HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9407 (Denying Appeal; 1120 Mission Ave)RESOLUTION 9 4 0 7
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THIRTEEN NEW TOWNHOUSE
UNITS (ED94-88), 1120 MISSION AVENUE; Joseph W. Caramucci,
Appellant;Westamerica Bank, Owner; Mission Partners, Representatives; AP
11-172-26.
WHEREAS, on October 14, 1994, an application requesting an Environmental and Design
Review Permit for the above referenced project was found by the Planning Department to
be complete for processing; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the subject application an environmental Initial Study was
prepared consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1995 the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed
Public Hearing on the proposed Design Review Permit application, accepted public
testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff, and voted 4-0 (1
vacancy, 2 absent) to approve the project; and,
WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph W. Caramucci appealed the Planning Commission's approval of
the Environmental and Design Review Permit in a letter dated March 21, 1995. This letter
requests the approval be denied based on Points 1 through 7 listed below:
Point 1:
The visual analysis for the project did not adequately address the following areas: story
poles; inaccurate view drawings; view obstruction from lower unit at 301-303 Laurel Place;
privacy impacts; loss of open space; roof impacts; acoustic separation; light impacts; loss of
winter sunlight; and, lack of landscape buffer for screening purposes.
Point 2:
The project does not conform to the requirements of Title 15 Chapter 15.50, Condominium
Ordinance and approving the project commits to approval of the condominium map and
the Planning Commission could not adequately judge if the site is physically suitable for the
intended condominium use.
Point 3:
The project is inconsistent with "Our Vision of Downtown San Rafael" and the General
Plan 2000.
Point 4:
The traffic analysis prepared for the project is based on faulty assumptions.
Point 5:
The Negative Declaration is in error in the following key issues: parking; visual impacts;
project compatibility with all adopted, applicable community plans, policies and standards
OHI61NRlv��
and relationship to ongoing current planning efforts for the project site or adjacent areas;
and, specific mitigation measures.
Point 6:
No findings were made by the Planning Commission for the approval if the project.
Point 7:
Procedural handling of the project application.
WHEREAS, on May 15, 1995, the San Rafael City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
on the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design
Review Permit, accepted public testimony and the written report of the Planning
Department staff, closed the public hearing and continued Council discussion on the project
requesting additional information from the applicant and staff; and,
WHEREAS, on June 19, 1995, the San Rafael City Council continued their discussion of the
appeal and determined that the appeal was without merit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council hereby makes the
following determination and findings relating to the Points of the appeal:
Point 1: The visual analysis for the project did not adequately address the following areas:
story poles; inaccurate view drawings; view obstruction from lower unit at 301-303 Laurel
Place; privacy impacts; loss of open space; roof impacts; acoustic separation; light impacts;
loss of winter sunlight; and, lack of landscape buffer for screening purposes.
The portion of the appeal relating to Point 1 is denied. The City Council finds that
installation of story poles is not required; the drawings presented to the Council on June 19,
1995 are accurate showing that the lower portion of the view from the appellant's lower
duplex unit will be obstructed; however, the view from the duplex across the flat portion of
the project roofs will not be obstructed; the project also meets and in some areas exceeds the
required 5 foot rear yard setback and there is no loss of open space; there is minimal impact
on the appellant's duplex from the project roof as the flat portions of the roof are broken up
by the gable portions and the project exceeds the building separation required by the zoning
ordinance; there are no impacts on the appellant's duplex from the project's lighting as the
existing parking lot is currently lit by unshielded pole lights; there will be some loss of
winter sunlight on a portion of the appellant's property located south of an existing 6 ft.
high fence but, this area of the appellant's property is part of a drainage and walkway
easement and is not landscaped; and, the rear yard areas of the project rear units will be
landscaped in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Point 2: The project does not conform to the requirements of Title 15 Chapter 15.50,
Condominium Ordinance and approving the project commits to approval of the
condominium map and the Planning Commission could not adequately judge if the site is
physically suitable for the intended condominium use.
The portion of the appeal relating to Point 2 is denied. The City Council finds the project
will be a benefit to the community and the site is physically suitable for the intended
-2-
condominium use with the guest parking located off-site and the area adjacent to the east
property line previously specified as guest parking landscaped as usable area for the future
residents.
Point 3: The project is inconsistent with "Our Vision of Downtown San Rafael" and the
General Plan 2000.
