Northgate-Correspondence-2024-12-02-online — San Rafael City Council, December 2, 2024

Outlook
Northgate project concerns
From Ashraf Mohtarami
Date Mon 12/2/2024 3:39 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Hey there,
I am emailing the city clerk of San Rafael to voice my concerns about the Northgate housing project. I am very concerned about this project for many reasons but I wanted to express my main concerns with the traffic issues and the noise. This project will ruin the roads and cause major traffic jams as there isn't a proper road infrastructure to have that many people driving on the narrow streets.

Please consider the project as it will affect alot of the neighborhood around it.

Thank you
Ashraf
12/2/24, 3:45 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 -----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Baker <
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 1:05 PM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Northgate project
Please add my voice against the current plan. My concerns are traffic congestion, lack of green park space, height of building. I’d like to see it look like a suburban not urban development.

Barbara Baker Villa Marin resident
Sent from my iPhon
Outlook
Public Comment: Support for the Northgate Town Square
From Barbara Strong < >
Date Mon 12/2/2024 2:28 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Dear City Council members,
I am writing to you today in support of the Northgate Town Square housing project. I urge you to vote to approve the project at the December 2nd meeting.

Marin needs to be more accessible for moderate to low income families and individuals. This project directly addresses the housing crisis by providing affordable units, with some home ownership opportunities in addition to rentals. Additionally, the plans include accessible units that are compliant with updated ADA guidelines, which will provide housing options for those with disabilities.

There are also positive environmental components to developing mixed use buildings. The Northgate Mall is already developed land, and urban infill is the most environmentally friendly option for new developments. This project is in a transit dense area, it will improve bike infrastructure - which will lead to decreased car dependency, and all the housing units are 100% electric. As we continue to combat climate change and environmental concerns, it is imperative to build housing that mitigates these issues.

This project will do so.

This project is much needed for the community and Marin County as a whole. I encourage your vote of approval.

Sincerely,
Barbara Strong
Greenbrae
12/2/24, 3:28 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 Outlook
URGENT: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT December 2, 2024 From Claire Halenbeck < >
Date Mon 12/2/2024 2:05 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> 1 attachment (31 KB)
2024.12.02 for public comment at City Council Meeting.pdf; Hi Lindsay,
I’m sorry this is so last minute, but with family here from out of town for the past week, I couldn’t finish this until now. Thank you for including this in tonight’s public comment. And thank you for your understanding!
/claire
Claire Halenbeck, IIDA, CID
Artist/Certified Interior Designer
art:

Instagram:

Interior Design:

RMA.studio
12/2/24, 3:27 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
City Council Meeting
December 2, 2024
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Claire Halenbeck, I’m a retired business owner and a 46-year resident of San Rafael including 30 years in Terra Linda. I’m speaking tonight on behalf of the Responsible Growth in Marin community.

Our members, the Marin Conservation League and other well respected environmental groups all agree that drive-throughs, perhaps more than any other single building type, work AGAINST livability goals and are nothing more than magnets of traffic and congestion:

1. They have a proven negative impact on the air quality of the surrounding community.

Do we really need hundreds of idling cars per day spoiling the air? You eliminated the Costco gas station, why would you allow drive-throughs?

2. Drive-throughs are unsafe and lead to more accidents with pedestrians, cyclists and other cars. Lawyers specifically advertise to people injured near drive-throughs.

3. Drive-throughs are magnets of traffic and congestion and location at the already impacted Freitas Parkway exit is a bad decision. Do you really want to be responsible for adding hundreds more car trips per day to this area?

4. Drive-throughs do not support neighboring businesses or ANY of the life, vitality and amenities that suggest people might want to work, live or play here. Drive-throughs belong on Highway 5, not in a neighborhood.

5. This is not a new idea. San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara both eliminated drivethroughs 40 years ago because they cause traffic, are unsafe and don’t build community. Thousands of major cities throughout the US have eliminated them.

Even Minneapolis with its below freezing winter temperatures eliminated them due to air quality in 2019.

Let’s show some strong decision-making here!
RGM’s approximately 1,000 members ask you to be decisive, and show us you are forwardthinking. Do not allow the vision of the Northgate Town Square project to be polluted by a simple bad design flaw. Condition the approval of the project on the elimination of the 2 drivethroughs. file:///C/...ate/Correspondence%20for%20City%20Clerk%20Office%20to%20process/To%20be%20sent%2012-02-24%20200%20pm/DV.txt[12/2/2024 3:30:34 PM] Critical traffic concerns

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The increase in traffic from the Northgate Redevelopment Project will exacerbate the already dangerous congested traffic conditions. I request that follow-up studies be required at the completion of each phase of the Northgate Project.

The updated traffic studies must be based on actual traffic counts prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, approved by the City and funded by the project sponsor. This must be â€˜ â€˜included as a condition in the Project Entitlementsâ€™. Thank you for keeping Terra Linda residents safe and for your consideration to this important community concern.

Diana Vine, 53 year resident of , Terra Linda
Outlook
A Letter on Agenda Item 6a
From Ethan Strull <
Date Mon 12/2/2024 2:01 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Dear San Rafael City Council and Mayor Kate,
As someone who grew up and now works less than a mile from Northgate, a student of Urban Studies, and an advocate for a more affordable, vibrant Marin professionally at Legal Aid of Marin and as a volunteer in the community, I am writing in strong support of the proposed project at Northgate Mall in Terra Linda.

While many support new housing generally, some would like to delay this project to execute a meticulous report on traffic impacts. They argue that traffic is already bad and will get much worse as a result of this project. It is true that today, many individuals in Terra Linda, especially those who live far from the central part of Terra Linda, get around in cars. If all new residents at Northgate exclusively used cars, there would certainly be more traffic.

Yet, part of the need for new housing is, contradictorily, to reduce traffic. Much of Marin and Terra Linda’s traffic is from workers coming into Marin who cannot afford to live here, a lack of public transit that meets resident’s needs, and the dangers of current bike routes for students. The Northgate Mall will help solve these root causes by providing affordable housing for those who currently commute to Marin to afford housing, increasing the number of residents living close to public transit, and improving the quality of bike infrastructure.

My personal experiences growing up and working in the area mirror these points.

