Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8624 (St. Isabellas Affordable Senior Housing)RESOLUTION NO. 8624 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A SMALL SUBDIVISION, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (S91-6, UP91-53, ED91-69) FOR A 62 -UNIT AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT; 1 TRINITY WAY; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO, OWNER; CATHOLIC CHARITIES, REPRESENTATIVE; MARJORIE GOLDMAN AND ALLAN J. TITUS, APPELLANTS (AP 175-181-26) WHEREAS, zone change, small subdivision, use permit and environmental and design review applications for a 62 -Unit affordable senior housing project on the subject site were submitted and found complete for processing; and, WHEREAS, an environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, on January 28, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael reviewed and considered public testimony, the Initial Study, the Negative Declaration and the staff report at a duly noticed public hearing on the project and voted to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring program and approval of the zone change and to approve the use permit, small subdivision, and use permit for said 62 -unit affordable senior housing project; and, WHEREAS, Marjorie Goldman and Allan J. Titus appealed the Planning Commission's recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and approval of a small subdivision, use permit and environmental and design review permit, and requested that the approval be denied based on the following reasons quoted and listed as Points 1 through 4: Point 1: That the proposed project is not consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 0011I11 1 � } Point 2: That the project does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Point 3: That the project, as proposed, would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Point 4: The Planning Commission was misadvised in the application of Government Code Section 65589.5 to believe that even though the project involved a zone change, the project could not be denied except under stringent circumstances. and; WHEREAS, on February 18, 1992, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing on the proposed zone change application, negative declaration, and appeal, accepting public testimony and the written report of the Planning Department staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed Planning Department staff to prepare responses to the issues raised at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 1992, the City Council considered the Planning Department's staff report addressing each of these issues; and WHEREAS, the Council determined that the project did not have the potential for creating a significant impact on the environment and therefore certified a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the proposed zone change was consistent with the City of San Rafael General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the appeal was without merit. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Rafael City Council hereby makes the following determinations and findings relating to the Points of the appeal: Point #1- Appellants belief that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan The City Council finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan based on the following Findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential in that General Plan Policies state that low and moderately priced senior housing may be developed on residentially designated flat sites, and that density bonuses above General Plan density ranges may be considered for senior projects located in any land use designation. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan 2000, including Policy H-37 (projects including low and moderately priced senior housing may be developed on residentially designated flat sites) and Policy H-32 (lower income senior housing projects to be encouraged throughout the City in any residential land use designation)in that the project provides 62 affordable senior housing units; Policy LU -19 (projects to be designed in relation to the surrounding area) in that the project roof lines, building height, and building setbacks are consistent with the standards and design of single family residences; Policy LU -34 (projects to be designed with adequate parking on site) in that the parking meets standards recommended for senior projects in the draft zoning ordinance which have been based on intensive surveys of parking needs; Policy LU -27 (projects to be designed with adequate on-site recreation areas) in that units are designed with balconies and patios and common open space areas are provided; Policy LU -29 (projects to be designed to retain large trees if possible) as an arborist's report has been prepared and significant trees will be retained; Policy C-6 (projects to be granted Bonus Trips allocation from a non parcel specific trip reserve for significant amount of affordable housing in the traffic impact areas) as the project is 100% affordable and qualifies for the allocation; Policy C-18 (requires projects to pay a traffic mitigation fee for needed transportation improvements) as the project has been conditioned to require payment of the fees; Policy S-4 (requires projects to undergo geotechnical studies according to the General Plan geotechnical matrix) as the study has been prepared and reviewed as required; and Policy N-3, N-4 and N-5 (requires acoustical studies for new residential projects and standards for interior and exterior noise maximums) as a noise study has been prepared for the project. 3 Point 2 - CEQA Compliance The City Council finds that the project has been processed in compliance with CEQA and that it will not have a significant impact on the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration for the project based on the following findings: 3. Approval of the Negative Declaration would be consistent with the provisions of CEQA in that an Initial Study has been prepared on the project which determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment. Revisions have been made to the design and mitigation measures have been attached to the project which reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Public notice of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration has been done pursuant to state law. The proposed Negative Declaration has been considered in conjunction with comments received during the review period and at the public hearing. 4. No substantial evidence has been entered into the record at either the Planning Commission or City Council hearings that the project will have a substantial impact on the environment. Comments on potential environmental impacts have been unsubstantiated by any documentation or testimony from experts. 