroom Unit 43 units 1 43
Total 102.5
Based on the parking analysis conducted, the proposed project provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces per the City of San Rafael’s parking requirements.

The proposed project will remove on-street parking adjacent to the project, and place 6 on-street parking spaces along 4th & E Street. There will be no net loss or net gain of on-street parking due to the proposed project.

Intersection Queueing
AMG evaluated 95th percentile queues in length for the site access study intersection to assess if the existing storage capacity is adequate with the proposed project demands. The 95th percentile queue was calculated using HCM 2000 methodology. Additionally, AMG reviewed the 95th percentile queue lengths at the northbound approach to ensure that the northbound approach queues do not extend past the first project driveway under existing plus project conditions. Table 7 summarizes the existing and existing plus project conditions queue lengths at the study intersection. Appendix E contains the Synchro 95th percentile queue length reports.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 20 Table 7: 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Analysis
# Intersection Movements
Existing
Storage
Length
(ft)
Existing Plus
Proposed
Project
Storage
Length (ft)
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Project
Conditions

AM PM AM PM
2 4th Street &
Shaver Street
EBTR 0* 0 - - - -
WBTL 0* 0 1 1 4 5
NBLR 0* 45** 12 9 31 16
Note:

EBTR=Eastbound shared through and right-turn; WBTL=Westbound shared through and left-turn; NBLR=Northbound shared right-turn and left-turn;
*Assumed based on existing Google Earth imagery.
**Storage for NBL & NBR movement is measured from the intersection to the first project driveway Based on the 95th percentile queue length analysis, the existing storage capacity for the eastbound approach, northbound left-turn and southbound right-turn movements is adequate to accommodate the proposed project trips.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 21

VMT ANALYSIS
In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743, which both streamlined review for transit-oriented infill projects and directed the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new practices and metrics to evaluate transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Specifically, SB 743 requires that Level of Service (LOS) metrics be replaced by VMT metrics for purposes of CEQA analysis. While SB 743 did not eliminate the ability of local agencies to continue using LOS as a planning metric in General Plans, it reflected a shift in perspective to more sustainable transportation planning that relies on metrics like VMT, which avoid discouraging infill development, and can help make non-automotive transportation faster, safer, and more reliable. The new guidelines require the use of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the metric for evaluating the significant traffic impacts to promote greenhouse gas emissions reductions, multimodal transportation networks and diverse land uses.

Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg 2013) adds Public Resources Code Section 21099 to CEQA and changes the way that transportation impacts are analyzed to better align local environmental review with statewide objectives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill mixed-use development in designated priority development areas, reduce regional sprawl development, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California.

The City of San Rafael has adopted VMT methodology for application within the city. The methodology has five screening criteria to determine if a project can be exempted from the VMT analysis.

1. Transit Priority Area (TPA): Projects located within ½ mile walkshed around major transit stops in San Rafael. The proposed project is not within ½ mile walkshed of a major transit stop.

However, it does border the Downtown San Rafael TPA.

2. Affordable Housing: 100% restricted affordable residential projects in infill locations. The project is located within an infill location.

3. Small Projects: Small projects can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact.

Small projects are defined as generating 110 or fewer average daily vehicle trips. The proposed project generates more than 110 daily vehicle trips.

4. Local Serving Public Facilities. Projects that consist of Local Serving Public Facilities that encompass government, civic, cultural, health, and infrastructure uses and activity which contribute to and support community needs. The proposed project is not a local serving public facility.

5. Neighborhood-Serving Retail Project. Neighborhood-serving retail projects that are less than 50,000 square feet, which serve the immediate neighborhoods. The proposed project’s retail has not been defined as a neighborhood-serving retail project.

6. Residential and Office Projects Located in Low VMT Areas. Residential and employmentgenerating projects located within a low VMT-generating area can be presumed to have a lessthan-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The proposed project is a residential generating project. Based on the information provided by the TAM model, the project is in a low VMT area per residents.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 22 Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. According to Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is generally the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, except for projects consisting of the addition of travel lanes to roadways. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project, regardless of the type of vehicle or number of occupants in a vehicle. Section 15064.3(b) establishes metrics and thresholds by which VMT can be evaluated for land use projects and transportation projects.

The proposed project is a mixed-use development in a downtown location that will increase nonvehicular trips and is expected to lower emissions and VMT within the project area. Based on evaluation performed for the San Rafael General Plan 2040, housing projects in Downtown San Rafael will be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. Hence, this proposed project will not contain a detailed VMT.

The project passes two of the criteria shown above, so it will not include VMT analysis.

Local Transportation Analysis for the Proposed 1515 Fourth Street Apartements Project | 23

CONCLUSIONS
• The proposed project would generate approximately 807 daily trips, including 60 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 61 new trips during the p.m. peak hour. • Both study intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing conditions during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Under existing plus project scenario, the intersection is expected to operate with acceptable LOD D during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hours. The increases in delay under the existing plus project scenario are less than five seconds. Based on the thresholds of significance criteria adopted by the City of San Rafael, this increase in delay is not considered a substantial deficiency.
• Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are adequate to serve the project site. • Site access to the project site within the project site is adequate. • Site Circulation within the project site is adequate. • Parking spaces provided at the project site are adequate. • The existing storage capacity for the project access street, and the shared northbound left and northbound right-turn out of the project site is adequate and will not result in spillover of traffic queues due to the addition of the project.

APPENDIX A | Project Site Plan
4TH STREET

SHAVER STREET

E STREET
POOL

LOCATION &

DIMENSIONS
TBD

CLUB ROOM
+51.75' +49.5'
+49.5'
+49.5'

RECEPTION
OFFICE
CONF
RETAIL
1,230 SF RETAIL 3,760 SF

STORAGE
(9 @3'X5')

PRIVATE
PATIO

PRIVATE
PATIO

PRIVATE
PATIO

PRIVATE
PATIO

GALLERY SPACE

CIVIC AREA
1,630 SF

CLUB ROOM
MAIL
ROOM

PACKAGE
ROOM
+49.5'
RETAIL
1,470 SF
RETAIL
1,190 SF
+50.75' +50.25'
RETAIL
1,275 SF
JAN
2 A3.2
1 A4.1
2 A3.1
1 A3.1
1 A3.2
2 A4.1
3 A4.1
WC WC

