Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8762 (Affordable Housing Unit Appeal)RESOLUTION NO. 97 6'2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (TS92-1/ED91- 100) FOR A 31 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AFFORDABLE TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND APPROVING THE REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING THE REVISED TENTATIVE MAP AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A 25 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AFFORDABLE TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS; SOUTHWEST CORNER MISSION AVENUE AND B STREET; BHC, OWNER; KUYKENDALL-CHATHAM, DEVELOPER, CRAIKER ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; ERIC SCHER, ET. AL., APPELLANTS (AP 11-211-01,04, 10, 11) (BOYD COURT) WHEREAS, an application for a 31 unit condominium project affordable to low and moderate income households, including an environmental design permit and tentative map was submitted; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the subject application an environmental Initial Study was prepared consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, on April 14, 1992 the San Rafael Planning Commission reviewed and considered public testimony, the Initial Study, the Negative Declaration and the staff report at a duly noticed Public Hearing on the proposed design review application and tentative map for the above mentioned project and voted to adopt the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring program and conditionally approve the Tentative Map and Environmental and Design Review Permit for said 31 -unit condominium project; and, WHEREAS, Eric Scher, et. al., representing the Boyd Park Neighborhood Association, appealed the Planning Commission's adoption of the Negative Declaration and conditional approval of the Tentative Map and Environmental and Design Review Permit, and requested that the approval be denied based on the appellant's assertion that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and CEQA Guidelines and on the comments provided during the Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 14, 1992 and correspondence in the public record that the project may have significant environmental impacts, including scenic view obstruction, alteration of a significant historical area, transportation/ circulation, and recreational opportunities; and, WHEREAS, on May 18, 1992, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the appeal, accepting public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff; and, ORIGINAL WHEREAS, the City Council closed the public hearing on May 18, 1992 and determined that there were concerns with the proposed 31 -unit project with regard to mass and bulk of the building; and, WHEREAS, the City Council directed that an Advisory Committee be formed to work with the project applicants on issues of mass and bulk; and, WHEREAS, the Advisory Committee consisted of the Mayor, one Council Member, two Planning Commissioners, two Design Review Board Members, one Cultural Affairs Commissioner and two neighborhood representatives; and, WHEREAS, the Advisory Committee met four times between July 8, 1992 and August 14, 1992 to review options to reduce the mass and bulk of the project; and, WHEREAS, the project was redesigned to be a 25 -unit building setback 15' from Mission Avenue, reduced in height to two stories along Mission Avenue, and reduced in height to three stories above subterranean parking on the south elevation; and, WHEREAS, the Advisory Committee endorsed the revised project and recommended that it proceed through the City's normal review process; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board reviewed the revised 25 -unit project at their September 9, 1992 meeting and recommended minor changes to be incorporated into the plans and approval of the redesigned 25 -unit project to the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on September 29, 1992 the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the staff report at a duly noticed Public Hearing on the proposed design review application and tentative map for the redesigned 25 -unit project and as there were no public comments received during the public hearing, they recommended conditional approval of the Tentative Map and Environmental and Design Review Permit for said 25 -unit condominium project to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, on October 19, 1992 the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the Negative Declaration and revised 25 -unit design review application and tentative map, accepting public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the revised 25 -unit project is consistent with the General Plan and therefore determined that the appeal on this issue was without merit; and, WHEREAS, the Council determined that the redesigned 25 -unit project did not have the potential for creating a significant impact on the environment in the areas of scenic view obstruction, alteration of a significant historical area, - 2 - transportation/ circulation, and recreation and therefore determined that the appeal on this issue was without merit; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the Negative Declaration as required by CEQA for the redesigned 25 -unit project is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and therefore determined that the appeal on this issue was without merit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Rafael City Council does hereby deny the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's action to adopt the Negative Declaration and conditionally approve the Tentative Map (TS92-1) and the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED91-100) application for the redesigned 25 -unit condominium project located on the southwest corner of Mission Avenue and B Street, based upon the following findings: Negative Declaration 1. The Negative Declaration for the redesigned 25 -unit project is consistent with the provisions of CEQA in that an Initial Study has been prepared on the project which determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment. Revisions have been made to the design and mitigation measures have been attached to the project which reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Public notice of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration has been done pursuant to state law. The proposed Negative Declaration has been considered in conjunction with comments received during the review period. 2. A mitigation monitoring program has been adopted to insure implementation of and compliance with all conditions required to mitigate any impact to a level of insignificance. 3. The proposed redesigned 25 -unit project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Residential /Office in that General Plan Policies state that residential uses in Mixed Use designations may be developed at the highest density range (15.0 - 32.0 units per acre). Environmental and Design Review Permit 4. The proposed redesigned 25 -unit project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan 2000, including Policy DT -30 (site designation as a housing opportunity site), DT -13 and LU -14 (high density residential and 0,7 FAR commercial intensity in the downtown), LU -19, LU -34, LU -36, DT -1 and DT -15 (projects harmonize in style, intensity and type with surrounding area, respect unique features and enhance existing residential development with building design and materials), H-20 (affordable housing projects to low and moderate income households), H-43, H-44 (characteristics of housing opportunity area and criteria for selection of housing opportunity sites), H-16 (residential uses in commercial areas), H-32 (handicapped accessible units), H-33 (low income housing), H-18 (land lease approach to providing affordable housing), H-21, H-22 (BMR agreements and resale), C-1 (level of service has not been reduced), C-18 (payment of traffic mitigation fees), - 3 - R-4 (payment of parkland dedication fees), S-4, S-5 (geotechnical review required), S- 11 (seismic safety requirement), S-21, S-23 (fire and safety requirements), N-1 (noise and land use compatibility), N-5, N-7 (downtown noise areas and interior noise standards), DT -2, DT -4 (encourages housing in downtown), DT -10, DT -11 (protection and relationship to existing surrounding residential development). and DT -21 (project does not have any effect on proposed circulation improvements). 5. A waiver of Policy R-4, requiring payment of a parkland dedication in -lieu fee is granted for eight units consistent with Chapter 15.38.070 (d) of San Rafael Ordinance 1558 as these units of the proposed redesigned 25 -unit project are to be built as below market rate (BMR) units as defined by the General Plan. 6. The Environmental and Design Review application for the redesigned 25 - unit project conforms to the design standards established in the General Plan 2000 and to the Criteria for Approval of Applications listed in Section 14.11.050 of the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance. 7. The proposed redesigned 25 -unit project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the surrounding community of the City because all impacts identified in the environmental review were mitigated to a level of insignificance. The redesigned 25 -unit project has been reviewed by all appropriate City agencies and Boards and their comments have been incorporated into project revisions through design and conditions of approval. Subdivision 10. As conditioned, approval of the proposed redesigned subdivision would be consistent with important General Plan Policies and consistent with the Land Use Designation of Mixed Use Residential /Office in that a Density Bonus has been allowed for affordable housing. 11. Approval of the proposed redesigned subdivision would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding development in that the potential environmental impacts have been assessed and mitigated through project design and recommended conditions of approval. 12. The site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development based on the review by the Advisory Committee, Design Review Board and the information contained in the Negative Declaration. 13. The redesign or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitats or cause serious public health problems based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration. 14. The City has balanced the regional housing needs of the region against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources and concludes that adequate public services are available for the site, the - 4 - redesigned 25 -unit project will not impact environmental resources, and the redesigned 25 -unit project meets an identified housing need. 15. The redesign of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible based on balancing the need to create a design compatible with the neighborhood and with solar energy needs, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. I, JEANNE M. LEONCE"JL Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Mondav the 19 th day of October , 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None A& . ' E M. LEO INI, City Clerk