Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9075 (Approving Saint Dominic Master Plan Applications)RESOLUTION NO. 9075 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING THE SISTERS OF ST. DOMINIC MASTER PLAN APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE MOTHER HOUSE, ST. THOMAS HALL, AND ALL OTHER EXISTING ANCILLARY BUILDINGS (EXCEPT FOR TWO GARAGES), 1520 Grand Avenue; Sisters of St. Doric, owners; Peter Walz/TWM Architects, representative; AP# 15-142-02. WHEREAS, on August 28, 1992, the Sisters of St. Dominic (hereinafter the "Sisters") filed with the City of San Rafael (hereinafter "City") applications for a Master Plan for their 6.83 acre site located at 1520 Grand Avenue, San Rafael, along with the required applications for zone change from PD (Planned Development) to a new PD zone (Z92-2) for the entire site, a use permit for development in the PD zone (UP92-38), and an environmental and design review permit (ED92-75) [hereinafter "the project"]; and WHEREAS, the project would require, except for two existing garages, the construction of seven (7) new buildings under two phases. A complete description of the proposed project is fully set forth in the PD Zoning Development Standards attached herewith as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, on August, 24, 1993, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR for the project; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 1993, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the draft Final EIR and Response to Comments documents for the project; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 93-9, certifying the Final EIR as being complete and objective, and in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA"), and the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR finds that demolition of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall will have long-term irreversible significant adverse impact on the historic and cultural resources of the City of San Rafael; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and heard additional testimony, both oral and written, on the project; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 1993, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution 93-10 recommending approval of the Sisters, application to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the project was reviewed by the Architectural Design Review Committee on December 9, 1992. Responding to comments provided by the Architectural Design Review Committee and comments to the Draft EIR, the Sisters submitted a revised design to the Committee on November 3, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project, including the landscaping conceptual plan; and WHEREAS, the project was reviewed by the Cultural Affairs Commission on December 2, 1992, November 3, 1993, November 16, 1993; and December 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Affairs Commission recommended on November 16, 1993, the demolition of the Mother House and urged the Sisters to retain St. Thomas Hall; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Affairs Commission reviewed the project on December 1, 1993, including the architectural elements proposed for salvage and incorporation into the proposed project; and 1 WHEREAS, after reviewing the project and the proposed salvage and reuse of certain architectural elements from the Mother House, the Cultural Affairs Commission concurred with the selection and proposed locations of the architectural elements selected for reuse and has no comments on the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 1993 and adopted Resolution 93-9 certifying the Final EIR for the Sisters' Proposed Master Plan as being legally adequate and objective; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the zone change and adopted Ordinance No -1656 approving the zone change; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 1993 on the merits of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City Council received written comments and heard testimony from all interested parties; and WHEREAS, virtually all of the written comments and testimony were directed to the demolition of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall; and WHEREAS, in reviewing the applications and the project, the City Council has had available for its review and consideration studies, letters, plans, and reports pertaining to the project contained in the Planning Department's case files, and other relevant materials, and has heard testimony from staff, the public and interested parties; and WHEREAS, having reviewed all of the materials identified in the recitals above, and having heard oral testimony and arguments, the City Council finds, concludes, and determines as follows: 1. The project approved by this action is the approval of the redevelopment of a 6.83 acre site located at 1520 Grand Avenue (hereinafter "project site") owned by the Sisters of St. Dominic. Applications for zone change from PD (Planned Development) to a new PD zone (Z92-2) for the entire site, a use permit for development in the PD zone (UP92-38), an environmental and design review permit (ED92-75), were filed with the City of San Rafael (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the project"). 2. The project site presently contains a total of nine (9) buildings consisting of approximately 223,860 gross square feet (hereinafter "gsf"). The two (2) major buildings are the Mother House consisting of approximately 67,000 gsf, and St. Thomas Hall consisting of approximately 33,000 gsf. 3. The project proposes the demolition of all existing buildings except for two (2) existing garages, consisting of 400 gsf each, and the construction of seven (7) buildings in two phases, consisting of a total of 53,440 gsf, of which 38,840 gsf is proposed for Phase I. The plans for the proposed new buildings, presented to, reviewed and approved by the City Council, are those attached to the November 9, 1993 Planning Commission Staff Report, and the revised landscaping plan presented to the City Council on December 6, 1993. 