COURTYARD
STAIR
B
STAIR
A

STORAGE

PRIVATE PATIO PRIVATE PATIO

SLOPE DOWN
+42.5'
+30'
+51.75'
+48.19'
+49.25'
+45.4'
+45.5'
+46.65'
+50' 810 SF
1A
102
850 SF
1B
103
810 SF
1A
105
850 SF
1B
104
795 SF
1A
115
1,235 SF
2A
114
810 SF
1A
113
1,345 SF
2B
112
1,345 SF
2B
111
EXPANDED SIDEWALK CIVIC AREA 330 SF
38'-8" 10'-3" 11'-0" 62'-6" 11'-0" 35'-9"
38'-5" 11'-0" 51'-6" 11'-0" 73'-6" 11'-0" 51'-6" 11'-0" 38'-5" 33'-9" 11'-0" 35'-9" 10'-4"
71'-5" 35'-0" 5'-6" 35'-0"
93'-8"
15'-1"

PLAN ATGROUND LEVEL

A2.1

3/$1$7*5281'/(9(/
San Rafael, CA
1515
FOURTH
STREET
$//'5$:,1*6$1':5,77(10$7(5,$/$33($5,1*
+(5(,1&2167,787(25,*,1$/$1'8138%/,6+('
:25.2)7+($5&+,7(&7$1'0$<127%(
'83/,&$7('86('25',6&/26(':,7+287:5,77(1
&216(172)75$&+7(1%(5*$5&+,7(&76
-2%
2212
6+((7
)RXUWK6WUHHW
%HUNHOH\&DOLIRUQLD



ZZZ7UDFKWHQEHUJ$UFKFRP
75$&+7(1%(5*
$5&+,7(&76
6%$33/,&$7,213/$16
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
TRASH
MEP /
MAINT
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
3 CY
BIN
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
EXIT 1
EXIT 2

UNEXCAVATED
AREA
MEP /
MAINT
+30'
+30'
+30'
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
STAIR
A
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE

PARKING
80 SPACES
(75 STANDARD + 5 TANDEM)
4TH STREET

SHAVER STREET

E STREET

UNEXCAVATED
AREA 2
A3.2
1 A4.1
2 A3.1
1 A3.1
1 A3.2
2 A4.1
3 A4.1
+42.5'
+30'
+51.75'
+48.19'
+49.25'
+45.4'
+45.5'
+46.65'
+50'
22'-0" 87'-9" 24'-0"
PLAN ATLEVEL P2

A2.0A

3/$1$768%7(55$1($1%$6(0(173$5.,1*/(9(/3
San Rafael, CA
1515
FOURTH
STREET
$//'5$:,1*6$1':5,77(10$7(5,$/$33($5,1*
+(5(,1&2167,787(25,*,1$/$1'8138%/,6+('
:25.2)7+($5&+,7(&7$1'0$<127%(
'83/,&$7('86('25',6&/26(':,7+287:5,77(1
&216(172)75$&+7(1%(5*$5&+,7(&76
-2%
2212
6+((7
)RXUWK6WUHHW
%HUNHOH\&DOLIRUQLD



ZZZ7UDFKWHQEHUJ$UFKFRP
75$&+7(1%(5*
$5&+,7(&76
6%$33/,&$7,213/$16
GENERAL NOTES:

1. IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY RENOVATED PARKING
FACILITIES OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) OR MORE

SPACES ELECTRICAL CONDUIT CAPABLE OFSUPPORTING SUITABLE WIRING FOR AN ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING STATION SHALL BE

INSTALLED BETWEEN AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE

PANEL AND AN AREA OF CLEAN AIR VEHICLEPARKING SPACES AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. THE CONDUIT SHALL BE CAPPED AND
LABELED FOR POTENTIALFUTURE USE.
4TH STREET

SHAVER STREET

E STREET
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
AISLE
w/ 26'
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE

BIKE ROOM
(116 SPACES)
POOL
ABOVE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
EXIT 2
EXIT 1
ELEC. /
MEP
8' x 16'
w/ 26'
AISLE

COMPACT
8' x 16'
w/ 26'
AISLE

COMPACT
8' x 16'
w/ 26'
AISLE

COMPACT

UNEXCAVATED
AREA
MEP
MEP /
MAINT
+39.5'
+39.5'
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
AISLE
w/ 26'
8' x 16'

COMPACT
AISLE
w/ 26'
8' x 16'

COMPACT
AISLE
w/ 26'
8' x 16'

COMPACT
2 A3.2
1 A4.1
2 A3.1
1 A3.1
1 A3.2
2 A4.1
3 A4.1
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE
8'6" x 18'
w/ 26'
AISLE

PARKING
99 SPACES
(87 STANDARD + 12 TANDEM)
STAIR
B
STAIR
A
+42.5'
+30'
+51.75'
+48.19'
+49.25'
+45.4'
+45.5'
+46.65'
+50'

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE

CLEAN AIR

VEHICLE
22'-0" 87'-9" 24'-0"
PLAN ATLEVEL P1

A2.0B

3/$1$768%7(55$1($1%$6(0(173$5.,1*/(9(/3
San Rafael, CA
1515
FOURTH
STREET
$//'5$:,1*6$1':5,77(10$7(5,$/$33($5,1*
+(5(,1&2167,787(25,*,1$/$1'8138%/,6+('
:25.2)7+($5&+,7(&7$1'0$<127%(
'83/,&$7('86('25',6&/26(':,7+287:5,77(1
&216(172)75$&+7(1%(5*$5&+,7(&76
-2%
2212
6+((7
)RXUWK6WUHHW
%HUNHOH\&DOLIRUQLD



ZZZ7UDFKWHQEHUJ$UFKFRP
75$&+7(1%(5*
$5&+,7(&76
6%$33/,&$7,213/$16
GENERAL NOTES:

1. IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY RENOVATED PARKING
FACILITIES OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) OR MORE

SPACES ELECTRICAL CONDUIT CAPABLE OFSUPPORTING SUITABLE WIRING FOR AN ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING STATION SHALL BE

INSTALLED BETWEEN AN ELECTRICAL SERVICE

PANEL AND AN AREA OF CLEAN AIR VEHICLEPARKING SPACES AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. THE CONDUIT SHALL BE CAPPED AND
LABELED FOR POTENTIALFUTURE USE.