1. Many of my coworkers commute to Terra Linda via Highway 101 and 580. With more affordable housing, they could choose to live close to work and be one less

2. I would like to get around Terra Linda using public transit, but it is not efficient enough for me to use Marin Transit or the SMART Train currently. More people livin

3. My parents did not let me bike to school because it was too dangerous despite living just two miles from my school in Terra Linda. Many of our neighbors’ parent While there may be some initial increases in traffic, the Northgate Mall and projects like it will reduce traffic long-term by making Terra Linda a more bikeable and transit-oriented place. It is not needed to delay this project with additional traffic studies, as we know that dense infill housing, transit-oriented development, and better bike lanes reduce traffic long-term.

Thank you for your leadership on this project to make Terra Linda a more green, vibrant, and affordable place. -Ethan
--
´ÓÅ˜
12/2/24, 3:27 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 Outlook
For Public Comment
From Geraldine R Kerby
Date Mon 12/2/2024 1:51 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> What you are doing to our Northgate Mall is heart breaking. It will be a slum within the next 3 years.

You cannot put that many people together in that small of a space without demoralizing them. You have been presented with another approach which is far more amicable . Further, adding that much traffic without road enlargement is inconceivable !!!!! 12/2/24, 3:26 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 Outlook
Greenbelt Alliance Endorsement of Northgate Town Square From Jordan Grimes <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/2/2024 2:51 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc Zoe Siegel <[email protected]>; Ross Guehring <[email protected]> 1 attachment (363 KB)
Greenbelt Alliance Endorsement Letter - Northgate Town Square.pdf; Good afternoon,
Please see the attached letter on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support of the Northgate Town Square project ahead of tonight's city council hearing. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best,
Jordan
Jordan Grimes (He/him)
Resilience Manager
Greenbelt Alliance
827 Broadway Ste 310 | Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 543-6771 ext. 304
greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | X
From Surviving to Thriving: Greenbelt Alliance’s New Strategic Plan Read our vision for the next five years: greenbelt.org/strategic-plan 12/2/24, 3:29 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 December 2, 2024
San Rafael City Council
RE: Endorsement of Northgate Town Square
Dear Commissioners:

For over 60 years, Greenbelt Alliance has helped create cities and neighborhoods that make the Bay Area a better place to live—healthy places where people can walk and bike; communities with parks, shops, transportation options; homes that are affordable and resilient to the impacts of climate change. Greenbelt Alliance’s Climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented—Development Endorsement Program provides support for projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places.

After careful review, Greenbelt Alliance is pleased to endorse the Northgate Town Square project.

Greenbelt Alliance is pleased to endorse the Northgate Town Square redevelopment project in San Rafael, which would convert a dated suburban mall into a beautiful mixed-use project, including community serving retail and more than 1,300 badly-needed new multi-family homes for city workers and residents in Marin County, adding to the housing supply in a resource-rich area.

According to census data, more than 86% of the workers in San Rafael commute in from outside the city due to high housing prices driven by a severe shortage of available homes. The Northgate project will help ameliorate this trend, allowing city and county residents to live where they work.

The development also prominently features green infrastructure, committing to an all-electric design. Recycled greywater will be used for landscape irrigation, a dual plumbing system will be utilized, and there will be significant EV charging, battery storage, and solar capacity on-site. The site is also less than half a mile from the nearest SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit) station, integrates new bike lanes throughout the project, and includes a 9,000 sq. ft bicycle center with a repair station and bike parking.

The proposed project’s close proximity to jobs and transit and commitment to sustainability aligns with the vision set out in the City of San Rafael’s General Plan. Greenbelt Alliance believes that Northgate Town Square projects like it will play a pivotal role in reimagining a more climate resilient and inclusive San Rafael for all residents to enjoy, and we are proud to give this project our endorsement.

We hope our approval will help expedite the process to turn this vision into reality.

Sincerely,
Jordan Grimes
Resilience Manager, Greenbelt Alliance
From: Jan O'Brien
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 12:30 PM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment: I Support the Northgate Town Square Dear City Council members,
I am writing to you today in support of the Northgate Town Square housing project. I urge you to vote to approve the project at the December 2nd meeting. Marin needs to be more accessible for moderate to low income families and individuals. This project directly addresses the housing crisis by providing affordable units, with some home ownership opportunities in addition to rentals. Additionally, the plans include accessible units that are compliant with updated ADA guidelines, which will provide housing options for those with disabilities. This project will add community vibrancy. The plans include retail, a community green space, and restaurants. The mall as it is now, is an underutilized building with few open stores and an excess of empty parking. This project would immensely improve it to create a true utilized community space. There are also positive environmental components to developing mixed use buildings. The Northgate Mall is already developed land, and urban infill is the most environmentally friendly option for new developments.

This project is in a transit dense area, it will improve bike infrastructure - which will lead to decreased car dependency, and all the housing units are 100% electric. As we continue to combat climate change and environmental concerns, it is imperative to build housing that mitigates these issues. This project will do so. This project is much needed for the community and Marin County as a whole. I encourage your vote of approval.

Sincerely,
Jan
Ambassador
Health in Harmony
Outlook
Public Comment: Support for the Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project From Julie Robino >
Date Mon 12/2/2024 2:27 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Dear City Council members,
I am writing to you today in support of the Northgate Mall housing project. I urge you to vote to approve the project at the December 2nd meeting.

This project will add community vibrancy. The plans include retail, a community green space, and restaurants. The mall as it is now, is an underutilized building with few open stores and an excess of empty parking. This project would immensely improve it to create a true utilized community space.

This project will do so.

This project is much needed for the community and Marin County as a whole. I encourage your vote of approval.

Sincerely,
Julie Robino
12/2/24, 3:28 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 Outlook
For Public Comment
From Ken Azevedo
Date Mon 12/2/2024 2:14 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Mayor Colin and Council Members -
I have the following concerns regarding the proposed development at NorthGate Mall:

1. Detrimental to the Environment
Bringing such a large scale development to anywhere in the Terra Linda area would have a huge negative impact to the environment and the surrounding areas. 15 years worth of construction is an imaginable amount of time to expect people living near the area to withstand.
777 Units is way too huge to be supported by the existing or even proposed infrastructure.

This level of development will also be an extreme drain on resources such, water in particular.

2. Traffic vs Cost to the Environment and Area
The increase in traffic from the Northgate Redevelopment Project will exacerbate the already dangerous congested traffic conditions. I request that follow-up traffic studies be required at the completion of each phase of the Northgate Project. The updated traffic studies must be based on actual traffic counts prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, approved by the City and funded by the project sponsor. This must be ‘included as a condition in the Project Entitlements’**. Thank you for keeping Terra Linda residents safe and for your consideration of this important community concern.