4. Phase I of the project will be undertaken in two segments. The first segment of the first phase will include the demolition of the Mother House and the utility building, the construction of a Gathering/Office Building and a twenty-two Sister Residence. The second segment of the first phase will be the demolition of St. Thomas Hall, the carpenter's shop, the studio, the boiler building and the office, and the construction of an eight -Sister Residence, the Recreation/ Storage Building, and a maintenance building. 2 5. Phase II will be the demolition of the gymnasium, and the construction of a second eight -Sister Residence and a twenty- four Sister Residence. 6. The Mother House, constructed in 1889, has been the home and center for the Dominican Sisters, and was a four-story wood frame structure, constructed in the Second Empire Style, and consisting of approximately 67,000 gsf. In July, 1990, a fire completely destroyed the fourth floor and mansard roof, and severely damaged the third floor. The first and second floors sustained extensive smoke and water damage. Since the July, 1990 fire, the Mother House has been uninhabitable. 7. Prior to the 1990 fire, the Mother House was on the surveyed list of Historic Places in the City, and was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Mother House was not designated as a landmark by the City. In its present fire -damaged condition, without the mansard roof, which is the distinguishing characteristic of the Mother House, it would not be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 8. Retention, repair and reuse of the Mother House would require replication of the architectural elements destroyed by the fire, and would require extensive interior and exterior construction in order to meet today's Building Code standards. 9. St. Thomas Hall, a school designed by the noted California architect, Albert Pissis, was completed in 1912. It is a three-story unreinforced masonry building. St. Thomas Hall is located behind the Mother House. Public view from the surrounding streets is limited. 10. After the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the City's Building Department classified St. Thomas Hall as an "at risk" building. The Sisters received a notice from the City that St. Thomas Hall must be brought into compliance with the provisions of the City's Ordinance No. 1620 within three years from the date of the notice. Under this ordinance, the Sisters must submit an application to either seismically retrofit St. Thomas Hall or to demolish it. Otherwise, St. Thomas Hall must be vacated and fenced. 11. While St. Thomas Hall is not on any national, state or local register of historic places, FEIR concluded that St. Thomas Hall is a building of architectural significance, and is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 12. The third historic structure on the project site is the Summer Arbor, which is proposed to be retained as part of the project. 13. The remaining existing buildings on the project site have no historic or architectural significance, either individually or contextually. 14. The proposed buildings will be one or two stories in height, wood frame structures, with composite shingle roofing, and cedar shingle exterior walls above stucco base. The design will be compatible with the existing buildings in the neighborhood. The siting of the proposed buildings will retain the existing park -like setting of the project site, and will retain the major landscaping features of the site currently visible to the public. 15. Except for policy LU -23 and LU -36, the project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the City's General Plan 2000. Policies LU -23 and LU -36 address the preservation and/or restoration of historic and/or architecturally important buildings. 3 16. Preservation of the Mother House in its existing fire -damaged state would not advance the preservation policies of the General Plan. If the Mother House were to be reconstructed to its pre -fire condition, and in compliance with the 1991 Uniform Building Code, it would be a replica of the pre -fire building with extensive changes to the interior of the building. A reconstructed Mother House will retain little of its historic fabric and material. St. Thomas Hall was constructed as a background building; until publication of the Draft EIR, the public was unaware of its existence. The main facade of St. Thomas Hall is shielded by the Mother House and dense vegetation. Within the historic and cultural context of the City, St. Thomas Hall did not and does not play a significant role. Therefore, on balance, the project, even with demolition of these two buildings, would be consistent with the City's General Plan 2000. 17. The Sisters, descendant from a 13th Century French Order, were established in California in 1850. They first settled in Monterey, moved to Benicia, and finally settled in San Rafael in 1889. The Sisters' association with the City goes back to 1868, when they took over the operation of the St. Vincent's School for Boys. 18. In addition to their special mission as educators, the Sisters' mission extends to activities in health care, parish ministry, retreat ministry, social services, counseling, missionary work, and diocesan administration. 19. The Sisters' guiding principals and values in framing the project are to provide appropriately for their basic needs, and to continue to utilize any resources not required for their basic needs, for service to others. WHEREAS, CEQA provides that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed, if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available, which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. However, if specific economic, social or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof; and WHEREAS, CEQA requires that a public agency make findings that approval of alternative projects, which would eliminate or mitigate the significant adverse impacts of a proposed project to an insignificant level analyzed in the FEIR, are infeasible; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Alternatives A through D, and the variances therein, are infeasible for the following reasons: 1. Alternative A (No Project) is infeasible in that the fire - damaged Mother House will experience further deterioration. St. Thomas Hall will not be seismically retrofitted, must be vacated by the Sisters, and will remain vacant and fenced. Both buildings will continue to deteriorate and will become a blight on the neighborhood. Furthermore, none of the Sisters' needs will be met. 2. The combined Variances 1 and 2 of Alternative B (repair, retention, and reuse of the Mother House) and Alternative C (repair, retention and reuse of St. Thomas Hall) are infeasible because of the following economic, social and other considerations: A. The Sisters submitted uncontradicted evidence that the insurance settlement for the fire -damaged Mother House is $7,300,000+. B. The estimated demolition and construction costs for the Sisters' Master Plan (both Phase I and Phase II) are $6,400,000+. 