HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 12502 (33 Pablo Ave. Parking Structure)RESOLUTION NO. 12502
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING AN APPEAL
(AP08-002) AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED07-045) AND
TENTATIVE MAP (TS07-001) TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 4
STORY, 33,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4 -
STORY, 82 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT OVER THREE LEVELS
OF UNDERGROUND PARKING WITH 138 PARKING SPACES, INCLUDING A ONE
UNIT DENSITY BONUS AND ONE CONCESSION FOR USE OF STATE PARKING
RATES, ON A 81,495 SQ. FT. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 SAN PABLO AVENUE
(APN'S 179-291-59 & -60)
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2007, Jeff Hutchinson, on behalf of Sequoia Heights Capital Partners,
LLC ("applicant"), submitted a pre -application to the City of San Rafael requesting conceptual review
and comments for a project that would demolish a 4 -story, 33,000 sq. ft. office building and construct a
new 4 -story structure containing 93 -residential units at 33 San Pablo; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2007, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the pre -
application in a duly -noticed public meeting and provided preliminary comments on the conceptual plans;
and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2007, the applicant submitted their formal application for an
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-045) to the City of San Rafael requesting approval of a
project that would demolish a 4 -story, 33,000 sq. ft. office building and construct a new 4 -story structure
containing 83 -residential units at 33 San Pablo; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2007, the applicant submitted a subsequent application requesting
approval of a Tentative Map (TS07-001) to allow the subdivision of the 83 residential units into
condominium units; and
WHEREAS, the project proponent proposed to provide 16.2 of the 81 units (base density
allowed in the Office Zoning District) as affordable to low- and moderate -income households, thus
qualifying the project for a 20% density bonus, or 17 additional bonus units, and one concession,
consistent with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915 and Section 16.030.H of
the City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the project proponent has requested one concession to the City's parking standards
to allow the use of the State parking rates, as allowed by Section 16.030.H.3.a(i) of the City of San Rafael
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with City Council Resolution #8037, the applicant conducted a
neighborhood meeting at the Friends of Marin Conference Room at the Marin County Fairgrounds on
July 26, 2007 and presented the project, answered questions and solicited input; and
WHEREAS, the DRB reviewed the project design on August 21, 2007 as a formal review and
unanimously voted to continue the applications, recommending that the proposed design was too massive
and lacked articulation, stepping and variation in height; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2007, the applicant requested to proceed directly to the Planning
Commission without addressing the DRB's recommendations to seek the Commission's input on the
appropriateness of the density and parking; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2007, the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit and Tentative Map
applications, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community
Development Department staff, and continued the application back to the DRB Board with specific
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to continue (5-1-1, Kirchmann dissenting, Mills
absent) the applications back to the DRB with the following direction: a) Scale and density including
parking and unit count are acceptable for the site and surroundings; b) Commission understood that the
project of this many units would result in a large volume building; c) Massing and bulk of the structure were
not adequately addressed and needed more work to better conform with five design -related General Plan
policies (H-3, NI1-2, CD -2, CD -3 and CD -11); and d) Recommendations were provided on how to achieve
these further refinement to the mass and bulk; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2007, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision to continue the project citing their disagreement with the City's application of the State density
bonus law relating to the number of concessions to which the project is entitled;
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2007, the City Attorney responded to the applicant's appeal letter
stating that the appeal was premature given that the Commission had not yet rendered a final decision and
there was nothing to appeal;
WHEREAS, the project was subsequently revised to address the Commission's recommendations
as follows: a) Reducing number of units by one (from 83 to 82); b) Spreading out the lower floors of the
structure; c) Increasing the stepping of the upper floors of the structure at the northeastern side and front of
the structure; d) Providing more pronounced vertical offsets in the tower elements along the rear elevation
(variation in height), and e) Providing more horizontal offsets along the rear elevation through an increased
number of building planes and the depth of the planes; and
WHEREAS, these revisions were reviewed by the DRB on December 4, 2007 and January 8, 2008,
and following the January 8°i meeting the DRB ultimately voted (3-2 with Olmstead and Crew dissenting) to
recommend approval of the project, finding that the revisions had adequately addressed the Commission's
previous direction and the project details such as building materials, colors, landscaping, lighting and site
improvements were appropriate for the site with certain minor modifications. The DRB's recommendation
included the following conditions: a) Moving the visitor parking driveway area at least 15 feet away from
the side property line with 27 San Pablo and allowing the removal of three redwood trees that would result
from this relocation of the parking areas; and b) Requiring a darker upper body color. The DRB also
requested a final review of final details of building materials and roof venting prior to the issuance of a
building permit; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2008, the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit and Tentative Map
applications, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community
Development Department staff, and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-05 by a
vote of 4-2-1 (Commissioners Sonnet and Mills dissenting and Paul absent) approving the Environmental
and Design Review Permit (ED07-045) and Tentative Map (TS07-001) to allow the demolition of the
existing 4 -story, 33,000 sq. ft. office building and the construction of a new 4 -story, 82 -unit residential
condominium project, including a one unit density bonus and one concession for use of state parking rates;
and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2008, Stacey DeGooyer, Jon Mosher, Belle Chiao, Joan Gordon, Norm
Staub, Dolores Paganetti and Dave Swift filed an appeal (AP08-002) pursuant to the provisions of San
Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, citing two reasons for the appeal and requesting that the Council
reverse the March 11, 2008 decision of the Planning Commission; and;
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2008, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
Appeal (AP08-002), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of
the Planning Division.
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted the public hearing, accepting testimony of the applicants,
appellants and members off the public and closed the public hearing. In conclusion, the City Council
unanimously voted to continue the appeal to their June 2, 2008 meeting and requested that the applicant
present a video simulation of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2008, the City Council conducted a public meeting to review the requested
video photosimulation of the project and considered the written report of the Planning Division.
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which
this decision is based is the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (08-
002) and affirms the March 11, 2008 decision of the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 08-05)
approving the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a new 82 -unit residential
condominium project at 33 San Pablo Ave. The Council finds that the points of the appeal cannot be
supported for the following reasons:
1. Appeal Contention No. 1, states: "Tire following areas are not consistent with Me General Plat —
Policies, H-3, NH -1, NH -2, NH -S, NH -6, NH -86, CD -2, CD -3, CD -S, CD -7, CD -11, C-7, G24, and
C-27.
The Council arms and incorporates be reference herein the findings and action of the Planning
Commission by Resolution No. 08-05 approving the project. The Council further affirms the following
policies and findings:
a. The General Plan is a collection of competing goals and policies, which must be read together, as a
whole and not in isolation. In reviewing a project for consistency with the General Plan, the City is
required to `balance' the competing goals and policies;
b. The subject site is not located in a homogeneous single-family residential neighborhood, but rather
in a mixed-use area with a variety of other adjacent uses, including single-family residential, multi -
and high-density residential and office uses;
c. Infill development is necessary for the City to meet the State's housing requirements, and through
the adoption of General Plan 2020, residential uses in mixed use and commercial areas are a major
component of the strategy in the Housing Element to meet housing needs for both the community
and the region;
Given the variety of building forms and mixture of uses on the adjacent properties and in the
surrounding area, the proposed massing and architecture is found to be consistent with the
applicable design policies as well compatible with the surrounding setting; and
e. In weighing and balancing all policies of the General Plan, the project is found to be consistent with
the intent of the General Plan.