APPENDIX B | Traffic Volume Counts
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080329-001 Day:

City: San Rafael Date:

AM 35 67 13 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 39 83 18 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 23 0 15
0 248 0 327
000 00 28 0 12
10 0 25 0 TEV 953 0 1051 0 200
238 0 315 0 PHF 0.82 0.95
59 0 34 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 85 99 52 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 83 84 10 AM
0 NONE
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 147
E St & 4th St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
E St Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 11/3/2022

PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 109 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
387 0 261
Totals (AM) 145 Total Bikes (AM)
4th St

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
4th St
445 0 372

CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 138

NORTHBOUND
E St
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
12 0
1 8
0 2
180 1420
24 15
0 4
19 0
2 300 4150 8
0 14
0 1
9 1
010
101
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 5
0 0
3 0
100
010
23 248
34 28
315
25 398318
859952
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
15 327
59 12
238
10 356713
838410
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 22-080329-002 Day:

City: San Rafael Date:

AM 0000 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 000
0 357 0 432
000 00 14 0 8
000 0 TEV 780 0 779 0 100
306 0 362 0 PHF 0.85 0.94
9 0 10 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 13 0 22 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 17 0 8 AM
0 NONE
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 0
Shaver St & 4th St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Shaver St Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 11/3/2022

PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
385 0 314
Totals (AM) 24 Total Bikes (AM)
4th St

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
4th St
449 0 370

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(NB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 17

NORTHBOUND
Shaver St
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 0
0 1
110 3130
25 5
0 1
5 0
1 60 1690 16
0 14
1 1
10 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 6
0 0
4 0
000
000
0 357
10 14
362
0 000
13022
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 432
9 8
306
0 000
1708
APPENDIX C | Existing Conditions Synchro
Reports
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions
1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 238 59 12 327 15 83 84 10 13 67 35 Future Volume (vph) 10 238 59 12 327 15 83 84 10 13 67 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) -3% 3% 2% -2%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1883 1607 0 1816 0 0 1795 0 0 1788 0 Flt Permitted 0.960 0.979 0.715 0.947
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1815 1607 0 1782 0 0 1309 0 0 1703 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 120 6 4 35
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 355 335 214 214
Travel Time (s) 8.1 7.6 4.9 4.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.79 0.49 0.60 0.87 0.63 0.83 0.66 0.83 0.46 0.56 0.49 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 325 120 0 420 0 0 239 0 0 219 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2244
Permitted Phases 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4
Total Split (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Act Effct Green (s) 45.8 45.8 45.8 20.0 20.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.27 0.27
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.12 0.39 0.68 0.46
Control Delay 8.9 2.1 9.7 33.5 21.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.9 2.1 9.7 33.5 21.1

LOS A A A C C
Approach Delay 7.1 9.7 33.5 21.1
Approach LOS A A C C
Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 0 90 96 69
Queue Length 95th (ft) 108 0 164 103 62
Internal Link Dist (ft) 275 255 134 134
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1108 1027 1090 445 599
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions
1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.12 0.39 0.54 0.37
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 75
Actuated Cycle Length: 75
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBWB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68
Intersection Signal Delay: 15.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 306 9 8 432 17 8
Future Volume (vph) 306 9 8 432 17 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 1% -3% 7%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Satd. Flow (prot) 1844 0 0 1887 1670 0
Flt Permitted 0.998 0.965
Satd. Flow (perm) 1844 0 0 1887 1670 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 355 271
Travel Time (s) 7.0 8.1 6.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.56 0.40 0.87 0.53 0.67
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 453 0 0 517 44 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th TWSC Existing Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 306 9 8 432 17 8
Future Vol, veh/h 306 9 8 432 17 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - -3 7 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 56 40 87 53 67
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 437 16 20 497 32 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 453 0 982 445
Stage 1 - - - - 445 -
Stage 2 - - - - 537 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 7.82 6.92
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.82 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.82 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1108 - 189 562
Stage 1 - - - - 543 -
Stage 2 - - - - 476 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1108 - 184 562
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 184 -
Stage 1 - - - - 543 -
Stage 2 - - - - 464 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 24.9

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 225 - - 1108 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.196 - - 0.018 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 24.9 - - 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS C - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.1 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions
1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 25 315 34 28 248 23 85 99 52 18 83 39 Future Volume (vph) 25 315 34 28 248 23 85 99 52 18 83 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) -3% 3% 2% -2%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1883 1607 0 1800 0 0 1757 0 0 1786 0 Flt Permitted 0.960 0.925 0.757 0.935
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1815 1607 0 1675 0 0 1356 0 0 1682 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 48 11 20 35
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 355 335 214 214
Travel Time (s) 8.1 7.6 4.9 4.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.97 0.71 0.64 0.94 0.72 0.73 0.83 0.81 0.64 0.80 0.61 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 353 48 0 340 0 0 299 0 0 196 0
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2244
Permitted Phases 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4
Total Split (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Act Effct Green (s) 44.4 44.4 44.4 21.4 21.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.29 0.29
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.05 0.34 0.75 0.39
Control Delay 9.8 2.9 9.7 34.1 18.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.8 2.9 9.7 34.1 18.8

LOS A A A C B
Approach Delay 8.9 9.7 34.1 18.8
Approach LOS A A C B
Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 0 75 113 57
Queue Length 95th (ft) 141 9 136 169 89
Internal Link Dist (ft) 275 255 134 134
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 1074 970 996 472 592
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions
1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.05 0.34 0.63 0.33
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 75
Actuated Cycle Length: 75
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBWB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 16.8 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 362 10 14 357 13 22
Future Volume (vph) 362 10 14 357 13 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 1% -3% 7%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Satd. Flow (prot) 1840 0 0 1887 1628 0
Flt Permitted 0.998 0.977
Satd. Flow (perm) 1840 0 0 1887 1628 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 355 271
Travel Time (s) 7.0 8.1 6.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.50 0.70 0.94 0.54 0.79
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 401 0 0 400 52 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th TWSC Existing Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 362 10 14 357 13 22
Future Vol, veh/h 362 10 14 357 13 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - -3 7 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 50 70 94 54 79
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 381 20 20 380 24 28
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 401 0 811 391
Stage 1 - - - - 391 -
Stage 2 - - - - 420 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 7.82 6.92
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.82 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.82 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1158 - 255 609
Stage 1 - - - - 587 -
Stage 2 - - - - 563 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1158 - 249 609
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 249 -
Stage 1 - - - - 587 -
Stage 2 - - - - 551 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 16.5