4 C. The estimated cost for preserving and restoring the Mother House is $12,700,000+. If the Historic Building Code is used in lieu of the 1991 Uniform Building Code, the estimated costs would be decreased by $350,000. If areas not used by the Sisters are left unimproved, another $325,000 in construction costs could be saved. D. The estimated construction costs for preserving St. Thomas Hall, and for constructing the additional buildings needed to meet the Sisters' programmatic needs, are $7,600,000+, only if the Historic Building Code is used in lieu of the 1991 Uniform Building Code, which is the prevailing Building Code standard. If the adaptive reuse of St. Thomas Hall is to comply with the 1991 Uniform Building Code, the estimated construction costs will increase by approximately $1,000,000, bringing the total cost to $8,600,000+. E. Utilization of the 1991 Uniform Building Code will provide a building which meets Title 24 energy conservation requirements and would comply with stricter fire and seismic safety standards. F. In addition to financial infeasibility, adaptive reuse of St. Thomas Hall will not provide sufficient space for the residential and office needs of the Sisters, will not achieve a separation of the private quarters of the Sisters from the quasi -public office functions, and will require modification of the Sisters' programmatic requirements. G. The construction costs presented to the City Council did not include fees for design professionals, site preparation, landscaping, construction contingency, or other soft development costs. H. The construction cost analyses submitted by the Sisters were independently reviewed and verified by the consultants retained by the City, Page & Turnbull, a noted Historic Preservation architectural firm in the Bay Area, and Adamson Associates, who specialize in construction estimates and management. I. Opponents to the demolition of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall failed to present any objective evidence that the cost analyses presented to the City Council was erroneous. J. There is no evidence that outside funding sources, private or public, would be available within a reasonable period of time. K. The insurance settlement is only sufficient to complete Phase I of the project at this time, when soft development costs and contingencies are taken into consideration. L. The Sisters' commitment to use their limited resources, not required to meet their basic needs, for the services of others, will better serve the public interest, at a time when public and quasi -public agencies are faced with unprecedented fiscal constraints, public and private resources should be directed to meeting the human needs of its citizens, (such as library services, schools, maintenance and operation of parks and recreation facilities). M. Energy and water consumption of a restored Mother House and rehabilitated St. Thomas Hall will be substantially higher than the project, and will not promote public policies encouraging energy and water conservation. 5 N. Minimizing the long term operational costs of the Sisters is necessary and desirable, in that the Sisters, with an average age of 63 years, will have decreasing income. O. Adaptive reuse of Mother House, or of St. Thomas Hall, will result in the bedrooms on the third floor, which will not provide an appropriate living environment for the Sisters as they grow older, and will not provide the desirable safe living environment for the older Sisters. P. The continuing presence of the Sisters is important to the City's heritage, will serve as a reminder of the changing cultural dynamics of our society, and the evolution of history. Q. The project will enable the Sisters to fulfill their religious mission, which is service to others. 3. Variance 1 of Alternative B (Repair of the Mother House to its Pre -Fire Condition) is infeasible, in that restoring the Mother House to its pre -fire condition, without bringing the building into compliance with either the 1991 Uniform Building Code, or the Historic Building Code, will not provide a building which can be occupied. 4. Variance 2 of Alternative B (Compliance with Today's Building Code Standards Without Work Contemplated Under Variance 1) is infeasible, in that this Alternative will not restore the exterior of Mother House to its pre -fire status, and will not achieve the preservation goal. 5. Variance 3 of Alternative B (Repair and Retention Without Reconstructing the Fourth Floor and Roof of the Mother House) is infeasible, in that the mansard roof, which was the character defining aspect of the Mother House, will not be replicated. Without a reconstructed replica of the fourth floor and the mansard roof, the Mother House would not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and would not achieve the objective of historic preservation. 