The portion of the appeal relating to Point 3 is denied. The City Council finds the project is
consistent with "Our Vision of Downtown San Rafael" and the General Plan 2000. "Our
Vision of Downtown San Rafael" intends housing for the project site, a diversity of housing
types and ownership in the Downtown, and accepts and embraces change. The project has
been redesigned at the direction of the Planning Commission and City Council to lower the
overall height by a total of 46" to reduce the apparent mass of the building as it faces
Mission Avenue and to reduce the view blockage from the appellant's duplex and adjacent
residents. Mission Avenue is developed with larger buildings and does not have a
development pattern of single-family and duplex residences. The site is zoned for high
density residential uses consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. The
policies of the General Plan require adequate parking to be provided for new development
and new development to enhance existing residential development through scale, design,
materials and neighborhood compatibility. The project has incorporated gable roofs,
variation of planes on the front elevation, and strong vertical articulation. It has been
broken into three buildings and, as conditioned, will be lowered an additional 16" from the
reduced height approved by the Planning Commission through additional grading. The
development on Mission Avenue consists generally of large buildings. Gable and flat roofs
are visible on existing development as well as variation of planes on the elevations
adjacent to Mission Avenue. The project is compatible with existing neighborhood
qualities and an agreement for off-site parking for guests has been provided to insure
adequate parking for the project. The Planning Commission determined that the project is
consistent with "Our Vision for Downtown San Rafael" and the General Plan 2000 when it
approved the project based on several items mentioned above.
Point 4: The traffic analysis prepared for the project is based on faulty assumptions.
The portion of the appeal relating to Point 4 is denied. The City Council finds that the
traffic report for the project was prepared by a registered traffic engineer and reviewed by the
City's traffic engineer who is also a registered traffic engineer. No additional information
has been submitted to indicate the project traffic report is based on faulty assumptions. The
Planning Commission determined that the traffic analysis was not faulty and approved the
project.
Point 5: The Negative Declaration is in error in the following key issues: parking; visual
impacts; project compatibility with all adopted, applicable community plans, policies and
standards and relationship to ongoing current planning efforts for the project site or
adjacent areas; and, specific mitigation measures.
The portion of the appeal relating to Point 5 is denied. The City Council finds that the
Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and is not in error. Section 13.b of the initial study discusses parking
-3-
impacts. Adequate parking is provided on-site for the residents and the guest parking has
been relocated off-site through a parking agreement. The project is not required to provide
parking for the entire neighborhood. Section 18 of the initial study discusses aesthetics.
The project will not result in the obstruction of a scenic vista or public view as is required to
be analyzed by CEQA. Obstruction of private views has been minimized by lowering the
project and is not a CEQA issue. Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies the
contents of a Negative Declaration. Neither this section nor the Initial Study checklist
require discussion of project compatibility with adopted, applicable community plans,
policies and standards and relationship, if any, to ongoing current planning efforts for the
project site or adjacent areas to be contained in the Negative Declaration. A discussion of
project compatibility with the General Plan 2000, Zoning Ordinance, Condominium
Ordinance, and "Our Vision for Downtown San Rafael" was provided in the Report to
Planning Commission dated March 14, 1995. A Mitigation Monitoring Program with
specific mitigation measures was attached to the March 14, 1995 Report to Planning
Commission. Three mitigation measures were specified with corresponding project
conditions of approval. The Planning Commission determined the Negative Declaration
complied with the provisions of CEQA and adopted the Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan on March 14, 1995.
Point 6: No findings were made by the Planning Commission for the approval if the
project.
The portion of the appeal relating to Point 6 is denied. The City Council finds that the
findings were made by the Planning Commission on March 28, 1995 when the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 95-5. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare
the resolution at their March 14, 1995 meeting.
Point 7: Procedural handling of the project application.
The portion of the appeal relating to Point 7 is denied. The City Council finds that the
project was processed in accordance with all City and State requirements. The application
was filed on September 14, 1995 and automatically deemed complete on October 14, 1995.
The City Attorney has determined that projects requiring multiple applications for ultimate
approval and issuance of a building permit are not required to be submitted at the same
time. Multiple applications may be processed concurrently for development projects. The
Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review as required by
CEQA. The Planning Commission determined that the project had been processed in
accordance with all City and State requirements and approved the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council denies the appeal and adopts the
following additional findings regarding the project:
1. The Negative Declaration for the project is consistent with the provisions of CEQA in
that an Initial Study has been prepared on the project which determined that there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the
environment. Mitigation measures have been attached to the project which reduce the
potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Public notice of the intent to adopt the
Negative Declaration has been done pursuant to state law. The proposed Negative
BEIM
Declaration has been considered in conjunction with comments received during the
review period and at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.