3. Affordable Housing Benefits vs Costs
This project will only add 10% affordable housing, or 87 low-income household units and 777 market rate units in the developers 2025 Master Plan or Phase I. 87 Affordable housing units is not worth the Environmental impact nor the disruption of a 15 year 777 unit development would bring to the area in terms of
a. Traffic
b. Congestion
c. Drain on the Resources
12/2/24, 3:28 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/2 d. Impact to the infrastructure
I ask you to reconsider the project as it is currently proposed. It is way too large for the area.

Thank you for your consideration,
Ken Azevedo
--
Ken Azevedo
San Rafael, Ca 94903
12/2/24, 3:28 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 2/2 From: Lynn Barr
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 1:15 PM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment: Support for the Northgate Town Square Dear City Council members,
I'm writing to support the Northgate Town Square housing project. I urge you to vote to approve the project at the December 2nd meeting.

This project has it all, and we desperately need affordable housing in this county!! Time and again there are projects that just don't meet the community and residents' needs. I have examined in detail this housing project, and this one is an absolute YES in my book. Please pass this and let's get the construction started! Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lynn Wellman
(Elizabeth cell)
Outlook
Public Comment for tonight
From Laurel Druke
Date Mon 12/2/2024 2:17 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> As a resident of San Rafael, I strongly recommend approval of the following items on today’s agenda - - a resolution authorizing the 'appropriation of $252,000 to support the acquisition of a nine-unit apartment building at 1400 Lincoln Avenue for the preservation as affordable housing'. - approve the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Northgate Redevelopment.

Affordable housing in Marin is necessary and needed to support families, seniors and workers.

I urge the San Rafael City Council to approve these projects! Thanks,
Laurel Druke
12/2/24, 3:28 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 Outlook
Agenda Item: 6.a. Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project (6822) From Lorrie J. LeLe
Date Mon 12/2/2024 3:14 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]>; Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch <Margaret.Kavanaugh[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc Kevin Carmichael <[email protected]>
1 attachment (425 KB)
6922-015j - Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project - Comments to CC.pdf; On behalf of Marin County Residents for Responsible Development, we submit the attached comments on Agenda Item 6.a. – Northgate Mall Redevelopment project.

If you have any questions, please contact Kevin Carmichael – Thank you,
Lorrie LeLe
Legal Assistant
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
520 Capitol Mall, Suite 350
Sacramento, CA 95814
__________________________________
This e-mail may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the send and delete all copies. 12/2/24, 3:29 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 6922-015j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
.

SO. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
601 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 1000
SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
520 C A P I T O L M A L L , S U I T E 3 5 0
S A C R A M E N T O , C A 9 5 8 1 4 - 47 21
___________
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9
k c a r m i c h a e l @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper
December 2, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
City Council
c/o: Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Margaret Kavanaugh-Lynch, Planning Manager
Email: [email protected]
Heather Hines, Consulting Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item: 6.a. Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project (SCH No. 2021120187)
Dear City Council Members, Ms. Kavanaugh-Lynch and Ms. Hines:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Marin County Residents for Responsible Development (“Residents”) to provide comments on Agenda Item: 6.a., 1 the
Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project2 (SCH No. 2021120187) (“Project”), including the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared by the City of San Rafael (“City”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and related entitlements.
3 The Project is proposed by Merlone Geier Partners, LLC (“Applicant”).
1 City of San Rafael, City Council, Agenda (December 2, 2024) available at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/city-council-december-2-2024/#/tab-agenda 2 City of San Rafael, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project (SCH No. 2021120187) (hereinafter “FEIR”) available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021120187/3.
3 Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs (“CCR”) §§ 15000 et seq.

December 2, 2024

Page 2 ends

6922-015j
The Staff Report recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions certifying the FEIR and approving the Project’s entitlements, and introduce an ordinance to adopt the Project’s requested zoning amendment. 4 Staff’s
recommendation is premature and unsupported by the record. As explained in Resident’s October 29, 2024, comments to the Planning Commission, the FEIR does not adequately analyze the two revised versions of the Project, and has not resolved the errors, omissions, and unmitigated significant impacts identified in Residents’ comment letters on the DEIR and FEIR. In particular, the FEIR’s GHG and air quality impacts analyses remain substantially inaccurate and incomplete. The Staff Report fails to resolve any of these issues and the City has not revised or recirculated the EIR in compliance with CEQA. As a result, the City Council lacks substantial evidence to support the findings required to certify the FEIR and approve the Project.

Residents urges the City Council to continue tonight’s hearing and remand the Project to City Staff to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) to comply with CEQA. The Project should not be rescheduled for a further public hearing until all of the outstanding issues raised in Residents’ comments, and in the comments of other members of the public, have been fully addressed.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Project proposes the phased redevelopment of the existing Northgate Mall on approximately 45 acres of commercially designated land. Phase 1 (2025) includes demolition of existing commercial buildings, ongoing operation of some existing commercial uses, construction of new commercial and residential buildings, and installation of other site improvements.5 Phase 2 (2040) includes buildout of the Project, which encompasses additional demolition of existing commercial buildings, and construction of new commercial and residential buildings.6 The Project initially included an application for a Development Agreement, however, that application was withdrawn by the Applicant as part of a June 2024 Project application revision.
7 4 City of San Rafael, Staff Report for City Council Agenda Item 6.a. (“Staff Report”) (December 2, 2024) p. 1. available at https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/sanrafaelca/2024/11/6.a-NorthgateTown-Square-Project.pdf 5 Id. at p. 3.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.

December 2, 2024

Page 3 ends

6922-015j
The Project site is located in the northern area of San Rafael, within the San Rafael Town Center west of US-101 and bounded by Las Gallinas Avenue to the north and east and Northgate Drive to the south and west on Assessor Parcel Numbers 175-060-12, -40, -59, -61, -66, and -67.8 The Project site is surrounded by a mix of uses, including commercial, residential, open space, and institutional. 9 On March 5, 2024, Residents submitted written comments on the DEIR (“DEIR Comments”), including expert comments, which identified significant errors and omissions in the environmental document prepared for the Project. In particular, the DEIR failed to accurately disclose and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, and health risk impacts.