6. Variance 4 of Alternative B (Retention, Repair and Reuse of the Mother House and Fencing Around St. Thomas Hall Without Any Repair) is infeasible because the preservation of the Mother House is infeasible for reasons stated herein. A vacant St. Thomas Hall will further deteriorate. The fence around St. Thomas Hall will not be aesthetically pleasing. T. Variance 5 of Alternative B (Retention of Both the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall, Construction of New Buildings on Other Portions of the Project Site) is infeasible, in that the fencing required to be constructed around the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall would be aesthetically unpleasing. Construction of new buildings on other portions of the project site to meet the Sisters' needs will require substantial modification to historic landscaping, and will result in an unacceptable intensity of use of the site. 8. Alternative D (Relocation of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall) is infeasible, in that no suitable site for the relocation of these buildings has been identified. Relocation of these buildings will disassociate them with the Sisters, the City, and their historic and contextual setting. St. Thomas Hall, being an unreinforced masonry building, would not likely survive a move to another site. 9. Uncontroverted evidence before the City Council showed that no alternative site was available which could accommodate the project. C WHEREAS, the City Council is required by CEQA to implement feasible mitigation measures recommended to lessen the significant adverse environmental effects; and WHEREAS', the Sisters are proposing to incorporate the following mitigation measures as part of the project: 1. Mitigation 4.3.1 (Architecture Recording and Display) The Sisters have agreed to prepare plans, drawings, photographic and written documentation for the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall, which meet the standards of Historic Architectural Building Survey, in consultation with the Department of Interior. Copies of the HABS drawings, photographs and documents, will be provided to the Public Library of the City and the Library of Congress, will be part of the Sisters' archives, and will be displayed in the new Gathering/Office Building. 2. Alternative E (Potential Salvage or Rescue of Existing Architectural Element) The FEIR suggested that considerations be given for the salvage or reuse of certain architectural elements in the new buildings of the project. The following architectural elements will be salvaged and reused: A. The four stained glass windows, and two clear leaded glass windows from the sacristy and hall, will be incorporated into the archives/display space of the proposed Gathering/Office Building. B. The stained glass over the existing front door of the Mother House will be reused in the Gathering/Office Building. C. The large Della Robbia from the interior of the main entry lobby of the Mother House will be salvaged and reused on the exterior wall by the main entry to the Gathering/Office Building. D. The small Della Robbia from the interior of the main entry lobby of the Mother House will be salvaged and reused on the exterior wall by the entry to the 22 -Sister Residence. E. The newel posts of the exterior Grand Stair of the Mother House will be reused. F. One or two of the brackets, which survived the fire, will be mounted and displayed in the new archives/display space. The following architectural elements, not mentioned in the FEIR, will be incorporated into the new gardens: A. The columns from the front landing of the Mother House will be placed in the memorial garden in the Sisters' private garden area. B. The hitching post and stone benches near the main exterior stairs of the Mother House will be reused near their existing location. C. The ceremonial bell from the back porch of the Mother House will be incorporated into the garden court beyond the pergola. D. Examples of decorative door knobs and hinges will be salvaged and become part of the archives display. 7 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that implementation of the following mitigation measures have either been achieved conceptu- ally, or are infeasible; as set forth below: 1. Mitigation 4.3.2 (Preservation of Existing Gardens) Preservation of the Olive Grove is infeasible, in that many of the older Sisters are allergic to the pollen of the olive flowers. The pits of the olives, when on the grounds, constitute a hazard for the older Sisters. The survey of the existing trees showed that many of the olive trees are not healthy and the hollows of the trees harbor and breed mosquitos. While a barrier is not incorporated into the landscaping plan separating the public east garden, and the existing private west garden, the proposed project preserves the axis from the center of the circular drive off Grand Avenue to the Summer Arbor. The pergola and difference in elevation between the public space and the rear garden serves as a physical, as well as visual, separation of the public and private garden by increments of access. The gardens of the project site were not formally laid out and have changed during the last 100 years. The landscaping plan presented is consistent with the original design intent. Therefore, physical separation between the east public garden, and the west private garden, has been conceptually achieved. 2. Alternative E (Salvage and Reuse of Architectural Elements) The following architectural elements cannot be salvaged or reused for reasons stated below: A. The tower crosses on the west elevation, the cresting and finial from the roof, the cornice rail, and many of the brackets were destroyed in the 1990 fire. B. The new buildings of the project are designed to reflect a residential scale, and do not have sufficient ceiling height or room dimensions to incorporate architectural elements, which would require construction of space or rooms of similar shape or scale. C. It is unlikely that the exterior bas-relief plaster, which frames the main entrance to St. Thomas Hall, and is over the exterior unreinforced masonry, would survive demolition of the building. D. The exterior windows from the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall could only be incorporated into new buildings with similar form, image, scale and compatible architectural style, if their significance were to be preserved. E. The casework in the sacristy or community room cannot be reused in the new buildings because they cannot be presented in the same groupings as their present