2. The project design, based on the evidence contained in the March 14, 1995 Report to
Planning Commission is in accord with the General Plan and the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance, including General Plan Land Use Policies LU -9, Residential Land
Use Categories, LU -10, Density of Residential Development and Density Bonuses, LU -
19, Design Approach, LU -20, Overall City Character, LU -21, Building Height, LU -23,
Historic Building Areas, LU -34, Residential Site Design, and LU -35, Project Design
Considerations; Circulation Policy C-18, Area Transportation Improvement Programs;
Housing Policies H-17, Quality Affordable Housing, and H-32, Special Needs;
Downtown Policies DT -1, "Small Town Character", DT -2, Downtown Diversity, DT -4,
Housing and Office Use, DT -8, Our Vision, DT -10, Design Approach, and DT -15,
Downtown Design Considerations; Recreation Policies R-4, New Development and R-5,
Onsite Recreational Facilities; Safety Policies S-3, Use of Hazard Maps in Development
Review, S-4, Geotechnic Review, S-5, Soils and Geologic Review, S-11, Seismic Safety
off New Buildings, S-21, Fire Safety of New Development, and S-23, Safety Review of
Development Projects; and Residential Neighborhood Policy RES -1, Development in
Residential Neighborhoods.
3. The project design is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscaping
design criteria and guidelines for the district in which the site is located because the
project has incorporated mitigations such as gable roofs, variation of planes on the
front elevation, strong vertical articulation and breaking up the project into three
buildings to reduce the massing of the project and the massing has been further
reduced by incorporating the recommended changes of lowering the project ceilings of
the first (garage) and upper floors by 30" total as shown on the plans dated June 14, 1995
presented to the City Council, enhancing the Mission Avenue landscaping, widening
the center (stairs) pedestrian entrance on Mission Avenue, providing disclosure of the
tandem parking and lowering the building an additional 16" lower than the June 14,
1995 plans through additional grading of the site.
4. The project design minimizes adverse environmental impacts because the project is
proposed to be developed on a site which was previously disturbed when it was
improved with the existing asphalt parking lot: the project is consistent with allowable
density for the site; the project through review has been lowered in height a total of 46"
from the height originally proposed on the plans presented to the Planning
Commission dated February 15, 1995; the project incorporates the mitigation measures
referenced in number 3 above; the project is compatible with the neighborhood; and,
the project has been reviewed by the appropriate agencies and conditioned accordingly.
5. The project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the project
is consistent with the allowable density for the site; it has incorporated design elements
such as gable roofs, variation of plane, vertical articulation and building separation to
reduce the building mass and additional recommendations to reduce the building
height; as conditioned, it will be revised to create a more pedestrian oriented landscape
-5-
plan and enhance the central entrance; and, the project has been reviewed by the
appropriate agencies and has been conditioned accordingly.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council denies the appeal
and upholds the Planning Commission's adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval
of the Environmental and Design Review Permit, based on the findings stated in this
resolution and project conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A.
I, Jeanne M. Leoncini, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, California, HEREBY CERTIFY that
the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a Regular
meeting of the City Council of said City held on the Seventeenth day of July, 1995, by the
following to wit:
AYES: Councilmenbers: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & MayQr Boro
NOES: Councilmenbers: None -
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
�•S
JE M. LEONQ��Clerk
ED94-881120 Mission Avenu. :age 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
EXHIBIT A
Public Works:
1. An engineered site plan showing all existing and proposed site conditions shall be
submitted with the application for a building permit.
2. A level B soils report must be submitted with the application for a grading permit.
3. Grading plans shall show all proposed and existing contours.
4. All earthwork shall be done under the direction of the project soils engineer; and a
final report shall be submitted by the project soils engineer prior to approval of work..
5. A grading permit shall be required.
6. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer.
7. Erosion control plans shall show methods of controlling erosion and siltation during
and after construction.
8. The improvement plans shall show all existing and proposed drainage facilities.
9. Runoff from improved areas shall be collected and conveyed to the street, or
established drainage facilities, by underground conduit. Drainage shall not be diverted
or concentrated onto adjoining properties; or over sidewalks or driveways.
10. The existing trench drain at the existing driveway shall be cleaned and improved as
necessary.
11. A concrete V -ditch or other means of drainage shall be installed across the rear of the
property behind the proposed structure.
12. The improvement plans shall show the location of all existing ad proposed sanitary
sewer facilities.
13. Any new connections to the sewer main in Mission Avenue shall require an
encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works.
