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