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 365 - - 1158 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.142 - - 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 16.5 - - 8.2 0
HCM Lane LOS C - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.1 -
APPENDIX D | Existing Plus Project
Conditions Synchro Reports
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 267 66 12 337 15 85 84 10 13 67 37 Future Volume (vph) 14 267 66 12 337 15 85 84 10 13 67 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 3% 3% 2% -2%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1827 1560 0 1816 0 0 1793 0 0 1784 0 Flt Permitted 0.945 0.978 0.707 0.947
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1734 1560 0 1780 0 0 1295 0 0 1700 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 135 6 4 37
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 355 335 214 214
Travel Time (s) 8.1 7.6 4.9 4.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.79 0.49 0.60 0.87 0.63 0.83 0.66 0.83 0.46 0.56 0.49 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 371 135 0 431 0 0 241 0 0 224 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2244
Permitted Phases 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4
Total Split (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Act Effct Green (s) 45.6 45.6 45.6 20.2 20.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.27 0.27
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.13 0.40 0.69 0.46
Control Delay 9.6 2.1 9.9 33.9 21.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.6 2.1 9.9 33.9 21.0

LOS A A A C C
Approach Delay 7.6 9.9 33.9 21.0
Approach LOS A A C C
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 75
Actuated Cycle Length: 75
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBWB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Intersection Signal Delay: 15.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 306 10 22 432 22 48
Future Volume (vph) 306 10 22 432 22 48
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 1% -3% 7%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Satd. Flow (prot) 1844 0 0 1881 1615 0
Flt Permitted 0.995 0.982
Satd. Flow (perm) 1844 0 0 1881 1615 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 355 254
Travel Time (s) 7.0 8.1 5.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.56 0.40 0.87 0.53 0.67
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 455 0 0 552 114 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 306 10 22 432 22 48
Future Vol, veh/h 306 10 22 432 22 48
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - -3 7 -
Peak Hour Factor 70 56 40 87 53 67
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 437 18 55 497 42 72
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 455 0 1053 446
Stage 1 - - - - 446 -
Stage 2 - - - - 607 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 7.82 6.92
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.82 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.82 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1106 - 163 561
Stage 1 - - - - 542 -
Stage 2 - - - - 534 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1106 - 152 561
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 152 -
Stage 1 - - - - 542 -
Stage 2 - - - - 497 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 26.1

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 282 - - 1106 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.401 - - 0.05 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 26.1 - - 8.4 0
HCM Lane LOS D - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.8 - - 0.2 -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 27 327 37 2 28 274 23 91 99 52 18 83 Future Volume (vph) 27 327 37 2 28 274 23 91 99 52 18 83 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 3% 3% 2% -2%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 00 00
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 00 00
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1827 1560 0 0 1800 0 0 1757 0 0 1780 Flt Permitted 0.955 0.914 0.738 0.936
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1752 1560 0 0 1657 0 0 1323 0 0 1678 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 52 10 19 38
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 355 335 214 214
Travel Time (s) 8.1 7.6 4.9 4.9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.97 0.71 0.25 0.64 0.94 0.72 0.73 0.83 0.81 0.64 0.80 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 367 52 0 0 375 0 0 308 0 0 202
Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 2222 44 44
Total Split (s) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Act Effct Green (s) 44.0 44.0 44.0 21.8 21.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.29 0.29
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.06 0.38 0.77 0.39
Control Delay 10.3 2.8 10.4 36.2 18.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.3 2.8 10.4 36.2 18.5

LOS B A B D B
Approach Delay 9.3 10.4 36.2 18.5
Approach LOS A B D B
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 75
Actuated Cycle Length: 75
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBWB, Start of 1st Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 43
Future Volume (vph) 43
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12
Grade (%)
Storage Length (ft) 0
Storage Lanes 0
Taper Length (ft)
Satd. Flow (prot) 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0
Right Turn on Red Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Link Speed (mph)
Link Distance (ft)
Travel Time (s)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.61
Growth Factor 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%)
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Total Split (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Intersection Signal Delay: 17.4 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: E St. & 4th St./4th St.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing Plus Project Conditions 2: Shaver St. & 4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 362 14 50 357 15 41
Future Volume (vph) 362 14 50 357 15 41
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Grade (%) 1% -3% 7%
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25
Satd. Flow (prot) 1837 0 0 1876 1611 0
Flt Permitted 0.992 0.983
Satd. Flow (perm) 1837 0 0 1876 1611 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 307 355 254
Travel Time (s) 7.0 8.1 5.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.50 0.70 0.94 0.54 0.79
Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Bus Blockages (#/hr) 000000
Parking (#/hr)
Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0%
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 409 0 0 451 80 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 6th TWSC Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/28/2022
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 362 14 50 357 15 41
Future Vol, veh/h 362 14 50 357 15 41
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 1 - - -3 7 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 50 70 94 54 79
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 381 28 71 380 28 52
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 409 0 917 395
Stage 1 - - - - 395 -
Stage 2 - - - - 522 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 7.82 6.92
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.82 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.82 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1150 - 211 606
Stage 1 - - - - 584 -
Stage 2 - - - - 486 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1150 - 195 606
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 195 -
Stage 1 - - - - 584 -
Stage 2 - - - - 448 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 18.3