5. A mitigation monitoring program has been adopted to insure implementation of and compliance with all conditions required to mitigate any impact to a level of insignificance. Point 3 - Incompatibility with the adjacent neighborhood The City Council finds that the project is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood based on the following finding: 6. The project has been designed to fit the neighborhood scale in that the roof forms have been broken up by a series of hips and gables to be similar to adjacent roof forms, the one and two story building heights are comparable to single family residential building heights, the building mass has been broken up to create a "village" style, setbacks are similar to those for single family neighborhoods, and shadow studies indicate that the building will have no greater impact on residences than the existing shade created by on-site vegetation. The buildings at the southeast corner of the site have been pulled back an additional seven feet from the eastern property line. This results in a 25 foot setback from the single story structure to the property line. The second story component has an additional setback and the windows and balcony on that unit are oriented towards Trinity Way, not the residential uses. Many of the large pine trees on the site will be retained temporarily to provide screening while the landscaping matures. The Design Review Board has specifically addressed the issue of impacts on the adjacent residences and has concurred that the scale of the project is appropriate for the site and the neighborhood and that 4 adjacent residences will not be impacted as setbacks and screening will protect privacy and light. Point 4 - Misapplication of Government Code Section 65589.5 The City Council finds that the Planning Commission was properly advised regarding this section based on the following. 7. City staff advised the Planning Commission to continue the hearing on the project if their decision was being influenced by this section until the City Attorney could provide advice on the applicability of Section 65589.5. The Planning Commission voiced support of the project and approved the applications and recommend approval of the rezoning. The City Attorney has advised the City Council that this section is applicable to the project, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval be amended to read as follows in response to the appeal: (23) All exterior lighting shall be sufficient to establish a sense of well-being to the pedestrian and one that is sufficient to facilitate recognition of persons at a reasonable distance, and shall be subject to a 30 -day review as stated in condition (80). Type and placement of lighting shall be subject to the review of the affected neighbors prior to approval by the Police Department and Planning Department. (64) The project is approved for a maximum of 62 -units, one of which would be for a resident manager. Each unit in the project, except the resident manager's unit, shall be occupied by at least one resident who is 62 years of age or older. This condition shall not restrict the temporary occupancy of any unit by a guest of a permitted resident pursuant to California Civil Code § 51.2 (e) or the occupancy by a "qualified permanent resident" pursuant to California Civil Code § 51.3 W. The project is approved as housing for independent elders and shall be staffed accordingly. Any minor changes to the program will require a hearing before the Zoning Administrator. Any changes to the program which require significant increases in staffing levels, such as the licensing of any portion of the project as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE), will require a hearing before the Planning Commission. (72) All utilities fronting or crossing the subject property shall be placed underground. (75) A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Included on this plan shall be plans for the fencing of the perimeter of the property. Perimeter fences will be of a height of approximately six feet and will be constructed of redwood. The fence plans shall be submitted to the neighborhood for comments before final approval by the Planning Department. (77) All of the project's units (62 units) will be accessible for the physically disabled. (80) Exterior lighting shall be downward directed in a fashion that does not produce a glare onto neighboring properties. Parking lot lighting will not be of the 'flagpole type' design. General lighting shall be accomplished by 5 multiple lighting sources as described on the landscape plan. The project sponsor shall consult with property owners abutting the project property in preparing the lighting plans. Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all exterior lighting shall be subject to a 30 day lighting level review to insure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. (81) The project sponsor shall enter into an agreement with the City to guaranty that 100% of the units are set aside as below market rate units for households at a range at least as low as 65 to 80% of the median income for at least 40 years, with an effort made to target households within 35 - 50% of the median income as noted at the City Council meeting of March, 2, 1992. (83) A stop sign shall be installed at the approach to the parking lot going east on the rear access road at the south part of the site. The stop sign shall be placed so as to stop traffic before entering the parking area. (84) A parking agreement shall be prepared between Catholic Charities and the St. Isabella Parish securing an additional six (6) parking spaces for use by the Senior Housing Project. This agreement shall be submitted to the City before issuance of an occupancy permit. If project parking demand exceeds the 53 spaces approved for this project, a parking mitigation plan shall be prepared to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and approval. (85) Provide and show on parcel map a 40 foot wide access easement for the present lots containing the church and school. Unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Public Works Department, the easement shall encompass the access roads from Freitas Parkway and Trinity Way. (86) The property owner shall submit access easement maintenance agreement for Planning Director and City Attorney approval prior to recordation of the map. (87) A waiver of Parkland Dedication fees is approved unless at some future time the project ceases to be used as an affordable senior housing project. The Parkland Dedication fee in effect at that time would then be imposed. (88) A traffic mitigation plan shall be prepared if peak hour traffic trips exceed the 12 trips allocated to the project. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and approval. (89) The property owner shall maintain the drainage V -ditch to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration and Conditional Approval of the use permit, small subdivision, and environmental and design review permit. I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the Second day of March, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: 31 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS : None Mayor Boro ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS : None JEO NE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk 6