Unbeknownst to the public, on March 4, 2024 (one day before the end of the DEIR’s public review period), the Applicant had submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application for an alternative development proposal (“Alternative Project”) at the Project site. The Alternative Project proposed a two-phase development with reduced commercial space and increased residential space, totaling approximately 549,701 square feet of commercial space and up to 1,865 residential units, 168 of which would be affordable units.
10 The SB 330 Alternative was not analyzed in the
DEIR or announced to the public during the DEIR public comment period.11 The Alternative Project would increase the Project’s residential footprint by over 400 units and approximately 600,000 square feet of residential space, while reducing the overall commercial footprint by just 170,000 square feet, causing new and more severe impacts than the original Project – such as construction and operational air quality impacts, vehicle miles travelled, energy consumption and utilities impacts associated with residential use.

On May 23, 2024, Residents submitted a letter to the City explaining that the Alternative Project constituted new information and a substantial change in the scope of the Project that was not analyzed in the DEIR. Residents’ comments 8 DEIR, p. 3-1.
9 DEIR, p. 3-18.
10 See Northgate Mall SB 330 Preliminary Application and Letter from Merlone Geier Partners, LLC to City of San Rafael re SB 330 Preliminary Application: Northgate Town Square (March 4, 2024); see City of San Rafael, Merlone Geier Submits Alternative Concept SB330 Preliminary Application for Northgate Town Square (March 19, 2024), available at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/merlonegeier-submits-alternative-concept-sb330-preliminary-application-for-northgate-town-square/ (“SB330 Press Release”) (last visited 5/19/24).
11 DEIR, pp. 5-2 – 5-3 (Chapter 5 of the DEIR analyzed a no-Project alternative, reduced development alternative, and a reduced residential alternative December 2, 2024

Page 4 ends

6922-015j
explained that the Applicant’s Alternative Project proposal required substantial revisions to the DEIR to disclose and mitigate these new impacts, and asked the City to recirculate the DEIR and provide an opportunity for public comment on the Alternative Project.

On June 4, 2024, the Applicant proposed a third version of the Project to replace the Project that was analyzed in the DEIR, and to be processed concurrently with the SB 330 Alternative Project application.12 The total number of residential units proposed by the revised Project was unchanged at 1,422. However, the revised Project proposed to reduce the number of affordable units from 147 units to 143 units. Additionally, the housing types on Parcel 1 would change from multifamily-residential to townhomes, reducing the density on Parcel 1, while increasing the density of multifamily units in “Residential 5” from 251 to 309. 13 As
a result of the proposed revisions, the number of developed units in the 2025 plan would be reduced from 922 units to 864 units with the remaining 558 units to be constructed under the 2040 phasing plan.14 Additionally, the revised Project proposes to increase the size of the Town Square from 48,075 square feet to 56,975 square feet and the originally proposed artificial turf will be replaced with natural turf across the Town Square.
15 On September 19, 2024, Residents submitted a third letter to the City which explained that the revised Project would have impacts that differ from, and are potentially more severe than, both the original Project and the Alternative Project – such as construction and operational air quality impacts, and water resources impacts. Since neither of the two revised versions of the Project had been analyzed in the DEIR, Residents’ letter explained that CEQA required the City to revise and recirculate the DEIR to analyze the current versions of the Project before an FEIR could be prepared.

The City ignored this mandate and released the FEIR a month later. Citing no evidence or legal authority, the FEIR simply states that “the City is in receipt of this preliminary application and declines at this time to further review the proposal as a potential alternative to the proposed project.”16 The FEIR also improperly asserts that, if a formal application is filed for the SB 330 project, it would undergo 12 See https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/merlone-geier-submits-revised-project-plans-for-northgatetown-square/. 13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 FEIR, Response E-1-1, p. 4-1274.

December 2, 2024

Page 5 ends

6922-015j
separate (e.g. piecemealed) environmental review at that time.17 Both assertions violate CEQA, since the submission of two new Project applications by the Applicant places the Project revisions squarely before the City for approval, and CEQA requires that all reasonably foreseeable aspects of the Project – the “whole of the action” – be analyzed in a single CEQA document.18
A lead agency must also recirculate an EIR when “significant new information” becomes known after the end of the public comment period, but before certification.19 Recirculation is required when the addition of new information deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.20 New information can include “changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information.”21 The purpose of recirculation is to give the public and other agencies an opportunity to evaluate the new data and the validity of conclusions drawn from it.22 The FEIR includes written responses to Residents’ DEIR Comments and May 23, 2024, letter,
23 but fails to respond to Residents’ September 19, 2024 letter.

Residents reviewed the FEIR and Staff Report. Based upon our review, we conclude that the City has not adequately analyzed the two revised versions of the Project, and has not resolved the issues raised in Residents’ comment letters. Although a few modifications were made to the Project to address some concerns raised by the public, the FEIR’s GHG and air quality impacts analyses remain substantially inaccurate and incomplete. The FEIR also fails to meaningfully respond to many of Resident’s experts’ technical comments, and fails to resolve several legal and evidentiary deficiencies identified in the DEIR.

On October 29, 2024, Residents submitted comments to the City Planning Commission detailing that the FEIR still fails to adequately disclose, analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions. The FEIR also continues to rely on legally inadequate, ineffective, and unenforceable mitigation measures that fail reduce impacts to less than significant 17 Id.
18 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 396; Tuolumne, 155 Cal. App. 4th at 1224 (EIR inadequate as matter of law where fails to analyze “whole of the action”).
19 PRC § 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).
20 CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a).
21 Ibid.
22 Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 91, 108. 23 FEIR, Response to Letter B-3, pp. 4-125 – 4-138.

December 2, 2024

Page 6 ends

6922-015j
levels, and fail to meet the basic mitigation requirements of CEQA. To date, the City has not responded to Residents’ October 29 comments which are reiterated herein. As a result, the City lacks substantial evidence to support the FEIR’s conclusions that impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels. The City Council cannot approve the Project in reliance on such a legally inadequate FEIR.

We urge the City Council to carefully consider Residents’ comments and to remand the Project to City Staff to revise and recirculate a legally adequate EIR for the Project. We reserve the right to supplement these comments at a later date, and at any later proceedings related to this Project.24 II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Marin County Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential impacts associated with Project development. Marin County Residents includes San Rafael residents Andrew Erickson, Andreas Fourakis, Jeremiah Riordan, and Daniel Roche III, along with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 551, Plumbers, Steamfitters & HVAC/R Union Local 38, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, their members and families, and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of San Rafael and Marin County.

Marin County Residents have a strong interest in enforcing the state’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

Individual members of Residents live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City, in Marin County, and in the surrounding communities.

Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.

In addition, Residents have an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for businesses and industries to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and 24 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

December 2, 2024

Page 7 ends

6922-015j
new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
A. The City’s Responses to Public Comments in the FEIR Are Inadequate
CEQA requires that a lead agency evaluate and prepare written responses to comments in a FEIR.25 Agencies are required to provide “detailed written response to comments . . . to ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made, that the decision is well informed and open to public scrutiny, and the public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful.”26 When a comment raises a “significant environmental issue,” the written responses must describe the disposition of each such issue raised by commentators.27 Specifically, the lead agency must address the comment “in detail giving reasons why” the comment was “not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice,”28 particularly in response to comments are made by agencies or experts.29 Failure of a lead agency to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA’s informational purpose and may render the EIR legally insufficient.30
The City’s responses to comments in the FEIR fail to fulfill the City’s legal duty to provide reasoned responses to comments in several ways. First, the Responses fail to meaningfully respond to the detailed technical comments of Residents’ air quality and public health expert, SWAPE. The Responses dismiss comments regarding the Project’s potentially significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts from transporting asbestos containing materials from the Project 25 PRC § 21091(d); 14 CCR §§ 15088(a), 15132.
26 City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.4th 889, 904. 27 PRC §21091(d); 14 CCR §§15088(c), 15132(d), 15204(a). 28 14 CCR § 15088(c); see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1124 (“Laurel II”); The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615.
29 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367, 1371; People v. County of Kern (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 761, 772). 30 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; Rural Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.

December 2, 2024

Page 8 ends

6922-015j
site. Additionally, as discussed in section B below, the FEIR fails to meaningfully respond to Resident’s comments detailing the need for additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant GHG emissions impacts from the disposal of asbestos containing materials resulting from demolition of portions of the Project site. By so doing, the FEIR fails to respond to SWAPE’s comment raising a “significant environmental issue,” and as a result, fails to mitigate this impact. This is a clear violation of CEQA.31

The City’s failure to respond to Residents’ expert comments is comparable to the errors made by the City of Carmel in Flanders Foundation.32 In that case, a city prepared an FEIR for a project involving the sale of a city-owned historic property surrounded by city-owned parkland. Its DEIR had proposed a conservation easement to mitigate for the loss of city parkland. Comments submitted on the Flanders DEIR recommended an alternative of selling the residence with a smaller lot in order to mitigate the potentially significant impacts from the loss of city park space. However, the FEIR failed to provide a substantive response to this comment, and instead merely reiterated the city’s reliance on the same conservation easement that had been originally proposed in the DEIR as “sufficient mitigation.”33 Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal held that Carmel’s response was legally inadequate because it had ignored the commenter’s observation that a reduction in the size of the parcel would mitigate an environmental impact of the project.34 Similarly here, the Responses purport to “respond” to SWAPE’s comments documenting significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts by simply reiterating the inadequate analysis and mitigation originally proposed in the DEIR which concluded that there are no feasible mitigation measures to bring the Project into compliance with BAAQMD’s “no natural gas” building design threshold as to commercial kitchens.
35 SWAPE’s comments rebutted this assumption and proposed additional mitigation which the FEIR ignores. These are patently inadequate responses which fail to resolve the substantive issues raised in Residents’ comments and violate the clear legal mandate articulated in the CEQA Guidelines.

The FEIR must be revised and recirculated to correct the significant errors and omissions in the City’s Responses.
31 PRC §21091(d); 14 CCR §§15088(c), 15132(d), 15204(a). 32 Flanders Foundation, 202 Cal.App.4th at 609.
33 Flanders Foundation, 202 Cal.App.4th at 609.
34 Id. at 615-616.
35 FEIR, Response B-3-12, pp. 4-131 – 4-133.

December 2, 2024

Page 9 ends

6922-015j
B. The FEIR Fails to Respond to Comments Regarding Disposal of Asbestos Containing Materials
The DEIR states that Phase 1 of the Project will result in an estimated 26,048 tons of demolition material from 308,946 square feet of buildings and 15.66 acres of asphalt pavement, resulting in a total of 3,236 one-way truck trips.36 Phase 2 of the Project will result in the export of approximately 20,551 tons of demolition material from 339,861 square feet of buildings and 5.08 acres of asphalt pavement and will require 1,966 one-way haul truck trips.
37 Residents’ experts provided substantial evidence that the DEIR underestimated the truck trip lengths related to hauling of demolition wastes based on the fact that the Project will generate asbestos containing material (“ACM”) which can only be disposed of at licensed waste disposal facilities and the closest facility permitted to receive friable ACMs is 54 miles from the Project site in Vacaville.

In response, the FEIR states that Resident’s “comment incorrectly states that ACMs need to be disposed of at licensed hazardous waste facilities.”38 The FEIR goes on to state that “[t]here are multiple landfills in the Bay Area that are permitted to accept asbestos, including the Redwood Landfill in Novato, which accepts non-friable asbestos (13 miles from the project site), and the Recology Hay Road Landfill in Vacaville and the Altamont Landfill in Livermore, which accept both friable and non-friable asbestos.”
39 The FEIR concludes that the DEIR’s
analyses of air quality impacts and transportation accounted for trucking and disposal of demolition waste, including ACMs and other hazardous building materials.40 This response both affirms Residents’ prior comments and fails to respond to substantial evidence provided by Residents that the DEIR failed to analyze the air quality and transportation impacts of transporting ACMs to licensed disposal facilities.

At the outset, it is critical to understand the difference between friable and non-friable asbestos. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, “[f]riable asbestos material means any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos, that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Asbestos containing materials that are not classified as friable 36 DEIR, Appendix I, pdf. p. 48.
37 DEIR, Appendix I, pdf. p. 57.
38 FEIR, Response B-3-9, pp. 4-128 – 4-129.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.

December 2, 2024

Page 10 ends

6922-015j
may be made friable by fires, demolition and other renovation activities [emphasis provided]”
41 Based on the DTSC’s definition, the removal of ACMs from the Project site will generate friable ACMs which must be disposed of at a facility permitted to receive them.

The FEIR does not dispute that the demolition activities performed during Project construction will result in generation of ACM waste. Furthermore, the FEIR agrees that the closest hazardous waste facility with a license to receive friable ACMs is the Recology Hay Road Landfill in Vacaville, 54 miles away from the Project site. As noted above, the FEIR also states that non-friable ACMs may be disposed of at the Redwood Landfill in Novato, 13 miles from the Project site.