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 349 - - 1150 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.228 - - 0.062 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 18.3 - - 8.3 0
HCM Lane LOS C - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.2 -
APPENDIX E | 95th Percentile Queue Length
Synchro Reports
Queue Analysis Existing Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/29/2022
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 306 9 8 432 17 8
Future Volume (Veh/h) 306 9 8 432 17 8
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 1% -3% 7%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.56 0.40 0.87 0.53 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 437 16 20 497 32 12
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 355
pX, platoon unblocked 0.90
vC, conflicting volume 453 982 445
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 453 925 445
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 88 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 1108 263 613
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 453 517 44
Volume Left 0 20 32
Volume Right 16 0 12
cSH 1700 1108 312
Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.02 0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 12
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 18.4
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.5 18.4
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queue Analysis Existing Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/29/2022
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 10 14 357 13 22
Future Volume (Veh/h) 362 10 14 357 13 22
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 1% -3% 7%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.50 0.70 0.94 0.54 0.79
Hourly flow rate (vph) 381 20 20 380 24 28
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 355
pX, platoon unblocked 0.96
vC, conflicting volume 401 811 391
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 401 780 391
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 98 93 96
cM capacity (veh/h) 1158 341 657
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 401 400 52
Volume Left 0 20 24
Volume Right 20 0 28
cSH 1700 1158 460
Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.02 0.11
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 9
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 13.8
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.6 13.8
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queue Analysis Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. AM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/29/2022
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 306 10 22 432 22 48
Future Volume (Veh/h) 306 10 22 432 22 48
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 1% -3% 7%
Peak Hour Factor 0.70 0.56 0.40 0.87 0.53 0.67
Hourly flow rate (vph) 437 18 55 497 42 72
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 355
pX, platoon unblocked 0.89
vC, conflicting volume 455 1053 446
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 455 999 446
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 95 82 88
cM capacity (veh/h) 1106 228 612
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 455 552 114
Volume Left 0 55 42
Volume Right 18 0 72
cSH 1700 1106 377
Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.05 0.30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 31
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 18.6
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 18.6
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Queue Analysis Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Shaver St. & 4th St. PM Peak
1515 Fourth Street Apartments LTA Synchro 11 Report
AMG 11/29/2022
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 362 14 50 357 15 41
Future Volume (Veh/h) 362 14 50 357 15 41
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 1% -3% 7%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.50 0.70 0.94 0.54 0.79
Hourly flow rate (vph) 381 28 71 380 28 52
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 355
pX, platoon unblocked 0.94
vC, conflicting volume 409 917 395
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 409 877 395
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 94 90 92
cM capacity (veh/h) 1150 279 654
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 409 451 80
Volume Left 0 71 28
Volume Right 28 0 52
cSH 1700 1150 445
Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.06 0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 5 16
Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 14.9
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 14.9
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
May 3, 2023
San Rafael City Council
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue,
San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: Rebuttal to Appeal of The City of San Rafael Planning Department’s Approval of 1515 4th Street Apartments Project No. (s): PLAN22-039 and ED22-016 Dear San Rafael City Council,
The AMG team was made aware of an appeal to the approval for the mixed-use development at 1515 4th Street. The appeal raised concerns regarding our Local Traffic Analysis (LTA) and we would like to address these below.

AMG properly assessed public health, safety, and traffic safety impacts of the proposed development. The LTA only analyzed the intersections with immediate access to the project site for various reasons.

On September 9, 2022, prior to commencing analysis, City staff outlined the City’s requirements in accordance with San Rafael’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines. This scope identified the intersections providing immediate access to the project site (4th Street/ Shaver Street & 4th Street E Street) as the intersections required for analysis.

During analysis, our team referenced The City of San Rafael’s Transportation Analysis (TA) Guidelines. These guidelines affirm that Tier 2B projects within the Downtown San Rafael Area only need to prepare a Local Traffic Analysis that focuses on assessing project driveways, and 2- 4 intersections providing immediate access to the project site. The AMG team also referenced San Rafael’s Downtown Precise Plan and considers that this plan wholly exhibits the existing conditions in the area. Another reason the team only considered the intersections adjacent to the project site was to create a conservative analysis. If other intersections or roadways had been considered, the number of trips would have been distributed to other roadways minimizing the traffic impact at the study intersections.

AMG also properly assessed the public safety issues on the proposed project’s driveways. The sidewalks adjacent to the project driveways will be separated by an 18-inch planting strip acting as a buffer between pedestrians and the project driveways providing additional safety for pedestrians. This planting strip “buffer” was mentioned under the Roadway Assessment section of our LTA.

Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
In addition, a flashing light will be installed at
each driveway to alert pedestrians of any
vehicles exiting the driveway, providing
additional safety. Exhibit 1 shows a similar
flashing light system installed in another San
Rafael project.

In addition to our study, to respond better to
the appeal we did an additional queuing
analysis at the project driveways to ensure
that there was sufficient storage for queuing
at both driveways. At both driveways, a Gate
System will be recessed from the edge of the
driveway, to enhance pedestrian safety on the sidewalk. Exhibit 2 below shows the gate at the driveway entrance for another project in San Rafael.

The garage access gate takes approximately 5-
10 seconds to open and serve a car. Using
Poisson’s Distribution Model, and the trip
generation for the project, the arrival rate at
the driveway is expected to be 0.25 veh/min
and the service rate is 6 veh/min (assuming 10
seconds to serve). Based on the expected
arrival and service rates, the average number
of vehicles in the queue is calculated to be

0.002 vehicles, meaning that the queue length
at the driveways is never expected to be more
than one car. The project driveways have
enough storage to accommodate a car without conflicting with pedestrian activities on the sidewalk.

Our Team properly assessed the roadway conditions on Shaver Street. The proposed development will remove on-street parking fronting the project site on Shaver Street which will increase the roadway width on Shaver Street to 22 feet, which will improve safety and traffic operations on Shaver Street.

The AMG team was also made aware of the peer reviewed traffic analysis by PHA Traffic Consultants. We have prepared a separate response to that peer reviewed traffic analysis.

Exhibit 2: Gate at the Driveway Entrance
Exhibit 1: Flashing Light System
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
After re-reviewing our traffic analysis, we have reconfirmed the proposed project is safe for pedestrians, neighbors, motorists, and residents. The Project also complies with all City Codes, Design Standards, and Industry Safety Guidelines.

Best Regards,
Advanced Mobility Group (AMG),
Joy Bhattacharya, PE, PTOE
[email protected]
(415) 688-0024

Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
May 4, 2023
San Rafael City Council
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue,
San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: Rebuttal to Peer Review Response by PHA Transportation Consultants on Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) prepared for 1515 4th Street Dear San Rafael City Council,
The AMG team was made aware that a peer review of our Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) for the mixed-use development at 1515 4th Street was submitted to you as part of an appeal.

The peer review by PHA Transportation Consultants raised concerns regarding our LTA. We will address each concern (italicized text) in the format compiled in the peer review.

Project Descriptions
The project description lacks details on the type of apartments, site traffic access, driveways locations, garage access, and the land uses in the vicinity of the project site. These details are needed for people to visualize the magnitude of the project and how well the project fits in the area.