14. The improvement plans shall show all proposed and existing frontage improvements.
15. All existing curb, gutter and sidewalk damaged during construction shall be replaced to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Approximately 20% of the existing curb along the
Mission Avenue frontage requires replacement at the current time.
16. All frontage improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the "Uniform
Construction Code for the Cities and County of Marin".
17. An encroachment permit shall be required for any work in the public right-of-way.
18. The improvement plans shall show all existing and proposed utilities.
19. All utility services shall be undergrounded.
20. Parking lot lighting shall be installed. The number, location and type of lights shall be
subject to the approval of the Police, Planning and Public Works Departments.
21. Prior to issuance of any permits, proof of the right to use the adjacent property for access
shall be submitted to the City.
22. The existing hillside stairway to the east of the project shall not be used for
construction purposes. The condition of the stairway shall be photographed by the
applicant to document the existing condition prior to construction.
Fire Department: (Corrected 7/17/95 by Fire Dept. approved by CC)
23. Delete.
24. Delete.
25. Addresses shall be posted conforming to Fire Prevention Std. 205.
26. Based on Uniform Building Code or Fire Code requirements, an automatic fire
sprinkler system shall be installed throughout conforming to NFPA Std. 13D. —gauge
area and—1R u, op-rtffcnnt ar/a.
ED94-88 1120 Mission Avenu,,e Page 2 EXHIBIT A
27. Delete.
28. A permit application shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau with two sets of
plans for review prior to installation of all automatic and fixed fire extinguishing and
detection systems. Specification sheets for each type of device shall also be submitted
for review.
29. Due to the wildland fire interface area fire retardant roof covering is required with a
minimum Class "A" listing.
30. UL/SFM smoke detectors and openable bedroom windows shall be installed
conforming to the Uniform Building Code.
31. Delete.
32. Delete.
Police Department:
33. Address
a. The street numbers shall be displayed in a prominent location on the street side of
the property in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching
emergency vehicles. The numbers shall be no less than 4" in height and shall be of
a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. The address
numbers shall be illuminated during darkness.
b. There shall be positioned at each entrance of a multi -family dwelling complex an
illuminated diagram (scaled drawing of the complex) which shows the location of
the viewer and the unit designations of the complex. In addition, each individual
within the complex shall display a prominent identification number, not less than
four inches in height which is easily visible to approaching vehicular and/or
pedestrian traffic.
c Each individual unit within the complex shall display a prominent identification
number not less than six inches in height, which is easily visible to approaching
vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic.
d. The address shall be in a sequence with the numerical order of the rest of the
street/building.
34. Exterior Fixtures
a. Exposed roof vents and ducts of sufficient size to permit adult, human entry shall be
grated or constructed of an impact -resistant material to the satisfaction of the Police
Department. Skylights shall be secured and hatch openings shall be burglary -
resistant. Glazing shall be of a burglary -resistant glass or glass -like material.
34. Roof Access
a. Perimeter walls, fences, trash storage areas, etc., shall be built to limit if not in fact
prevent access to the roof or balconies.
35. Exterior Doors
a. All exterior doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of
one and three-fourths (1-3/4") inches or with panels not less than nine -sixteenths
(9/16") inches thick. Side garage doors and doors leading from garage areas to
private residences or multiple family dwelling residences are included in this
requirement.
b. Metal -framed glass doors shall be set in metal door jambs.
c Glass sliding doors shall have a secondary type locking device to the satisfaction of
the Police Department. The secondary lock shall be a dead -bolt lock and shall be no
less than one-eighth (1/8") inch in thickness and shall have a minimum hardened
steel throw of one-half (1/2") inch.
ED94-88 1120 Mission Avenu Oage 3
EXHIBIT A
d. Exterior man doors and doors leading from garage area into the private residence
shall have dead -locking latch device with a minimum throw of one-half (1/2")
inch. A secondary lock is required and shall be a dead -bolt lock with a cylinder
guard and a hardened steel throw a minimum of one (1") inch long. Both locking
mechanisms shall be keyed the same.
e. Both locking mechanisms shall be interconnected so that both may be disengaged by
turning the door knob from the inside.
f. Metal -framed glass doors shall have a dead -bolt lock with a cylinder guard and a
hardened steel throw that is a minimum of one (1") inch long.
g. Exterior jambs for doors shall be so constructed or protected so as to prevent
violation of the function of the strike plate from outside. The strike plate shall be
secured to the jamb by a minimum of two screws which must penetrate into the
solid backing beyond the jamb.
h. Front doors shall have a front door viewer that provides a minimum of 190 degrees
peripheral vision.
i. Exterior doors that swing outward shall have non -removable pins.
j. In -swinging exterior doors shall have rabbeted jambs.
j. Glass on exterior doors or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be break -
resistant or glass -like materials to the satisfaction of the Police Department.
k. Glass on exterior doors or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be break
resistant glass or glass -like material to the satisfaction of the Police Department.