2. Appeal Contention No. 2, states: "The categorical CEQA exemption for In Fill Development project
should not be allowed There will be a significant effect relating to traffic if the project is built as
currently approved The traffic analysis done by the City is only hypothetical and the "historical use"
argument does not reflect current conditions on this dead end street"
The Council affirms and incorporates by reference herein the CEQA determination and action of the
Planning Commission by Resolution No. 08-05 approving the project. The Council further affirms the
following findings:
a. The traffic analysis for this project was conducted by the City's Traffic Engineer, an engineer
licensed for such technical analysis by the State of California;
b. The methodology used for analyzing traffic impacts is consistent with the methods by which traffic
has been analyzed throughout the City of San Rafael since the adoption of General Plan 2000;
c. Use of the historical traffic generation from a vacant building in traffic impact analysis is
appropriate given that: 1) existing vacant buildings have development rights that cannot be taken
away; 2) although currently vacant, these buildings could be re -occupied at any time without any
City review; 3) discounting traffic from vacant buildings in the City's traffic model would lead to
an inaccurate view of traffic impacts since other projects in an area could be reviewed and found to
be within the traffic thresholds while a building is vacant; 4) if the existing vacant buildings were
not retained in the model, it would cause the area to exceed the threshold when a vacant building is
reoccupied; 5) is a more restrictive and conservative and 5) is consistent with the methodology by
which traffic impacts have been analyzed throughout the City of San Rafael since the adoption of
General Plan 2000;
d. The San Rafael General Plan 2020 Circulation Element C-5 establishes Level of Service (LOS)
standards as the threshold for evaluating traffic impacts and these thresholds are the measures for
determining significance of an impact for CEQA; and
e. In order to qualify for the Infill CEQA exemption (Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines), a
project must meet five different conditions, one of which is that "approval of the project would not
result in any significant effect relating to traffic, noise, air quality..." Given that the project would
neither exceed the City's established LOS standard, nor change the LOS from the existing levels,
the project would not result in a significant effect relating to traffic and therefore, the CEQA
exemption is appropriate determination for this project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the time within which to seek judicial review of this
decision is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council reaffirms the approval of the
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-045) and Tentative Map (TS07-001) based on the
following findings and conditions of approval:
Environmental and Design Review Permit Findings
(ED07-045)
1. The project design, as proposed and conditioned, is in accord with all applicable policies of the San
Rafael General Plan 2020 as identified in the table attached to the staff report analyzing the project's
consistency with the General Plan 2020 and provided below:
a) The proposed project as designed would be consistent with Land Use Element Policies LU -2
(Development Timing), LU -3 (Project Selection Process), LU -5 (Urban Service Area) LU -8
(Density of Residential Development), LU -12 (Building Heights), LU -14 (Land Use
Compatability) and LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories) given that the project: 1) would be
approved at a time when there is adequate infrastructure to serve the proposed development; 2) is
exempt from the requirements of Project Selection Process (PSP) since the proposed project
would generate fewer peak hour trips than historical levels for the existing office building; 3) is
within the maximum density of 81 units allowed for the Office land use designation, including a
one unit density bonus as allowed by State law; 5) would result in a 36 -foot tall building which is
consistent with the maximum building height limit of 36 feet allowed for this part of North San
Rafael; 6) would create a new use for the site, multi -family residential, and this is similar to and
comptatible with the type and intensity of the other residential uses in the surrounding
neighborhod; 7) revisions to the structure have increased the stepping of the building and
provided more vertical and horizontal offsets thereby creating a structure that is adequateley
articulated and minimizes the large expanse of monotonomous wall planes as viewed from the
North San Pedro Road and Highway 101 transportation corridors; and 8) would be consistent
with the Office land use designation in that the residential uses are specifically allowed and
encouraged by this designation.
b) The proposed project as designed would be consistent with Housing Element Policies H-1
(Housing Distribution), H-3 (Design That Fits into the Neighborhood Context), H-10 (Protection
of Existing Housing Stock), H-13 (Special Needs), H-18 (Adequate Sites), H-19 (Inclusionary
Housing Requirements), H-21 (Density Bonuses and other Regulatory Incentives Affordable
Housing), H-22 (Infill Near Transit) and H-23 (Mixed Use) given that the project: 1) is located in
area that has been identified in the General Plan 2020 to be an area in which additional housing
should be created because of its proximity to transportation, jobs and services; 2) would not
impact the neighborhood context given the uniqueness of the area with the Office zoning behind
Single -Family zoning given that further refinements to the massing of the structure were made by
spreading the base of the structure to the northeast and southwest and reducing and stepping the
upper floors, providing increased stepping and thereby reducing the perceived mass from the
residential properties in the front, likewise increasing transitions in height and setbacks; 3) would
not reduce the existing housing stock, but would create additional housing stock to the City's
inventory; 4) would develop residential condomium units that are smaller than typical single-
family homes and would therefore be more affordable by design; 5) would provide housing units
that are designed to be accessible and provide additional housing opportunities for the disabled;
6) would provide 20% affordability (16 of the 81 base units are reserved as affordable units) and
would therefore meet the City's policy of 20% affordability of projects of this size; 7) requests a
one density bonus unit, or 1.2% density bonus, where a 20% density bonus, or 17 additional units,
is allowed by providing 20% of the project as affordable consistent with State density bonus law;
and 8) would create additional multi -family housing in an area that is near large employment
center and near transit opportunities and on a site that is surrounded by numerous other office,
service and multi -family residential uses.
c) The project is consistent with the applicable Neighborhoods Element Policies NH -2 (New
Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -3 (Housing Mix), NH -5 (Safe Streets), NH -6
(Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendly Streets), NH -8 (Parking) and NH -86 (Design Consideration for
Development in the Vicicnity of the Civic Center) given that: 1) the revisions to the architecture
and massing of the structure provide a more stepped approach on the front, side and rear
elevations and this reduces the perceived mass of the structure. Furthermore, there are now
additional height offsets in the roof elements to further reduce the mass. Lastly, the location of
balconies for the units have been re -oriented to reduce the number of openings that face the
backyards of the single-family homes along San Pablo Ave; 2) the project would provide a
mixture of smaller residential units ranging from 900 to 1,200 sq ft; 3) the project proposes to
improve the north side of San Pablo Avenue with frontage improvements to improve pedestrian
access and safety on the street; and 4) the project would provide well landscaped parking in front
of the building and would place a majority of the on-site parking in a subterranean garage.
d) The project as proposed would be consistent with Community Design Element Policies -1 (City
Image), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -3 (Neighborhoods), CD -5 (Views), CD -7
(Downtown and Marin Civic Center), CD -9 (Transportation Corridors) and CD -11 (Multifamily
Design Guidelines), CD -14 (Recreational Areas), CD -15 (Participation in Project Review), CD -
18 (Landscaping) and CD -19 (Lighting) given that the project: 1) was revised to provide more
articulation and stepping and therefore presents an articulated elevation from the transportation
corridor along North San Pedro Road and Highway 101; 2) is located in an unique area given that
it is a commercial mixed-use Office District located behind a small pocket of a Single -Family
Residential District and surrounded by Medium- and High -Density Residential Districts, which is
not typical of a single-family residential neighborhood; 3) was revised to address the previously
noted concerns with the scale of this mixed use neighborhood. Overall, the spreading out of the
lower floors structure and the reduction/stepping back of the upper floors provide more
articulation to the mass of the structure and more sensitive transitions from adjacent structures.
Furthermore, the project now includes eight different wall planes along the rear elevation, with
the offsets ranging between 5 to 25 feet and the height of the roof elements along the rear have
been staggered and varied. When combined, the project revisions provide both vertical and
horizontal relief in the rear elevation (facing North San Pedro Road), which is the most publicly
visible elevation of this project; 4) would not have a significant impact on views of the hills,
ridgelines or the Civic Center from public vantage points around the site given that it is no taller
than the current office building and would not block or silhouette any view of the hills or
ridgelines or the Civic Center from public vantage points; 5) would provide adequate on-site
recreational opportunities through the provision of a rooftop terrace, common outdoor area and
common recreational rooms within the building; 6) would provide adequate landscaping to screen
the building, outdoor parking area, and the site and to provide a sense of place and natural
vegetation; 7) was revised to address previously noted inconcistencies with the Design
Guidelines; and 8) would include low level lighting that is focused and would not spill over onto
adjacent properties or the public street.
e) The project as proposed would be consistent with Circulation Policies C-5 (Traffic Level of
Service Standards — Intersection LOS), C-7 (Circulation Improvements Funding) and C-24
(Connection Between Neighbohroods and Activity Centers) in that the project: 1) would generate
88 fewer daily trips (with 41 less A.M. peak hour and 7 less P.M. peak hour trips) than historical
levels generated by the existing office structure; 2) would not adversely affect the LOS for the
nearby intersections given the project would generate fewer trips (A.M. + P.M. peak hours) than
existing; 3) would result in a net reduction in trips, and therefore no mitigation fees would be
required; and 4) proposes to install frontage improvements along the north side of San Pablo
Avenue to create a safe and easy connection from this site and others around this site to the Civic
Center and activity areas at the corner of North San Pedro Road and Civic Center Drive.