installation. Individually, the scale is too large and inappropriate for reuse. F. The new archives/display space is too small for the exhibition of certain architectural elements. G. The architectural elements designed for the interior of the Mother House cannot be incorporated into the landscaping plan because they will not withstand exposure to the elements. H. The arched -back pews are too large for reuse in the new Chapel, and not suitable for incorporation as part of the landscaping plan. L I. The ceramic floor tiles from the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall are not of exceptional artistic merit. The ceramic floor tiles are located inside the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall, and are not available for public viewing. J. The decorative hardware of the existing doors and windows cannot be reused because they do not meet handicapped accessibility requirements. WHEREAS, the City Council has required implementation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, which is designed to ensure that mitigation measures would be completed in a timely and organized manner, and in accordance with certain specifications; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that incorporation of the mitigation measures in the FEIR, or implementation of Alternative E (Salvage and Reuse of Architectural Elements), will not avoid, or mitigate to an insignificant level, the adverse effect of the project; and WHEREAS, CEQA requires that public agencies balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." If the adverse environmental effects cannot be substantially mitigated, as in this project, the City must specify, in writing, the reasons to support its action, based on information in the FEIR and the administrative record. The basis for such a decision can include specific economic, social or other considerations, which make mitigation measures or alternatives to the project identified in the FEIR infeasible; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that overriding benefits exist to warrant approval of the project, notwithstanding its adverse environmental effects, in that: 1. Approval of the project will allow the Sisters to continue their presence in San Rafael at the same location, which has been their home and center for over 100 years. 2. The Sisters, and their services to the community, have been an integral part of the history and cultural heritage of the City. Approval of the project will enable the Sisters to continue their mission, and their contribution to the richness of the history and culture of the City. 3. Relocation of the Sisters outside the City would be an unacceptable termination of the historic and special relationship between the Sisters and the City, depriving the City of their future contribution and service to others. 4. Preservation of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall, in their present state, would detract from the aesthetic value of the project vicinity. 5. Construction of additional buildings on the project site, in addition to the Mother House and/or St. Thomas Hall, would destroy the historic landscaping and park -like setting of the project site. Destruction of the existing open space and landscaping is considered to be a significant adverse impact on the environment. 6. Approval of the project will preserve the historic park -like setting and landscaping elements. 7. Conservation of their resources to enable the Sisters to care for themselves without becoming a burden on the community, or society -at -large, after their retirement, is both necessary and desirable. 01 8. Directing the use of limited resources to service to others, in lieu of preservation of the Mother House or St. Thomas Hall, will better serve the public health and welfare, especially when governmental agencies of all levels are faced with severe budgetary constraints. 9. Meeting today's Building Code, Fire Code, and handicapped access adaptability requirements are necessary and desirable as part of the long-range planning for the Sisters, to insure the Sisters' future safety. 10. The project will better promote the public policies of energy and water conservation. Energy conservation is necessary because of the long-term impact on non-renewable natural resources. WHEREAS, based on all of the foregoing specific economic, social and other considerations, the City Council has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, which are deemed acceptable; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council, after carefully balancing the competing public and private interests, hereby recommends for approval the applications for zone change from PD (Planned Development) to a new PD zone (Z92-2) for the entire site, a use permit for development in the PD zone (UP92-38), and an environmental and design review permit (ED92-75), subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit B, and subject to provisions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached hereto as Exhibit C, which are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a reqular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Mondav the 6th day of December 19_2a, by the folowing vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10 JE E M. 'LEONCINI, City Clerk EXHIBIT A P -D ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sisters of St. Dominic Master Plan, 1520 Grand Avenue, San Rafael (A) This P -D Zoning is approved for development of the following: The proposed project is approved to be built in Phases (IA, IB, and II) as described below: Land Use Proposed Use of the Buildinas for Phase IA: Gathering and Office Building: This building will be one- story wood frame construction, approximately 13,100 square feet in area. Approximately 2,300 square feet of the building will be designed to accommodate the congregational meetings of up to 130 Sisters. The building will feature a display space, relating to the archives or storage area behind it. The balance of the building will contain the administrative operations of the Dominican Congregation; this will consist of private offices, work areas, storage, conference rooms, toilets and staff lounge. 