AMG thoroughly described the project throughout the entire LTA. We followed the scope of work and the requirements for the LTA provided by City Staff. Details on apartment types and land use types surrounding the vicinity of the project are not within our scope of work, per the email and the San Rafael Transportation Analysis (TA) guidelines. Our team went above and beyond describing site traffic access, driveway locations, and garage access in LTA. Please refer to the descriptions in the Site Access and Roadway Assessment sections in our LTA, and Appendix A includes the project site plan where the driveway locations are shown. -LTA adequately describes apartment type, site traffic access, driveway locations, garage access, and surrounding land uses.

Project Trip/Traffic Generation Analysis
The report shows the daily apartment trip generation rate as 2.93 per dwelling unit (ITE land use code 221, “Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition”). This appears Low. The trip rate from the previous “Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition” for the same mid-rise apartment is 5.44 trips per day per dwelling unit. At 2.93 trips per unit per day, the residential portion of the project will generate 475 daily trips, while at 5.44 trips per unit per day, it will generate 881 daily trips. This Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
discrepancy means the traffic report may have significantly underestimated the traffic impact of the project.

After re-reviewing our Trip Generation Analysis, we have validated our results. Per San Rafael’s TA guidelines, a Transportation Analysis should use the latest edition of the “Trip Generation Manual” for Trip Generation Analysis. AMG followed these guidelines and used the latest edition of the manual that uses studies that are more pertinent to the project. Also, the value provided in the peer review seems to be an unreliable comparison. Looking at the 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual, we found that the average trip rate for a Multi-family Housing development with four to ten floors of living space in a dense multi-use urban location is 2.59.

This value is actually lower than the 2.93 average trip rate used in our analysis. -Traffic Impact was analyzed adequately in accordance with City TA Guidelines and Latest ITE Code.

The project site is developed and currently occupied by commercial uses. How much more traffic the proposed project will generate compared to the previous use? Are there credits (reductions) taken for the previous use of the site in the traffic analysis? As indicated on Table 4 of the LTA report, no credits were taken for previous commercial use at the project site. If credits had been incorporated, the net new total trips would have been lower. AMG decided to conduct a conservative analysis without taking any credits for the previous use.
-No Credits were taken for the previous use of site in the LTA.

Study Intersection Traffic LOS Analysis
With 162 apartments plus 9,000 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial use, site related traffic will likely access the site from various directions via 4th Street, 3rd Street, Second Street, Shaver Street, and E Street. The traffic report evaluates traffic operations (LOS) on only two intersections along 4th Street near the project site. This is inadequate and will be unable to fully capture the project trips and the traffic impact of the project on the other surrounding intersections.

AMG’s Level of Service Analysis at the study intersections fully captured the traffic impact of the development. The scope sent by City Staff identified the intersections providing immediate access to the project site (4th Street/ Shaver Street & 4th Street E Street) as the intersections required for analysis. The City of San Rafael’s TA Guidelines sustain that Tier 2B projects within the Downtown San Rafael Area will only need to prepare a Local Traffic Analysis that focuses on assessing project driveways, and 2-4 intersections providing immediate access to the project site.

Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
The AMG team also referenced San Rafael’s Downtown Precise Plan and considers that this plan comprehensively shows the traffic impact of all the combined development in the area.

Another reason the team only considered the intersections adjacent to the project site was to create a conservative analysis. If other intersections or roadways had been considered, the number of trips would have been distributed to other roadways minimizing the traffic impact at the study intersections.
-Project Trips and Traffic Impact were adequately captured in the LTA.

Traffic Conditions Study Scenario
The traffic report studies only two traffic scenarios, existing and existing plus the project scenario. This is inadequate and will likely miss the cumulative traffic from other proposed but not yet built or occupied development projects in the area. These approved but not yet built projects will add more traffic to the study area affecting traffic operations when they are complete and occupied.

AMG adequately assessed the traffic impact expected to be created by the development in the future. Per San Rafael’s TA Guidelines, projects that are exempt for VMT Analysis do not need to consider other Cumulative or Baseline Conditions in addition to the Existing and Existing Plus Project (Near-Term Condition) Scenarios. The TA guidelines also state that projects consistent with the General Plan will only be required to complete Existing and Near-Term Conditions. As mentioned above, the Downtown Precise Plan analyses the cumulative conditions surrounding the project area in a comprehensive manner and it has been approved and accepted by the City.
-The Project Traffic was studied adequately per City Scope and City TA Guidelines.

Project Site Access (Driveway Access)
The project site plan shows two site access driveways to be located on Shaver Street while pedestrian access will be on E Street. There is a discussion on the stopping sight distance for vehicles, however, there is no discussion on the sight distance between the exiting vehicle and pedestrians on the sidewalk. The sight distance between exiting vehicles and pedestrians is critical if the access driveways (garage driveways) have solid walls on both sides of the driveway while the sidewalks are narrow. In this situation, motorists exiting the garage driveways may not be able to see pedestrians in time to stop until the front end of the vehicle reaches the middle of the sidewalk, thus creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians.

This is especially crucial for vehicles exiting (emerging) from the underground garage, which will make it even more difficult for motorists and pedestrians to see each other.

AMG properly assessed the proposed project’s driveways. Field Work was conducted in which a safe sight distance was verified. The sidewalks adjacent to the project driveways will be Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
separated by an 18-inch planting strip acting as a buffer between pedestrians and the project driveways providing additional safety for pedestrians. This planting strip “buffer” was mentioned under the Roadway Assessment section of our LTA. A flashing light system will be installed at each driveway to alert pedestrians of any vehicles exiting the driveway, providing additional safety.
-Sight lines for exiting vehicles are safe for pedestrians.

As discussed earlier, the site access driveways are links between the project site and the adjacent street network. The report did not identify and discuss the number of entering and exiting lanes for the proposed driveways and traffic controls, signs, and security gates needed; and whether or not the driveway design and traffic entering and exiting the driveways would create conflicts with traffic circulation in Shaver Street.

AMG properly assessed the site access of the project driveways. Each driveway will have a lane in each direction separated by a concrete median. A security gate will be installed at each driveway, which will open with a remote control. The width of each lane will be between 11 – 12 feet, which will provide sufficient room for vehicles to enter. These features are shown in Appendix A of the LTA.
-Project driveway design will not create conflicts with traffic circulation on Shaver St.

Shaver Street is a narrow two-way street with parking on both sides and narrow pedestrian sidewalks. The two proposed project access driveways will likely impact traffic operation, pedestrians, and residential access to and from Shaver Street and Latham Street.