The project as proposed would be consistent with Infrastructure Element Policies I-2 (Adequacy
of City Infrastructure and Services), 1-4 (Utility Undergrounding) and I-10 (Sewer Facilities) in
that: a) the public utility agencies that would provide water, sewer and other services to the site
have reviewed the proposed project and determined that there is adequate capacity to service the
new project given that the proposed new use would be within the historical levels of use; 2) the
site is already served by utilities and a based on City policy, all new utility connections would be
required to be undergrounded; and 3) the site is already served by Marin Municipal Water District
and Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District who have reviewed the project and determined there
is adequate capacity to serve the addition of this facility.
g) The project as proposed would be consistent with Safety Element Policies: S-1 (Location of
Future Development), S-3 (Use of Hazard Maps in Development Review), S-4 (Geotechnical
Review) S-5 (Minimize Potential Effects of Geological Hazards), S-6 (Seismic Safety of New
Buildings), S-12 (Use of Environmental Databases in Development Review), S-13 (Potential
Hazardous Soils Conditions), S-14 (Hazardous Materials Storage, Use and Disposal), S-17 (Flood
Protection of New Development), S-25 (Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Requirements), S-26 (Fire and Police Services), S-31 (New Development in Fire Hazard Areas)
and S-32 (Safety Review of Development Projects) in that: 1) geoseismic dangers have been
evaluated through the City's Geotechnical Review process and found the project would not pose
potential danger to the health, safety and welfare of the community; 2) the Geology and Stability
Map and Flood Hazard Area Maps of the General Plan were reviewed; It was determined that
based on these maps, the site is not located in a 100 -year flood hazard area; 3) a Geotechnical
Investigation Report was prepared and found that the project meets the requirements set forth in
the Geotechnical Review Matrix and is appropriate for the preliminary design stages of the
project; 4) the above-mentioned Geotechnical Investigation Reports found that the proposed
development was feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and recommended certain measures be
incorporated in the construction of the building and those have been incorporated into conditions
of approval; 5) the proposed project would entail all new construction and would be built in
accordance with the most current building and seismic codes as required by the City's Municipal
Code; 6) the Fire Department has reviewed the list of contaminated sites and this site is not
included on the list; 7) no hazardous materials are proposed to be used, stored or disposed of at
this site as part of the new residential use; 8) the subject site is not located in the 100 -year flood
zone and therefore is not be required to be constructed in accordance with Chapter 18 of the
City's Municipal Code; 9) the project has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department,
which implements the Stormwater Pollution Prevention standards and regulations; as designed,
the proposed project includes adequate measures to reduce stormwater run-off consistent with the
standards established by the RWQCB; 10) the project would direct all run-off to the landscaped
areas and on-site filtration devices before being discharged into the City's stormdrain system; 11)
the City of San Rafael Police and Fire Departments have reviewed and recommended approval
with certain conditions of approval to ensure the new development would comply with their
regulations and standards. The Fire Department has found that the project, with the inclusion of
an alternate means of protection, would comply with all Fire Codes and conditions of approval
have been required to assure that the project meets the alternate means of protection
requirements; and 12) according to the Fire Department, the subject site is located in an urban
area not in the hillsides of San Rafael and is not identified as a high fire hazard area.
h) The project, as proposed, would be consistent with Noise Element Policies N-1 (Noise Impacts
on New Development), N-3 (Planning and Design of New Development) and N-5 (Traffic Noise
from New Development) in that: 1) a preliminary evaluation of the existing noise environment
around the site found that the project would be consistent with the adopted Noise Ordinance and
Policies; furthermore, the project would be designed so that the interior levels of the units would
be consistent with the required noise attentuation standards as those described by State
Administrative Code standards, Title 25, Part 2 with certain recommendations that have been
included as part of the proposed project by the applicant; and 2) as designed, the project would
generate fewer vehicular trips than historically existed and therefore no additional traffic noise
would be generated.
i) The project as proposed would be consistent with Conservation Element Policies CON -1
(Protection of Environmental Resources) CON -9 (Native and/or Sensitive Habitats), CON -10
(Impacts to Sensitive Habitats), CON -12 (Preservation of Hillsides), CON -13 (Threatened and
Endangered Species) and CON -14 (Special Status Species) in that the proposed project: 1) would
be developed on a previously graded and developed site on which there are no known
environmental resources; 2) is not located on or near a sigificant hillside and is located in
developed neighborhood, surrounded by development on all four sides; given the site conditions
and location of public areas in the surrounding area, the proposed new structure would only
minimally impact views of the hills to the south from public areas and would neither break nor
silhouette any ridgelines; and 3) would be located on a site that has been graded, paved and
developed for numerous years and is situated in developed neighborhood. There are no known
threatened or endangered species of plants or animals on or immediately around the subject site.
j) The project as proposed would be consistent with Air and Water Quality Element Policies AW -1
(State and Federal Standards), AW -2 (Land Use Compatibility), AW -7 (Local, State and Federal
Standards) and AW -8 (Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff) given that: 1) due to the developed
nature of the site, the project would generate less vehicular trips than historical levels and,
therefore, would not impact air quality impacts and would be consistent with the Bay Area Air
Quality District requirements; traffic associated with the facility was evaluated and found to be
less than the historical levels generated from the site and would therefore be within the thresholds
established for air quality impacts; furthermore, the proposed development is within the
additional development assumed under the General Plan 2020 and cumulative impacts have been
analyzed and therefore found to be acceptable; 2) this residential development is situated in the
Civic Center area and abuts many other similar residential and offices buildings and the proposed
residential use is compatible with surrounding land uses; 3) the project would be required to
comply with the City's Stormwater Pollution Prevention standards, which are derived from the
Regional Water Quality Board; the proposed drainage plan is designed to be consistent with the
stormwater pollution standards by treating stormwater runoff on-site in landscape areas or
through an on-site filtration area before it enters into the storm drain system; 4) a standard
building permit condition of approval would be required if this project is approved to require the
project to implement a storm water pollution and prevention plan (SWPPP) and Best
Management Practices to minimize impacts on water quality and non -point source pollution
discharge into the storm water system; and 5) temporary impacts to air quality from the
construction of the project have been addressed through standard conditions of approval required
of this project.
2. The project design, as proposed, is consistent with the all of the purposes of Chapter 25
(Environmental and Design Review Permit) in that the project:
a) Would be consistent with the Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance Chapter as documented in the
table attached to the staff report analyzing consistency with the Zoning Ordinance.
b) Would maintain and improve the quality of, and relationship between, the proposed development
and the surrounding area to contribute to the attractiveness of the City given that: 1) the Design
Review Board reviewed the proposed design and ultimatley recommended approval of the
project, finding that the project had been adequately revised to address the Commission's
previous direction for the need for further refinenements to mass, bulk and sensitive transitions
from adjacent structures; and 2) the project revisions would minimize the large expanse of wall
along the rear elevation through adequate articulation, vertical and horizontal offsets, and
adequate stepping on the side and rear elevations and would therefore not pose a negative visual
impact from the North San Pedro Road and Highway 101 transportation corridors.
c) Would preserve balance and harmony within the neighborhood given: 1) the project site is located
in a unique area with a mixed use office district located behind a small pocket of single-family
residential structures and surrounded by a variety of zoning districts, including single-family,
medium -density, high-density and office; 2) the unique mixed use nature of the area leads to the
finding that the size of the project is appropriate in relation to the neighborhood as a whole; and
3) revisions have been incoroporated into the project plans to provide more appropriate
transitions in terms of height or mass with the adjacent structures.
d) Would promote design excellence given the changes made to the project to provide more stepping
and articulation as identified in a), b) and c) above. The project architecture has been revised to
be more harmonious with the surrounding buildings in terms of building design, mass and scale.
Although the height and mass of the proposed building is larger than the other buildings
surrounding this site, the structure is consistent with the development criteria for the site, and
additional stepping and articulation have been incorporated into the design of the structure to
provide more sensitive transitions to adjacent buildings.
Furthermore, the project as designed is consistent with the review criteria contained in Chapter
25.040 (Environmental and Design Review Permit) based on the following:
e) On January 8, 2008, the Design Review Board ultimately recommended (on a split vote of 3-2)
approval of the project design findings that the modifications that were made to the structure were
adequate to address the Commission's recommendations from October 9, 2007 and that the
architectural details, quality of materials, colors, landscaping and site improvements were
appropriate for the site. As part of their recommendation, the DRB required some minor changes
to the project, including: 1) changes to the location of the guest parking lot, 2) changes to the
landscape palette; and 3) the requirement for a final review of the building details such as quality
of materials prior to the issuance of a building permit. These recommendations have been
incorporated as conditions of approval.
f) The revised current project design provides a more harmonious relationship between the proposed
structure on this site and those structures in the vicinity of the site, specifically relating to: 1)
including more transitions between this structure and adjacent structures; 2) providing increased
setbacks and stepbacks of the upper floor of the proposed structure from the adjacent residential
buildings; and 3) reducing privacy impacts from the new structure on adjacent structures and
private yards areas through the relocation and orientation of decks and the stepping of the upper
floors of this structure further back from the adjacent structures.
g) The revised design has been more harmoniously integrated with the architecture in the vicinity in
terms of scale and building design. The proposed design has incorporated more articulation and
stepping to provide more sensitive transitions with the surrouding structures and the design of the
rear elevation has been modified to provide adequate articulation through the inclusion of
increased horizontal and vertical offsets, thereby providing visual relief from the massing impacts
as viewed from Highway 101 and North San Pedro Road.
h) The current design better implements the design elements and approaches which are encouraged
in the review criteria contained in this Chapter, including the creation of interest in the building
elevation and variation in building placement and height, in that: a) the rear elevation is more
adequately stepped and articulated and thereby does not appear as a large montonous wall; 2)
there is increased variety in building height to minimze the perceived mass, especially as viewed
from the front and rear elevations; and more sensitive transitions between this structure and the
single -story structures to the front of the site have been incorporated into the design to reduce
privacy, shading and massing impacts.
i) The project design better complies with the residential Residential Design Guidelines pertaining
to building design, building height and scale.