22 -Sister Residence: This building will be two-story wood frame construction, approximately 15,950 square feet in area. This building, designed to serve as home for 22 Sisters, will also have one guest room. Auxiliary spaces include a Chapel, kitchen -dining rooms, work rooms and community room. The center of the building will feature a two-story landscaped court, open to the sky. Two existing garages of wood frame construction, approximately 400 square feet each, will be retained and resurfaced to match the new buildings. Proposed Use of Buildinas for Phase IB: 8 -Sister Residence: This building is proposed to be two-story wood frame construction, approximately 4,600 square feet in area. This structure will house eight Sisters, who will share kitchen -dining facilities, prayer room and community room. Storage/Recreation Building: This will be approximately 2,900 square feet in area, one-story building will contain storage and physical recreation. wood frame construction. This spaces, and space for hobbies Maintenance Building: This building will be one-story wood frame construction, approximately 1,850 square feet in area. Designed principally for use by maintenance staff as a carpentry shop. This building will also contain a laundry and storage room. Proposed Use Of Buildinas For Phase II: 24 -Sister Residence: This is proposed to be one-story wood frame construction, approximately 10,000 square feet in area. A residential facility for the older Sisters, plus support spaces. 8 -Sister Residence: This building is proposed to be two-story wood frame construction, approximately 4,600 square feet in area. This structure will house eight Sisters, who will share kitchen -dining facilities, prayer room and community room. Site Area: 6.83 Acres or 297,518 square feet. 11 Setbacks: The Office/Gathering Building shall be set back 30 feet from the curb edge of Acacia Avenue at the south property line. The 22 -Sister Residence shall be set back 155 feet from Grand Avenue. The exiting garages shall be set back 4 feet from the north property line. All other setbacks shall be as noted on Sheet 5 "Phasing Plan", attached to the November 9, 1993, Planning Commission Staff Report. Lot Coverage: Specific Architectural Standards: Maximum building height of two stories, or approximately 34 feet to roof peak. Parking: 67 parking spaces for Phase IA and IB; 14 additional Parking spaces for Phase II; or a total of 84 parking spaces for both Phases. Circulation: Access shall be from public and private streets according to City standards. (B) All conditions of UP92-38/ED92-76/Z92-2 shall apply. 12 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Fire Devartment (1) Based on the required fire flow, an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout conforming to NFPA Standard 13 (2) Roadways to be all weather surface capable of accommodating 40,000 GVW, minimum 20 feet wide unobstructed. (3) All proposed buildings to have a fire retardant roof covering with a minimum Class "C" listing. (4) No parking fire lanes signs and curb markings shall be installed for all access roadways, parking lots and driveways conforming to Fire Prevention Standard 204 as specified by the Fire marshal. (5) The net overhead vertical clearance for all access roadways and driveways shall be greater than 13 feet 6 inches. (6) If not currently present, the nearest existing fire hydrant shall be located not less than 150 feet from the structure(s) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire flow. The fire hydrant shall be a type Jones 3740 and spotted by the Fire Marshal. Existing fire hydrants in the area shall be upgraded to type Jones 3740 if not already installed. (7) A fire department approved Knox keyway system is required to be installed conforming to Fire Prevention Std. 202. (8) Addresses shall be posted conforming to Fire Prevention Std. 205. (9) The alarms from fire detection systems and commercial sprinkler systems shall be monitored by a UL Central Station Company approved by the San Rafael Fire Department and be issued a UL serially numbered Certificate for Central Station Fire Alarms. (10) A permit application shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau with two sets of plans for review prior to installation of all automatic an fixed fire extinguishing and detection systems. Specification sheets for each type of device shall also be submitted for review. (11) UL/SFM smoke detectors and openable bedroom windows shall be installed conforming to the Uniform Building Code. (12) Trash areas next to combustible buildings or openings in any buildings shall be equipped with a fire sprinkler head. (13) All other applicable Fire Department requirements as of the date of building permit application shall be complied with. (14) All meetings with or inspections by the Fire Department require a minimum 24-hour advanced appointment. (15) Deviation from the above conditions of approval shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. Police Devartment (16) Post signs and paint driveways/curbs/parking areas red which have emergency access lanes. (17) 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 four inches in height and 13 shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. The address numbers shall be illuminated during darkness. (18) Exposed roof vents and ducts 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. (19) Perimeter walls, fences, trash storage areas, etc., shall be built to prevent access to the roof or balconies. (20) 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. (21) All garden and exterior lighting shall be vandal resistant. (22) All exterior lighting shall be on a meter photoelectric cell. (23) The minimum of one -foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided in all exterior doorways and vehicle parking area. (24) A minimum of one-half foot candle at ground level overlap shall be provided on outdoor pedestrian walkways intended for public use. (25) All exterior man doors shall be of solid core construction with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches or with panels not less than 