1. Large garage doors shall have either a single locking device attached near the center
of the door designed to bolt into the concrete floor or an interior hasp/lock
combination affixed to both sides of the door/door frame.
36. Exterior Lighting
a. All exterior lighting shall be sufficient to establish a sense of well-being to the
pedestrian and one that is sufficient to facilitate recognition of persons at a
reasonable distance. Type and placement of lighting shall be to the satisfaction of
the Police Department.
b. All common garden and exterior lighting shall be vandal resistant.
c. All common exterior lighting shall be on a master photoelectric cell.
d, The minimum of one foot-candle at ground level overlap shall be provided in all
exterior doorways and vehicular parking areas.
e. A minimum of one-half foot-candle at ground level overlap shall be provided on
outdoor pedestrian walkways.
37. Windows
a. All windows within 12 feet of the ground level shall have a secondary lock
mounted to the frame of the window. The secondary lock shall be a bolt lock and
shall be no less than one-eighth (1/8") inch in thickness. The lock shall have a
hardened steel throw of one-half (1/2") inch minimum length.
b. Louvered windows shall not be installed within 8 feet of the ground level.
c Any window in or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be stationary and non -
removable.
38. Landscaping
a. Landscaping shall not block or obstruct the view of any door, window, or lighting
fixture.
39. Notes
a. Any alternative materials or methods of construction shall be reviewed with the
Crime Prevention Officer before installation.
ED94-881120 Mission Avera, Wage 4
EXHIBIT A
b. The Crime Prevention Officer shall be allowed to inspect and approve the
construction prior to occupancy.
c. Though not required, it is recommended that any new construction be pre -wired for
an intrusion alarm system.
Planning Department: (amended by CC 7/17/95)
40. This Environmental and Design Review Permit approves the design of thirteen
residential units. The building techniques, materials, elevations and appearance of this
project as presented for approval as shown on the plans prepared by MacDonald
Architects, Sheets 1 through 5, dated June 14, 1995 and reduced in height by an
additional 16" through additional grading, and the landscape plan prepared by Pacific
Horticultural Services as shown on Sheet 6, dated February 15, 1995 and revised by the
Planning Commission to incorporate additional stepback of the retaining wall adjacent
to Mission Avenue, widening of the center stairs and providing some seasonal plants
to add color, shall be the same as required for the issuance of a building permit. Any
future additions, expansions, remodeling, etc., shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Planning Department.
41. A subdivision or variance application shall be submitted and must be approved prior to
the issuance of a building permit. Should the variance application or required
exceptions from the condominium ordinance not be granted, a building permit shall
not be issued.
42. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant is to comply with conditions of the
Marin Municipal Water District to obtain water service to the new building.
43. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and
appurtenances not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof)
shall be screened from public view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall
be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
44. All landscape plans shall meet the requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD). The plans shall be submitted to MIVIWD for review and approval.
45. A two year landscape bond shall be posted to insure that all landscaping shall be
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of weeds and debris for a period of
two years. s
46. The project shall be designed so/to meet the minimum standard for interior noise level
of 40 dB Ldn for bedrooms. A noise study may be required.
47. All construction at the site, including subdivision improvements, shall be limited to
the hours between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. Construction is not
permitted on Saturday or Sunday and City holidays.
48. After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a
30 day lighting level review by the Planning Department staff to insure compatibility
with the surrounding area.
49. This design review approval is valid for a period of one year or until July 17, 1996, and
shall be null and void unless a building permit has been issued or a time extension has
been applied for.
50. Two guest parking spaces shall be made available to the project in the three parking lots
controlled by Westamerica Bank during weekends, nights and holidays. Signs shall be
posted at the project vehicle entrance indicating the addresses of where guest parking is
available. This parking shall be available as long as any of the parking lots are
controlled by Westamerica Bank.
ED94-881120 Mission Avent .'age 5 EXHIBIT A
51. The project shall landscape and maintain the porrion -of the brick path adjacent to the
project site in an acceptable manner to the City.
52. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to guarantee that 10% (1 unit)
of the total project density is set aside for below market rate households (80 to 100% of
the median income) for at least 40 years. This agreement shall be recorded prior to
issuance of a building permit.
53. The project developers shall disclose the tandem parking in each unit.