3. The project design, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable site, architecture
and landscaping design criteria and guidelines for the Office District in which the site is located in
that: a) the siting of the building and site improvements is more respective of the surrounding
properties and property improvements; b) the proposed design was reviewed by the DRB on four
occasions for conformance with the design -related policies contained in the General Plan, Residential
Design Guidelines as well as Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permit) and was
ultimatley found to be consistent with the Planning Commission's previous direction on the
applicable design policies; c) the DRB also found that the the project revisions were adequate to
address the Commission's previous direction to provide more sensitive transitions with adjacent
properties and more articulation and stepping to reduce massing impacts.
4. The project design, as proposed and conditioned, minimizes adverse environmental impacts in that:
a) The site has been previously graded, paved and developed and has existed in its current
developed state for nearly 30 years. No sensitive species are located in this urban area on a site
currently developed as a commerical office building;
b) The project would not cause the level of service at nearby intersections to exceed the standards of
the General Plan since the proposed project would generate 88 fewer vehicular trips (daily) with
41 less A.M. and 7 less P.M. peak hour trips than those that have historically existed on the site as
an office building; and
c) The project would not result in significant effects relating to trafffic, noise, air quality or water
quality and is not located on a site that has any value for endangered, rare or threatened species.
5. The project design, as proposed, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that: a) the proposed design, as
revised, provides adequate transitions in terms of mass and bulk from the adjacent structures; b) the
project would not result in any environmental impacts given that the site is a previously graded and
developed infill site; c) the site is surrounded by existing urban development and is not near any
creeks or known environmental resources; d) the project design would blend with the surrounding
urban environment and would preserve the greatest extent possible views of Mt. Tamalpais and
surrounding hills and ridgelines; e) the project's siting, scale and mass has been revised to provide a
more senstive transition from the adjacent residential and commercial structures and would not
significantly impact natural light on adjacent properties; f) project lighting would not spillover or
create glare onto adjacent properties; g) project related impacts to noise, traffic and security have
been addressed as part of the conditions of approval incorporated to address these issues; and h) the
high density residential use would be similar to other residential uses compatible with the other office
uses found in the vicinity.
10
6. Based on the proposed affordability levels, the project qualifies for a state density bonus of up to
20%, or 17 bonus units, and one concession/ incentive. The applicant has requested a density bonus of
one unit, or a 1.2% density bonus, and one concession to allow the use of the State parking rates.
Tentative Map Findings
(TS07-001)
1. As proposed, the Tentative Parcel Map, including the design and improvements, is consistent with the
objectives, goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 as discussed in Environmental and
Design Review Permit Finding #1.
2. The project site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the 82 unit condominium
subdivision in that:
a) Adequate water, sewer and other utility services systems are available to serve the proposed site.
Each of the agencies have reviewed the uses and improvements of the project and indicated that
there is adequate capacity for this development;
b) Adequate area is provided for the required landscaping improvements and private yard through the
provision of common open space areas around the entire structure as well as individual private
decks on many of the units;
c) The 82 residential units are consistent with the maximum allowable density for this 81,495 sq. ft.
site. The maximum allowable density for this site based on the Zoning Ordinance is 81 units (1 unit
for every 1,000 sq ft of land area). However, given that the project would reserve 10% of the 81
units, or 8.1 units, as affordable to low income households, the project is allowed a 20%, or 17
units, density bonus as mandated by California Government Code Section 65915. The project has
requested a one, or 1.2%, density bonus, and would create a total of 82 residential units and is
consistent with the maximum allowable density for the site with the inclusion of the State density
bonus;
d) Projects qualifying for density bonuses are also allowed a concession to the development standards,
including reduced parking rates. The project would provide 1.025 parking spaces for each one -
bedroom unit and 2 spaces for each two-bedroom unit; and 13 guest spaces, for a total of 138
parking spaces. This amount of parking is consistent with the parking standards established for
projects qualifying for a State density bonus and as allowed through Section 14.16.030.H.3.a.i of
the Zoning Ordinance, which allows 1 space per one bedroom unit, and 2 spaces per two bedroom
unit and does not require any guest spaces.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the
subject property in that the project site is:
a) A currently graded and developed site and no known environmental resources are found on this site
or immediately surrounding the site;
b) Located in an urban area of north San Rafael and is surrounded by graded and developed properties;
c) An in -fill site that has been designated for this intensity of development; and
d) Neither contiguous to existing wetlands or creeks nor does the site contain any of these
environmental features.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of proposed improvements is not likely to cause serious health
problems in that:
a) The proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment;
b) The project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as indicated in CEQA finding #1
below;
c) The proposed improvements would be built in accordance with the latest Building and Fire codes to
ensure the health and safety of residents/occupants.
d) The project has been reviewed by appropriate City Departments and outside agencies and as
conditioned, has been found to be consistent with their policies and the environmental hazards
assessment prepared for the site and its immediate surroundings revealed that there are no known
conditions that would impact the property, soil or groundwater resources.
5. As proposed, the subdivision would not conflict with easements that are recorded or required on the site
given that there are no easements recorded on this property.
6. The City has balanced the regional and local housing needs against the public service needs of its
residents, as well as available fiscal and environmental resources, and concludes that adequate public
services are available to the site based on existing service providers that have expressed the ability to
provide service. The proposed subdivision meets the housing needs of the City in that:
a) The site is located in an urbanized area where public services are available;
b) The site is within the Office (0) District, which permits the type and density of residential
development that is proposed with the inclusion of the State mandated density bonus;
c) The project would add additional housing to this infill site located near jobs and transit; and
d) The Office land use designation allowed high density residential housing to be added as part of the
adoption of General Plan 2020 in order to provide for needed housing in an area that would
complement commercial uses and place new housing near employment centers and transportation
corridors.
7. As conditioned, the proposed subdivision would not result in impacts to water quality or impacts to
environmental resources in that:
a) An erosion control plan is required as a condition of project approval, which must be implemented
before any grading or constriction commences on the site; and
b) The environmental assessment conducted for this site has found that the current, historic and
surrounding land uses of the site present a low potential to impact the property's soil and ground
water resources.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding
The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), since it qualifies as an infill affordable housing project pursuant to Public Resources Code
Sections 21159.21 and 21159.24 and Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts In Fill
Development Projects that: a) are consistent with the applicable General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
designations and policies and regulations; b) occur within city limits on a site no more than 5 acres
and substantially surrounded by urban uses; c) occur on a site that has no value for endangered, rare
or threatened species; d) would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality
or water quality; and e) can be adequately served by all required utilites and public services. This
project qualifies for this exemption based on the following:
a) The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as identified in
Environmental and Design Review Permit finding #1 above;
12
b) The subject site is an infill site that totals less than five acres (1.9 acres) in size and is completely
surrounded by a mixture of uses, including single-family residential, medium- and high-density
residential and office uses;
c) The entire site and its surroundings have been formerly graded and completely developed. There are
no known endangered, rare or threatened species on the site or in the immediate surroundings;
d) The project would result in less traffic generation than historically existed on the property, would
not create significant sources of noise or air pollution since the residential uses generate fewer
vehicle trips than previoulsy existed, and the new residential use would generate noise levels that
are similar to the other multi -family residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood, and
e) All utlility agencies have indicated that they can provide required services to the new development.
Environmental and Design Review Permit
Conditions of Approval (ED07-045)
General Project Conditions
Communitv Develooment Department - Plannine Division
1. This Environmental and Design Review Permit shall be valid for two (2) years from the date of City
Council approval, or until June 2, 2010, and shall be null and void unless a building permit is issued or
a time extension is granted within the two years.