9/16 inches thick. Side garage doors and doors leading from the garage areas to private residences are included in this requirement. (26) Metal framed glass doors shall be set in metal door jambs. (27) 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 1/8 inch in thickness and shall have a minimum hardened steel throw of 1/2 inch. (28) Exterior man doors and doors leading from the garage areas into the private residences shall have a dead locking lathe device with a cylinder guard and a hardened steel throw that is a minimum of one inch long. Both locking mechanisms shall be keyed the same. (29) Exterior jambs for doors shall be so constructed or protected so as to prevent violation of the function of the strike plate from the outside. The strike plate shall be secured to the jamb by a minimum of two screws which must penetrate at least two inches into the solid backing beyond the jamb. (30) Front doors shall have a front door viewer that provides a minimum of 180 degree peripheral vision. (31) Exterior doors that swing outward shall have nonremovable hinge pins. (32) In -swinging exterior doors shall have rabbited jambs. (33) 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. (34) 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 1/8 inch in thickness. The lock shall have a hardened steel throw of 1/2 inch minimum length. (35) Louvered windows shall not be installed within eight feet of the ground level. (36) Any window in or within 40 inches of an exterior door shall be stationary and nonremovable. 14 (37) Landscaping shall not block or obstruct the view of any door, window, or lighting fixture. If compliance with this condition requires removal of existing trees or vegetation proposed to be preserved in the landscaping plan presented to the Planning Commission on November 9,1993, the Planning Department shall meet with the Police Department to modify this condition in order to preserve the historic garden of the project site. (38) Any alternate materials or methods of construction shall be review with the Crime Prevention Officer before installation. (39) The Crime Prevention Officer shall be allowed to inspect and approve the construction prior to occupancy. Building Department (40) An engineered site plan shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. (41) A level "B" soils report must be submitted with the application for building permits. (42) Grading plans shall show all existing and proposed site conditions. (43) All earth and foundation work shall be done under the supervision of the project soils engineer. (44) The project soils engineer shall review and approve the project plans for conformance with the requirements of his report prior to the issuance of a construction permit. (45) The improvement plans shall show all existing and proposed drainage facilities. (46) The improvement plans shall show the location of all existing and proposed sanitary sewer facilities. (47) The improvement plans shall show all proposed and existing frontage improvements. (48) An encroachment permit will be required for any work in the public right-of-way. (49) All existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk damaged during construction shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (50) All utility services shall be underground. (51) Parking lot lighting shall be energy efficient. (52) Standard sidewalk and accessible curb ramps shall be installed along the Grand Avenue frontage. (53) All City requirements pertaining to dust control shall be complied with during demolition. Plannine Detiartment (54) The project shall be constructed in general conformity with the plans presented to the Design Review Board on November 3, 1993, and attached to the Planning Commission staff report dated November 5,1993. The final building plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. 55) The land use shall be in general conformity with Exhibit A attached to Resolution 93- 10. (56) All on-site parking shall be striped with wheelstops or curbing provided at each space. (57) Handicapped parking shall be appropriately marked on the pavement closely accessible to the pertaining use. 15 (58) All trash enclosures shall be constructed of concrete block or masonry and surfaced with the same materials used for the main building. (59) All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers and appurtenance not entirely enclosed within the structure on the side of building or roof shall be screened from public view. The method used to accomplish this screening shall be indicated on the building plans and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. (60) The building techniques, materials, .elevations and appearance of this project as presented for approval, 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 by the Planning Department. (61) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition and shall be free from weeds, trash and debris. (62) A detailed on-site exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Such plans shall indicate fixture design, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding to prevent adverse effects upon adjacent properties. (63 Upon the issuance of certificates of occupancy for Phase I and Phase II, all exterior exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30 day lighting level review by the Planning Department so that the lighting level is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In the event of conflict between this condition of approval and the light requirements of the Police Department, the Planning Department should insure that the safety requirements of the Police Department are met. (64) The project applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached as Exhibit C to Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-10. 65) Prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for the Gathering/Office Building, the applicant shall submit an agreement to the City Attorney for approval, governing maintenance of access to the Dominican Sisters' archives for research purposes. Access to the private papers of the Sisters, and papers related to the internal affairs of the Sisters, shall rest with the discretion of the Sisters. The Sisters may require pre- arrangement for access to their archives. ((66) Before issuance of the first occupancy permit, applicant shall submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Department for review and approval. Said landscaping plan shall be in general conformity with the one presented to the Planning Commission on November 9, 1993. (67) The approval shall be valid for a period ofht ree years from project approval by the City Council and shall thereafter become void unless building permits have been issued. An extension may be granted by the Zoning Administrator for good cause prior to the date stated herein. 16 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN OVERVIEW The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Sisters of St. Dominic Master Plan identifies the significant adverse effects of the demolition of the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall and implementation of the Master Plan ("Project Approvals"). The FEIR also identifies mitigation measures, which, if incorporated into the project, would lessen these significant adverse effects. The conditions of approval imposed on the Sisters' Master Plan require that the mitigation measures contained in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP") be implemented in accordance with the specifications and timing set forth herein. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Architectural Recordina and DisDlav A. The Sisters shall prepare plans, drawings, photographic and written documentation for the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall, which meet the standards of Historic Architectural Building Survey (hereinafter "HABS drawings"), in consultation with the Department of Interior, Park Services. B. The Sisters shall inform the Planning Department of the requirements for HABS drawings determined by the Department of Interior, Park Services. C. The Sisters shall submit one set of the HABS drawings and other documentation for the Mother House and St. Thomas Hall to the Planning Department prior to issuance of demolition permits for each of the buildings. D. The Planning Department shall transmit a set of HABS drawings to the City Library. E. The Sisters shall remit a set of HABS drawings to the Library of Congress, and submit proof of such remittal prior to the issuance of a building permit. F. The Sisters shall maintain a set of HABS drawings on public display in the display space of the new Gathering/Office Building. The maintenance of the NABS drawings shall be monitored periodically by the Planning Department after completion of Phase I of the project. 2. Salvaae and Reuse of Existina Architectural Elements A. The Sisters shall insure that the following architectural elements are incorporated into the project at the following locations: (1) The four stained glass windows, and two clear leaded glass windows from the sacristy and hall will be reused in the archives/display space of the proposed Gathering/Office Building. (2) The finial posts of the exterior Grand Stair of the Mother House will be reused in approximately the same location for the new entry to the pergola and breeze -way connecting the 22 -Sister Residence and the Gathering/Office/Display Building. 17 (3) The large Della Robbia from the interior of the main entry lobby of the Mother House will be incorporated into the exterior wall by the main entry to the Gathering/Office Building. (4) The small Della Robbia from the interior of the main entry lobby of the Mother House will be incorporated into the exterior wall by the entry to the 22 -Sister Residence. (5) The stained glass over the existing front door of the Mother House will be reused over the entry to the Gathering Space as shown on the Landscaping Plan dated December 1, 1993. (6) The columns from the front landing of the Mother House will be reused in the memorial garden in the Sisters' private garden as shown on the Landscaping Plan dated December 1, 1993. (7) The hitching post and stone benches near the main exterior stairs of the Mother House will be reused near their existing location near the existing circular drive as shown in the Landscaping Plan dated December 1, 1993. (8) The ceremonial bell from the back porch of the Mother House will be reused in the Garden courtyard beyond the pergola as shown in the Landscaping Plan dated December 1, 1993 (9) Mounting one or two of the brackets, which survived the fire, as display items in the new archives/ display space. (10) Examples of decorative door knobs and hinges shall be salvaged and displayed. B. The Building Department shall be responsible for monitoring implementation of mitigation measures (1) through (8) during construction. C. The Planning Department shall be responsible for the periodic monitoring of the items proposed to be displayed after completion of Phase I of the project. D. The architectural elements (6) through (8) shall be installed as part of the landscaping plan within six months after issuance of occupancy permits for Phase IB buildings. E. The Planning Department shall be responsible for monitoring the placement of the architectural elements proposed to be incorporated into the landscaping plan. 3. The Sisters have designated Sister Joan Hanna as the Environmental Coordinator, who will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the MMRP. She must notify the City immediately in the event that: A. A new Environmental Coordinator is designated by the Sisters. B. Any mitigation measures cannot be implemented in accordance with the time limits set forth above. In such cases, the Planning Department may grant a time extension, if warranted. C. If salvage or reuse of the architectural elements set forth herein proves to be infeasible, the Environmental Coordinator shall inform the Planning Department. In which case, the Planning Department shall work with the Sisters to find alternative locations for said architectural elements on the project site. If reuse of such elements proves to be infeasible, the Planning Department shall report its findings to the Planning Commission. A1201933.DOM 19