As indicated in the LTA report, AMG acknowledged that Shaver Street is a narrow roadway that is 30 feet wide. Currently, the drive aisle width of Shaver St. is 14 ft. The project is relocating on-street parking fronting the project on Shaver Street to 4th & E street, increasing roadway width to 22 feet, making it safer for vehicles to access Shaver Street. As discussed above, the sidewalk adjacent to the project will have an 18-inch planter buffer to provide additional pedestrian safety.
-Shaver St. will continue to be safe for traffic operation, pedestrians, and residential access to and from Shaver St. & Latham St.

Parking (On-Street and On-Site)
The two proposed access driveways on Shaver Street will result in a loss of on-street parking spaces. Will the project provide parking spaces in the parking garage to compensate for the loss of street parking? The project includes 9,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. Are there parking spaces in the parking garage designated for retail use? Or will they be accommodated on the street?
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
As indicated in the LTA report, the on-street parking will be relocated to 4th and E Street resulting in no net loss or gain of on-street parking. Besides assuring no loss of on-street parking, no additional parking analysis was required, since the project will not impact or result in parking gain or loss. In addition, parking analysis was not included in the scope of the project per the email sent by City Staff on September 9, 2022, and is not warranted by the City’s guidelines. Per San Rafael Downtown Precise Plan Section 2.3.040 – the Project has no retail parking requirement.

The report does not discuss the internal circulation, drive aisles and how vehicles will navigate within the parking garage, and whether or not some of the parking spaces will be designated for the ground floor retail use.

AMG properly analyzed internal circulation within the parking garage. No vehicles larger than a single unit car will be allowed in the parking garage. As indicated in the LTA report, entrance and exit of vehicles will be adequate. In addition to the report, AMG prepared turning radii diagrams to show that circulation and entrance within the parking garage is adequate. The diagrams are included as an appendix to this letter.
-Internal circulation in parking garage is adequate. As stated above, Project has no retail parking requirement.

Signals Warrant Study for Stop Control Intersections
The intersection of 4th Street and Shaver Street is controlled by a stop sign at the Shaver Street approach. The report needs to discuss whether or not the intersection needs to be signalized with the addition of the project traffic and also traffic from other approved but not yet built projects in the area.

Per the scope of work outlined in the email from City Staff, a Signal Warrant Study was not needed as part of our LTA. Additionally, the Level of service at the 4th Street & Shaver Street intersection is not affected significantly as shown in Table 5 of the LTA report. This table also shows that average delay increases by less than 2 seconds in Existing Plus Project Condition.

With the proposed project, the intersection continues to operate at levels of service that are within acceptable standards of the city, thus a traffic signal is not warranted. However, in response to the peer review, AMG did verify that this intersection does not meet the warrants for installing a traffic signal.
-No traffic signal is warranted with added Project Trips Study Area Traffic Safety
The proposed project site is bordered by 4th Street, 3rd Street, and 2nd Street further south.

All of these streets are crosstown arterial streets that provide access to and from the Freeway US 101. These streets have on-street and must also must share the road with Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com
bicyclists. Traffic safety is a major concern.

AMG properly evaluated the traffic safety impacts caused by the proposed development. The San Rafael TA guidelines do not require analysis of streets not providing immediate access to the project for Tier 2B projects in Downtown San Rafael. Additionally, Table 4 shows that the project will only create 60 and 71 new peak hour trips in the AM and PM respectively. This is a low number for an area that already experiences high volumes, so these new trips will not aggravate the existing condition.
-Added Project Trips will not cause additional traffic safety concerns.

Conclusion:

After re-reviewing our traffic analysis and reviewing the peer review comments, we have validated our conclusions in the LTA report that the proposed project does not have any significant impact. We have reconfirmed that the proposed project is safe for pedestrians, neighbors, motorists, and residents. The Project also complies with all City Codes, Design Standards, and Industry Safety Guidelines.

Best Regards,
Advanced Mobility Group (AMG),
Joy Bhattacharya, PE, PTOE
[email protected]
(415) 688-0024
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd. Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94597 | www.amobility.com

APPENDIX
The following Sheets contain the Turning Radius Diagrams for the mixed-use development project at 1515 4th Street in San Rafael. These diagrams show the path movement a vehicle may make to safely navigate the project driveways. The diagram shows the path of the centerline turning radius, and its boundaries depict the path taken by the front overhang of the vehicle and the path of the inner wheel.

Sheet 1 shows the turning radius movements of a passenger vehicle entering the project driveways by making a left turn.

Sheet 2 shows the turning radius movements of a passenger vehicle entering the project driveways by making a right turn.

Sheet 3 shows the turning radius movements of a passenger vehicle exiting the project driveways by making a left turn. The driveway sight triangle is also depicted in this sheet per San Rafael Municipal Code Guidelines.

Sheet 4 shows the turning radius movements of a passenger vehicle exiting the project driveways by making a right turn. The driveway sight triangle is also depicted in this sheet per San Rafael Municipal Code Guidelines.

May 1, 2023
San Rafael City Council
1400 Fi�h Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Mayor Colin, and Councilmembers Gula�, Kertz, Hill, and Bushey:

The Marin Organizing Commitee is submi�ng comments in favor of the proposed apartment and retail project to be developed by Monahan Pacific on a 0.88-acre lot located at 1515 Fourth Street in downtown San Rafael. The property had been the loca�on of Westamerica Bank for over 45 years.

Consis�ng of over 15,000 Marin residents, the 24 ins�tu�onal organiza�ons who make up MOC are located both in San Rafael, and in ci�es throughout the County.

The prepara�on of the San Rafael Downtown Precise Plan had wide community engagement and created a plan covering a 20-year period (2020-2040). The primary goal of the new Downtown Precise Plan was to keep the downtown as the City’s center. The decision to research and develop this comprehensive plan, was primarily based on the “Downtown’s role as the commercial, employment, and transit center for San Rafael and Marin County, and the opportunity for community growth and much-needed housing.”
Given the need for housing in San Rafael, the loca�on for this apartment development in the West End Village will make it a desirable place to live. It will be situated where there are services, businesses and restaurants, and this is exactly how to keep the downtown a vibrant area. Further, this loca�on will increase housing choices for our local workforce both in San Rafael and the County as they can either walk to work or take public transit.

The San Rafael Planning Commission approved the proposal for this development in April 2023. While we recognize that the size of this new building has people who live in the area directly behind the development concerned about the influx of new traffic, the development will have a two-level garage with 179 parking spaces and bike storage. There is a plan for 162 apartments, and 13 of those would be designated below market rate.

Finding housing for very low-income households in our community is one of the most challenging tasks to accomplish. This urban-style project on Fourth Street was approved by the Planning Commission because it came under the State housing laws to fast-track mul�-family apartments. MOC has been suppor�ve of these State laws but given the benefits to the developer we would encourage the company to increase the number of below market-rate apartments by three, for a total of sixteen.

MOC strongly urges the San Rafael City Council to deny the appeal and to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval.

Sincerely,
Judith Bloomberg, Congrega�on Rodef Sholom
Victoria T. Holdridge, Unitarian Universalist Congrega�on of Marin Ron Brown, Congrega�on Kol Shofar
From: Jenny Silva
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 9:01 PM
To: Lindsay Lara <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Pendoley ; Carmela Davis
Subject: Comments on 1515 4th Street Appeal, May 8
Dear City Clerk Lindsay,
Please submit the following comments to the public record for the May 8 public meeting regarding the 1515 4th Street appeal.

Dear Mayor Colin and Councilmembers:

The Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative (MEHC) advocates for projects and policies that advance affordable housing, environmental integrity, and social justice. We are writing to support the approval of the 1515 4th Street project.

This is the type of project that San Rafael and Marin County needs to solve its housing crisis and to reduce car dependency and greenhouse emissions. It will provide 162 housing units to local workers who are currently forced to commute long distances, and it is in a walkable area near transit. This project will make an important contribution to Downtown San Rafael’s vitality.

The proposed height and density of this project are important environmental benefits. The smaller footprint on land uses less water and energy than a lower density design. This project will have just a fraction of the environmental impact than 162 single-family homes would.

The project is consistent with the Downtown Precise plan including the development standards and massing and facade articulation in the form-based code. The Downtown Precise Plan was developed and adopted specifically to encourage higher density mixed use development. The architecture is attractive and will be a visual asset to Downtown.

We are particularly pleased that this project includes 13 apartments affordable to very low-income households. Very low-income households the most difficult to provide with affordable housing. The developer is getting significant benefit from the Downtown Precise Plan, the Housing Accountability Act and SB35, all of which we support. We encourage Monahan Pacific to offer three more units at affordable rents to meet the 10% inclusionary requirement.

We strongly urge you to approve the proposal for 1515 Fourth Street.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Silva, Board Chair
Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative
[Type here]
Tax deductible donations made payable to MEHC will be administered by MarinLink, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes and sponsors community-based projects.

May 4, 2023
Mayor and City Council
City of San Rafael
1400 Fourth Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear Mayor Colin and Councilmembers:

The Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative (MEHC) advocates for projects and policies that advance affordable housing, environmental integrity, and social justice. We are writing to support the approval of the 1515 4th Street project.

This is the type of project that San Rafael and Marin County needs to solve its housing crisis and to reduce car dependency and greenhouse emissions. It will provide 162 housing units to local workers who are currently forced to commute long distances, and it is in a walkable area near transit. This project will make an important contribution to Downtown San Rafael’s vitality.

The proposed height and density of this project are important environmental benefits. The smaller footprint on land uses less water and energy than a lower density design. This project will have just a fraction of the environmental impact than 162 single-family homes would.

The project is consistent with the Downtown Precise plan including the development standards and massing and facade articulation in the form-based code. The Downtown Precise Plan was developed and adopted specifically to encourage higher density mixed use development. The architecture is attractive and will be a visual asset to Downtown.

We are particularly pleased that this project includes 13 apartments affordable to very low-income households. Very low-income households the most difficult to provide with affordable housing. The developer is getting significant benefit from the Downtown Precise Plan, the Housing Accountability Act and SB35, all of which we support. We encourage Monahan Pacific to offer three more units at affordable rents to meet the 10% inclusionary requirement.

We strongly urge you to approve the proposal for 1515 Fourth Street.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Silva, Board Chair
Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative
BOARD
Jennifer Silva, Chair
Betsey Cutler
Lucie Hollingsworth
Linda M. Jackson
Paul Jensen
Shiraz Kaderali
Larry Kennings
David Levin
Robert Pendoley
Steven Saxe
Chantel Walker
Warren Wells

ADVISORY BOARD
Ron Albert
Paula Allen
Margot Biehle
Greg Brockbank
Katherine Crecelius
John Eller
Casey Epp
Kathleen Foote
Mayme Hubert
Cesar Lagleva
Stacey Laumann
Stephanie Lovette
Marge Macris
Scott Quinn
Michele Rodriguez
Annette Rose
Colin Russell
Ethan Strull
Mary Kay Sweeney
Joe Walsh
Joanne Webster
Steve Willis
Sallyanne Wilson
Tom Wilson
Kiki LaPorta,
Communications
P.O. Box 9633
San Rafael CA 94912
www.MarinMEHC.org
[email protected]
From: Sangita Moskow
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 9:50 AM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: building on 1515 4th San Rafael
Of course we need more housing.

NOT ANY HOUSING.

Appropriate size, location, and cost with
community needs in mind.

Developer has a bad reputation. What kind of
bidding happened?
Why so little notice given to the people affected
by this building?
Lisa Moskow
From: Scott Prentice
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 10:07 AM
To: Jeff Ballantine <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Public comment for Planning Commission – April 11, 2023 Hi Jeff,
It's my understanding that there's a City Council meeting on May 8 to discuss an appeal that's been put forth by a resident of Shaver Street. I don't see anything about this in the City Council agenda for May 8, and am wondering if this is actually a different meeting? Do you know anything about this?
I feel that the drawings provided by the developer were intentionally misleading regarding the relationship between the surrounding buildings and the proposed structure. The perspective drawings were done in such a way that makes the new building look just a bit bigger, but are not truly representative of the vast difference in scale. I've done some basic street elevations that show this more accurately .. https://iarch.net/sanrafael/1515-4th-context-elevations.pdf Unless this appeal goes somewhere, it seems that it's too late to make any significant changes in the size of this building, but I wanted to send this drawing to the city so you can see what's really being proposed.

Thanks,
Scott Prentice