2. Except as modified by these conditions of approvals, the approved Environmental and Design Review
Permit approves the project's architecture, colors, materials, site plan, site improvements and
landscaping as presented on the following plans:
a) Architectural Plans prepared by Hunt Hale Jones Architects - Sheets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 6,
6-A, 7, 7-A, 8, 8-A, 9, 9-A, 10, 11, 12, 12-A, 13, 14 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, AD -1, AD -2 and AD -3.
b) Landscape Plan prepared by Randall Planning and Design, Inc Landscape Architecture and Land
Planning, consisting of Sheet L-1 to L-7.
c) Tentative Map and Civil Plan prepared by Adobe Associates, Inc, consisting of Sheets C-1 to C-4
3. Except as conditioned herein, building techniques, materials, elevations, landscaping, infrastructure
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 of the Planning Division. Modifications that are deemed minor shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director as part of the building permit
application. All other modifications may be referred to the Design Review Board and/or Planning
Commission for review and action.
4. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,
attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against
any of the foregoing individuals or entities ("indemnities"), the purpose of which is to attack, set aside,
void or annul the approval of this application or the adoption of any environmental document which
accompanies it. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses,
attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by any person or entity, including
the applicant, third parties and the indemnities, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this
application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the
indemnities.
13
In the event that any claim, action or proceeding as described above is brought, the City shall promptly
notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the
defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. In the event the applicant is required to defend the City in
connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to: 1) approve the
counsel to so defend the City; 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the
defense is conducted; and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action
or proceeding, provided that if the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action
or proceeding where applicant already has retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees
and the expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City.
6. As a condition of this application, applicant agrees to be responsible for the payment of all City
Attorney expenses and costs, both for City staff attorneys and outside attorney consultants retained by
the City, associated with the reviewing, processing and implementing of the land use approval and
related conditions of such approval. City Attorney expenses shall be based on the rates established
from time to time by the City Finance Director to cover staff attorney salaries, benefits, and overhead,
plus the actual fees and expenses of any attorney consultants retained by the City. Applicant shall
reimburse the City for City Attorney expenses and costs within 30 days following billing of same by
the City.
7. All new and existing landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free of
weeds and debris. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced in a timely fashion.
All site improvements, including but not limited to the site lighting, hardscape, landscape islands and
paving striping shall be maintained in good, undamaged condition at all times. Any damaged
improvements shall be replaced in a timely manner.
9. The site shall be kept free of litter and garbage. Any trash, junk or damaged materials that are
accumulated on the site shall be removed and disposed of in a timely manner.
10. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board on file with the Community
Development Department, Planning Division except as modified by the follow-up review by the
Design Review Board. Generally, the approved color palette consists of brown, tan, cream and white
colors as shown on the approved elevations. Any future modification to colors shall be subject to
review and approval of the Planning Division and major modifications shall be referred to the Design
Review Board.
11. Given that the project includes a density bonus and is granted reduced parking rates and allowance for
tandem parking, any future change of use to the residential units to larger residential units or non-
residential units shall require review and approval of the Community Development Department. The
review shall be to ensure that the change in use would be consistent with all applicable City regulations
for the new use such as floor area ratio, number of parking spaces, and design of parking spaces.
Changes to the size of the residential units or number of bedrooms may be allowed, subject to
compliance with the parking requirements. If any changes to the unit mixture or number of bedrooms
would result in modifications to the exterior of the structure, then the project shall be subject to the
provision in condition #3 above.
12. Within 10 days of the project approval, the applicant shall secure the site with a temporary 6 -foot tall
fence around the perimeter of the entire site (where no fence of at least 6 feet in height currently exists)
and this fence shall be maintained around the site during the entire term of construction. If the site
14
becomes at occupied with an active office use before the demolition commences, this condition shall
not be applicable.
13. The applicant shall honor agreements and offers to adjacent property owners regarding landscape
buffers, fencing and the temporary relocation of the owners of 27, 35 and 37 San Pablo Avenue during
certain periods of construction, as indicated in the letter from Jeff Hutchinson/Monahan Pacific
Corporation, to the City of San Rafael dated March 7, 2007. Temporary relocation would be subject to
reasonable standards for relocation to similar size and quality of dwelling, and limited to periods of
construction anticipated to generate the greatest noise, dust and traffic. Implementation of these
improvements and agreements shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.
14. To the greatest extent possible, the applicant shall seek agreements from adjacent property owner(s)
regarding the use of adjacent properties for overflow parking during off-peak hours for this project and
access rights to allow pedestrian access from the project site to North San Pedro Road.
Public Works Department — Land Development Division
15. All improvements inside the development shall remain private unless otherwise dedicated and accepted
by the City.
16. The project shall not build over any existing or new easements. Keep any easements clear of structures
for access and maintenance by utility companies and private property owner(s).
Prior to the Issuance of a Demolition Permit
Communitv Development Department -- Planning Division
17. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit written verification from a
pest control consultant indicating that the project site has been serviced to eliminate rodents.
18. Prior to issuance, the conditions listed in condition of approval #104 shall be noted on the demolition
plan.
19. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the project sponsor shall submit verification that the
requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality management District (BAAQMD) have been met and
necessary permits have been issued for demolition of the existing buildings.
Communitv Development Department— Building Division
20. Any demolition of existing structures will require a permit. Submittal shall include three (3) copies
of the site plan, asbestos certification and PG&E disconnect notices. Also, application must be made
to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work.
Public Works Department— Land Development Division
21. The applicant shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the peer review of the Geotechnical
Investigation Report.
22. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit improvement plans to widen the
street and install new sidewalk/pedestrian access on the south side of San Pablo Avenue in areas where
no sidewalk exists, commencing from Laurel Glen Terrace north to Meadow Oaks Circle for review
and approval of the Public Works Department. The plans shall be consistent with the conceptual plans
prepared by Adobe Associates, dated May 29, 2008 and labeled "Sidewalk Plan - Proposed
Improvements." The remainder of the improvements shown on the "Sidewalk Plan - Proposed
15
Improvements on the north side of San Pablo Ave shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department prior to issuance of a building permit and installed prior to final occupancy of the project
as indicated in condition of approval #'s 41 and 121 below.
23. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the sidewalk roadway improvements approved on the
improvement plans in #22 above shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Public Works Department - Traffic Eneineerine Division
24. Prior to demolition permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed traffic control plan for review and
approval of the traffic division. All traffic from any off -haul of demolition materials shall be
conducted outside of the A.M. or P.M. peak hours (after 9:00 A.M and before 4:00 P.M.)
25. All construction staging shall occur on-site or another site with appropriate approvals from property
owner. No staging shall occur on City right-of-way without review and approval of the Public Works
Department.
26. A plan for the demolition shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Trak Engineer.
This plan shall indicate the haul/truck routes, size of trucks to be used for hauling off -haul and the
frequency/times of any off -haul
Prior to the Issuance of a Building or Grading permit
Communitv Development Department - Plannine Division
27. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for a final review of the
project details by the Design Review Board. The final review shall include details and information
on the quality of materials that are proposed for use and further expansion on the details, and roof
venting plan to ensure all venting and mechanical equipment is screened from view. As
recommended by the Design Review Board, the upper colors of the building should be darkened and
the final color palette shall be reviewed by the DRB during this follow-up review.
28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Construction Management
Plan (CMP) with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. This CMP shall
outline measures to mitigate or reduce the potential negative construction and staging impacts of the
project on the adjacent property owners, residents/occupant and the surrounding area. This CMP
shall incorporate, but is not limited to, such measures as smaller but more frequent deliveries of
materials and distribution of accurate weekly construction schedules to occupants of all adjacent
properties. The CMP shall include any conditions of approval contained in this document that
regulate the construction (re: limitations on noise, construction hours).
29. All mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioning units, meters and transformers) and appurtenances
not entirely enclosed within the structure (on side of building or roof) shall be screened from public
view. The method used to accomplish the screening shall be indicated on the building plans and
approved by the Planning Division.
30. Any outstanding Planning Division application processing fees shall be paid.
31. Interior noise standards for bedrooms shall be consistent with State Administrative Code Standards
Title 25, Part 2. Documentation and compliance with this standard shall be indicated on the building
permit plans.
V
32. The project shall be subject to the affordable housing requirements prescribed in Section 16.030 of
the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance and is therefore required to provide 16.2 of the 82 units as
affordable. Sixteen of the affordable units shall be constructed on site and an in -lieu fee shall be paid
for the 0.2 fractional unit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or recordation of the final map,
whichever occurs first, a Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement for the 16 affordable units shall be
approved by the City Council and recorded on the property. Consistent with the affordable housing
requirements, 8 of the 16 affordable units shall be affordable to low income households and the
remaining 8 affordable units shall be affordable to moderate income households. The location of the
BMR units is not approved as shown in the project plans. The BMR units shall be distributed more
evenly throughout the entire project and the final location shall be subject to review and approval of
the City as part of the City's consideration of the BMR agreement.
33. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the in -lieu fee for the 0.2 fractional
units of the affordable housing requirement. The fee for the 0.2 fractional units shall be $50,080
based on the 2008 in -lieu fee of $250,400.
34. Prior to issuance of a building permit, project geotechnical engineer shall review and approve the
final construction plans and specifications. A letter shall be submitted to the City identifying the
engineer's approval of the plans and the plans shall be stamped by their representative and consulting
engineer.
35. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit written verification from Marin
Sanitary Service (MSS) indicating that the project's trash service meets MSS requirements.
36. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit written verification from the Marin
Municipal Water District indicating that the District's requirements have been met.
37. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of
approval.
38. The project sponsor shall inform the contractor, general contractor or site supervisor of these
requirements and shall be responsible for informing subcontractors of these requirements and for
implementing these measures on the site.
Public Works Department -- Land Development
39. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a Final Map prepared in accordance to the City of San Rafael's
Subdivision Ordinance shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department and the
approved map shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office.
40. Prior to issuance of a building permit, engineered improvement plans in paper size 24" x 36" showing
all existing and proposed site improvements, such as grading, storm and sanitary sewers, underground
service utilities, fire hydrants, street lights, utility boxes, etc. shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval.
41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, engineered improvement plans in paper size 24" x 36"
showing all existing and proposed frontage improvements, such as grading, storm drain and sanitary
sewers, underground service utilities, fire hydrants, street lights, utility boxes, etc. for frontage
improvements directly at the frontage of this site, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
for review and approval. In addition, the applicant has offered and the City is therefore requiring that
17
aside from the frontage improvements at the front of the subject site, the project would also install the
following improvements subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer:
a) Sidewalk/pedestrian access on the north side of San Pablo Avenue where no sidewalk exists,
commencing from the project site north to the end of 39 San Pablo Avenue.
b) All improvements required under this condition would be limited to the public right-of-way, and
applicant shall not be responsible for improvements or relocation outside of the public right-of-way.
42. The applicant shall explore the feasibility of installing a stop control device at the intersection of San
Pablo Avenue and Laurel Glen Terrace and a cross walk across San Pablo Avenue with the City's
Traffic Engineer. If feasible and approved by the City Traffic Engineer, the applicant shall install the
stop control device and cross walk at the approved location.
43. As part of the submittal of the improvement plans, the applicant shall submit an engineer's estimate for
onsite and offsite improvements for approval by the Department of Public Works. The amount of bond
required will be based on the approved engineer estimate and the subdivision agreement.
44. Improvement plans must be signed by the respective utility company and indicate the following:
a) Guaranteeing availability and ability to provide services.
b) Review of plans and map for inclusion of easements and soil report.
45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a frontage improvement plan must be approved by the City's
Department of Public Works and the County of Marin Public Works (if necessary).
46. All improvements shall conform to the San Rafael Municipal Codes, Cities and County of Marin
standard specifications and uniform construction standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements.
47. Applicant must enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City, including bonds for all public and
on-site improvements, prior to issuance of a building permit.
48. Applicant must pay final map checking fee, improvement plan check fee and inspection fee.
49. Prior to the submittal of the improvement plans, the applicant or the applicant's engineer shall schedule
a pre -submittal meeting with the Department of Public Works — Land Development Engineer to review
these conditions of approval and the requirements for submitting the improvement plans. Please note
that this pre -meeting should be scheduled well in advance of the building permit submittal and review
and approval of improvement plans is a separate process than the building permit submittal. Failure to
schedule a pre application meeting in advance of submitting for building permits will result in a delay
in the plan checking of the building permit.
50. Final grading, drainage and foundation plan shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations
of the geotechnical report and supplemental letters. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
soil engineer.
51. Submit hydrology and hydraulics analysis, based on 10 -year and 100 -year storm frequency for pre- and
post- construction to verify that no increase in runoff from the proposed development shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Provide engineering solutions and
calculations to mitigate the increase runoff.
IF3
52. An engineered report on the drainage conditions to verify adequacy of existing downstream drainage
facilities shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Department.
53. Do not block or divert drainage onto adjoining properties, onto fill slopes or over sidewalks or
driveways. Capture runoff from the northwest and northeast of development.
54. All utilities into the development must be underground.
55. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the improvement plans shall identify the treatment method and
calculation for storm water pollution prevention. The project shall treat first'/4 of the first 1" rainfall on
site and all roof downspouts shall be directed to landscaping area for treatment. (Suggest using
pavement pavers that will filter surface water and runoff including an approved hydrodynamic
separator structure, prior to discharge into the City Storm drainage system on San Pablo Avenue, as
some of the measures of water treatment for post construction storm water.)
56. Underground garage shall be plumbed into the sanitary sewer system. Applicant shall contact Las
Gallinas Valley Sanitary District for requirements.
57. Applicant shall comply with all requirements and required permits for new sanitary sewer connections
from the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District.
58. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with City to
maintain storm water controls and yearly report.
59. A Best Management Practice plan shall be included in the building plan submittal.
Community Develonment Department — Buildina Division
60. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with all applicable codes and
regulations in effect at the time of plan submittal for building permit. Currently the applicable codes
are the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 Plumbing Code, 2007 Electrical Code, 2007 California
Mechanical Code, and 2007 California Fire Code.
61. The project shall comply with the regulations for residential projects set forth in the City of San
Rafael Green Building Program (Section 14.16.275 of the San Rafael Municipal Code). As required
by the San Rafael Municipal Code, residential projects shall achieve at least 60 points on the Green
Points rating system.
62. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall have a certified Green Points Rater
complete and sign a Green Building Compliance Form and the applicable Green Building rating
form. This form shall be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department -
Building and Fire Prevention Division along with the building permit application materials.
Submitted building permit plans shall identify in the general notes and/or individual detail drawings
the proposed Green Building Measures.
63. A building permit is required for the proposed work.
64. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of each building shall be
specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of each building.
(R-1 residential and S-2 parking garage)
z
65. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for residential construction are currently
computed at $2.05 per square foot of new living area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City
Schools, and those fees are paid directly to the School District prior to issuance of the building
permit.
66. Building pads for new construction must be elevated to a point at least one foot above the 100 -year
flood levels.
67. Provide a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. In
particular the report should address the import and placement and compaction of soils at future
building pad locations and should be based on an assumed foundation design. This information
should be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments
prior to any such activities taking place.
68. Geotechnical and civil pad certifications are to be submitted prior to the building permit issuance for
the construction of each building.
69. The plan is unclear regarding roof access. Prior to building permit issuance, the plans must clearly
detail whether the roof will be a common area deck for resident use and if so, the area shall comply
with all building and safety codes regarding egress and accessibility. Plans submitted for building
permit issuance shall demonstrate egress stair and elevator accessibility.
70. In the parking garage, mechanical ventilation will be required capable of exhausting a minimum of
.75 cubic feet per minute per square foot of gross area. Automatic carbon monoxide -sensing devices
may be employed to modulate the ventilation system.
71. In the parking structure, in areas where motor vehicles are stored, floor surfaces shall be of
noncombustible, nonabsorbent materials. Floors shall drain to an approved oil separator or trap
discharging to sewers in accordance with the Plumbing Code and SWPPP.
72. The parking garage ceiling height shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 8' 2" where required
for accessible parking.
73. The site development of such items as common sidewalks, parking areas, stairs, ramps, common
facilities, etc. are subject to compliance with the accessibility standards contained in Title -24,
California Code of Regulations. The civil, grading and landscape plans shall address these
requirements to the extent possible.
74. The proposed facility shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance
with the requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations; i.e., accessible parking stalls, path
of travel, primary entrance, interior travel path and restrooms.
75. All areas within the site must be accessible for persons with disabilities. All newly constructed
buildings on a site shall have, but are not limited to, the following accessible features:
a) Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival
b) Routes of travel between buildings
c) Accessible parking
d) Ramps
e) Primary entrances
20
fl Sanitary facilities (restrooms)
g) Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided)
h) Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements
76. Pedestrian access provisions should provide a minimum 48" wide unobstructed paved surface to and
along all accessible routes. Items such as signs, meter pedestals, light standards, trash receptacles,
etc., shall not encroach on this 4' minimum width. Also, note that sidewalk slopes and side slopes
shall not exceed published minimums per California Title 24, Part 2.
77. A second means of exit is required from the third story of all 3 story dwelling units. This would
require the installation of another set of stairs to serve that floor.
78. Minimum elevator car size (interior dimension) is 68" wide and 51" deep, with a clear door width of
36". Also, at least one elevator car per tower shall accommodate a stretcher, 80" wide and 54" deep
with a 42" wide door opening.