However, this fact has little bearing on the type of ACMs which will result from Project demolition.

As detailed in Residents’ DEIR comments, the Project’s emissions analysis relies on the unsubstantiated assumption that hauling trips will not exceed 20 miles.
42 The FEIR fails to correct this error. As a result, the FEIR continues to underestimate impacts associated with construction waste haul truck trips to the closest facility with a license to receive friable ACM waste 54-miles away.

In order to accurately analyze the Project’s haul truck trip lengths, the City must calculate the amount of ACMs to be removed from the Project site in order to assess the number and length of truck trips required to dispose of the hazardous materials, and their resulting air emissions. Absent this analysis, the DEIR’s construction emissions modeling does not provide substantial evidence to support the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project’s construction emissions are less than significant.

C. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The City’s analysis of the GHG impacts in the DEIR concludes that the Project will result in a significant and unavoidable impact from operational GHG emissions and that additional mitigation measures to reduce the impacts are not 41 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, What Does Friable Asbestos Mean (2024) available at https://dtsc.ca.gov/faq/asbestos-what-does-friable-asbestos-mean-incalifornia/#:~:text=Friable%20asbestos%20material%20means%20any,demolition%20and%20other% 20renovation%20activities. also see Managing Asbestos Waste Fact Sheet (December 2006) available at https://dtsc.ca.gov/managing-asbestos-waste-fact-sheet/ 42 DEIR, Appendix I, pdf. p. 48.

December 2, 2024

Page 11 ends

6922-015j
feasible. As explained in our DEIR Comments, this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence and the City is unable to adopt a statement of overriding considerations because the City failed to include all feasible mitigation to reduce GHG impacts to the greatest extent feasible.43
The FEIR admits that the Project will result in significant and unmitigated impacts due to the Project’s non-compliance with “BAAQMD’s ‘no natural gas’ building design threshold as to commercial kitchens”.
44 The FEIR concludes that no
feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact and that the Project’s GHG impacts are therefore significant and unavoidable, stating that “CEQA does not require (or authorize) additional mitigations to reduce the project’s GHG emissions without a nexus to the identified impact.”
45 However, Residents explained in their
DEIR comments that additional feasible mitigation is available to reduce the Project’s significant GHG impact, namely placing conditions on the Project to prevent the use of natural gas in commercial kitchens. For example, a report prepared by Redwood Energy, for Menlo Spark46, details several examples of fully functional commercial kitchens that rely solely on electric appliances including Alinea in Chicago, a three Michelin Star restaurant which converted its kitchen to full electric.47
In response, the FEIR states that despite the evidence that all electric kitchens are a feasible mitigation measure, “[t]o require these national brands [(potential future tenants of the Project site)] to operate differently for the proposed project could place the project sponsor at a competitive disadvantage in attracting successful restaurants to the center.”48 The FEIR’s claim that potential future tenants may not want to use full electric kitchens is speculative and fails to demonstrate that electric commercial kitchens are infeasible. When examining the feasibility of alternatives, the alternatives must be evaluated within the context of 43 Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3), (b);14 CCR § 15091; Covington v GBUAPCD (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 879-883.
44 FEIR, Response B-3-22, pp. 4-136 – 4-137.
45 Ibid.
46 Redwood Energy, A Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits of Commercial Buildings (June 2022) available at https://assets-global.websitefiles.com/62b110a14473cb7777a50d28/6377e7c7fd6f8cc30f88afa7_Redwood%20Energys%20Pocket%20Guide%20to%20All-Electric%20Commercial%20Retrofits.pdf 47 Redwood Energy, p. 4.
48 FEIR, Response B-3-12, p. 4-132.

December 2, 2024

Page 12 ends

6922-015j
the proposed project and “[t]he fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible.

What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.”49 Here, the FEIR relies on precisely that speculative assumption – potential additional costs or lost profitability – to assume that a proven feasible alternative would make the entire Project financially infeasible.

The FEIR fails to substantiate this conclusion with any evidence or analysis, and its reliance on the Applicant’s decision not to eliminate natural gas from the commercial kitchen design is equally unsupported.

D. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Revisions to the Project As noted above, the Applicant submitted a revised application for the Project in June 2024 which would reduce the number of affordable housing units, increase residential density near Highway 101 while reducing residential density in other locations, and increase the size and add natural turf to the proposed Town Square.

The revisions to the Project are briefly discussed in Chapter 2.0 of the FEIR which concludes, without quantitative analysis, that the revised Project does not add significant new information to the EIR and would not substantially change the construction and operational impacts and related mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR.50 This assumption is not supported by the facts in the record and ignores the increased impacts that would result from the revised Project’s increased residential density.

The FEIR also fails to analyze impacts resulting from the changes in Project’s open space areas. The revised Project proposes to increase the size of the Town Square from 48,075 square feet to 56,975 square feet and the originally proposed artificial turf will be replaced with natural turf across the Town Square. 51 The use
of natural turf is analyzed in the FEIR. However, the FEIR fails to analyze whether the change will result in Project inconsistencies with the San Rafael 49 Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 866, 883 (citing Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 599; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181.) 50 FEIR, p. 2-39.
51 FEIR, p. 2-12.

December 2, 2024

Page 13 ends

6922-015j
General Plan 2040’s Community Design and Preservation Element Policy CDP4.10: Landscape Design; and Conservation and Climate Change Element Policy C1.15: Landscaping with Appropriate Naturalized Plant Species, which limit the use of artificial turf.
52 The DEIR determined that the Project’s use of artificial turf and droughttolerant landscaping was consistent with General Plan Policies CDP-4.10 and C1.15, which encourage the use of drought-tolerant landscaping to conserve water use. However, the switch to natural turf would inevitably increase the amount of water consumed by the Project and may be inconsistent with the General Plan Policies. The FEIR asserts that the “change from synthetic to natural turf would not increase potable water demand and therefore would only nominally increase recycled water use.”
53 However, the FEIR fails to analyze whether the change to natural turf is consistent with the above referenced General Plan Policies which require that privately owned and maintained landscaping conserve water, and encourages landscaping with native and compatible non-native plant species that are appropriate for the dry summer climate of the Bay Area, with an emphasis on species determined to be drought-resistant.
54 The FEIR failed to quantify the
amount of water needed to support the change to natural turf, and failed to describe whether the natural turf will be a native or compatible non-native plant species that is appropriate for the dry summer climate of the Bay Area. As a result, the City cannot determine that the change to natural turf complies with the applicable General Plan Policies.

The City must analyze the impacts that will result from the use of natural turf in a revised and recirculated DEIR for the Project and include additional mitigation measures where necessary to bring the Project revisions into compliance with the applicable General Plan policies.
52 DEIR, pp. 4.1-19 - 4.1-20.
53 FEIR, p. 2-22.
54 DEIR, pp. 4.1-19 - 4.1-20.

December 2, 2024

Page 14 ends

6922-015j
IV. CONCLUSION
The FEIR is inadequate and must be withdrawn. We urge the Council to remand the Project to staff to prepare and circulate a revised DEIR which discloses all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts and requires all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant environmental and public health impacts.

Sincerely,
Kevin Carmichael
KTC:ljl
Outlook
Concerns about the Northgate Town Square Project
From Michael Klein
Date Mon 12/2/2024 3:30 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> To whom it may concern,
I am strongly in favor of adding more housing in San Rafael and Marin County, and at the same time I have grave concerns about the size and scope of the Northgate Town Square Project. My primary concerns are that parking and traffic are not adequately addressed given the proposed density of over 1400 housing units.

I was shocked to learn that there is so little parking for 1400+ units and read that the developers believe that the residents will rely on public transportation. As a resident of Terra Linda I find this supposition highly, highly implausible. We all need cars to get around in San Rafael and so if every unit averages two cars then the surrounding neighborhood will be overwhelmed. This is a catastrophe in the making and I do not understand why the planning commission of City Council doesn’t demand adequate parking for the project to go forward.

I am also deeply concerned about traffic as there is already a bottleneck at the Freitas Parkway/101 intersection around school times and without an adequate plan this will get dramatically worse with the addition of 1400+ units being added.

As I said above, I am strongly in favor of adding additional housing for San Rafael. I am hoping that the City Council does it in a responsible way that doesn’t destroy our neighborhood.

Thank-you,
Michael Klein
San Rafael CA 94903
Michael Klein, Ph.D.

Zoom meeting link:
https://zoom.us/j/7673344003
“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom”
- Victor Frankl
12/2/24, 3:31 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 Outlook
For Public Comment
From Noelynn Oliver <
Date Mon 12/2/2024 12:21 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> 1 attachment (264 KB)
Noelynn Oliver - 120224 Northgate Development Project Comment-signed.pdf; Please find my letter attached as a pdf and please acknowledge receipt of this email. Thank you! December 2, 2024
City Council, City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear City Council,
I was disappointed that my timely and properly submitted comment on the Northgate Redevelopment Project for the Planning Commission 10/28/24 meeting was not included in the published roster due to being routed as spam email. I now submit a follow up.

As stated in my previous comments, I am all for additional housing and for repurposing the Northgate Mall area, but the existing Terra Linda infrastructure for roads and traffic safety cannot support such a large-scale development. The recent FEIR, which was based on misleading and inappropriate data, concluded that there will be no increase in traffic. Being a regular driver in this area, my experience is that the roads are operating at capacity, so this is impossible to believe. The current in/out access is already inadequate with the 101 highway entrances/exits backed up and traffic actually stopped during commute times. Evacuation routes, essential services (gas, groceries, mail), emergency responders, and schools will all require better traffic infrastructure for safe and timely provision of their services. Also, many new residents would likely be commuters since San Rafael does not have a large jobs base, and a 30-40% rise in Terra Linda’s population would likely exacerbate gridlock at the Smith Ranch, Freitas, San Pedro and Lincoln 101 ramps.

These longstanding and well documented concerns deserve more consideration and discussion. In a formal letter to the City and Council Members, Gloria D. Smith, Attorney-at-Law states that “RGM and residents of Terra Linda have raised legitimate concerns about the Project’s substantial increase in traffic and its attendant impacts on air quality, operational noise, evacuation routes, and emergency response times. Regarding the latter, the additional study contracted by the City (Final EIR), which the EIR relied upon to relieve the Developer from providing monetary assistance to the City to address emergency responses, failed to even address the impact of increased traffic on the emergency response times of the San Rafael City Fire Department.” And, further points out that “rather than providing accurate and timely facts and evidence, the City pointed the public to a list of court cases, burdening concerned residents with the task of hunting down legal opinions and testing those opinions for their legal sufficiency against an ever-evolving proposed project in their own town. This, when residents’ direct and personal experience makes clear the City’s choice of an environmental baseline defied common sense.” I request that follow-up traffic studies be required at the completion of each phase of the Northgate Project. The updated traffic studies must be based on actual traffic counts prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, approved by the City and funded by the project sponsor. This must be included as a condition in the Project Entitlements.

Please reject the plan in its current state. Find a better alternative and do not hide behind state laws. I respectfully ask that you use your authority to protect our residents, not the center’s owners and developers who stand to greatly profit from this.

Sincerely.
12/2/24, 3:32 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz5cB8… 1/2 Noelynn Oliver, Ph.D.

San Rafael CA 94903
12/2/24, 3:32 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz5cB8… 2/2 December 2, 2024
City Council, City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Dear City Council,
I was disappointed that my timely and properly submitted comment on the Northgate Redevelopment Project for the Planning Commission 10/28/24 meeting was not included in the published roster due to being routed as spam email. I now submit a follow up.

Regarding the latter, the additional study contracted by the City (Final EIR), which the EIR relied upon to relieve the Developer from providing monetary assistance to the City to address emergency responses, failed to even address the impact of increased traffic on the emergency response times of the San Rafael City Fire Department.” And, further points out that “rather than providing accurate and timely facts and evidence, the City pointed the public to a list of court cases, burdening concerned residents with the task of hunting down legal opinions and testing those opinions for their legal sufficiency against an ever-evolving proposed project in their own town. This, when residents’ direct and personal experience makes clear the City’s choice of an environmental baseline defied common sense.”
I request that follow-up traffic studies be required at the completion of each phase of the Northgate Project. The updated traffic studies must be based on actual traffic counts prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, approved by the City and funded by the project sponsor. This must be included as a condition in the Project Entitlements.

Sincerely.

Noelynn Oliver, Ph.D.

San Rafael CA 94903
Noelynn Oliver
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Steckline
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 12:22 PM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: For Public Comment
I’m writing about the Northgate Mall redevelopment project. I’m disappointed that the retail has been minimized in favor for more dense housing. I feel a project this size is inappropriate in a residential suburban neighborhood and will change the area in a negative way and reduce the quality of life we all moved here for. We need less traffic and more space to enhance our neighborhood. This project can never be undone - shame on all of you for approving it.

Sharon Steckline
San Rafael
Outlook
For Public Comment
From Samantha Sargent
Date Mon 12/2/2024 2:12 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Mayor Colin and Council Members -
I have the following concerns regarding the proposed development at NorthGate Mall:

This level of development will also be an extreme drain on resources such, water in particular.

3. Affordable Housing Benefits vs Costs
This project will only add 10% affordable housing, or 87 low-income household units and 777 market rate units in the developers 2025 Master Plan or Phase I. 87 Affordable housing units is not worth the Environmental impact nor the disruption of a 15 year 777 unit development would bring to the area in terms of
a. Traffic
b. Congestion
c. Drain on the Resources
12/2/24, 3:27 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/2 d. Impact to the infrastructure
I ask you to reconsider the project as it is currently proposed. It is way too large for the area.

Thank you for your consideration,
Samantha Sargent
--
Samantha Sargent
San Rafael CA
12/2/24, 3:27 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 2/2 Outlook
FHANC Public Comment- Support for the Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project From Savannah Wheeler <[email protected]>
Date Mon 12/2/2024 1:37 PM
To Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc Caroline Peattie <[email protected]>
1 attachment (258 KB)

12.2.24_FHANC Comment_Northgate Mall Project.pdf;
Dear City Council members,
Please see attached Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California's public comment in support of the Northgate Mall housing project. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Savannah
--
Savannah Wheeler
Housing and Policy Attorney
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
851 Irwin Street, Suite 218
San Rafael, CA 94901
(628) 226-3219
[email protected]
pronouns: she/her
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may concern confidential and privileged information.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. 12/2/24, 3:25 PM Mail - Lindsay Lara - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGE4NDc2ZDVlLWQxMTYtNDBiOC04NTI0LTRjYTQzNTJlMTJkMQBGAAAAAAAyY1qsYIBjQ6ajfUyz… 1/1 _________________________________________________________________________________________ 851 Irwin Street., Ste. 218, San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 457-5025 TDD: (800) 735-2922 www.fairhousingnorcal.org [email protected] A local non-profit helping communities eliminate housing discrimination TDD: CALIFORNIA RELAY SERVICE FOR THE HEARING OR SPEECH IMPAIRED: (800) 735-2922 SE HABLA ESPAÑOL - NẾU CẦN GÍUP ĐỠ BẰNG TIẾNG VIỆT NAM XIN LIÊN LẠC SỐ: (415) 847-2747

MEMBER, NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY: [email protected]
December 2, 2024
San Rafael City Council
1400 Fifth Avenue, Room 203
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: Public Comment in Support of Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project Dear City Council Members:

We are writing in support of the Northgate Mall housing project, and we urge you to vote to approve the project at the December 2 meeting.

Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) is a private nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting individuals experiencing housing discrimination and educating the community, including tenants, housing providers, and government employees, as to their rights and responsibilities under federal and state fair housing laws. The mission of FHANC is to ensure equal housing opportunity and to educate the community on the value of diversity in housing.

San Rafael must produce affordable housing in order to meets its duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), which requires the City to take meaningful action to “overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for communities of color, persons with disabilities, and others protected by California law.1 The City’s Housing Element recognizes that there are significant housing disparities among racial and ethnic groups in San Rafael, driven by a lack of affordable housing options in higher resource areas (p. A122). For example, all non-white racial/ethnic groups are significantly less likely to own their homes compared to white householders, and Black, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic households are more likely to be cost burdened compared to white and Asian households. The Housing Element (HE) also recognizes that there is a shortage of affordable housing units, creating a displacement risk for lowerincome tenants who are made to rent market-rate units. The forces of displacement have a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities, who are often on fixed incomes, voucher holders, and other members of protected classes under California law. The HE also highlights segregation as a contributing factor to fair housing issues in the city, due in part to lack of affordable housing opportunities in high-resource areas. (p.

A-121). There is clearly an urgent need for additional affordable housing to prevent further displacement and segregation in the City.
1 See https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB686 2 Therefore, we strongly support the Northgate Mall housing project, which will provide affordable units, with some home ownership opportunities in addition to rentals. The plans include accessible units that are compliant with updated ADA guidelines, which will provide housing options for those with disabilities.

The project would contribute to addressing housing disparities in the City and be a step toward affirmatively furthering fair housing in San Rafael.

We strongly urge you to vote to approve the Northgate Mall housing project.

Sincerely,
Caroline Peattie
Executive Director
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
Savannah Wheeler
Housing and Policy Attorney
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
From: William Strull
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 11:59 AM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Strong support for Northgate Town Square Housing Project Dear City Council members, I am writing to you today in support of the Northgate Town Square housing project, in concert with the Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative.

I urge you to vote to approve the project at the December 2nd meeting. Marin needs to be more accessible for moderate to low income families and individuals. This project directly addresses the housing crisis by providing affordable units, with some home ownership opportunities in addition to rentals. Additionally, the plans include accessible units that are compliant with updated ADA guidelines, which will provide housing options for those with disabilities. This project will add community vibrancy. The plans include retail, a community green space, and restaurants. The mall as it is now, is an underutilized building with few open stores and an excess of empty parking. This project would immensely improve it to create a true utilized community space. There are also positive environmental components to developing mixed use buildings. The Northgate Mall is already developed land, and urban infill is the most environmentally friendly option for new developments. This project is in a transit dense area, it will improve bike infrastructure - which will lead to decreased car dependency, and all the housing units are 100% electric. As we continue to combat climate change and environmental concerns, it is imperative to build housing that mitigates these issues. This project will do so. This project is much needed for the community and Marin County as a whole. I encourage your vote of approval.

I understand that concerns have been raised regarding traffic impacts. As a neighbor living less than one mile from Northgate, I think the design of the project is likely to reduce overall traffic through the area by providing housing to those who would otherwise need to commute from other areas to work in San Rafael as well as by making it possible for many individuals to live, work, and shop in the Northgate area. Nonetheless, I think it will be appropriate to conduct periodic traffic assessments going forward, and to take steps to mitigate any adverse impacts by expanding public transit options and by considering changes to the adjacent traffic signals and roadways (perhaps by installing traffic circles/roundabouts).

Sincerely,
William Strull

San Rafael City CouncilDecember 2, 2024

San Rafael City Council
December 2, 2024