79. When parking is provided for multi -family dwellings and is not assigned to a resident or a group of
residents, at least 5 percent of the parking spaces shall be accessible and provide access to grade -
level entrances of multi -family dwellings and facilities (e.g. swimming pools, club houses, recreation
areas and laundry rooms) that serve the dwellings. Accessible parking spaces shall be located on the
shortest accessible route to an accessible building, or dwelling unit entrance.
80. At least one disabled parking space must be van accessible; 9 feet wide parking space and 8 feet
wide off- load area. Additionally, one in every eight required handicap spaces must be van
accessible.
81. In multi -story buildings with elevators all units must be accessible per CBC 1102A.3.2.
82. At accessible units, minimum shower size in the fully accessible room is either sixty -inches (60")
wide by thirty -inches (30") deep or forty-two inches (42") wide by forty-eight inches (48") deep.
Communitv Development Department — Fire Prevention Division
83. This project shall be subject to the "Alternate Means of Protection" as approved by the community
Development Department, Fire Prevention Division and Fire Chief. The design for the building
places the buildings footprint within close proximity to the property line. Its design negated the
required 20' wide with 13.5' head clearance Fire Department Access roadway along the rear of the
building with an approved turn -a -round. This roadway requirement is due to the scope of work
proposing a building that would be more than three stories or thirty five feet in height. The Fire
Chief permits as an Alternate Means of Protection, the following construction detail to be installed in
lieu of the required Fire Department access roadway:
a) Smoke Towers shall be designed and installed for stairwells #1, #2, #3, #4 in accordance with
applicable codes that apply to Smoke Towers. They shall be constructed in accordance to those
towers installed in a High Rise building, as listed in CBC Section 403. The Smoke Towers
determined by the Fire Prevention Division and the San Rafael Fire Chief, shall have an Area of
Refuge which shall comply with all provisions listed in CBC Section 1007.6, to include, the
dimensions, separations, & two-way communication. The Smoke Towers shall have a smoke
control system installed as listed in CBC Sec 403.13 for the control of smoke within the vertical
exit enclosures. The smoke control systems shall comply with CBC Section 909, with two
sources of available power. The primary power would be supplied from the normal building
21
power and a secondary power shall be provided from a dedicated back-up generator. This
generator would also supply necessary Fire & Life Safety systems. CBC Section 909.11. It is
important to note the Smoke Control systems shall be designed based on a rational analysis
performed by a registered design professional and approved by the Fire Chief.
b) The Fire Sprinkler/Class I Standpipe System shall be designed to a design density of .20gpm/sq ft
at 2000 sq ft. with the most remote stairwell standpipe flowing 500 gpm. The applicant shall
indicate on the Architectural and Civil Plan sheets a notation showing this requirement and
submit prior to issuance of a building permit. The Hydraulic Calculations supporting the proposed
on site fire hydrant and the Combination Sprinkler/Class I Standpipe Systems shall be completed
and submitted to the Fire Prevention Division prior to issuance of the building permit.
84. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation which will include
but not be limited to all previously indicated design criteria, including construction type and type of
mechanical smoke control system, components necessary to construct the Smoke Tower will be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Prevention Division & the San Rafael Fire Departments, Fire
Chief.
85. The submitted documents have correctly indicated the smoke tower locations at the following
stairwells as shown on the approved plans.
a) Stairwell # 1 provides access to all floors.
b) Stairwell #2 provides access to 151 floor through to the 4t1i floor.
c) Stairwell #3 provides access to 3`d floor through to the roof.
d) Stairwell #4 provides access to the 2"d floor through to the 6"' floor.
86. It appears the applicant has shown a general design for area of refuge/vestibule proposed at each
floor and each smoke tower. The Fire Chief agrees that this number of area of refuge rooms will not
be necessary, and the applicant may meet with the Community Development Fire Prevention
Division and the Fire Dept to determine the specific locations of these areas of refuge that can be
determined prior to issuance of a building permit.
87. The cross slope of the cul-de-sac/turnaround area proposed at the top of the driveway shall be
reduced from the currently proposed 6.5% to 0% cross slope, or as otherwise approved by the Fire
Chief. The redesign of the roundabout area shall be submitted for review and approval of the Fire
Chief prior to issuance of a building permit.
88. The required 90' diameter turnaround shall be designated and bordered by the red curb with white
lettering stating the "no parking fire lane" notation and shall comply with the design criteria
previously provided and include the following:
a) The 20 -foot section planter area in the center of the roundabout is not approved as a planter area
and the entire roundabout shall meet the standards contained within these conditions of approval
and be a clear, unimpeded designated turnaround area.
b) Fire lanes must be designated, painted and signed. This will include the entire circumference of
the cul-de-sac, and those portions of the driveway that do not have designated parking stalls. This
shall comply with City standard #204. These details shall be shown on the Civil Sheets.
22
c) Provide an approved Fire Department Equipment turn -around at the top of the driveway. The
Turn -a -Round shall comply with CFC Appendix D Section D103. The dimensions for the Cul-de-
sac shall be a 90' diameter clear. The driveway road surface from the entrance on San Pablo
through to the Cul-de-sac shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of the fire apparatus
weighing at least 75,000 pounds. The required access shall comply with the provisions CFC
Appendix D Section D102. Please review the California Fire Code section that has been
referenced above and meet with the Fire Prevention Bureau to clarify any questions you may
have concerning this issue.
89. Provide the following notation with detail on the Architectural and the Civil Plan sheets of the
primary power that will be supplied from the normal municipal power supply and a secondary power
that shall be provided from a dedicated back-up generator. This generator would also supply
necessary Fire & Life Safety systems. CBC Section 909.11.
90. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with all applicable codes and
regulations in effect at the time of plan submittal for building permit. Currently the applicable codes
include the 2007 California Fire Code.
91. Provide design detail for the following structural components:
a) Corridor
b) Dampers
c) Exit Enclosure/Exit Passageway
d) Fire Barriers
e) Fire Partitions
f) Fire Walls
g) Horizontal exits
h) Smoke Barriers
i) Smoke Partitions
j) Shaft Enclosures
k) Vertical Exit Enclosures
92. Combustible construction above the foundation or parking level is not allowed unless an approved
asphalt surfaced road is provided, and the onsite fire hydrants have been tested, flushed, and are in
service. CFC Section 501.4.
93. An on site fire hydrant will be required at the Fire Truck turn around. This hydrant shall be located at
the entrance to the cul-de-sac opposite the building. This hydrant shall provide the required Fire
Flow for this project. The Sprinkler System and the Standpipe System FDC shall be located near the
public fire hydrant near the driveway entrance.
94. Provide exterior roof ladders to access differential roof heights throughout the complex.
95. Each building shall have address numbers posted in a conspicuous place, clearly visible from the
street. Numbers should be minimum 6" in height, contrasting in color to their background, and
either internally or externally illuminated.
a
96. Fire Sprinkler System, Fire Alarm System, and a Class I Standpipe System will be required
throughout the building. A separate deferred submittal is required for each system. Provide a
notation on plan indicating these three deferred submittals.
97. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a report containing hydraulic
calculations that supports a Fire Sprinkler System with a design Density/Area at .20/2000 and a
Class I Standpipe System demand at 500 gpm to the most remote stairwell on the roof.
98. Knox box keyed entry system is required at designated access door, and smoke tower stairwells
99. This property is located in a UWI Urban Wildland Interface area. Provide a written Vegetation
Management Plan (VMP) submitted to the San Rafael Fire department. This VMP must be
completed and verified prior to final approval.
Las Gallinas Vallev Sanitary District
100.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the application shall pay all required connection fees to the
San Rafael Sanitation District. In order to determine this fee, the District will need to receive a set of
the civil plans showing the number and type of fixture units that will be located with the building.
Credit will be given for previous connections.
During any Construction, Grading or Demolition
Community Development Department — Plannine Division
101. In the event that archaeological features, such as concentrations of artifacts or culturally modified soil
deposits including trash pits older than fifty years of age, are discovered at any time during grading,
scraping, or excavation within the property, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, the
Planning Division shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately to
make an evaluation. If warranted by the concentration of artifacts or soils deposits, further work in the
discovery area shall be monitored by an archaeologist.
102.If human remains are encountered during grading and construction, all work shall stop in the
immediate vicinity of the discovered remains and the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist
shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be
Native American and prehistoric, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
so that a "Most Likely Descendant' can be designated.
103.Prior to demolition of the existing structure, loose and peeling lead-based paints (LBP) shall be
removed under controlled procedures and all asbestos -containing materials (ACM) and other
environmentally hazardous building materials shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with
the requirements of the BAAMQD, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL/EPA),
the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CAL/OSIIA) and the Department of
Health Services.
104. The following measures shall be implemented during the demolition process:
a) Watering shall be used to control dust generation during demolition of structures and breakup
of pavement.
b) All trucks hauling debris from the site shall be covered
c) Dust -proof chutes shall be used to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
d) A dust control coordinator shall be designated for the project. The name, address and
telephone number of the dust coordinator shall be prominently posted on site, and shall be kept
24
on file at the Planning Division. The coordinator shall respond regarding dust complaints
promptly (within 24 hours) and shall have the authority to take corrective action.
105. During construction, project Geotechnical Engineer shall provide appropriate inspections of the
project to confirm that the recommendations contained in the geotechnical and soils report are
properly incorporated during the construction of this project.
106.Prior to framing inspection, the applicant shall submit a building height survey from a licensed land
surveyor indicating that the building has been built in accordance with the 36 -foot height limit as
illustrated on the Exhibits Illustrating Measurement of height as on file with the Planning Division.
The applicant shall take appropriate measures during the construction process to ensure building
height compliance.
107.The following controls shall be implemented at all construction sites:
a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods;
active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with
non-toxic stabilizers to control dust;
b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least 2 feet of freeboard;
c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites;
d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff -related impacts
to water quality;
e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
streets;
fl Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas;
g) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.);
h) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
i) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;
j) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;
k) Install base rock at entryways for all exiting trucks, and wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks
and equipment in designated areas before leaving the site; and
1) Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
108. All demolition, construction and grading activities shall conform to the maximum construction noise
levels prescribed in the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 8.13 of the San Rafael Municipal Code).
109. The project applicant shall obtain a permit, if needed, to exceed the City's maximum allowable
construction noise level of 90 dBA. The on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall have and be
trained in the use of a sound meter and shall monitor construction noise to assure that levels do not
exceed 90 dBA in the method prescribed by the San Rafael Noise Ordinance.
110. All construction and grading activities shall conform to the hours listed in section 8.13.050 part A of
the City's Noise Ordinance, with the exception of only interior work being allowed on Saturdays
between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and that said interior work shall not exceed 65 dba at the property
line. Therefore, all noise generating construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00
25
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays (interior only).
Construction shall not occur on Sundays or holidays.
111. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, to the maximum feasible extent, the applicant
shall develop a site-specific noise reduction program, subject to City review and approval. which
includes the following measures:
a) Signs shall be posted describing the permitted hours of construction in a conspicuous location near
the property entrance legible from the edge of the roadway. The exact wording of the sign is
prescribed by the City's Noise Ordinance.
b) An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be designated to respond to and track
complaints.
c) A pre -construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site
project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are completed prior to the issuance of
a building permit (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.).
d) Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control
techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
e) Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction
shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with
compressed -air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools
is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed -air exhaust shall be used. Quieter procedures
shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
f) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from the adjacent residences as possible, and they
shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures shall
be incorporated to the extent feasible.
112. Prior to any combustible construction, the applicant shall install an on site fire hydrant at the Fire Truck
turn around area. This hydrant shall be located at the entrance to the cul-de-sac opposite the building.
This hydrant shall provide the required Fire Flow for this project. The Sprinkler System and the
Standpipe System FDC shall be located near the public fire hydrant near the driveway entrance.
Public Works Department
113.An encroachment permit is required prior to any work in the public right-of-way.
114. No mass grading is permitted from October 15 through April 15 without the approval of the City
Engineer.
115.All construction staging shall occur on-site or another site with appropriate approvals from property
owner. No staging shall occur on City right-of-way without review and approval of the Public Works
Department.
Conditions Required to be Satisfied Prior to Occupancy
Communitv Development Department — Plannina Division
116.All landscaping and irrigation as approved as part of the landscape plan shall be installed prior to the
occupancy of the building.
117. The landscape architect shall call for inspection and certify and submit in writing to the Planning
Division that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved
26
landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and been tested for timing and function, and all
plants including street trees are healthy. Any dying or dead landscaping shall be replaced.
118.All exterior lighting shall be shielded down. Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all
exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30 -day lighting level review by the Police Department and
Planning Division to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area.
119. Prior to occupancy of the units, a post construction report from an acoustical engineer shall be
submitted to the Planning Division verifying that the multi -family residential units comply with the
interior noise standard as prescribed by State Administrative Code standards, Title 25, Part 2.
120. Prior to occupancy, the project Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City identifying
that the project Geotechnical Engineer inspected the project during the construction and the project
complied with their recommendations and that all recommendations were property incorporated
during construction of the project.
Public Works Department
121. All frontage improvements, except for those required to be completed prior to demolition permit
(identified as condition of approval # 22 and 23 above which requires sidewalk and street widening on
south side of San Pablo Ave), and on-site improvements illustrated on the improvement plans and any
required by these conditions of approval shall be installed prior to final occupancy.
122. Prior to final occupancy of the building, applicant must provide the City as -built improvement plans on
24"X36" reproducible mylar at completion of the improvements.
Communitv Development Department — Buildins Division
123. Prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant shall have a certified Green Points Rater
complete and sign a Green Building Compliance Form (the as -built conformance section) and the
applicable Green Building rating form. This form shall be completed and submitted to the
Community Development Department - Building and Fire Prevention Division prior to final
inspection.
Tentative Map
Conditions of Approval (TS07-001)
The Tentative Map (TS07-001) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of City
Council approval, or until June 2, 2010, and shall become null and void unless a Final Map has been
recorded or a time extension is granted.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Communitv Development Department - Planning Division
2. The project shall be subject to the affordable housing requirements prescribed in Section 16.030 of the
San Rafael Zoning Ordinance and is therefore required to provide 16.2 of the 82 units as affordable.
Sixteen of the affordable units shall be constructed on site and an in -lieu fee shall be paid for the 0.2
fractional unit. Prior to the recordation of the final map or building permit issuance, whichever occurs
first, a Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement for the 16 affordable units shall be approved by the City
Council and recorded on the property. Consistent with the affordable housing requirements, 8 of the 16
affordable units shall be affordable to low income households and the remaining 8 affordable units shall
be affordable to moderate income households.
27
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the in -lieu fee for the 0.2 fractional units of
the affordable housing requirement. The fee for the 0.2 fractional units shall be $50,080 based on the
2008 in -lieu fee of $250,400.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits or prior to the recordation of a Final Map, whichever occurs first,
the developer shall pay to the City in lieu parkland dedication fees for 82 new units in accordance with
the provisions of City Council Ordinance No. 1558. Parkland dedication in lieu fees are, at this time,
based on 1989 dollars. Adjustments of this figure may be necessary at the time of fee payment if the fair
market value for parkland and associated improvements is adjusted in accordance with Section
15.38.045 of the Ordinance. The fees for 82 units shall be $161,374.03.
Public Works Department
5. Final map and condominium plans must be recorded at the County Recorder Office, prior to issuance of
building permit. Submit and final map plan checking fee and final map and condominium plan to the
Department of Public Works in accordance and conformance with the Subdivision Map Act.. This
process requires that a Final Map and condominium plan be submitted to the Department of Public
Works. The final map will be reviewed for conformance with the approved tentative map and any
conditions thereto and then be reviewed by the City Council. If approved by the City Council, the
Department of Public Works will then record the Final Map. Please note that this review process takes
time and it is strongly encouraged to submit for final map well in advance of the building permit
submittal to avoid any delays in issuance of a building permit.
6. Final map shall also reflect lot consolidation of the parcels
Prior to recordation of final map
Communitv Development Department — Plannine Division
7. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared and submitted with an application
for a Final Parcel Map. The CC&R's shall include the following requirements and provisions:
a. The formation of a homeowners association (HOA).
b. HOA responsibilities for on going maintenance of the shared or common facilities, including but
not limited to the common driveway, common landscaping and irrigation, fencing, subdivision
infrastructure improvements (storm water and sanitary sewer facilities) and exterior building and
lighting improvements.
c. Restrictions and regulations imposed on each lot owner. The CC&R's shall include provisions,
which restrict the use of the parking spaces to vehicle parking.
d. Requirements and provisions for professional management services or the services of a Certified
Public Accountant to oversee the HOA responsibilities and budget
8. Prior to recordation of the final map, the CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Community Development and the City Attorney's Office.
9. Approved CC&R's shall be recorded concurrently with the final map.
Public Works Department
10. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, letters from each of the respective utility companies indicating
that they have reviewed the map and plans and will provide services to the project shall be submitted to
the Public Works Department.
W.
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, 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
Monday, the 2"d day of June, 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Brockbank, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
Connolly
None
29
�i e-- . ' x -c -e
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk