Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD Highlands of Marin & Crest Marin ApartmentsAgenda Item No: 5 Meeting Date: March 2, 2009 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Community Development Prepared by: Robert M. Brown City Manager Approval: SUBJECT: 1050 Cresta Way (includes 1010-1065 Cresta Way; 122-150 Cresta Drive; 1-6 Cresta Circle) — Highlands of Marin and Crest Marin Apartments — Appeal of Planning Commission approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) for exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: 155-251-20,21,24, 25 and 155-280-01 thru 16 and 18; Planned Development (PD) 1547 and Multi -family Residential (MR2.5) District; Northbay Properties II, LP, property owner; Jill D. Williams, Architect, applicant; David Therien, Denny McGinnis and Eugene Dougherty, appellants; Case Number: AP08-004. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2, page 9 of this report) denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's action affirming' the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011). BACKGROUND: Setting/Site Conditions: The project site is located on a hilltop north of Smith Ranch Road and accessed by Cresta Drive. The 14.59 -acre site is level along the ridge, sloping downward to the north and south. The property is developed with two apartment complexes that are bordered by open space, as well as residential and non-residential uses. The eastern and northern portion of the ridge house the Highlands of Marin (HOM) I complex, which contains 144 one -bedroom units and 76 two-bedroom units for a total of 220 units. The HOM I complex contains 44 below market rate (BMR) rental units, of which 33 units were required as a condition of the initial complex approval by the City in January 1980. The western portion of the ridge houses HOM II (previously known as Crest Marin), which contains 58 one - bedroom, 37 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units for a total of 104 units. Project Description: On December 14, 2006, the property owner, Northbay Properties II, applied for an Environmental and Design Review (ED) Permit for renovation of the HOM I complex and the grounds. On February 21, 2007, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project and recommended approval. The Community Development Director approved the exterior remodeling of the HOM I complex" on February 22, 2007. However, the approved remodeling was not implemented because the owner of HOM I acquired the contiguous HOM II complex in October 2007 and determined that a joint property renovation was desirable and logical. On April 26, 2008, the property owner applied for an ED Permit to renovate the two complexes as one with a common design and shared facilities including a consolidation and relocation of the leasing office. Following a favorable project review and recommendation by the DRB on May 20, 2008, the project was approved by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) on May 27, 2008. ZA hearing minutes are attached as part of CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5, page 76 of this report). The ZA imposed conditions of approval including confirmation of the initial, City required BMR unit agreement for HOM I and a requirement that the property owner comply with the City's relocation assistance requirements (San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.279). SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance) sets forth specific requirements and obligations of a property owner in the event a development project, results in the displacement of existing residents who are low-income. The code provides for relocation assistance for displaced low-income residents. The requirements include specific noticing, confirmation of income status for low income residents and procedures that must be met to ensure qualifying residents are paid two months' rent if they are required to vacate and relocate. A copy of SRMC Section 14.16.279 is attached as part of the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5, page 138 of this report). Appeal of Zoning Administrator Action: Immediately following the ZA action, on May 30, 2008, the property owner mailed 60 -day vacation notices to most of the residents. The notice that was sent did not comply with the provisions of SRMC. On June 3, 2008, two residents of HOM II appealed the project approval by the ZA. The grounds for the appeal raised both design -related and non design -related issues. The June 3, 2008 appeal letter is attached as part of the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5, page 74 of this report). On June 13, 2008, the property owner rescinded the vacation notice. Following the filing of the appeal, staff worked with the property owner over the course of seven months on the following: 1. Confirmation of the status of, and obligations associated with, the issue of BMR units, and the City's relocation notice and assistance requirements; 2. At the request and direction of City staff, the owner prepared and submitted a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan and a Resident Communication Plan (RCP). These plans provide information regarding the phasing of the construction, time frames for renovation and the sequence for the planned vacation of units and the property owner's outreach to the residents; and 3. During this time frame the Citys housing specialist and the City Attorney's office have been working with the property owners on this matter. The property owners have since confirmed their obligation to fulfill the initial BMR Agreement. Consequently, the City Attorney's office has advised that there is no nexus between the BMR Agreement and the proposed ED Permit and recommended that these conditions be deleted. The property owners will be obligated to meet the terms of the BMR Agreement, which will be addressed separately from the ED Permit process. On January 13, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal of this project (see PC Minutes, Attachment 6, page 143 of this report). The Commission accepted public comment from 15 people, with 11 opposing the project and 4 in support. The majority of the public comments opposing the project stated that: • The property owner's Resident Communication Plan (RCP) was not clear in providing guidance and direction to residents; • The replacement of the tennis court open area with a new leasing office reduces the useable outdoor area for the complex; • The new leasing office is not useful in that the complex presently contains two leasing offices; • Hazardous traffic conditions would result from the proposed new leasing office and a traffic study should be prepared; • The proposed improvements do not preserve the neighborhood character of the Highlands of Marin complex; • Preparation of a substantive relocation plan detailing the process, logistics, options and terms of temporary relocation on the property should be required; • The project should be required to provide inclusionary housing for the major exterior renovation project; • Fire safety measures should be imposed in the event of major fire; • The project would eliminate/reduce affordable housing; and • The rent for remodeled units should be disclosed now. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 The Commission discussed these issues in detail. The Commission determined that most of the issues either were not applicable to the renovation project, or were beyond the City's authority in approving an ED Permit. On January 13, 2009, the Commission voted 6-1 (Commissioner Mills dissenting) to deny the appeal and uphold the ZA approval. As part of this action, the PC amended three of the ED Permit conditions as follows: • Condition #15 was expanded to clarify the relocation assistance process; • Condition #16 regarding the BMR units was deleted based on the City Attorney's advice that the BMR issue is not related to the ED Permit; and • Condition #55 was amended to clarify the building permit inspection process. On January 27, 2009, the Commission reviewed and voted 6-1 (Commissioner Paul absent) to adopt the Resolution No. 09-01 (Attachment 4, page 29 of this report) to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of the project. Minutes from the first January 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting are attached (Attachment 6, page 143 of this report). A chronology of events has been prepared which summarizes the background and evolution of this project through the stages of project review. This chronology is attached to the PC Staff Report (Attachment 5, page 89 of this report). ANALYSIS: Summary of Appeal and Response to Appeal Points: Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Planning Commission's January 27 action was filed along with the required filing fee. The appellants, David Therien, Denny McGinnis and Eugene Dougherty submitted an appeal letter dated February 3, 2009, which is included as Attachment 3 (page 27 of this report). This appeal letter raises design -related and non design -related issues, some of which were already addressed by the Planning Commission. Below is a summary of the appeal points (in bold and italics) identified in the February 3, 2009, PC appeal letter followed by staff's response: Discretionary renovations will displace over 300 San Rafael residents and children from their apartment homes. Response: This issue of resident displacement was discussed at length by the Commission. First, the City's ordinance mandates relocation assistance for qualifying low-income residents who are displaced as a result of property renovations. Second, the City encourages maintenance of, and improvements to, private properties. This is a renovation project for the maintenance of property. Third, the property owner has maintained that they will try to accommodate as many existing tenants as possible provided they meet with the owner's credit and income requirements. However, the rent of upgraded apartments will likely rise and some of the tenants may not qualify for the same apartments they are currently occupying. The SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance) requires payment of two months' rent to tenants of record displaced by a development project. Beyond requiring the two-month rent assistance, the City has no authority to address the dislocation issue. To impose or require relocation assistance beyond that required by the City ordinance would exceed the City's regulatory authority. Further, to require relocation assistance for all residents could discourage or create a disincentive to pursue property maintenance and improvements. 2. Most displaced residents will not be able to re -qualify for a renovated unit due to the owner's planned luxury upgrades, rates and qualification requirements. Resoonse: As stated above, some of the residents may not qualify for rents of upgraded apartments. However, apart from the SRMC 14.16.279 required payment of a two-month rent to displaced tenants of record who qualify as low-income, the City lacks the authority to regulate rents. It should be noted that the City of San Rafael is the only jurisdiction in Marin County that has a requirement for relocation assistance. 3. Residents who are forced to leave the property will enter an already constricted rental market with a limited supply of affordable housing options and very few vacancies. Thus to secure equitable, local housing at their currently affordable rates will be extremely difficult. These residents will face disproportionately significant challenges in maintaining important social, SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 emotional, community and educational ties, as well as the means for their economic survival in Marin — especially under current and looming economic conditions. Response: As stated under the response to appeal points 1 and 2 above, the City encourages the maintenance of properties. Such maintenance upgrades to the properties could result in rent increases. Under SRMC 14.16.279, the City regulates and enforces the payment of two months' rent to qualified low-income tenants of record. Under the current policies and codes, the City cannot regulate the social issues that result from displacement due to a development project. Further, the Planning Commission made an effort to respond to this concern by expanding the requirement of the RCP (condition #15.a.) to include a schedule of intended rental ranges for the renovated units; contact information at Legal Aid Marin and Marin Housing Assist Line for assistance regarding tenant rights; information regarding on-site, temporary relocation options for tenants; and a list of property addresses for apartment complexes in the general area of the site that may have available rental units. 4. Residents who are able to qualify for an upgraded unit, and choose to stay, will be afforded only one month's free rent for the inconvenience of being displaced, will have no guaranteed option for return to their own upgraded unit, and will have to absorb the cost of substantially increased rents- according to the owner's market -rate projections. Response: Staff finds this issue has been generally addressed in the responses to appeal points 1 thru 3, above. Further, the rents for apartments in the older complex HOM II (Crest Marin) are currently lower because of age of the complex (30 years), which necessitate much needed improvements and renovations of these apartments. The rents for all the renovated apartments are generally expected to increase in keeping with the competition. The City has no authority to regulate the free market forces of supply and demand. 5. The City's Relocation Assistance Ordinance (SRMC Section 14.16.279) provides a significant and appreciated benefit to residents who are of low-income and who qualify. However, our research shows that current relocation costs far exceed the amount of this assistance. Also, a significant number of residents will neither qualify for the assistance nor an upgraded unit — according to the owner's expected qualification requirements. Response: As stated in the responses to appeal points paragraphs 1 thru 4 above, the City's authority in this matter is limited to the enforcement of the current relocation assistance provisions of SRMC Section 14.16.279. 6. There remain, in our estimation, certain issues not wholly addressed or conditioned by the Planning Commission's Resolution of January 274h, 2009. These include, but are not limited to the addition of a third leasing office building and its severe safety implications for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as well as the owner's failure to respond adequately to the City's request for a comprehensive relocation plan. Response: Until last year, these two complexes were separately owned and operated. They each had their own, geographically separated leasing offices. Now that the complexes are owned by one owner, it makes business sense for the new owner to consolidate the leasing operations into one new office in a central location. Further, it is very logical from a site planning standpoint. However, the project does not add new units and therefore, does not add additional traffic. As part of the ED Permit review process, staff consulted and worked with the City's Traffic Engineer regarding the siting of the proposed new leasing office and traffic safety issues of this project. The Traffic Engineer has determined that there are no traffic safety issues associated with the two complexes as currently designed or with the new leasing office. Additionally, the Traffic Engineer has concluded that current traffic volumes are within normal limits and there will be no additional traffic volume; existing sight distances are adequate; traffic on this property has not been viewed as a problem; and the proposed roundabout, although preliminary and not part of this approval, would improve site access and circulation. The project will result in the loss of no less than eleven (11) designated affordable (low- incomeIBMR) housing units from the City's current compliance with the San Rafael Housing Element. Response: The older apartment complex, HOM II does not contain any below market rate (BMR) units. The City's 1989 approval of HOM I required that 15% (33) of the units be reserved for BMR SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pape, 5 rental (18 for low income and 15 for moderate income) for 30 years. The BMR agreement for the 33 units runs to 2030. HOM I was financed through California Tax Credits. The bonds were issued in 1989 by Marin Housing Authority. The bonds were refunded in 2000 with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Finance Authority and a Regulatory Agreement placed on all 220 units in HOM I. The Regulatory Agreement required 20% of the total units (44 units) be rented to residents at 50% of median income. The owner plans to pay off the bonds and remove the income restrictions. The repayment of the ABAG bonds would eliminate the 11 BMR (44-33=11) units that had resulted from the ABAG agreement. If the bonds are repaid, the City approved BMR agreement would still be in effect for 33 apartment units through 2030. Therefore, the elimination of the 11 BMR units is not connected to the renovation project nor to the City's discretion on this ED Permit. The renovation project neither requires the repayment of the ABAG bonds, nor is this a vehicle that can be used to repay the bonds. The ABAG bonds can be repaid independently of the project. Analysis of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency: General Plan: The project is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan in regards to building heights, land use, new development in residential neighborhoods, parking, landscape improvement, and single-family residential design guidelines. Please refer to the draft resolution (Attachment 2, page 14 of this report) for detailed findings of general plan consistency. Zoning Ordinance: The project is consistent with the development standards for MR2.5 and Planned Development (PD) Zoning Districts; with the provisions of Chapter 25 Design Review Criteria in regards to the project's materials and colors; and in regards to the minimal visual impact of the new leasing office building. Please refer to the draft resolution (Attachment 2, page 14 of this report) for detailed findings of Zoning Ordinance consistency. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 15301 (a) (2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), interior or exterior alternations are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 15303 (e) of CEQA, accessory (appurtenant) structures are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Since the project is for interior and exterior renovations and will add a 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office accessory to the apartment complex, the proposed project qualifies for a categorical exemption under Sections 15301 and 15303 of CEQA. NOTICE/CORRESPONDENCE: City Council public hearing public notice was published in the Marin Independent Journal and mailed to the complex tenants, neighboring property owners, businesses and residents within 300 feet and surrounding neighborhood associations. A copy of the public hearing notice and the notification list are attached (Attachment 7, page 159 of this report). All previous correspondence received on this appeal through the Planning Commission hearing is included as part of the attached Planning Commission report (Attachment 5, page 139 of this report). Additional correspondence includes a letter dated February 20, 2009 from the property owner. The letter provides property owner's response to the appeal points (Attachment 8; page 179 of this report). FISCAL IMPACT: The project includes renovation of existing buildings and the construction of a new leasing office. Staff does not anticipate that the approval of the proposed project will cause a change in City service costs because the renovated project would not result in any new residential units. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate any more demand in city services or emergency response as well as street and drainage maintenance and other municipal services to these properties. SAN RAFAEL CTI'Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the City Council on this matter 1. Deny the appeal and approve the project as presented and approved by the Planning Commission; 2. Deny the appeal and approve the project with additional modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Continue the application to allow the applicant to address any of the Council's comments or concerns; or 4. Approve the appeal and deny the project. ACTIONS REQUIRED: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's action affirming the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08- 011) (Attachment 2). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity/Site Map 2. Draft resolution denying the appeal and upholding PC action affirming ZA approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit 3. Appeal Letter dated February 3, 2009 4. PC Resolution (No. 09-01) denying the appeal and upholding the ZA approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit 5. Planning Commission staff report with exhibits, January 13, 2009 - key Exhibits: Letter of appeal to PC Chronology of the Project Development Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan Resident Communication Plan SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance) 6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 13, 2009 7. Public Hearing Notice and Notification List 8. Public Correspondence since Planning Commission hearing Distributed to the City Council only: Reduced Project Plans (11 "x17 ) NUMBERED PAGES IN REPORT (LOWER RIGHT CORNER) 7 9 27 29 45 75 90 97 105 143 148 lim] 183 Vicinity locaf;Jon Map - HighK ,'nds of Marin N SCALE 1: 5,959 A 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 FEET Attachment 1 _4, December 20, 2008 5:04 PM C RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED08-011) FOR EXTERIOR RENOVATION OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CARPORTS, A RECREATION BUILDING AND REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING TENNIS COURT WITH A NEW 2,785 SQ. FT. LEASING OFFICE BUILDING AT THE HIGHLANDS OF MARIN APARTMENT COMPLEX (HOM I AND II) LOCATED AT 1050 CRESTA WAY (APN: 155-251-20,21,24,25 AND 155-280-01 THROUGH 16 AND 18) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows: WHEREAS, in 1975, the Planning Commission approved a the development of the Crest Marin apartments, currently known as Highlands of Marin (HOM) II, which consists of a 104 -unit apartment complex located on 6.19 acres accessed by Cresta Drive. HOM II was developed in 1976; and WHEREAS, in 1989, the Planning Commission approved the development of the Highlands of Marin apartments, currently known as Highlands of Marin (HOM) I. The HOM I consists of a 220 -unit apartment complex located on two, non-contiguous parcels sited on an 8.4 -acre hilltop, accessed by Cresta Drive. HOM I was developed in 1990. The City approvals require that 33 units be rented at below market rates through year 2030; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2006, an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED06-114) to allow exterior remodeling of the HOM I complex was submitted to the Community Development Department that was deemed complete for processing on February 3, 2007; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, the Community Development Department staff reviewed and approved the proposed project subject to findings and conditions of approval. The approved renovations were not carried out because the owners had acquired HOM II and wanted to pursue renovation of both complexes using a common design theme; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2008, an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) was submitted for both HOM I and II complexes to allow exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building. The application was deemed complete for processing on April 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project and recommended plan changes. On May 20, 2008, the San Rafael ATTACHMENT 2 2.1 Design Review Board reviewed plan revisions for the project and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed ED Permit (ED08- 011) and continued the matter to May 27, 2008 requiring the submittal of additional information regarding open space areas; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed and approved the ED Pen -nit (ED08-011) for both HOM I and II complexes. The approval incorporated conditions requiring, among others: a) the payment of relocation assistance to qualifying low-income residents displaced by the renovations; and b) execution of an agreement between the City and the property owner reaffirming the BMR Agreement executed for HOM I in 1990; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, David Therien and Maurice Burckhardt, tenants of HOM II filed an appeal (AP08-004) of the Zoning Administrator approval of the ED Permit; and WHEREAS, from June 2008 to January 2009, City staff has worked with the property owner to resolve and respond to appeal issues, including: a) the preparation and submittal of a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan (CPLP) and Resident Communication Plan (RCP) to provide tenants with knowledge of the construction schedule, areas involving residential unit vacation and construction phasing; and b) conforming the status of BMR units; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the appeal, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff. Following closure of the public hearing and lengthy discussion, the Commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold approval of the ED Permit with amendments to conditions. The Commission directed staff to prepare a final resolution with the recommended condition amendments for presentation and action at the next regular hearing; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed and adopted Resolution No. 09-01 on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Paul absent) to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of the project with added and amended conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2009, David Therien, Eugene Dougherty and Denny McGinnis, representatives of Highlands of Marin Residents Association filed an appeal (AP08-004) of the Planning Commission action upholding of the Zoning Administrator approval of the ED Permit; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2009, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the City Council has confirmed that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to (a) Section 15301 (a) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts interior or exterior alterations, and (b) Section 15303 (e) of CEQA Guidelines, which exempts new, small structures; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby denies the appeal (AP08-004) and upholds the Planning Commission's action affirming the Zoning Administrator's conditional approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011). The City Council finds that the points of the appeal (in italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons: 1. Discretionary renovations will displace over 300 San Rafael residents and children from their apartment homes. This issue of resident displacement has been addressed throughout this project review process. First, the City's ordinance mandates relocation assistance for qualifying low-income residents that are displaced as a result of property renovations. Second, the City encourages maintenance of, and improvements to private properties. Third, the property owner has maintained that they will try to accommodate as many existing tenants as possible provided they meet with the owner's credit and income requirements. However, the rent of upgraded apartments will likely rise and some of the tenants may not qualify for the same apartments they are currently occupying. The SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance) requires payment of two month's rent to tenants of record displaced by a development, project. Beyond the two-month rent assistance, the City has no authority to address the dislocation issue. To impose or require relocation assistance beyond that required by the City ordinance would be over and above the City's regulatory authority. Further, to require relocation assistance for all residents could discourage or create a disincentive to pursue property maintenance and improvements. 2. Most displaced residents will not be able to re -qualify for a renovated unit due to the owner's planned luxury upgrades, rates and qualification requirements. As stated above, some of the residents may not qualify for rents of upgraded apartments. However, apart from the SRMC 14.16.279 required payment of a two- month rent to displaced tenants of record, that qualify as low-income, the City does not have the authority to regulate rents. Additionally, the City of San Rafael is the only jurisdiction in Marin County that has a requirement for relocation assistance. 3. Residents who are forced to leave the property will enter an already constricted rental market with a limited supply of affordable housing options and very few vacancies. Thus to secure equitable, local housing at their currently affordable rates will be extremely difficult. These residents will face disproportionately ATTACHMENT 2 2.3 significant challenges in maintaining important social, emotional, community and educational ties, as well as the means for their economic survival in Marin — especially under current and looming economic conditions. As stated under the response to appeal points 1 and 2 above, the City encourages the maintenance of properties. Such maintenance upgrades to the properties could inevitably results in rent increases. Under SRMC 14.16.279, the City regulates and enforces the payment of two months' rent to qualified low-income tenants of record. Under the current policies and codes, the City cannot regulate the social issues that result from displacement due to a development project. Further, the Planning Commission made an effort to respond to this concern by expanding the requirement of the Resident Communication Plan (condition #15.a.) to include a schedule of intended rental ranges for the renovated units; contact information at Legal Aid Marin and Marin Housing Assist Line for assistance regarding tenant rights; information regarding on-site, temporary relocation options for tenants; and a list of property addresses for apartment complexes in the general area of the site that may have available rental units. 4. Residents who are able to qualify for an upgraded unit, and choose to stay, will be afforded only one month's free rent for the inconvenience of being displaced, will have no guaranteed option for return to their own upgraded unit, and will have to absorb the cost of substantially increased rents- according to the owner's market - rate projections. Staff finds this issue has been generally addressed in the responses to appeal points 1 thru 3, above. Further, the rents for apartments in the older complex HOM I1 (Crest Marin) are currently lower.because of age of the complex (30 years) which necessitate the much needed improvements and renovations of these apartments. The rents for all the renovated apartments are generally expected to increase in keeping with the competition. The City has no authority to regulate the free market forces of supply and demand. 5. The City's Relocation Assistance Ordinance (SRMC Section 14.16.279) provides a significant and appreciated benefit to residents who are of low-income and who qualify. However, our research shows that current relocation costs far exceed the amount of this assistance. Also, a significant number of residents will neither qualify for the assistance nor an upgraded unit — according to the owner's expected qualification requirements. As stated in the responses to appeal points paragraphs 1 thru 4 above, the City's authority in this matter is limited to the enforcement of the current relocation assistance provisions of SRMC Section 14.16.279. 6. There remain, in our estimation, certain issues not wholly addressed or conditioned by the Planning Commission's Resolution of January 27`h, 2009. These include, but are not limited to the addition of a third leasing office building and its severe safety implications for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as well as the owner's failure to respond adequately to the City's request for a comprehensive relocation plan. ATTACHMENT 2 2.4 Until last year, these two complexes were separately owned and operated. They had their own, geographically separated leasing offices. Now that the complexes are owned by one owner, it makes business sense for the new owner to consolidate the leasing operations into one new office in a central location. Further, it is very logical from a site planning standpoint. However, the project does not add new units and therefore, does not add additional traffic. As part of the ED Permit process, staff consulted and worked with the City's Traffic Engineer regarding the siting of this leasing office and traffic safety issues of this project. The Traffic Engineer has determined that there are no traffic safety issues associate with the two complexes as currently designed or with the new leasing office. Additionally, the Traffic Engineer has concluded that current traffic volumes are low and there will be no additional traffic volume; existing sight distances are adequate; traffic on this property has not been a problem; and the proposed roundabout, although preliminary and not part of this approval, would improve site access and circulation. 7. The project will result in the loss of no less than eleven (11) designated affordable (low-income/BMR) housing units from the City's current compliance with the San Rafael Housing Element. The older apartment complex, HOM II does not contain any below market rate (BMR) units. The City's 1989 approval of HOM I required that 15% (33) of the units be reserved for BMR rental (18 for low income and 15 for moderate income) for 30 years. The BMR agreement for the 33 units runs to 2030. HOM I was financed through California Tax Credits. The bonds were issued in 1989 by Marin Housing Authority. The bonds were refunded in 2000 with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Finance Authority and a Regulatory Agreement placed on all 220 units in HOM I. The Regulatory Agreement required 20% of the total units (44 units) be rented to residents at 50% of median income. The owner plans to pay off the bonds and remove the income restrictions. The repayment of the ABAG bonds would eliminate the 11 BMR (44- 33=11) units that had resulted from the ABAG agreement. If the bonds are repaid, the City approved BMR agreement would still be in effect for 33 apartment units through 2030. Therefore, the elimination of the 11 BMR is not connected to the renovation project or to the City's discretion on this ED Permit. The renovation project neither requires the repayment of the ABAG bonds, nor is this a vehicle which can be used to repay the bonds. The ABAG bonds can be repaid independently of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael upholds the Planning Commission action to deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning Administrator approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) based on the following findings: ATTACHMENT 2 2.5 FINDINGS 1. The project has been designed consistent with the following General Plan Policies: LU - 12 (Building Heights), LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -8 (Parking), CD-ld (Landscape Improvement), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines) because: a. The project meets and does not exceed the maximum height requirement of its General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential (LU 12); b. The project is consistent with its General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential (LU -23). The project will not change the existing residential density, which is in compliance with the maximum allowable Gross Density of 15- 32 units per acre (LU -23); c. The project preserves and enhances the residential character of the neighborhood and maintaining neighborhood compatibility (NH -2, CD -2 and CD -13) by: 1) Maintaining the existing building mass and height and creating continuity in the exterior design of the two complexes by introducing common materials and colors; 2) Integrating the proposed leasing office addition into the common design of the complex; and 3) Incorporating landscape improvements that enhance the project design provide screening and are suitable for the site. 2. The new leasing office building is consistent with the MR2.5 Zoning District in that: a. The leasing office building is an allowed use consistent with Section 14.04.020 Land use regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD) which states, "Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use and contained on the same site" are permitted in all of these residential districts. The proposed leasing office is customarily incidental to the multifamily residential use and would be located within the complex; b. The proposed leasing office building complies with the development standards regarding front, side and rear setbacks, height, lot coverage and parking under the MR2.5 zoning district; and c. Per Table 14.04.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum useable outdoor area of 200 sq. ft. (common and/or private) is required per dwelling unit. The two apartment complexes contain 324 dwelling units, which require a total useable outdoor area of 64,800 sq. ft. With the replacement of the existing tennis court, the project would provide an outdoor area of 285 sq. ft. common and/or private open space (total area of 92,388 sq. ft.), which exceeds the minimum requirement of the Code. 3. The project has been designed consistent with the general objective to promote design quality in all development by proposing new exterior materials with new color palette that is earth tone in nature and blends with the natural hillside setting of the site, which would be an improvement over the stucco material and plain colors that currently exist. ATTACHMENT 2 2.6. 4. The proposed project has been designed consistent with the varied designs and heights of the existing neighborhood residences and is therefore, consistent with the specific purposes of Residential (R) districts to protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhood pursuant to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The proposed exterior renovation and the new leasing office are consistent with Chapter 25 — Design Review Criteria in that: a. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.030 that requires a shadow diagram if deemed necessary to evaluate potential shading of adjacent properties. The proposed new building is located quite a distance from existing, off-site development and would not shade any adjacent properties. Therefore, a shadow diagram would not serve any purpose; b. The project design, including its materials and colors, is consistent with the 2-3 story height of the existing buildings in the apartment complex; c. The proposed improvements have been designed by a registered architect with experience in designing similar projects in the Bay Area and these improvements have been reviewed and favorably recommended by the Design Review Board; d. The proposed project is consistent with SRMC Section 14.25.050.E, which requires: site design to have a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and between structures and the site; preservation of major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills; respecting site features and recognizing site constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation; providing good vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation and access, onsite and in relation to the surrounding area; providing energy-efficient design; providing special attention to proper site surface drainage; and requiring utility connections to be installed underground, in that: I) The new leasing office building is harmonious with the existing buildings in terms of building height, materials and colors; 2) The proposed leasing office building would be marginally visible from other properties and public right of ways and its visual impact would be minimal. The project would not block major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills. Additionally, the property would be improved with landscaping; 3) The proposed project minimizes grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation because the building site is an existing tennis court which is fairly level and does not contain any vegetation; 4) The proposed leasing office building is conveniently located with respect to both of the existing complexes and would not obstruct vehicle circulation, would provide parking for employees and visitors and would be easily accessible for both potential and existing tenants; 5) The existing stormwater drainage will continue to flow into open space which will filter urban runoff; and 6) Utilities are available for the proposed leasing office building and no new services are required for the development. ATTACHMENT 2 2.7 e. The project is consistent with SRMC Section 14.25.050.F. of the Zoning Ordinance which requires project architecture to be harmoniously integrated in relation to the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design, in that: 1) The new leasing office building elevations provide appropriate massing. The front elevation, which is the most visible elevation incorporates a portico creating a visible interest. Consistent with the theme of the proposed exterior renovation of the apartment buildings, the walls contain stucco finish and cementifious lap siding and have dark earth tone colors; 2) The proposed new color palette would be earth tone in nature and would blend with the natural hillside setting of the site. The proposed white vinyl windows and new metal vents are appropriate given the small size of these features and would not be stark design elements that would be visible from long distance views of the site; and 3) The portico at the main entrance to the leasing office building provides a sense of entry to the building. 6. The design of the exterior renovations, minimizes potential adverse environmental impacts in that: a. The grading is minimal as proposed; b. The proposed renovations would not result in significant removal of existing vegetation or significant trees; and c. No additional residential units are proposed that would result in increased traffic or air pollutants and would not increase demand for utilities and services. 7. The design of the exterior renovations and the new leasing office building as conditioned below, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the project site, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael in that: a. The proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments. Conditions of approval recommended by other departments have been applied to minimize potential adverse visual, design, and safety impacts to the project site and adjacent properties; and b. The proposed project does not indicate a use that is prohibited in MR2.5 Zoning District, but is permitted by right under Section 14.04.020 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 8. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance), in that the project applicant is being required to provide: a. Notice to all tenants that are vacated as a result of their unit renovation; b. Assistance to qualifying low-income families; and c. Proof of payment to eligible low-income families. 9. Pursuant to Section 15301 (a) (2) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or exterior alternations are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 15303 (e) of CEQA, small structures are exempt from the ATTACHMENT 2 2.8 requirements of CEQA. Since the project is for limited exterior renovation improvements and will add a 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building accessory to the apartment complex, the proposed project qualifies for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 and 15303 of CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael upholds the Planning Commission's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) subject to the following conditions, as amended: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General and ongoing Planning Division 1. The building techniques, materials, colors, elevations, and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans titled Highland of Marin I, Highlands of Marin II and Highlands of Marin New Leasing Office, San Rafael, CA; prepared by KTGY Group, Inc. and stamped approved on May 21, 2008, shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision- making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary. As shown on the preliminary plans, it is the intent of the applicant to modify the design and layout of the Cresta Drive terminus to a `roundabout' configuration. The modification of this road terminus will require an amendment to this Environmental and Design Review Permit, which can be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) is valid for two (2) years from the date of final approval by the City of San Rafael and shall become null and void unless a Building Permit is issued or a time extension is granted. Once the conditions of approval have been implemented, this approval shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid whether or not there is a change in property ownership. Continued compliance with all conditions of approval shall be required for the duration of the use. 3. All 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. 4. 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. ATTACHMENT 2 2.9 5. 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. 6. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette consists of a mixture of white and shades of beige and brown colors. 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. 7. No part of the existing landscape including any trees shall be removed, unless their removal has been reviewed and approved by Planning Division, or are authorized by the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) approved by the Fire Department. 8. Contractor Contact Information Posting: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street. Please check with the Planning Division regarding such a sign. 9. Construction Phasing. Logistics and Hours of O eration: Construction hours shall be limited as specified by Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A which are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday from 9:OOa.m to 6:OOp.m. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at or on the site. This permit approves and requires compliance with the phasing shown in the Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan prepared by Peak West Development, LLC (dated November 28, 2008), which is on file with the Community Development Department. This phasing of construction is described in the plan and is approved as follows: a. Phase I — Common Area Facilities b. Phase II — Highlands of Mann I Exterior Renovations c. Phase III — Highlands of Marin I Interior Renovations d. Phase IV — Highlands of Marin II (formerly Crest Mann) Exterior and Interior Renovations It is understood that the dates listed in the Highlands of Mann Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan are subject to change based on weather, labor and materials availability, timely issuance of building permits, and market conditions. 10. On -Site Li tin : On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for ATTACHMENT 2 2.10 compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 11. Archaeological Resources: In the event that archaeological resources, 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, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area. 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. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant' can be designated. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Planning Division 12. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. 13. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to Building Permit issuance. The plan shall identify that all activities, including but not limited to loading/unloading, storage, employee parking, related to the construction shall be located onsite. The plan shall also specify the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials, storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel. 14. 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. 15. The property owner shall comply with the provisions of SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance), which requires that relocation assistance be provided for displaced apartment tenants that qualify as low-income. Prior to issuance of building permits for interior renovation of apartment units where existing tenants ATTACHMENT 2 2.11 are displaced or required to vacate, the following tasks and measures shall be implemented: a. The property owner shall implement a Resident Communication Plan (RCP). A draft RCP has been prepared by the property owner and is on file with the Community Development Department. Implementation of this plan requires updating apartment residents on a regular basis regarding the timing of the project, including a building -by -building construction timeline so that tenants are aware of project impacts to their apartment and timing for vacation of units. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for any renovation that requires the vacation of residents, the RCP shall be implemented by the property owner's delivery to the tenants of the following information: 1) a schedule of the intended rental ranges for the apartment units that are to be renovated; 2) contact information at Legal Aid of Marin and Marin Housing Assist Line for assistance regarding tenants rights; 3) information regarding on-site, temporary relocation options for tenants; and 4) a list of property addresses for apartment complexes in the general area of the site that may have available rental units. b. An escrow account shall be established with a deposit amount of $100,000. This escrow account shall be maintained and managed solely by the applicant/property owner. On the fifth day of each month following the establishment of the escrow account, the property owner shall submit a monthly report of activity on the account including, but not limited to the withdrawals for payment of relocation assistance and the remaining account balance as of the date of the monthly report. This escrow account must be kept active until the final relocation assistance payment in connection with the project is paid, after which the account may be closed and the principal returned to the applicant. Additional deposits in the escrow account may be necessary depending upon the number of displaced tenants that qualify for relocation assistance consistent with the City code provisions. At no time shall the account balance fall below $20,000. In compliance with the phasing shown in the Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan prepared by Peak West Development, LLC (dated November 28, 2008), the following tasks and measures shall be implemented as each building is vacated and prepared for renovation: 1) The property owner shall provide to each tenant of record in the apartments to be vacated, a notice via certified mail, of the need to vacate. This notice shall be received no later than 60 days prior to the date the tenants are required to vacate. The notice shall include the statement required by SRMC Section 14.16.279.C. and shall state the date on which the tenant must vacate the apartment and a description of the relocation assistance available to low-income tenants. The description shall include the income standards for qualifying for relocation assistance and shall include a printed income certification form. The printed income certification form shall include a statement that the representation of income is being made under penalty of perjury and that any false statement may be punishable as a felony and thereby ATTACHMENT 2 2.12 subject an individual to criminal and civil penalties. The location for delivery of the income certification and the date and time by which it must be delivered to the property owner shall also be set forth in the notice. 2) Proof of the vacation notice mailing and list of tenants of record receiving the notice shall be submitted to the City at the same time the notices are mailed. 3) Tenants of record who meet the income standards shall complete the income certification required by SRMC Section 14.16.279. The tenant shall deliver the certification to the property owner no later than close of business at the property owners' regular place of business, by the date specified in the notice, which date shall be no less than 17 days after the mailing date of the notice. Copies of all certificates from tenants of record confirming income status shall be submitted to the City. 4) The property owner shall prepare a list of tenants of record who have submitted valid certificates (including those certificates from all Section 8 tenants) and provide the list to the Community Development Department within fifteen (15) business days after such certificates are received by the property owner. 5) No later than 30 days prior to the scheduled vacancy, the property owner shall pay over to each qualified tenant of record who has submitted a timely certificate of income, the relocation assistance provided in SRMC Section 14.16.279, less any amount due to the property owner from the tenant of record. Copies of the relocation assistance checks paid to qualifying tenants shall be submitted to the City. Violation of this condition by the applicant/property owner shall be cause to revoke building permits for the project and/or require that construction work be ceased. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for conversion of the HOM II leasing office into an area for resident mailboxes, the applicant shall submit a letter from the US Postal Service either confirming the continuation of the current mail delivery system (individual boxes at each building) or the requirement for a new, centralized system of mail delivery. Building Division 17. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 Plumbing Code, 2007 Electrical Code, 2007 California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Fire Code, and 2005 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards. 18. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: (larger projects require 4 sets of construction drawings) ATTACHMENT 2 2.13 a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans f) Fire sprinkler plans g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) h) Structural Calculations i) Truss Calculations j) Soils reports k) Title -24 energy documentation 19. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of the building shall be specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of the building. Site/civil plans shall be prepared by a California licensed surveyor or engineer clearly showing topography, identifying grade plan and height of the building. 20. For those buildings where the scope of work involves interior remodel work, it is likely that the these buildings meet the definition for "substantial remodel," as defined in Municipal Code Section 4.08.120, Amendments to the Fire Code. Therefore, installation of fire sprinklers may be required throughout the building. A determination as to whether fire sprinklers will be required will occur during the building permit review process. A separate deferred application shall be submitted to the Building Division by a C-16 contractor. 21. Based on City records and completion of a site inspection, some of the existing buildings are equipped with an existing fire sprinkler system installed in accordance to NFPA 13 standard. If any of the proposed construction work impacts the existing sprinkler system, a separate deferred application shall be submitted to the Building Division by a C-16 contractor. 22. Address numbers shall be installed for each building and shall be located in a position that is plainly visible from the street or. road fronting the property. Numbers must be Arabic numerals or alphabetical letters, be minimum 4" in height with a minimum stroke width of .5 inch, contrasting in color to their background, and either internally or externally illuminated.24. Knox box keyed entry system is required at designated access doors. 23. If proposed fencing exceeds 6' in height, a building permit is required. 24. 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 (BAAQMD) prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. Please contact BAAQMD fore requirements. ATTACHMENT 2 2.14 25. School fees will be required for any new building area constructed in the project. School fees are not required for existing buildings or buildings being renovated. School fees for commercial space are computed at $0.33 per square foot of new building area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 26. All private, on-site improvements such as retaining walls; street light standards, and private sewer system will require plan review and permits from the Building Division. 27. In the event the final improvements include site grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. The soils report shall 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 shall be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. A grading permit may be required for this work. 28. Geotechnical and civil pad certifications shall be submitted, where required by the Building Division. 29. Where ventilation is required, the minimum, openarea to the outdoors shall be 4 percent of the floor area that is being ventilated (CBC 1203.4.1). 30. The minimum net glazed area required for natural light shall be than 8 percent of the floor area of the room that it serves (CBC 1205.2). 31. All site signage (including wall signs) shall require a separate permit and application (excluding address numbering). Monument sign(s) located at the driveway entrance(s) shall have address numbers posted prominently on the monument sign 32. The new leasing office building shall be assigned a new building address by the Department of Public Works. 33. The new leasing office shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations (e.g., accessible parking stalls, path of travel, primary entrance, interior travel path and restrooms). 34. The project shall comply with the ADA requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations, as determined by the building Division. ATTACHMENT 2 2.15 35. Pedestrian access provisions shall 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 within this 4' minimum width. Sidewalk slopes and side slopes shall not exceed published minimums per California Title 24, Part 2. 36. 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. 37. Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according the following table and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site. Total Number of Pazking Spaces Provided Minimum Required Number of H/C Spaces 1 to 25 1 1 38. A minimum of one handicapped (ADA) parking space shall be designed to be van accessible (9 feet wide parking space and 8 foot wide off- load area). A minimum of one van accessible parking space shall be provided for every eight, required handicap spaces must be van accessible. 39. Fire lanes shall be maintained as originally designed the following italicized notation outlines those original requirements; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No Parking Fire Lane" A sign shall be posted in accordance to City of San Rafael standard #204. 40. This property is located in an Urban Wildland Interface (UWI) area. A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been approved by the Fire Department (June 3, 2008) and is on file with the Community Development Department. The VTM shall be implemented as approved. Public Works Department 41. Site drainage shall not be diverted or concentrated on adjacent properties. This provision shall not apply to storm drainage lines and outlet dissipaters that are to be diverted to and located on the contiguous lands owned by the County of Marin, which are permitted by agreement between the property owner and the County. A copy of the signed agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the building permit that includes these drainage lines and outlet dissipaters. . 42. All new roof drains shall be designed to be directed to landscape areas prior to entering an established swale or site drainage system. ATTACHMENT 2 2.16 43. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be included in the building permit plan submittal. Traffic Division 44. New parking spaces must meet city minimum standards for back-up distance. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD) 45. The proposed leasing office building shall apply for and receive an allocation of sewer capacity from the LGVSD prior to commencement of sewer service. 46. The proposed project may be subject to the. construction of on-site or off-site sanitary sewer improvements. This requirement shall be confirmed by the LGVSD at the time of project construction, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the District. Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) 47. A High Pressure Water Service Application shall be completed and submitted to MMWD for the proposed Leasing Office building. 48. A copy of the building permit shall be submitted with an application for service. 49. All MMWD required fees and charges shall be paid prior to authorization of service. 50. The project sponsor shall comply with the MMWD rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested, including the installation of a new meter to serve the new structure. 51. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be designed in accordance with the most current District landscape requirements (currently from Ordinance # 385). Prior to providing water service for new landscape areas, or improved or modified landscape areas, the District shall review and approve the project's working drawing for planting an irrigation systems. 52. The plans shall be designed to comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. 53. The use of recycled/reclaimed water is required, where available, for all approved uses. ATTACHMENT 2 2.17 Prior to Final Building and Site Inspections 54. Upon completion of construction for each building or construction phase, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 55. All damaged and new landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to the final inspection of the site or the property owner shall post a bond in the amount of the estimated landscaping/irrigation cost with the City of San Rafael. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed for landscaping must be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning Division prior to occupancy. Deferred landscaping through a bond shall not exceed 3 months past occupancy. 56. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that the illumination is directed downward. Following City approval of the final inspection, 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. I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, the tad of March, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 2 2.18 February 3`d 2009 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk City of San Rafael City Hall, Room 209 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 PROJECT: 1050 Cresta Way - Highlands of Marin I & H RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY DE SAN RAFAEL 2009 FEB -3 PN 4:'53 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's 1/27/09 Resolution Denying Appeal (AP08-004) and Upholding ZA Action to Approve Environmental and Design Review Permit_(ED08-011) Dear Ms. Beime, This appeal to the San Rafael City Council is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Highlands. of Marin Residents Association, and other concerned residents of San Rafael and Marin County, regarding pending development plans for the apartments now known as Highlands of Marin I 8s II. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I ) Discretionary renovations will displace over 300 San Rafael residents and children from their apartment homes. 2) Most displaced residents will not be able to re -qualify for a renovated unit due to the owner' s planned luxury upgrades, rates and qualification requirements. 3 ) Residents who are forced to leave the property will enter an already constricted rental marke-C with a limited supply of affordable housing options and very few vacancies. Thus, to secure "quitable, local housing at their currently affordable rates will be extremely difficult. These r-esidents will face disproportionately significant challenges in maintaining important social, (-motional, community, and educational ties, as well as the means for their economic survival im %,Urin - especially under current and looming economic conditions. '-)Residents who are able to qualify for an upgraded unit, and choose to stay, will be afforded vn(y one month's free rent for the inconvenience of being displaced, will have no guaranteed o ption for return to their own upgraded unit, and will have to absorb the cost of substantially i"creased rents - according to the owner's market -rate projections. Attachment 3 5) The City's Relocation Assistance Ordinance (SRMC Section 14.16.279) provides a significant and appreciated benefit to residents who are of low-income and who qualify. However, our research shows that current relocation costs far exceed the amount of this assistance. Also, a significant number of residents will neither qualify for the assistance nor an upgraded unit - according to the owner's expected qualification requirements. 6) There remain, in our estimation, certain issues not wholly addressed or conditioned by the Planning Commission's Resolution of January 27`h, 2009. These include, but are not limited to, the addition of a third leasing office building and its severe safety implications for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as well as the owner's failure to respond adequately to the City's request for a comprehensive resident relocation plan 7) The project will result in the loss of no less than eleven (11) designated affordable (low- income/BMR) housing units from the City's current compliance with the San Rafael Housing Element. 8) Any additional grounds the community may raise to the City Council for their review and consideration. We welcome the Council's inquiry into these matters and will plan to provide further detail to the Council prior to the public hearing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. S i erely, David Theri Highlands of Marin Residents Association, President Eugene ougherty Highlands of Marin Residents Association, Member cc: City Officials, Mann County Leaders, and Concerned Residents RESOLUTION 09-01 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP08-004) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR RENOVATION OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CARPORTS, A RECREATION BUILDING AND REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING TENNIS COURT WITH A NEW 2,785 SQ. FT. LEASING OFFICE BUILDING AT THE HIGHLANDS OF MARIN APARTMENT COMPLEX (HOM I and II) LOCATED AT 1050 CRESTA WAY (APN: 155-251-20, 21, 24, 25 and 155-280-01 through 16 and 18) WHEREAS, in 1975, the Planning Commission approved a the development of the Crest Marin apartments, currently known as Highlands of Marin (HOM) II, which consists of a 104 -unit apartment complex located on 6.19 acres accessed by Cresta Drive. HOM II was developed in 1976; and WHEREAS, in 1989, the Planning Commission approved the development of the Highlands of Marin apartments, currently known as Highlands of Marin (HOM) I. The HOM I consists of a 220 -unit apartment complex located on two, non-contiguous parcels sited on an 8.4 -acre hilltop, accessed by Cresta Drive. HOM I was developed in 1990; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2006, an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED06-114) to allow exterior remodeling of the HOMI complex was submitted to the Community Development Department that was deemed complete for processing on February 3, 2007; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, the Community Development Department staff reviewed and approved the proposed project subject to findings and conditions of approval. The approved renovations were not carried out because the owners had acquired HOM II and wanted to pursue renovation of both complexes using a common design theme; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2008, an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) was submitted for both HOM I and II complexes to allow exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building. The application was deemed complete for processing on April 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project, recommended a plan change and continued the project to May 20, 2008; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed plan revisions for the project and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed ED Permit (ED08- 011) and continued the matter to May 27, 2008 requiring the submittal of additional information regarding open space areas; and Attachment 4 WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed and approved the ED Permit (ED08-011) for both HOM I and II complexes. The approval incorporated conditions requiring, among others: a) the payment of relocation assistance to qualifying low-income residents displaced by the renovations; and b) execution of an agreement between the City and the property owner reaffirming the BMR Agreement executed for HOM I; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, David Therien and Maurice Burckhardt, tenants of HOM II filed an appeal (AP08-004) of the Zoning Administrator approval of the ED Permit; and WHEREAS, since June 3, 2008, City staff has been working with the applicants to resolve and respond to appeal issues, including: a) the preparation and submittal of a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan (CPLP) and Resident Communication Plan (RCP) to provide tenants with knowledge of the construction schedule, areas involving residential unit vacation and construction phasing; and b) conforming the status of BMR units; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to (a) Section 15301 (a) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts interior or exterior alterations, and (b) Section 15303 (e) of CEQA Guidelines, which exempts accessory (appurtenant) structures; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby denies the appeal (AP08-004) and upholds the ZA decision to conditionally approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011). The Commission finds that the points of the appeal (in italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons: 1. Incomplete vacation notice: The applicant has rescinded the incomplete notice of eviction; 2. Public hearing notices did not provide detailed project description: The public hearing notice contained appropriate, basic project details and for practical reasons, could not be more elaborate. Further, such notices do not typically disclose if a construction project will or will not result in resident/tenant displacement, since such details are not always known at the time of the planning process. 3. A detailed plan be proposed requiring fair and reasonable accommodation of all parties: The applicant has now prepared and submitted a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan, which discloses the construction schedule and phasing, so that tenants are informed of the timing for unit vacation; 4. The impact to residents forced to relocate under current market conditions: The City lacks the authority to regulate eviction except to require compliance with SRMC Section 14.16.279 Relocation Assistance; 5. Evaluate and balance necessary requirements of the renovation work with maximum retention of displaced tenants: The City lacks the authority to regulate eviction, except to require compliance with SRMC Section 14.16.279 Relocation Assistance; 6. The proposed conversion of existing leasing office into recreational area would not compensate for the loss of outdoor recreational area due to the conversion of tennis court: After the conversion of the tennis courts into a new leasing office building, the complex will still provide 285 sq. ft. open space per unit, which exceeds the City standard of 200 sq. ft. open space per unit; 7. Vehicle turnaround area does not function appropriately: The applicant plans to upgrade the existing vehicle turnaround area; and 8. The conversion of HOM II leasing office to mail boxes will increase vehicular congestion in the area: The applicant will not convert the existing leasing office for HOM II into a mailbox room, if the United States Postal Service does not require the applicant to provide a consolidated mail delivery point. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) based on the following findings: FINDINGS The project has been designed consistent with the following General Plan Policies: LU - 12 (Building Heights), LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -8 (Parking), CD-ld (Landscape Improvement), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines) because: a. The project meets and does not exceed the maximum height requirement of its General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential (LU 12); b. The project is consistent with its General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential (LU -23). The project will not change the existing residential density, which is in compliance with the maximum allowable Gross Density of 15- 32 units per acre (LU -23); c. The project preserves and enhances the residential character of the neighborhood and maintaining neighborhood compatibility (NH -2, CD -2 and CD -13) by: 1) Maintaining the existing building mass and height and creating continuity in the exterior design of the two complexes by introducing common materials and colors; 2) Integrating the proposed leasing office addition into the common design of the complex; and 3) Incorporating landscape improvements that enhance the project design provide screening and are suitable for the site. 2. The new leasing office building is consistent with the MR2.5 Zoning District in that: a. The leasing office building is an allowed use consistent with Section 14.04.020 Land use regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD) which states, "Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use and contained on the same site" are permitted in all of these residential districts. The proposed leasing office is customarily incidental to the multifamily residential use and would be located within the complex; b. The proposed leasing office building complies with the development standards regarding front, side and rear setbacks, height, lot coverage and parking under the MR2.5 zoning district; and c. Per Table 14.04.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum useable outdoor area of 200 sq. ft. (common and/or private) is required per dwelling unit. The two apartment complexes contain 324 dwelling units, which require a total useable outdoor area of 64,800 sq. ft. With the replacement of the existing tennis court, the project would provide an outdoor area of 285 sq. ft. common and/or private open space (total area of 92,388 sq. ft.), which exceeds the minimum requirement of the Code. 3. The project has been designed consistent with the general objective to promote design quality in all development by proposing new exterior materials with new color palette that is earth tone in nature and blends with the natural hillside setting of the site, which would be an improvement over the stucco material and plain colors that currently exist. 4. The proposed project has been designed consistent with the varied designs and heights of the existing neighborhood residences and is therefore, consistent with the specific purposes of Residential (R) districts to protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhood pursuant to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The proposed exterior renovation and the new leasing office are consistent with Chapter 25 — Design Review Criteria in that: a. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.030 that requires a shadow diagram if deemed necessary to evaluate potential shading of adjacent properties. The proposed new building is located quite a distance from existing, off-site development and would not shade any adjacent properties. Therefore, a shadow diagram would not serve any purpose; b. The project design, including its materials and colors, is consistent with the 2-3 story height of the existing buildings in the apartment complex; c. The proposed improvements have been designed by a registered architect with experience in designing similar projects in the Bay Area and these improvements have been reviewed and favorably recommended by the Design Review Board; d. The proposed project is consistent with SRMC Section 14.25.050.E, which requires: site design to have a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and between structures and the site; preservation of major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills; respecting site features and recognizing site constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation; providing good vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation and access, onsite and in relation to the surrounding area; providing energy-efficient design; providing special attention to proper site surface drainage; and requiring utility connections to be installed underground, in that: 1) The new leasing office building is harmonious with the existing buildings in terms of building height, materials and colors; 2) The proposed leasing office building would be marginally visible from other properties and public right of ways and its visual impact would be minimal. The project would not block major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills. Additionally, the property would be improved with landscaping; 3) The proposed project minimizes grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation because the building site is an existing tennis court which is fairly level and does not contain any vegetation; 4) The proposed leasing office building is conveniently located with respect to both of the existing complexes and would not obstruct vehicle circulation, would provide parking for employees and visitors and would be easily accessible for both potential and existing tenants; 5) The existing stormwater drainage will continue to flow into open space which will filter urban runoff, and 6) Utilities are available for the proposed leasing office building and no new services are required for the development. e. The project is consistent with SRMC Section 14.25.050.F. of the Zoning Ordinance which requires project architecture to be harmoniously integrated in relation to the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design, in that: 1) The new leasing office building elevations provide appropriate massing. The front elevation, which is the most visible elevation incorporates a portico creating a visible interest. Consistent with the theme of the proposed exterior renovation of the apartment buildings, the walls contain stucco finish and cementitious lap siding and have dark earth tone colors; 2) The proposed new color palette would be earth tone in nature and would blend with the natural hillside setting of the site. The proposed white vinyl windows and new metal vents are appropriate given the small size of these features and would not be stark design elements that would be visible from long distance views of the site; and 3) The portico at the main entrance to the leasing office building provides a sense of entry to the building. 6. The design of the exterior renovations, minimizes potential adverse environmental impacts in that: a. The grading is minimal as proposed; b. The proposed renovations would not result in significant removal of existing vegetation or significant trees; and c. No additional residential units are proposed that would result in increased traffic or air pollutants and would not increase demand for utilities and services. 7. The design of the exterior renovations and the new leasing office building as conditioned below, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the project site, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael in that: a. The proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments. Conditions of approval recommended by other departments have been applied to minimize potential adverse visual, design, and safety impacts to the project site and adjacent properties; and b. The proposed project does not indicate a use that is prohibited in MR2.5 Zoning District, but is permitted by right under Section 14.04.020 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. 8. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance), in that the project applicant is being required to provide: a. Notice to all tenants that are vacated as a result of their unit renovation; b. Assistance to qualifying low-income families; and c. Proof of payment to eligible low-income families. 9. Pursuant to Section 15301 (a) (2) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or exterior alternations are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 15303 (e) of CEQA, accessory (appurtenant) structures are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Since the project is for limited exterior renovation improvements and will add a 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building accessory to the apartment complex, the proposed project qualifies for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 and 15303 of CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael upholds the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) subject to the following conditions, as amended: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General and ongoing Plannine Division 1. The building techniques, materials, colors, elevations, and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans titled Highland of Marin I, Highlands of Marin II and Highlands of Marin New Leasing Office, San Rafael, CA; prepared by KTGY Group, Inc. and stamped approved on May 21, 2008, shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision- making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary. As shown on the preliminary plans, it is the intent of the applicant to modify the design and layout of the Cresta Drive terminus to a `roundabout' configuration. The modification of this road terminus will require an amendment to this Environmental and Design Review Permit, which can be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) is valid for two (2) years from the date of final approval by the City of San Rafael and shall become null and void unless a Building Permit is issued or a time extension is granted. Once the conditions of approval have been implemented, this approval shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid whether or not there is a change in property ownership. Continued compliance with all conditions of approval shall be required for the duration of the use. 3. All 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette consists of a mixture of white and shades of beige and brown colors. 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. 7. No part of the existing landscape including any trees shall be removed, unless their removal has been reviewed and approved by Planning Division, or are authorized by the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) approved by the Fire Department. 8. Contractor Contact Information Postine: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street. Please check with the Planning Division regarding such a sign. 9. Construction Phasing, Logistics and Hours of O eration: Construction hours shall be limited as specified by Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A which are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday from 9:00a.m to 6:00p.m. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at or on the site. This permit approves and requires compliance with the phasing shown in the Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan prepared by Peak West Development, LLC (dated November 28, 2008), which is on file with the Community Development Department. This phasing of, construction is described in the plan and is approved as follows: a. Phase I — Common Area Facilities b. Phase II — Highlands of Marin I Exterior Renovations c. Phase III —Highlands of Marin I Interior Renovations d. Phase IV — Highlands of Marin II (formerly Crest Mann) Exterior and Interior Renovations It is understood that the dates listed in the Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan are subject to change based on weather, labor and materials availability, timely issuance of building permits, and market conditions. 10. On -Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 11. Archaeological Resources: In the event that archaeological resources, 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, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area. 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. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant' can be designated. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Planning Division 12. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. 13. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to Building Permit issuance. The plan shall identify that all activities, including but not limited to loading/unloading, storage, employee parking, related to the construction shall be located onsite. The plan shall also specify the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials, storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel. 14. 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. 15. The property owner shall comply with the provisions of SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance), which requires that relocation assistance be provided for displaced apartment tenants that qualify as low-income. Prior to issuance of building permits for interior renovation of apartment units where existing tenants are displaced or required to vacate, the following tasks and measures shall be implemented: a. The property owner shall implement a Resident Communication Plan (RCP). A draft RCP has been prepared by the property owner and is on file with the Community Development Department. Implementation of this plan requires updating apartment residents on a regular basis regarding the timing of the project, including a building -by -building construction timeline so that tenants are aware of project impacts to their apartment and timing for vacation of units. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for any renovation that requires the vacation of residents, the RCP shall be implemented by the property owner's delivery to the tenants of the following information: 1) a schedule of the intended rental ranges for the apartment units that are to be renovated; 2) contact information at Legal Aid of Marin and Marin Housing Assist Line for assistance regarding tenants rights; 3) information regarding on-site, temporary relocation options for tenants; and 4) a list of property addresses for apartment complexes in the general area of the site that may have available rental units. b. An escrow account shall be established with a deposit amount of $100,000. This escrow account shall be maintained and managed solely by the applicant/property owner. On the fifth day of each month following the establishment of the escrow account, the property owner shall submit a monthly report of activity on the account including, but not limited to the withdrawals for payment of relocation assistance and the remaining account balance as of the date of the monthly report. This escrow account must be kept active until the final relocation assistance payment in connection with the project is paid, after which the account may be closed and the principal returned to the applicant. Additional deposits in the escrow account may be necessary depending upon the number of displaced tenants that qualify for relocation assistance consistent with the City code provisions. At no time shall the account balance fall below $20,000. In compliance with the phasing shown in the Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan prepared by Peak West Development, LLC (dated November 28, 2008), the following tasks and measures shall be implemented as each building is vacated and prepared for renovation: 1) The property owner shall provide to each tenant of record in the apartments to be vacated, a notice via certified mail, of the need to vacate. This notice shall be received no later than 60 days prior to the date the tenants are required to vacate. The notice shall include the statement required by SRMC Section 14.16.279.C. and shall state the date on which the tenant must vacate the apartment and a description of the relocation assistance available to low-income tenants. The description shall include the income standards for qualifying for relocation assistance and shall include a printed income certification form. The printed income certification form shall include a statement that the representation of income is being made under penalty of perjury and that any false statement may be punishable as a felony and thereby subject an individual to criminal and civil penalties. The location for delivery of the income certification and the date and time by which it must be delivered to the property owner shall also be set forth in the notice. 2) Proof of the vacation notice mailing and list of tenants of record receiving the notice shall be submitted to the City at the same time the notices are mailed. 3) Tenants of record who meet the income standards shall complete the income certification required by SRMC Section 14.16.279. The tenant shall deliver the certification to the property owner no later than close of business at the property owners' regular place of business, by the date specified in the notice, which date shall be no less than 17 days after the mailing date of the notice. Copies of all certificates from tenants of record confirming income status shall be submitted to the City. 4) The property owner shall prepare a list of tenants of record who have submitted valid certificates (including those certificates from all Section 8 tenants) and provide the list to the Community Development Department within fifteen (15) business days after such certificates are received by the property owner. 5) No later than 30 days prior to the scheduled vacancy, the property owner shall pay over to each qualified tenant of record who has submitted a timely certificate of income, the relocation assistance provided in SRMC Section 14.16.279, less any amount due to the property owner from the tenant of record. Copies of the relocation assistance checks paid to qualifying tenants shall be submitted to the City. Violation of this condition by the applicant/property owner shall be cause to revoke building permits for the project and/or require that construction work be ceased. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for conversion of the HOM II leasing office into an area for resident mailboxes, the applicant shall submit a letter from the US Postal Service either confirming the continuation of the current mail delivery system (individual boxes at each building) or the requirement for a new, centralized system of mail delivery. Building Division 17. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 Plumbing Code, 2007 Electrical Code, 2007 California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Fire Code, and 2005 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards. 18. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: (larger projects require 4 sets of construction drawings) a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans f) Fire sprinkler plans g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) h) Structural Calculations i) Truss Calculations j) Soils reports k) Title -24 energy documentation 19. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of the building shall be specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of the building. Site/civil plans shall be prepared by a California licensed surveyor or engineer clearly showing topography, identifying grade plan and height of the building. 20. For those buildings where the scope of work involves interior remodel work, it is likely that the these buildings meet the definition for "substantial remodel," as defined in Municipal Code Section 4.08.120, Amendments to the Fire Code. Therefore, installation of fire sprinklers may be required throughout the building. A determination as to whether fire sprinklers will be required will occur during the building permit review process. A separate deferred application shall be submitted to the Building Division by a C-16 contractor. 21. Based on City records and completion of a site inspection, some of the existing buildings are equipped with an existing fire sprinkler system installed in accordance to NFPA 13 standard. If any of the proposed construction work impacts the existing sprinkler system, a separate deferred application shall be submitted to the Building Division by a C-16 contractor. 22. Address numbers shall be installed for each building and shall be located in a position that is plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers must be Arabic numerals or alphabetical letters, be minimum 4" in height with a minimum stroke width of .5 inch, contrasting in color to their background, and either internally or externally illuminated.24. Knox box keyed entry system is required at designated access doors. 23. If proposed fencing exceeds 6' in height, a building permit is required. 24. 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 (BAAQMD) prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. Please contact BAAQMD fore requirements. 25. School fees will be required for any new building area constructed in the project. School fees are not required for existing buildings or buildings being renovated. School fees for commercial space are computed at $0.33 per square foot of new building area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 26. All private, on-site improvements such as retaining walls, street light standards, and private sewer system will require plan review and permits from the Building Division. 27. In the event the final improvements include site grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. The soils report shall 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 shall be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. A grading permit may be required for this work. 28. Geotechnical and civil pad certifications shall be submitted, where required by the Building Division. 29. Where ventilation is required, the minimum, open area to the outdoors shall be 4 percent of the floor area that is being ventilated (CBC 1203.4.1). 30. The minimum net glazed area required for natural light shall be than 8 percent of the floor area of the room that it serves (CBC 1205.2). 31. All site signage (including wall signs) shall require a separate permit and application (excluding address numbering). Monument sign(s) located at the driveway entrance(s) shall have address numbers posted prominently on the monument sign 32. The new leasing office building shall be assigned a new building address by the Department of Public Works. 33. The new leasing office shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations (e.g., accessible parking stalls, path of travel, primary entrance, interior travel path and restrooms). 34. The project shall comply with the ADA requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations, as determined by the building Division. 35. Pedestrian access provisions shall 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 within this 4' minimum width. Sidewalk slopes and side slopes shall not exceed published minimums per California Title 24, Part 2. 36. 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. 37. Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according the following table and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site. Total Number of Parking Spaces Provided Minimum Required Number of H/C Spaces 1 to 25 1 38. A minimum of one handicapped (ADA) parking space shall be designed to be van accessible (9 feet wide parking space and 8 foot wide off- load area). A minimum of one van accessible parking space shall be provided for every eight, required handicap spaces must be van accessible. 39. Fire lanes shall be maintained as originally designed the following italicized notation outlines those original requirements; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No Parking Fire Lane" A sign shall be posted in accordance to City of San Rafael standard #204. 40. This property is located in an Urban Wildland Interface (UWI) area. A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been approved by the Fire Department (June 3, 2008) and is on file with the Community Development Department. The VTM shall be implemented as approved. Public Works Department 41. Site drainage shall not be diverted or concentrated on adjacent properties. This provision shall not apply to storm drainage lines and outlet dissipaters that are to be diverted to and located on the contiguous lands owned by the County of Marin, which are permitted by agreement between the property owner and the County. A copy of the signed agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the building permit that includes these drainage lines and outlet dissipaters. 42. All new roof drains shall be designed to be directed to landscape areas prior to entering an established swale or site drainage system. 43. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S)APPP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be included in the building permit plan submittal. Traffic Division 44. New parking spaces must meet city minimum standards for back-up distance. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD) 45. The proposed leasing office building shall apply for and receive an allocation of sewer capacity from the LGVSD prior to commencement of sewer service. 46. The proposed project may be subject to the construction of on-site or off-site sanitary sewer improvements. This requirement shall be confirmed by the LGVSD at the time of project construction, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the District. Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) 47. A High Pressure Water Service Application shall be completed and submitted to MMWD for the proposed Leasing Office building. 48. A copy of the building permit shall be submitted with an application for service. 49. All MMWD required fees and charges shall be paid prior to authorization of service. 50. The project sponsor shall comply with the MMWD rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested, including the installation of a new meter to serve the new structure. 51. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be designed in accordance with the most current District landscape requirements (currently from Ordinance # 385). Prior to providing water service for new landscape areas, or improved or modified landscape areas, the District shall review and approve the project's working drawing for planting an irrigation systems. 52. The plans shall be designed to comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. 53. The use of recycled/reclaimed water is required, where available, for all approved uses. Prior to Final Building and Site Inspections 54. Upon completion of construction for each building or construction phase, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 55. All damaged and new landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to the final inspection of the site or the property owner shall post a bond in the amount of the estimated landscaping/irrigation cost with the City of San Rafael. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed for landscaping must be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning Division prior to occupancy. Deferred landscaping through a bond shall not exceed 3 months past occupancy. 56. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that the illumination is directed downward. Following City approval of the final inspection, 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. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held on the 27`s day of January 2009. Moved by Commissioner AYES: Cominissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: - ABSENT: Commissioners: and seconded by Commissioner as follows: ATTEST:/ obert M. Brown, Secretary SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION 1 Meeting Date: January 13, 2009 Agenda Item: 3 Community Development Department— Planning Division Case Numbers: AP08-004 P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal—(415) 485-3397 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 1050 Cresta Way (includes 1010-1065 Cresta Way; 122-150 Cresta Drive; 1-6 Cresta Circle) — Highlands of Marin and Crest Marin Apartments — Appeal of an Environmental and Design Review Permit for exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: APN: 155-251-20,21,24, 25 and 155-280-01 thru 16 and 18; Planned Development (PD) 1547 and Multifamily Residential (MR2.5) District; Northbay Properties ll, LP, property owners; Jill D. Williams, Architect, applicant; y�rr File No.: AP08-004. 15 The project proposes a new leasing office building and for the exterior building remodeling of the Highlands of Marin apartment community, which consists of two apartment complexes located north of Smith Ranch Road. Following a favorable recommendation by the Design Review Board (DRB), the project was approved by Zoning Administrator (ZA) on May 27, 2008. The ZA approval of the project was appealed by two residents of the complex. The appeal raises both design -related and non -design -related issues. The design -related issues focus on the inappropriate functioning of the vehicle roundabout at the intersection of Cresta Drive and Cresta Way (at the top of the Cresta Drive) and questions the project noncompliance with the City's requirement for useable open space. The non -design related issues focus on the incomplete noticing to residents for vacation of units, insufficient notification regarding the construction program, and relocation assistance payments to residents. Since the filing of the appeal, the property owners have provided additional information to clarify some of the non -design related issues raised in the appeal. The design -related issues regarding the vehicle turnaround and public open space have been addressed and are summarized below. Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the ZA action be upheld. 11 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 3) denying the appeal and upholding the ZA action conditionally approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011). Attachment 5 f REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 2 Pro ert Size: 12+ acres a rox. Nei hborhood: N/A Site Characteristics General Plan Desi nation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Pro'ect Site: HDR PD 1547 and MR 2.5 Address/Location:1050 Cresta Way Parcel Number(s): 155-251-20, etc. PD 1507 & 1573 Pro ert Size: 12+ acres a rox. Nei hborhood: N/A Site Characteristics General Plan Desi nation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Pro'ect Site: HDR PD 1547 and MR 2.5 M ultifamily residential North: MDR PD 1507 & 1573 ; Single family residences South: OS, HDR P/OS, PD 1717 Open space, single family residences and commercial East: MDR PD 1613 residence West: OS --Multifamily P/OS Open space Site Description/Setting: The project site is located on a hilltop north of Smith Ranch Road and accessed by Cresta Drive. The 14.59 -acre site is level along the ridge, sloping downward to the north and south. The property is developed with two apartment complexes that are bordered by open space, as well as residential and non-residential uses. The siting of these apartment complexes is presented in the attached exhibit (Exhibit 2). Each of the complexes is described as follows: HIGHLANDS OF MARIN II: The westerly complex, Highlands of Marin (HOM) II (formerly Crest Marin) was approved by the Planning Commission in 1975. HOM II is a 104 -unit apartment complex that is developed on 15 separate parcels with a total area of approximately 6.19 acres. It consists of six three-story buildings, four two-story buildings, and one split two- and three-story building. There are 58 one -bedroom, 37 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units. In addition, the complex provides 19 carport structures, two laundry facilities, two closed storage sheds for residents and one storage building for maintenance. There is an additional, small storage space that once served as the management office. Mail is delivered to boxes mounted on the stairs of each building exterior. The residents have no recreation building, but there is a pool and sauna for their use. The site is landscaped with mature plants including large shrubbery and deciduous trees. There are also a small number of palm trees on the site. The exterior building materials include stucco, painted/stained wood trim and asphalt shingle roof. The complex does not contain any units that are rent -regulated by the City (e.g., no below market rate unit agreement or requirement). HIGHLANDS OF MARIN I: The easterly complex, HOM I, consists of two separate, non-contiguous parcels. One of the parcels is approximately 6.3 acres and is located northeast of the intersection of Cresta Drive and Smith Ranch Road. The second parcel is approximately 2.1 acres and is located approximately 500 feet west of the larger parcel. The HOM I complex contains 144 one -bedroom units and 76 two-bedroom units for a total of 220 units. The property is developed with eight, three-story apartment buildings, 12, two-story apartment REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 3 buildings and one recreation building - containing a total of 220 units. In addition there are nine carport structures, four mailbox kiosks and six trash enclosures. Existing carports are freestanding open metal structures with approximately three-year old roofing that matches the main buildings. The site is landscaped with mature, mostly deciduous trees with some evergreen trees, shrubs and vines. The exterior materials are cedar shingle panels (W plywood with factory applied shingles). Existing roofing is fiberglass shingles that is approximately four years old. The HOM I project was approved by the Planning Commission in January 1989. The approval required that 15% (33) of the units be reserved for BMR rental (18 for low income and 15 for moderate income) for 30 years. The BMR agreement for the 33 units runs to 2030. HOM I was financed through California Tax Credits. The bonds were issued in 1989 by Marin Housing Authority. The bonds were refunded in 2000 with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Finance Authority and a Regulatory Agreement placed on all 220 units. The Regulatory Agreement required 20% of the total units (44 units) be rented to residents at 50% of median income. The owner plans to pay off the bonds and remove the income restrictions. The repayment of the ABAG bonds would eliminate the 11 BMR (44-33=11) units that had resulted from the ABAG agreement. If the bonds are repaid, the City approved BMR agreement would still be in effect for 33 apartment units through 2030. UDR/Northbay Properties, property owners, have owned the HOM I complex for some time and acquired the HOM II complex in October 2007. On December 14, 2006, the property owners applied for an Environmental and Design Review (ED) Permit for renovation of HOM I complex and the grounds. The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project and recommended approval on February 21, 2007. The Community Development Director approved the exterior remodeling of the HOM I complex on February 22, 2007. However, the approved remodeling was not implemented because the owners of HOM I acquired the HOM II complex in October 2007. On April 26, 2008, the property owners applied for an ED Permit to renovate the two complexes as one complex with a common design and shared facilities. Following the project review by the DRB and its recommendation for approval, the project was approved by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) on May 27, 2008 (see Exhibit 5 for ZA hearing minutes). The ZA imposed conditions of approval including confirmation of the BMR unit agreement for HOM .I and compliance with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance). San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistances) sets forth specific requirements and obligations of a property owner in the event a development project results in the displacement of existing residents that are low-income. The code provides for relocation assistance for displaced low-income residents. The requirements include specific noticing, confirmation of income status for low income residents and procedures that must be met to ensure qualifying residents are paid two months' rent if they are required to vacate and relocate. A copy of SRMCC Section 14.16.279 is attached (Exhibit 13) Immediately following the ZA action, on May 30, 2008, the property owners mailed 60 -day vacation notices to most of the residents. The notice sent by the property owners did not comply with the San Rafael Code. On June 3, 2008, two residents of HOM II appealed the project approval (Exhibit 4). The property owners rescinded the vacation notice on June 13, 2008. Since the filing of the appeal, staff has worked with the property owners in confirming the status of, and obligations associated with the <4i REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 4 issue of BMR units, and the City's relocation notice and assistance requirements. Additionally, the property owners prepared and submitted a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan and Resident Communication Plan. These plans provide information regarding the phasing of the construction, time frames for renovation and the vacation of units; and the property owners' outreach to the residents. A chronology of events has been prepared, which summarizes the background and evolution of this project. This chronology is attached (Exhibit 6). HOW".. , n tg,r .a-. n €� 4 As noted above, an ED Permit application has been filed by UDR/Northbay Properties proposing renovations to the HOM I and HOM II complexes. The details are described as follows: Use: The proposed project involves no change in the number and size of apartment units, building sizes, circulation and parking. The proposed use change is limited to the conversion of an existing tennis court into a new leasing office building. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing tennis court with a 2,785 sq. ft. (3,733 sq, ft. including the porch and covered walkway) new leasing office building that would serve the two complexes now under one ownership. The building will consist of a single floor and is designed to appear like a two-story building with a 31'-4" height. The building would have a flat roof on its periphery and gabled roofs over its central sections (see Plan Set A3). The existing leasing space of approximately 2,100 sq. ft. within the HOM I would be replaced with interior recreational area that would add to the currently existing 2,250 sq. ft. recreational area in that building. Site Plan: The project proposes no major changes to the site plan, circulation or parking. The proposed leasing office building would maintain an 18 -ft. front setback, side setbacks of 5 feet and over 20 feet and rear setback of 23 feet. Parking is proposed to serve the leasing office (six spaces), which would be located off the existing driveways and consist of 2 parking spaces for delivery vehicles and 4 spaces for customers. A covered walkway would lead the customers from the parking area to the porch in the front of the building. Employees would park in the existing parking spaces located on both sides of the new building. The new office building will contain associated landscaping. The proposal also includes a new 369 sq. ft. cabana building for the swimming pool located within the HOM II complex. The proposed cabana was not part of the original approval, but was approved as a minor project on June 25, 2008, when the applicant applied to improve the swimming pool. The cabana will be approximately 14 feet high and built using the same materials (cement board and lap siding) and earthtone colors that are being proposed for the rest of the complex. The cabana will contain four showers and a pool equipment room. No other site plan changes are proposed to HOM I and HOM IL Materials and Colors: The majority of the project improvements involve the exterior renovation to buildings in order to achieve a common theme among the two complexes. The new materials and colors are described as follows: Leasing office building: The proposed materials and colors would be as follows: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 5 • Siding: a mixture of stucco painted "Curio Gray" and cement lap siding painted "Hardie Sandstone Beige" • Windows: white vinyl • Trim: "Enduring Bronze" • Doors, "Antiquarian Brown" • Roofing: composition HOM I and II Apartment buildings: The project would replace the existing wall shingles with a combination of stucco and cementitious lap siding. Existing windows would be replaced with new white vinyl windows with wood trim or stucco finish surrounds. The proposed new color palette would be earthtone in nature and would include white and various shades of beige and brown. The proposal includes four sets of color schemes which contain different shades of the proposed colors. In order to avoid monotony, two interchangeable color schemes are proposed for different buildings within HOM I and the other two for different buildings within HOM II. Front and rear/side color elevations of the typical buildings are included in the DRB packets. The four sets of color and material boards have also been provided as part of the project plans. Landscaping: The project includes new landscaping around the proposed leasing office building. The proposal includes new trees, shrubs, ground covers and vines. (Please see plan sheet L3.1.1 at the end of Plan set A3). Existing plantings within a few feet of the buildings may be damaged or removed by the proposed work. An infill landscape plan will be submitted separately for appropriate review and approval by staff.. On October 7, 2008, the Fire Department approved a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) (Exhibit 6) for the entire property. The approved VMP is not part of the ED Permit application or improvements. The VMP authorizes vegetation management (pruning and removal of dead wood) for fire protection and removal of fire -hazardous species. The VMP does not impact the existing complex landscaping. Lighting: No new external lighting is proposed with the improvements. If it is proposed at the time of the building permit issuance, the lighting would be required to be of design and type so that any lighting which would be visible shall include full shield cut-offs so as not to be visible from adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. Grading/Drainage: The project proposes a new leasing office building to be located on an existing tennis court. With the new office building site being level, only fine grading is proposed. The existing drainage pattern where the runoff is directed to the open space would continue. Interior Renovation: The proposed project includes interior renovation to some of the 220 units in HOM I and all of the 104 units in HOM II. This will require some of the residents to vacate their units, relocating to other apartments within the complex or to new residency off-site. The interior renovation of the buildings is not regulated by the Environmental and Design Review Permit process which regulates exterior improvements only. However, the relocation of residents associated wth development is subject to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance). E REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 6 ZA Action and Findings: The May 27, 2008 ZA approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit permits exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building. The project approval was based on findings that the project is in compliance with the applicable General Plan policies; Zoning Ordinance development standards and Design Review Criteria; and San Rafael Design Guidelines. The ZA action imposed 62 conditions of approval. Minutes from this hearing outlining the proceedings, findings for approval, and conditions of approval are attached (Exhibit 5). Among the conditions is a requirement that the property ownerscomply with the low-income tenant relocation provisions set forth in San Rafael Municipal Code 14.16.279. On June 3, 2008, an appeal of the ZA action was filed by David Therien and Maurice Burckhardt, residents of HOM II. As noted above, a copy of the appeal letter is attached (Exhibit 4). The appeal addresses both design -related and non -design -related issues. Response to Appeal: Listed below in bold italics (verbatim) are issues raised in the appeal letter, followed by staff's response: 1. Notification to residents of San Rafael City Ordinance 14.16.279 covering relocation assistance to low-income tenants was incomplete as the referenced income level attachment was not provided so we could not ascertain if we are eligible for payment Response: Prior to the filing of the appeal, the property owners mailed vacation notices to residents of HOM' II (May 30, 2008). The notices did not include appropriate (required) information regarding the defining income levels (required by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance). Because of the property owners' failure to attach the income level document referenced in the notice, on June 13, 2008, the applicant rescinded the vacation notices. In the future, the property owners will need to provide complete notices in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.279. 2. Insufficient public disclosure of major elements of the project, namely the extensive interior renovation to HOM Il and the required vacating of the entire 104 unit complex. Such omissions have severely hindered resident awareness and response. This was noted in the minutes of the last public hearing held May 21" 2008 when "no one from the public addressed the meeting". Response: The Environmental and Design Review (ED) Permit process reviewed and approved the exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building and landscaping. Public notices of the DRB meeting and ZA hearing were sent to all the residents of the complex and neighbors within 300 feet the property (Exhibit 11). As is typical, the notices include a brief project description and, for practical reasons, cannot include all of the detailed specifics of a project. A notice recipient who finds the notice does not provide enough information is directed to contact the project planner referenced on the notice. The ED Permit process does not regulate or control interior renovations. The extent of the City's discretion on ED Permits is limited to site improvements and exterior architectural design for the purpose of promoting design excellence and compatibility with the developed community and environment (SRMC Section 14.25.010 Purpose of ED Permit). At the time the ED Permit was being z REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 7 reviewed by staff, DRB and ZA, it was known by all parties (property owners and residents) that the construction work, particularly on HOM II would involve major renovations to the units and that vacation of some, if not all of the units (HOM II, 104 units) was inevitable. It was also made clear that the City, by ordinance requires that property owners provide relocation assistance to displaced residents that qualify as low-income. The provisions of SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Exhibit 13) require a property owner (landlord) to provide two months' rent to low-income residents that are forced to vacate their units. Further, the ordinance requires that a property owner (landlord) provide a 60 -day notice to residents and that the low-income residents can request relocation assistance by submitting an affidavit (statement under penalty of perjury) that their annual income meets the low-income household status. The City of San Rafael is the only local jurisdiction in Marin County that requires relocation assistance to be offered to low income residents that are displaced due to a development project. What was not known at the time of ED review was the construction schedule and phasing plan for unit renovation. Consequently, ED conditions #17 and 18 (as approved by the ZA) were imposed requiring that the relocation assistance procedures be implemented prior to the first building permit. The City and the residents subsequently received a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan (Exhibit 8) from the property owners which shows the construction schedule and phasing. This construction logistics plan provides residents information on the expected dates for unit vacation. With the exception of the relocation assistance provisions for the qualifying low-income households, the City does not become involved with or regulate the landlord -tenant relationship which is regulated by State Law. The condition requiring compliance with the relocation assistance provisions has been modified based on the Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan. The revised conditions, including the requirement to have a relocation consultant implement the process, are presented in the attached draft resolution (Exhibit 3) and have been re -numbered as conditions #15 and #16. 3. In ZA Minutes dated 512712008, a property owner representative's promise to "try to accommodate as many tenants as possible by relocating them in different units as construction progressed", and hope that "staff could work with them regarding the relocation notice" are vague and inadequate provisions given the number and seriousness of tenant housing needs. A. To address, it is proposed that some new conditions of approval be specified to 1) evaluate and balance necessary requirements of the renovation work with maximum retention or displaced tenants, 2) assess the impact to residents forced to relocate under current market conditions which make the equivalent of two month's rent an insufficient amount of assistance, 3) that a detailed plan be proposed requiring approval by the City to ensure fair and reasonable accommodation of all parties, and 4) require under Findings #17 pertaining to Ordinance 14.16.279 that all standards for a) proof of mailing, b) a list of all tenants qualifying, c) deposit of sufficient funds in escrow and d) proof of relocation payments to all qualified tenants be satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits. Response: Since the initial May 30, 2008 vacation notices have been rescinded, the vacation issue is now moot. Additionally, the City lacks the authority to require landlords to communicate construction plans with their residents. However, following the filing of the appeal, the property owners prepared and submitted a Resident Communication Plan (RCP) (Exhibit 9) and Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan (CPLP) (Exhibit 8). The RCP was prepared and submitted in response to this appeal. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: APOB-004 Page 8 In late summer 2008, the RCP was distributed to all of the residents in the complex and a number of community (tenant) meetings were hosted. by the property owners to educate residents on the construction schedule, phasing and logistics. According to the RCP, the HOM I apartment interiors can be renovated independently of the building exterior renovations, and construction will be scheduled as units are vacated upon lease expiration, or as individual residents move -out, minimizing disruption to the residents. Working around lease expirations will require 12 to 13 months to complete the construction work. The HOM II building renovations will require residents in the 104 units to vacate the buildings with vacations phased over a nine-month period. Construction work will be done on no more than two HOM II buildings at a time. Therefore, this renovation will take approximately ten to eleven months to complete. The property owners plan to provide residents in buildings scheduled for construction, a 60 -day notice in compliance with Section 14.16.279 to vacate prior to the start of construction for each building. As stated above, the condition requiring compliance with relocation assistance has been modified to reflect the property owners' phased renovation/construction plan (now condition # 15). The amended condition would allow the property owners to demonstrate compliance with relocation assistance as the project construction progresses from one building to another. The amended condition also requires the property owners to establish an escrow account to ensure that there are adequate funds for payment of relocation assistance. As noted in the response to #2 above, the City of San Rafael is the only city in Marin County that has adopted requirements for relocation assistance to qualifying low-income residents. However, other than SRMC Section 14.16.279, the City has no regulatory tools to review issues such as the retention of residents, rent control, relocation impacts to residents, or fair and reasonable accommodation as these issues are regulated by State and Federal Law. 4. The proposed conversion of HOM I's 2,100 sq. ft. leasing space into "recreational area" is insufficient in detail and does not compensate for the would-be loss of outdoor recreational area now provided -by the tennis court, its fenced perimeter and adjacent grassy areas. Response: The project proposes to convert an existing tennis court area into a new leasing office building. The apartment complex consists of 324 units, thus requiring a total of 64,800 sq. ft. usable open space.,The property currently provides 92,388 sq. ft. open space (57,166 sq. ft. public open space and 22,488 sq. ft. private open space in the form of decks). This amount of open space takes into account the conversion of the existing 2,100 sq, ft. leasing office into a recreational area thereby doubling the size of the existing fitness center, creating a new community room and providing a screening room with a large -format flat screen television. Therefore, the project would result in 285 sq. ft. of open space per unit, which exceeds the City standard of 200 sq. ft. open space per unit. 5. The only roadway that serves this hill top community is Cresta Drive. Already there is observed confusion in motorists when first encountering the island at the top of the hill as no signs indicate traffic flow and sight is limited in both directions of oncoming traffic. For pedestrians to access the public sidewalk that begins about 40 feet down hill from the island requires an awkward traverse of the roadway precisely at this area of the hill where visibility is limited. To add a leasing office building with visitor parking spaces so close to and/or facing this already awkward approach to the property, without correcting existing traffic and pedestrian hazards, might increase the level of confusion and potential for accidents. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 9 Response: The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed this project and has determined that the parking spaces for the proposed. new leasing office building comply with the City's requirement for maneuvering areas. The proposed project will not increase the number of units and therefore, will not result in additional traffic. Additionally, the property owners have indicated that they do want to improve the existing roundabout area but and will apply for approval of design modifications to this area at a later date. A condition has been added requiring that the property owners obtain City's approval of the roundabout area, when or if it is proposed for change. 6. The proposed conversion of the previous HOM 11 management/leasing office into a place for resident mailboxes makes little sense. There is already limited parking in that area of Cresta Circle and tenants entering the area to retrieve their mail would contribute to congestion and potential hazards to residents. Response: According to the property owners, the plan is to renumber the buildings to rationalize addresses with clear directional signage for easy location. The property owners maintain that for address changes like this one, the Postal Service now requires a centralized mail delivery area (rather than delivery to each building). If the Postal Service does not require a new centralized mail delivery system, there will be no need to relocate the existing resident mailboxes (Exhibit 7). Status of Below Market Rate (BMR) Units: The HOM II (Crest Marin) complex does not contain any BMR units because it was built prior to the City's adoption of affordable housing requirements. However, the HOM I project was approved by the City in January 1989 and was subject to the then, new affordable housing requirements for new residential development. The City approval required that 15% (33) of the units be reserved for BMR rental (18 for low income and 15 for moderate income) for 30 years. The BMR agreement for the 33 units runs to 2030. As discussed above, HOM I was financed through California Tax Credits. The owner plans to pay off the bonds and remove the income restrictions. The repayment of the ABAG bonds would eliminate the 11 BMR (44-33=11) units that -had resulted from the ABAG agreement. The HOM I complex will still be required to maintain the City required 33 BMR units through 2030. The ZA imposed conditions # 14, 15 and 16 (Exhibit 5) because, at that time, the property owners had expressed unawareness of the BMR units and the recorded agreementwiththe City. The conditions were added to re -affirm the property owners' affordable housing obligation with the City. The City's housing specialist and the City Attorney's office have been working with the property owners on this matter. The property owners have since confirmed their obligation to fulfill the BMR Agreement. Consequently, the City Attorney's office has advised that there is no nexus between the BMR Agreement and the proposed ED Permit and recommends that these conditions be deleted. The property owners will be obligated to meet the terms of the BMR Agreement, which will be addressed separately from the ED Permit process. The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project on April 22, 2008. The DRB received testimony from the public in regards to the construction schedule and whether the residents would need to relocate. The DRB discussed and liked the project except for the new leasing office building. The concern was that the office building was too tall for a single story structure. The project was continued for further design refinements to this structure. On May 20, 2008, the DRB reviewed the amended plans for the office E REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 10 building and unanimously recommended approval of the project. The DRB minutes are attached (Exhibit 12). Pursuant to Section 15301 (a) (2) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), interior or exterior alternations are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 15303 (e) of CEQA, accessory (appurtenant) structures are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Since the project is for interior and exterior renovations and will add a 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office accessory to the apartment complex, the proposed project qualifies for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 and 15303 of CEQA. A courtesy notice for the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a radius of 300 feet of the subject property within 15 days prior to the hearing. A public notice sign was posted in front of the proposed office building site. As of the date of this report, no additional correspondence has been received. -Staff has received several calls from the residents regarding the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP), which has been approved by the Fire Department and is being implemented. Residents have questioned if the VMP was being implemented appropriately. Fire Department has verified that the VMP is being implemented appropriately. Staff has received one letter from the appellants containing chronology of UDR's handling of relocation of assistance issue. The letter is attached (Exhibit 14). Since the filing of the appeal, the property owners have provided a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan (CPLP) and Resident Communication Plan (RCP) to clarify some of the non -design related issues raised in the appeal. Other than SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance), the City has no regulatory tools to review issues such as the retention of residents, rent control, relocation impacts to residents, or fair and reasonable accommodation. The design -related issues regarding the vehicle turnaround and public open space have been addressed. Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the ZA action be upheld. . .i°m eye u' -..x, ,. -,?.=,cu.. r•I ..c„r ....i _1 � e s 3:.:v� : -4 ., ..s.' .�.:, . ,-'. The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and approve the project as presented; 2. Deny the appeal and approve the project with additional modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval; 3. Continue the application to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's comments or concerns; or 4. Approve the appeal and deny the project. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: AP08-004 Page 11 1. Vicinity/Location Map 2. Site Plan of Highlands of Marin 3. Draft Resolution 4. Appeal letter dated June 3, 2008 5. Zoning Administrator Minutes, May 27, 2008 6. Chronology of Events 7. Letter from property owners, dated December 1, appeal) 8. 9. 10 11 12. 13. 14. 2008 (property owners' response to points of Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan submitted by the property owners Resident Communication Plan submitted by the property owners Vegetation Management Plan Notices for Design Review Board meeting (Aril 22, 2008) and the Zoning Administrator hearing (May 21, 2008) Design Review Board Minutes (April 22, 2008) SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance) Public Correspondence received to date Reduced Plans Project Plans (Full Size and 11'x17" Reductions Distributed to the Planning Commission only) Vicinity loca lon Map - Highs;'Ands of Marin SCALE 1 :5,959 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 FEET Exhibit 1 A Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:04 PM l/1 J Q CC x c7 1'JXllll)lL G RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL (AP08-004) AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR RENOVATION OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CARPORTS, A RECREATION BUILDING AND REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING TENNIS COURT WITH A NEW 2,785 SQ. FT. LEASING OFFICE BUILDING AT THE HIGHLANDS OF MARIN APARTMENT COMPLEX (HOM I and II) LOCATED AT 1050 CRESTA WAY (APN: 155-251-20, 21, 24, 25 and 155-280-01 through 16 and 18) WHEREAS, in 1975, the Planning Commission approved a the development of the Crest Marin apartments, currently known as Highlands of Marin (HOM) II, which consists of a 104 -unit apartment complex located on 6.19 acres accessed by Cresta Drive. HOM II was developed in 1976; and WHEREAS, in 1989, the Planning Commission approved the development of the Highlands of Marin apartments, currently known as Highlands of Marin (HOM) I. The HOM I consists of a 220 -unit apartment complex located on two, non-contiguous parcels sited on a 8.4 -acre hilltop, accessed by Cresta Drive. HOM I was developed in 1990; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2006, an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED06-114) to allow exterior remodeling of the HOM I complex was submitted to the Community Development Department that was deemed complete for processing on February 3, 2007; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, the Community Development Department staff reviewed and approved the proposed project subject to findings and conditions of approval. The approved renovations were not carried out because the owners had acquired HOM II and wanted to pursue renovation of both complexes using a common design theme; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2008, an application for an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) was submitted for both HOM I and II complexes to allow exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building. The application was deemed complete for processing on April 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project, recommended a plan change and continued the project to May 20, 2008; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the San Rafael Design Review Board reviewed plan revisions for the project and recommended approval; and EXHIBIT 3 j WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed ED Permit (ED08- 011) and continued the matter to May 27, 2008 requiring the submittal of additional information regarding open space areas; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, Zoning Administrator reviewed and approved the ED Permit (ED08-011) for both HOM I and II complexes. The approval incorporated conditions requiring, among others: a) the payment of relocation assistance to qualifying low-income residents displaced by the renovations; and b) execution of an agreement between the City and the property owner reaffirming the BMR Agreement executed for HOM 1; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, David Therien and Maurice Burckhardt, tenants of HOM II filed an appeal (AP08-004) of the Zoning Administrator approval of the ED Permit; and WHEREAS, since June 3, 2008, City staff has been working with the applicants to resolve and respond to appeal issues, including: a) the preparation and submittal of a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan (CPLP) and Resident Communication Plan (RCP) to provide tenants with knowledge of the construction schedule, areas involving residential unit vacation and construction phasing; and b) conforming the status of BMR units; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to (a) Section 15301 (a) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts interior or exterior alterations, and (b) Section 15303 (e) of CEQA Guidelines, which exempts accessory (appurtenant) structures; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the proposed project, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby denies the appeal (AP08-004) and upholds the ZA decision to conditionally approve the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011). The Commission finds that the points of the appeal (in italics) cannot be supported for the following reasons: 1. Incomplete vacation notice: The applicant has rescinded the incomplete notice of eviction; 2. Public hearing notices did not provide detailed project description: The public hearing notice contained appropriate, basic project details and for practical reasons, could not be more elaborate. Further, such notices do not typically EXHIBIT 3 disclose if a construction project will or will not result in resident/tenant displacement, since such details are not always known at the time of the planning process. 3. A detailed plan be proposed requiring fair and reasonable accommodation of all parties: The applicant has now prepared and submitted a Construction Phasing. and Logistics Plan, which discloses the construction schedule and phasing, so that tenants are informed of the timing for unit vacation; 4. The impact to residents forced to relocate under current market conditions: The City lacks the authority to regulate eviction except to require compliance with SRMC Section 14.16.279 Relocation Assistance; 5. Evaluate and balance necessary requirements of the renovation work with maximum retention of displaced tenants: The. City lacks the authority to regulate eviction, except to require compliance with SRMC Section 14.16.279 Relocation Assistance; 6.. The proposed conversion of existing leasing office into recreational area would not compensate for the loss of outdoor recreational area due to the conversion of tennis court: After the conversion of the tennis courts into a new leasing office building, the complex will still provide 285 sq. ft. open space per unit, which exceeds the City standard of 200 sq. ft. open space per unit; 7. Vehicle turnaround area does not function appropriately: The applicant plans to upgrade the existing vehicle turnaround area; and 8. The conversion of HOM II leasing office to mail boxes will increase vehicular congestion in the area: The applicant will not convert the existing leasing office for HOM II into a mailbox room, if the United States Postal Service does not require the applicant to provide a consolidated mail delivery point. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission upholds the Zoning Administrator approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) based on the following findings: FINDINGS 1. The project has been designed consistent with the following General Plan Policies: LU - 12 (Building Heights), LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -8 (Parking), CD-ld (Landscape Improvement), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines) because: a.. The project meets and does not exceed the maximum height requirement of its General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential (LU12); b. The project is consistent with its General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential (LU -23). The project will not change the existing residential density, which is in compliance with the maximum allowable Gross Density of 15- 32 units per acre (LU -23); EXHIBIT 3 c. The project preserves and enhances the residential character of the neighborhood and maintaining neighborhood compatibility (NH -2, CD -2 and CD -13) by: 1) Maintaining the existing building mass and height and creating continuity in the exterior design of the two complexes by introducing common materials and colors; 2) Integrating the proposed leasing office addition into the common design of the complex; and 3) Incorporating landscape improvements that enhance the project design, provide screening and are suitable for the site. 2. The new leasing office building is consistent with the MR2.5 Zoning District in that: a. The leasing office building is an allowed use consistent with Section 14.04.020 Land use regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD) which states, "Accessory structures and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use and contained on the same site" are permitted in all of these residential districts. The proposed leasing office is customarily incidental to the multifamily residential use and would be located within the complex; b. The proposed leasing office building complies with the development standards regarding front, side and rear setbacks, height, lot coverage and parking under the MR2.5 zoning district; and c. Per Table 14.04.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum useable outdoor area of 200 sq. ft. (common and/or private) is required per dwelling unit. The two apartment complexes contain 324 dwelling units, which requires a total useable outdoor area of 64,800 sq. ft. With the replacement of the existing tennis court, the project would provide an outdoor area of 285 sq. ft. common and/or private open space (total area of 92,388 sq. ft.), which exceeds the minimum requirement of the Code. 3. The project has been designed consistent with the general objective to promote design quality in all development by proposing new exterior materials with new color palette that is earthtone in nature and blends with the natural hillside setting of the site, which would be an improvement over the stucco material and plain colors that currently exist. 4. The proposed project has been designed consistent with the varied designs and heights of the existing neighborhood residences and is therefore, consistent with the specific purposes of Residential (R) districts to protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhood pursuant to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The proposed exterior renovation and the new leasing office are consistent with Chapter 25 — Design Review Criteria in that: a. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.030 that requires a shadow diagram if deemed necessary to evaluate potential shading of adjacent properties. The proposed new building is located quite a distance from existing, off-site EXHIBIT 3 development and would not shade any adjacent properties. Therefore, a shadow diagram would not serve any purpose; b. The project design, including its materials and colors, is consistent with the 2-3 story height of the existing buildings in the apartment complex; c. The proposed improvements have been designed by a registered architect with experience in designing similar projects in the Bay Area and these improvements have been reviewed and favorably recommended by the Design Review Board; d. The proposed project is consistent with SRMC Section 14.-25.050.E, which requires: site design to have a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and between structures and the site; preservation of major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills; respecting site features and recognizing site constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation; providing good vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation and access, onsite and in relation to the surrounding area; providing energy-efficient design; providing special attention to proper site surface drainage; and requiring utility connections to be installed underground, in that: 1) The new leasing office building is harmonious with the existing buildings in terms of building height, materials and colors; 2) The proposed leasing office building would be marginally visible from other properties and public right of ways and its visual impact would be minimal. The project would not block major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills. Additionally, the property would be improved with landscaping; 3) The proposed project minimizes grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation because the building site is an existing tennis court which is fairly level and does not contain any vegetation; 4) The proposed leasing office building is conveniently located with respect to both of the existing complexes and would not obstruct vehicle circulation, would provide parking for employees and visitors and would be easily accessible for both potential and existing tenants; 5) The existing stormwater drainage will continue to flow into open space which will filter urban runoff; and 6) Utilities are available for the proposed leasing office building and no new services are required for the development. e. The project is consistent with SRMC Section 14.25.050.F. of the Zoning Ordinance which requires project architecture to be harmoniously integrated in relation to the architecture in the vicinity in terms of colors and materials, scale and building design, in that: . 1) The new leasing office building elevations provide appropriate massing. The front elevation, which is the most visible elevation incorporates a portico creating a visible interest. Consistent with the theme of the proposed exterior renovation of the apartment buildings, the walls contain stucco finish and cementitious lap siding and have dark earthtone colors; EXHIBIT 3 2) The proposed new color palette would be earthtone in nature and would blend with the natural hillside setting of the site. The proposed white vinyl windows and new metal vents are appropriate given the small size of these features and would not be stark design elements that would be visible from long distance views of the site; and 3) The portico at the main entrance to the leasing office,building provides a sense of entry to the building. 6. The design of the exterior renovations, impacts in that: a. The grading is minimal as proposed; minimizes potential adverse environmental b. The proposed renovations would not result in significant removal of existing vegetation or significant trees; and c. No additional residential units are proposed that would result in increased traffic or air pollutants and would not increase demand for utilities and services. The design of the exterior renovations and the new leasing office building as conditioned below, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the project site, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael in that: a. The proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments. Conditions of approval recommended by other departments have been applied to minimize potential adverse visual, design, and safety impacts to the project site and adj acent properties; and b. The proposed project does not indicate a use that is prohibited in MR2.5 Zoning District, but is permitted by right under Section 14.04.020 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. . 8. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Zoning ordinance Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance), in that the project applicant is being required to provide: a. Notice to all tenants that are vacated as a result of their unit renovation; b. Assistance to qualifying low-income families; and c. Proof of payment to eligible low-income families. 9. Pursuant to Section 15301 (a) (2) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or exterior alternations are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 15303 (e) of CEQA, accessory (appurtenant) structures are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Since the project is for limited exterior renovation improvements and will add a 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building accessory to the apartment complex, the proposed project qualifies for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 and 15303 of CEQA. EXHIBIT 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael upholds the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) subject to the following conditions, as amended: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General and ongoing Planning Division The building techniques, materials, colors, elevations, and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans titled Highland of Marin I, Highlands of Marin II and Highlands of Marin New Leasing Office, San Rafael, CA; prepared by KTGY Group, Inc. and stamped approved on May 21, 2008, shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision- making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary. As shown on the preliminary plans, it is the intent of the applicant to modify the design and layout of the Cresta Drive terminus to a `roundabout' configuration. The modification of this road terminus will require an amendment tp this Environmental and Design Review Permit, which can be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) is valid for two (2) years from the date of final approval by the City of San Rafael and shall become null and void unless a Building Permit is issued or a time extension is granted. Once the conditions of approval have been implemented, this approval shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid whether or not there is a change in property ownership. Continued compliance with all conditions of approval shall be required for the duration of the use. All 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. 4. 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. EXHIBIT 3 5. 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. 6. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette consists of a mixture of white and shades of beige and brown colors. 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. 7. No part of the existing landscape including any trees shall be removed, unless their removal has been reviewed and approved by Planning Division, or are authorized by the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) approved by the Fire Department. Contractor Contact Information Posting: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street. Please check with the Planning Division regarding such a sign. 9. Construction Phasing, Logistics and Hours of Operation: Construction hours shall be limited as specified by Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A which are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday from 9:OOa.m to 6:OOp.m. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at or on the site. This permit approves and requires compliance with the phasing shown in the Highlands of Mann Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan prepared by Peak West Development, LLC (dated November 28, 2008), which is on file with the Community Development Department. This phasing of construction is described in the plan and is approved as follows: a. Phase I — Common Area Facilities b. Phase II — Highlands of Marin I Exterior Renovations c. Phase III — Highlands of Marin I Interior Renovations d. Phase IV — Highlands of Marin II (formerly Crest Marin) Exterior and Interior Renovations It is understood that the dates listed in the Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan are subject to change based on weather, labor and materials availability, timely issuance of building permits, and market conditions. 10. On -Site Lighting: On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by EXHIBIT 3 the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the. residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 11. Archaeological Resources: In the event that archaeological resources, 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, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area. 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. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant' can be designated. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit Planning Division 12. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. 13. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to Building Permit issuance. The plan shall identify that all activities, including but not limited to loading/unloading, storage, employee parking, related to the construction shall be located onsite. The plan shall also specify the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials, storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel. 14. 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. EXHIBIT 3 15. The property owner shall comply with the provisions of SRMC Section 14.16.279 (Relocation Assistance), which requires that relocation assistance be provided for displaced apartment tenants that qualify as low-income. Prior to issuance of building permits for interior renovation of apartment units where existing tenants are displaced or required to vacate, the following tasks and measures shall be implemented: a. The property owner shall implement the Resident Communication Plan (RCP), on file with the Community Development Department. Implementation of this plan requires updating apartment residents on a regular basis regarding the timing of the project, including a building -by -building construction timeline so that tenants are aware of project impacts to their apartment and timing for vacation of units. b. An escrow account shall be established with a deposit amount of $100,000. This escrow account shall be maintained and managed solely by the applicant/property owner. On the fifth day of each month following the establishment of the escrow account, the property owner shall submit a monthly report of activity on the account including, but not limited to the withdrawals for payment of relocation assistance and the remaining account balance as of the date of the monthly report. This escrow account must lie kept active until the final relocation assistance payment in connection with the project is paid, after which the account may be closed and the principal returned to the applicant. Additional deposits in the escrow account may be necessary depending upon the number of displaced tenants that qualify for relocation assistance consistent with the City code provisions. At no time shall the account balance fall below $20,000. In compliance with the phasing shown in the Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan prepared by Peak West Development, LLC (dated November 28, 2008), the following tasks and measures shall be implemented as each building is vacated and prepared for renovation: 1) Tenants required to vacate their apartments shall receive a notice via certified mail, no later than 60 days prior to the date they are required to vacate. Proof of the notice mailing and list of tenants receiving the notice shall be submitted to the City at the same time the notices are mailed. 2) Tenants who qualify for relocation assistance are required to sign an affidavit confirming and verifying their low-income status, and must return that affidavit to the owner no later than two weeks following the receipt of notice. Copies of all affidavits from tenants confirming income status shall be submitted to the City. 3) Lists of tenants assumed to qualify for relocation assistance under 14.16.279, including all Section 8 tenants shall be submitted to the City within fifteen (15) business days after notices are delivered to such tenants. EXHIBIT 3 4) Tenants qualifying for relocation assistance shall be paid from the escrow account no later than 30. days prior to the date they are required to vacate provided that their income has been certified/confirmed as qualifying for relocation assistance under the provisions of SRMC Section 14.16.279. Copies of the relocation assistance checks paid to qualifying tenants shall be submitted to the City. Violation of this condition by the applicant/property owner shall be cause to revoke building permits for the project and/or require that construction work be ceased. 16. Compliance with the state and local relocation assistance requirements can be satisfied by the Owner, or through use of a professional Relocation Firm. If a relocation consultant is used, the City shall approve the consultant and the scope of work. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for conversion of the HOM II leasing office into an area for resident mailboxes, the applicant shall submit a letter from the US Postal Service either confirming the continuation of the current mail delivery system (individual boxes at each building) or the requirement for a new, centralized system of mail delivery. Building Division 18. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 Plumbing Code, 2007 Electrical Code, 2007 California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Fire Code, and 2005 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards. 19. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: (larger projects require 4 sets of construction drawings) a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans fj Fire sprinkler plans g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) h) Structural Calculations i) Truss Calculations j) Soils reports k) Title -24 energy documentation EXHIBIT 3 y 20. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of the building shall be specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of the building. Site/civil plans shall be prepared by a California licensed surveyor or engineer clearly showing topography, identifying grade plan and height of the building. 21. For those buildings where the scope of work involves interior remodel work, it is likely that the these buildings meet the definition for "substantial remodel," as defined in Municipal Code Section 4.08.120, Amendments to the Fire Code. Therefore, installation of fire sprinklers may be required throughout the building. A determination as to whether fire sprinklers will be required will occur during the building permit review process. A separate deferred application shall be submitted to the Building Division by a C-16 contractor. 22. Based on City records and completion of a site inspection, some of the existing buildings are equipped with an existing fire sprinkler system installed in accordance to NFPA 13 standard. If any of the proposed construction work impacts the existing sprinkler system, a separate deferred application shall be submitted to the Building Division by a C-16 contractor. 23. Address numbers shall be installed for each building and shall be located in a position that is plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers must Arabic numerals or alphabetical letters, be minimum 4" in height with a minimum stroke width of .5 inch, contrasting in color to their background, and either internally or externally illuminated.24. Knox box keyed entry system is required at designated access doors. 24. If proposed fencing exceeds Cin height, a building permit is required. 25. 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 (BAAQMD) prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. Please contact BAAQMD fore requirements. 26. School fees will be required for any new building area constructed in the project. School fees are not required for existing buildings or buildings being renovated. School fees for commercial space are computed at $0.33 per square foot of new building area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to ahem prior to issuance of the building permit. 27. All private, on-site improvements such as retaining walls, street light standards, and private sewer system will require plan review and permits from the Building Division. EXHIBIT 3 28. In the event the final improvements include site grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; provide a detailed soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to address these procedures. The soils report shall 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 shall be provided to Building Division and Department of Public Works for review and comments prior to any such activities taking place. A grading permit may be required for this work. 29. Geotechnical and civil pad certifications shall be submitted, where required by the Building Division. 30. Where ventilation is required, the minimum, open area to the outdoors shall be 4 percent of the floor area that is being ventilated (CBC 1203.4.1). 31. The minimum net glazed area required for natural light shall be than 8 percent of the floor area of the room that it serves (CBC 1205.2). 32. All site signage (including wall signs) shall require a separate permit and application (excluding address numbering). Monument sign(s) located at the driveway entrance(s) shall have address numbers posted prominently on the monument sign 33. The new leasing office building shall be assigned a new building address by the Department of Public Works. 34. The new leasing office shall be designed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations (e.g., accessible parking stalls, path of travel, primary entrance, interior travel path and restrooms). 35. The project shall comply with the ADA requirements of Title -24, California Code of Regulations, as determined by the building Division. 36. Pedestrian access provisions shall 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 within this 4' minimum width. Sidewalk slopes and side slopes shall not exceed published minimums per California Title 24, Part 2. 37. The site development of such items as common sidewalks, parking areas, stairs, ramps, common facilities, etc. are subject to compliance with the accessibility EXHIBIT 3 standards contained in Title -24, California Code of Regulations. The civil, grading and landscape plans shall address these requirements to the extent possible. 38. Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according the following table and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site. Total Number of Parking Minimum Required Number of Spaces H/C Spaces Provided 1 to 25 1 39. A minimum of one handicapped (ADA) parking space shall be designed to be van accessible (9 feet wide parking space and 8 foot wide off- load area). A minimum of one van accessible parking space shall be provided for every eight, required handicap spaces must be van accessible. 40. Fire lanes shall be maintained as originally designed the following italicized notation outlines those original requirements; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No Parking Fire Lane" A sign shall be posted in accordance to City of San Rafael standard #204. 41. This property is located in an Urban Wildland Interface (UWI) area. A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been approved by the Fire Department (June 3, 2008) and is on file with the Community Development Department. The VTM shall be implemented as approved. Public Works Department 42. Site drainage shall not be diverted or concentrated on adjacent properties. This provision shall not apply to storm drainage lines and outlet dissipaters that are to be diverted to and located on the contiguous lands owned by the County of Marin, which are permitted by agreement between the property owner and the County. A copy of the signed agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the building permit that includes these drainage lines and outlet dissipaters. 43. All new roof drains shall be designed to be directed to landscape areas prior to entering an established swale or site drainage system. 44. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be included in the building permit plan submittal. Traffic Division 45. New parking spaces must meet city minimum standards for back-up distance. EXHIBIT 3 Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD) 46. The proposed leasing office building shall apply for and receive an allocation of sewer capacity from the LGVSD prior to commencement of sewer service. 47. The proposed project may be subject to the construction of on-site or off-site sanitary sewer improvements. This requirement shall be confirmed by the LGVSD at the time of project construction, and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the District. Marin Municipal Water District(MMWD) 48. A High Pressure Water Service Application shall be completed and submitted to MMWD for the proposed Leasing Office building. 49. A copy of the building permit shall be submitted with an application for service. 50. All MMWD required fees and charges shall be paid prior to authorization of service. 51. The project sponsor shall comply with the MMWL, rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested, including the installation of a new meter to serve the new structure. 52. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be designed in accordance with the most current District landscape requirements (currently fro Ordinance # 385). Prior to providing water service for new landscape areas, or improved or modified landscape areas, the District shall review and approve the project's working drawing for planting an irrigation systems. 53. The plans shall be designed to comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. 54. The use of recycled/reclaimed water is required, where available, for all approved uses. Prior to Occupancy 55. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. EXHIBIT 3 56. All damaged and new landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to the occupancy of the building or the property owner shall post a bond in the amount of the estimated landscaping/irrigation cost with the City of San Rafael. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed for landscaping must be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning Division prior to occupancy. Deferred landscaping through a bond shall not exceed 3 months past occupancy. 57. 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. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held on the 13`" day of January 2009. Moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner as follows: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Robert M. Brown, Secretary Jeff Kirchmann, Chair �nu�w� �'��-c gy t1YOif-'004 June 3, 2008. Sar it S. Dhaliwal, Associate Planner City of San Rafael Community Development Department Planning Division 1400 Eich Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 PROJECT: 1051'- Cresta Drive - Highlands of Marin I & Il SUBJECT: Appeal of Envicronmental and Design Revie'srpermmt (ED08-ol 1), and condlti of-appwvd tlwein Dear Mr Dhaliwal, OL WON M, �: JUN U 3 2008 PLANNING This letter is submitted on behalf of concerned tenants residing at lEghlands of Marin 11 and as solicited under Conditions of Approval for Environmental and, Design Review permit (EDog- 01.1), Grounds for appeal: 1) Notification to tenants of San Rafael City Ordinance 14.16.279 covering relocation assistance to low-income tenants was incomplete as the referenced income level attachment was not provided iso we could not ascertain ifwe for payment. 2) Insufficient public disclosure of major elements ofthe project, namely the extensive interior renovations to ROM Hand the required vacating of the entire 104 unit complex. Such omissions have severely hindered resident awareness and response. This was rioted in the minutes of the last public hearing held May 21ah 2M, when "no one from the public addressed the meeting". 3) In ZA Minutes dated 5127/2008, a properly owner representative's promise to "try to accommodate as many tenants as possible by relocating them in different units as construction progressed."; and hope that "staff could work with them:regarding the relocation notice" are vague and inadequate provisions given the number and seriousness of tMaut housing needs. a. To address, it is proposed that some new conditions ofapprovar Ue specified to 1) evaluate and balance neeesswy requirements of the renovation work with maximum retention of displaced tenants, 2) assess the impact to residents forced to relocate under current market conditions which make the equivalent of two month's rent an insufficient amount of assistance, and 3) that a detailed plan be proposed requiring approval by the cit yto wism £air anil reasotable accommodation ofall-parties3 4) The proposed conversion of HDM rs 2,100 sq. R. leasing space into "recreational area" is insufircierd in de' I and clues not compedsatd for the would-be loess of outdoor recreational area now provided by the temtis int, its fenced: perimeter and A*cft gr&%y areas, dadw�a�te !y ib 2?q -9,0:f aC� 161 Exhibit 4 dna d 5 q � 9, C)O"d .,-> hr 5), The only roadway that serves this hill top community is Cresta Drive. Already there is observed confusion in motorists, when first encountering the island at the toga ofthe hill as no signs indicate traffic flog and sight -is limited is-lirmited in bothAirectiew of `nneorning. traffic. For pedestrians to access the public sidewalk that begins about 40 feet down hill from the island requires an awkward traverse of the roadway precisely at this area of the hill where visibility is lirnnited. To add a leasing of de building with visitor pparkirng, spaces sa close to and/or facing this already awkward approach to the property, withoert correcting existing traffic and pedestrian hazards, night increase the level of confusion and potential for accidents. 6) The proposed conversion of the previous HOM 11 manAgement/leasing office into a place for resident mailboxes makes little sense. There is already limited parking in that area of Cresta Circle and tenants entering -the area to retrieve their mail- would • contribute to congestion and potential hazard's to residents, Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sin ely, 4 David Therien Maurice Burckhardt Tenants, l3ighlands of Marin REGULAR MEETING SAN RAFAEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR May 21, 2008 ED07-094 1050 Cresta Drive — Highlands of Marin I (formerly Highland of Marin) and Highlands of Marin II (formerly Cresta Marin) — Environmental and Design Review Permit for exterior and interior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: 155-251-20,21,24, 25 and 155-280-01 thru 16 and 18 MR2.5 and Planned Development (PD) 1547 District; Northbay Properties II, LP, property owner; Jill D. Williams, Architect, applicant; File No.: ED08-011 (Sarjit S. Dhaliwal). PUBLIC HEARING Present at the May 21, 2008 public hearing were the acting Zoning Administrator (ZA), Sarjit Dhaliwal; the applicant/project architect, Jill Williams; property owner's representative, Gary Polodna; Bianca Pagnucci; Brad Hodack; Bob Munro; Reif McElroy and John Bakkeer. The acting ZA opened the public hearing at 10:05 a.m. and introduced the project. At the request of the acting ZA, the applicant explained the proposed project. The acting ZA asked if the applicant and the property owners had read the draft findings and conditions and if there were any questions. Mr. Polodna responded that he had read the report, had one comment and one question. Comment is related to condition #5 in that they have submitted two color palettes for each complex; they pian to make one color palette a little darker than the one submitted. The question was regarding condition #17. Mr. Polodna expressed that while they would not be able to retain all of the tenants, they would try to accommodate as many tenants as possible by relocating them in different units as the construction progressed. Sending out relocation notices now when they do not have any building permits and construction schedule, may result in unnecessarily displacing those tenants who may not actually need to be displaced, He hoped staff could work with them regarding the relocation notice. The acting ZA responded that he would have to review the new color palette. Regarding condition #17, he maintained that in the interest of obtaining complete information, the notices would need to go out prior to the building permit issuance, but that the City can consider the notices going out in two phases, first before the issuance of any building permits, the second 60 days prior to actual relocation. Mr. Polodna agreed to submit the two proposed notices for staff approval, The acting ZA then opened the hearing to the public. No one from the public addressed the meeting. The acting ZA then closed the public hearing and expressed that the Zoning Ordinance requires 200 sq. ft. useable outdoor area (common and/or private) per dwelling unit. Since an existing tennis court was being replaced with the proposed leasing office, the data on useable outdoor area is required. However, the project plans do not contain that information. Ms. Williams agreed to compile data on useable outdoor areas within a day ' ZA MINUTES Exhibit 5 5/27/2008 }_'Ja r, t Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 or so. The acting ZA then continued the hearing to May 27, 2008 and stated that if based on the submitted data the project complied with the 200 sq: ft. standard, he would add a finding to that effect and approve the project on May 27, 2008. He explained that if the project was approved on May 27, 2008, appeal period for an appeal of this project's approval would be open until Tuesday, June 3, 2008 and would close at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 and that unless an appeal is filed, the project approval would become effective the next day on Wednesday, June 4, 2008. John Bakkeer joined the hearing almost at the end of the hearing and asked the applicants to clarify how the process would work for the current tenants in terms sof relocation. Mr. Polodna explained that they would try to keep as many tenants as possible by accommodating them in the units that would have been finished and be ready to move in. fie also expressed that the onsite management would be available to work with the tenants. ACTION TAKEN: Conditional Approval FINDINGS— Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08 011) The project has been designed consistent with the following General Plan Policies: LU -12 (Building Heights), LU -23 (Land Use Map and Categories), NH -2 (New Development in Residential Neighborhoods), NH -8 (Parking), CD-ld (Landscape Improvement), CD -2 (Neighborhood Identity), CD -13 (Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines) because: i. The project meets and does not exceed the maximum height requirement of the MR district (LU12); ii. The project is consistent with its General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential (LU -23). The project will not change the existing residential density and will stay in compliance with the maximum allowable Gross Density of 15-32 units per acre (LU -23); iii. The project preserves and enhances the residential character of the neighborhood by maintaining neighborhood compatibility (NH -2, CD -2 and CD -13) by: A. The proposed project is consistent with the neighborhood and maintains and supports the existing character and development pattern of the neighborhood by integrating the proposed addition and pursuing a design that is compatible with the neighborhood buildings; B. The proposed project respects the character of neighborhood by limiting the impact of the leasing office addition by meeting all development and parking standards. 2. The new le asing office building is consistent with the MR2.5 Zoning District because: L The leasing office building is an allowed use consistent with Section 14.04.020 Land use regulations (R, DR, MR, HR, PD) which states, "Accessory structures 2 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use and contained on the same site" are permitted in all of these residential districts. The proposed leasing office is customarily incidental to the multifamily residential use and would be located within the complex. ii. The proposed leasing office building complies with the •development standards regarding front, side and rear setbacks, height, lot coverage and parking under the MR2.5 zoning district. iii. According to Table 14.04.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum useable outdoor area of 200 sq. ft. (common and/or private) is required per dwelling unit. The two apartment complexes contain 324 dwelling units, which requires a total useable outdoor area of 64,800 sq. ft. After replacement of the existing tennis court, the project would contain an outdoor area of 92,388 sq. ft. 3. The project has been designed consistent with the general objective to promote design quality in all development pursuant to chapter 14.01.030(I) (Title 14 -Purposes) of the Zoning Ordinance; in that the proposed new color palette that is earthtone in nature and blends with the natural hillside setting of the site would be an improvement to the dull and plain colors that currently exist. 4. The proposed project has been designed consistent with the varied designs and heights of the existing neighborhood residences and is therefore, consistent with the specific purposes of Residential (R) districts to protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhood pursuant to Section 14.04.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The project for interior and exterior renovation and the new leasing office is consistent with Chapter 25 — Design Review Criteria because: i. The project design, including its materials and colors, is consistent with the 2-3 story height of the existing buildings. ii. Given that the proposed building would be only marginally visible from other properties and public right of ways;. its visual impact would be minimal. The property would be improved with landscaping, iii. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.030 that requires a shadow diagram if deemed necessary to evaluate potential shading of adjacent properties. The proposed new building is located away from the existing onsite and offsite development and would not shade any adjacent properties. Therefore, a shadow diagram would not serve any purpose. iv. The project is consistent with Section 14.25.050.F.2 of the Zoning Ordinance that requires materials and colors to be consistent with the context of the surrounding area, the proposed new color palette would be earthtone in nature, blend with the natural hillside setting of the site. The proposed white vinyl windows and new metal vents are appropriate given the small size of these elements and the long distance from which these buildings can be viewed. 3 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: EDO8-011 Date: May 27, 2008 6. The project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 14,16.030 -Affordable housing requirement because: i. The City and the owner entered into a Below Market Rental Agreement on July 3, 1989. This Agreement required the Crest Marin II (now Highlands of Marin I) property to provide 18 low-income units and 15 moderate -income units until 2030 and to. provide annual reporting and a $3,300 monitoring fee to the City of San Rafael. ii. The City of San Rafael files indicate the City staff requested the annual reports and monitoring fees staring in 2001. The owner provided annual monitoring reports for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The owner has not paid any monitoring fees to date. iii. The project is being required to continue to comply with this requirement for annual reporting and payment of the monitoring fee. 7. The project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.279 Relocation assistance, because: i. In compliance with the Section 14.16.279, the project applicant is being required to provide notice to all tenants that relocation assistance would be available to low-income families and provide proof of those payments to eligible families. 8. The project is consistent with California Government Code Sections 65863.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13, because the applicant is being required to provide documentation showing compliance with these Government Code Sections. 9. The desi gn of the exterior renovations and the new leasing office building as conditioned below, minimizes potential adverse environmental impacts because: i. The grading is minimal as proposed; and ii. The proposed additions would not result in significant removal of existing vegetation or significant trees. 10. The design of the exterior renovations and the new leasing office building as conditioned below, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the project site, or to the general welfare of the City of San Rafael because: i. The proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments. Conditions of approval recommended by other departments have been applied to minimize potential adverse visual, design, and safety impacts to the project site and adjacent properties. ii. The proposed project does not indicate a use that is prohibited in MR2.5 Zoning District, but is permitted by right under Section 14.04.020 of the San Rafael Municipal Code. ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 t ,1 Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 11. Pursuant to Section 15301 (a) (2) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), interior or exterior alternations are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 15303 (e) of CEQA, accessory (appurtenant) structures are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Since the project is for interior and exterior renovations and will add a 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office accessory to the apartment complex, the proposed project meets the requirements for a categorical exemption under Section 15301 and 15303 of CEQA. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) General and ongoing Planning Division The building techniques, materials, colors, elevations, and appearance of the project, as presented for approval on plans titled Highland of Marin I, Highlands of Marin II and Highlands of Marin New Leasing Office, San Rafael, CA; prepared by KTGY Group, Inc, and stamped approved on May 21, 2008, shall be the same as required for issuance of a Building Permit (except those modified by these conditions of approval). Any modifications or revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision-making body, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Review Board, if necessary. 2. All 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. 4. 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. Approved colors are as shown on the approved color and material board on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Generally, the approved color palette consists of a mixture of white and shades of beige and brown colors. 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. 5 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 y� TL Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 6. No part of the existing landscape including any trees shall be removed, unless their removal has been reviewed and approved by Planning Division. 7. Contractor Contact Information Posting: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public street. Please check with the Planning Division regarding such a sign. 8. Construction Hours: Construction hours shall be limited as specified by Municipal Code Section 8.13.050.A which are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday from 9:OOa.m to 6:OOp.m. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or City -observed holidays. Construction activities shall include delivery of materials, arrival of construction workers, start up of construction equipment engines, playing of radios and other noises caused by equipment and/or construction workers arriving at or on the site. 9. On -Site Lighting; On-site lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent properties and directed on site. The design and type of lighting fixtures and lighting intensity of any proposed exterior lighting for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation of the lighting for compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval, ordinances, laws and regulations. Lighting fixtures shall be of a decorative design to be compatible with the residential development and shall incorporate energy saving features. 10. Archeological Features: 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, an archaeologist shall monitor further work in the discovery area. 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.. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, if the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, so the "most likely descendant' can be designated. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit Planning Division 6 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 #. ). t Highlands of Marin l and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 11. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall include a plan sheet, which incorporates these conditions of approval. 12. To ensure adequate circulation, parking, and access for emergency vehicles in the neighborhood, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the Planning Division for approval prior to Building Permit issuance. The plan shall identify that all activities, including but not limited to loading/unloading, storage, employee parking, related to the construction shall be located onsite. The plan shall also specify the methods and locations of employee parking, material drop-off, storage of materials, storage of debris and method of its disposal, size limits on delivery vehicles, construction days and hours, and appropriate safety personnel. 13. All mechanical equipment (Le., 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. Redevelopment Agency 14. The City and the owner entered into a Below Market Rental Agreement on July 3, 1989, which requires 18 low-income units and 15 moderate -income units to be provided on the Crest Marin II property until 2030, and to provide annual reporting and a $3,300 monitoring fee to the City of San Rafael. As a condition of the renovation and addition to the site, the owner shall submit a document in a format to be recorded on the property restating the requirements of the Below Market Rate Rental Agreement for Crest Marin II (currently Highlands of Marin I). The document shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits for the property. 15. The City of San Rafael files indicate that in 2001 City staff requested the annual reports and monitoring fees required under the Below Market Rental Agreement. The owner has provided annual monitoring reports for 2005, 2006 and 2007, however, the owner has not paid any monitoring fees to date and is in violation of the City Agreement. Therefore, prior to the issuance of any building permits Crest Marin II (currently Highlands of Marin I), the owner shall pay the delinquent annual monitoring fee for the years 2001-2009, for a total of $26,400. 16. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the owner shall submit documentation showing proof of compliance of Crest Marin II with California Government Code Sections 65863.10, 65863,11, and 65863.13. The submitted documentation shall be reviewed and accepted as appropriate by the Redevelopment Agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. 17. The owner shall submit proof of compliance of Crest Marin I (currently Highlands of Marin II) and Crest Marin II (currently Highlands of Marin I) with San Rafael ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 Municipal Code 14.16.279 Relocation Assistance. Proof of compliance must meet the following minimum standards: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE ANY. BUILDING PERMITS: a. Provide proof of mailing of notice required by 14.16.279 (C) to all tenants. b. Provide a list of all tenants assumed to qualify for relocation assistance under 14.16.279 including all Section 8 tenants. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR INTERIOR REMODEL c. Deposit sufficient funds into an escrow account to cover relocation assistance costs for all qualified tenants. d. Provide proof of relocation payments to all quali$ed tenants. 18. Compliance with the state and local relocation assistance requirements specified in Conditions 16 and 17 can be satisfied by the Owner, or through use of a professional Relocation Firm. If a relocation consultant is used, the City shall approve the consultant and the scope of work. Building Division 19. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code, 2007 Plumbing Code, 2007 Electrical Code, 2007 California Mechanical Code, 2007 California Fire Code, and 2005 Title 24 California Energy Efficiency Standards. 20: A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: (larger projects require 4 sets of construction drawings) a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Plumbing plans e) Mechanical plans 0 Fire sprinkler plans g) Site/civil plans (clearly identifying grade plan and height of the building) h) Structural Calculations i) Truss Calculations j) Soils reports k) Title -24 energy documentation 21. The occupancy classification, construction type and square footage of the building shall be specified on the plans in addition to justification calculations for the allowable area of the building, Site/civil plans prepared by a California licensed 8 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin lI 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 surveyor or engineer clearly showing topography, identifying grade plan and height of the building. 22. For those buildings where the scope of work involves interior remodel work, it appears that the these buildings meet the requirement for "substantial remodel" as defined in Municipal Code Section 4.08.120, Amendments to the fire code. Therefore, a fire sprinklers may be required throughout the building. Determination for fire sprinklers will be conducted during the Building Permit review, so indicate .which room are to be altered, and/or added, this will include areas within the home where sheet rock is removed to access for electrical or structural changes. A Separate deferred application by a C-16 contractor would be required. Refer to our web site for the definition of a substantial remodel. 23. Our records and a site inspection confirmed that some of these buildings have an existing fire sprinkler system installed in accordance to NFPA 13 standard. If any of the proposed construction work impacts the sprinkler system a separate deferred application shall be submitted to our office by a C-16 contractor. Refer to our web site for the definition of a substantial remodel. 24. Each building shall have address numbers located in a.position that is plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers must Arabic numerals or alphabetical letters, be minimum 4" in height with a minimum stroke width of .5 inch, contrasting in color to their background, and either internally or externally illuminated. 25. Knox box keyed entry system is required at designated access doors. 26. If proposed fencing exceeds 6' in height, a building permit is required. 27. 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 (BAAQMD) prior to obtaining the permit and beginning work. Please contact BAAQMD fore requirements. 28. School fees will be required for the project. School fees for commercial space is computed at $0.33 per square foot of new building area. Calculations are done by the San Rafael City Schools, and those fees are paid directly to them prior to issuance of the building permit. 29. If on-site streets are privately owned, certain on-site improvements such as retaining walls, street light standards, and private sewer system will require plan review and permits from the Building Division. 9 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 4 f Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 30. With regard to any grading or site remediation, soils export, import and placement; 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. A grading permit may be required for the above-mentioned work. 31. Prior to building permit issuance for the construction of each building, geotechnical and civil pad certifications are to be submitted. 32. Ventilation area required, the minimum openable area to the outdoors is 4 percent of the floor area being ventilated CBC 1203.4.1 33. Natural light, the minimum net glazed area shall not be less than 8 percent of the floor area of the room served CBC 1205.2. 34. All site signage as well as wall signs require a separate permit and application (excluding address numbering). 35. You must apply for a new address for this building from the Department of Public Works. 36. Monument sign(s) located at the driveway entrance(s) shall have address numbers posted prominently on the monument sign. 37. Designated easements for ingress and egress must be provided to all new lots which do not front on a dedicated street. For fire -fighting and emergency personnel, those access ways shall be a minimum of 25' wide. 38. This site may contain particularly caustic and/or corrosive soils. Mitigating design for any in -ground piping systems or reinforcing elements which may be detrimentally affected will need to be addressed during design. 39. 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. 40. 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: 10 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 a. Path of travel from public transportation point of arrival b. Routes of travel between buildings c. Accessible parking d. Ramps e. Primary entrances f Sanitary facilities (restrooms) g. Drinking fountains & Public telephones (when provided) h. Accessible features per specific occupancy requirements 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. Public accommodation disabled parking spaces must be provided according the following table and must be uniformly distributed throughout the site. Total Number of Parking Minimum Required Number of Spaces H/C Spaces Provided I to 25 1 44.'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. 45. Fire lanes must be maintained as originally designed the following italicized notation outlines those original requirements; painted red with contrasting white lettering stating "No Parking Fire Lane " A sign shall be posted in accordance to City of San Rafael standard #204. 46. This property is located in a UWI Urban Wildland Interface area. Maintain the required defensible space provisioned by the San Rafael Fire Department, You may view these requirements on the City of San Rafael Fire Department web site. As a result of this condition, landscape planters will not be required to be removed, but it may be required to modify the existing plant materials. Any landscape modification shall be reviewed and approved by Planning. 11 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 f Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 Public Works Department 47. Do not divert or concentrate drainage on adjacent properties. 48. Direct new roof drain to landscaping before entering an established Swale or drainage system. 49. A Best Management Practice plan shall be included in the building plan submittal. For a copy of the BMP plan call Karen Chew 415-458-5369. Traffic Division 50. Parking spaces back-up distance must meet city minimum standards. Las Galinas Valley Sanitary District 51. The proposed project must apply for and receive an allocation of sewer capacity from the District before it can receive sewer service. 52. The proposed project must make satisfactory arrangements with this District for the construction of any off-site or on-site sewers which may be required. Marin Municipal Water District 53. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application. 54. Submit a copy of the building permit. 55. Pay appropriate fees and charges. 56. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested, including the installation of a new meter to serve the new structure. 57. All landscape and irrigation plans must be designed in accordance with the most current District landscape requirements (currently fro. Ordinance # 385). Prior to providing water service for new landscape areas, or improved or modified landscape areas, the District must review and approve the project's working drawing for planting an irrigation systems. Any questions regarding the District's current water conservation and landscape Ordinance should be directed to Charlene Burgi at (415) 945-1525. 58. Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District's review backflow protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. 12 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin II 1050 Cresta Drive R Re: ED08-011 Date: May 27, 2008 Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1559. 59. The use of recycled water is required, where available, for all approved uses. Questions regarding the use of recycled water should be directed to Kenneth Feil (415) 945-1558. Prior to Occupancy 60. Prior to occupancy, the applicants shall contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, to request a final inspection. This inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. 61. All damaged and new landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to the occupancy of the building or the property owner shall post a bond in the amount of the estimated landscaping/irrigation cost with the City of San Rafael. In the event that a bond is posted, all areas proposed for landscaping must be covered with bark or a substitute material approved by the Planning Division prior to occupancy. Deferred landscaping through a bond shall not exceed 3 months past occupancy. 62. 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. Any aggrieved party may appeal the Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08- 011), or any conditions of approval therein, by submitting a letter of appeal, setting forth the grounds for the appeal, with the appropriate fees within five (5) working days of the date of approval, or by Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. Unless an appeal has been filed by Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., this Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) shall become valid thereafter. This Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED08-011) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the date of final approval, or May 27, 2010, and shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued or a time extension not granted by May 27, 2010. 13 ZA MINUTES 5/27/2008 CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Date Item Comments 1-29-08 Scoping meeting Project: Exterior renovation of Highlands of Marin. Want to start with applicants. the work in August, 2008. Potential for a new leasing office bldg if it would not elongate the approval process. Suggested they apply for the complete project, processing time would not be different. No mention of potential relocations. Staff expressed support of the proposed improvements. 2-26-08 Project application submitted. 4-22-08 Design Review Following these notices, staff started receiving calls from tenants Board meeting. regarding relocation. Staff checked with the applicant who said: We plan to do the work on the exterior of the Highlands of Marin I buildings without the need to vacate residents. Work on the apartment interiors at Highlands of Marin I will be done primarily as residents' leases expire. The nature of the work at Highlands of Mann II (formerly Crest Marin) will require us to vacate the property one building at a time and renovate the interiors and exteriors of those buildings simultaneously. Our goal is to allow as many residents as possible the opportunity to relocate within the community. Following this, staff started studying Z.O. Section 14.16.279 Relocation assistance. DRB liked the project, except the new leasing office because it was too high for a single story structure. DRB Continued the meeting to see different design for the leasing office. 5-20-08 DRB second The new leasing office design amended to comply with DRB's meeting. comments. DRB recommended approval. 5-21-08 ZA hearing. No opposition at the ZA hearing. The applicant wanted some flexibility for condition #17 so that the requirement for compliance with Relocation assistance ordinance prior to any building permit issuance could be split into two: documentation prior to building permits for exterior work; and escrow account and .payments etc. prior to building permits for interior work. Staff agreed to consider the notices going out in two steps. Mr. Polodna agreed to submit the two proposed notices for staff approval. The ZA raised an issue about the project's compliance with the ZO criteria regarding private/public useable outdoor area. The project architect, Ms. Williams, expressed that she could provide the required data. One tenant (John Bakkeer) came to the hearing after it was over. He asked the applicant about relocation and if he could stay in the complex, of course, with. Exhibit 6 t new rent. The applicant responded that they would try to keep as many tenants as possible by accommodating them in the units that would have been finished as the project progressed. He expressed that the tenants would be able to work with onsite management staff. The ZA continued the hearing to May 27, 2008 for verification of open space data. 5-30-08 Vacation notice The applicants sent a 60 -day vacation notice to some of the mailed to tenants. tenants contrary to an undertaking that they would be initially sending only informational notices without specifying the vacation date. The tenants panic about relocation. 6-3-08 ZA approval Two tenants, David Therien and Maurice Burckhardt appealed the appealed. ZA approval. The appeal raised design -related and non -design - related issues. The design -related issues focus on the inappropriate functioning of the vehicle roundabout at the intersection of Cresta Drive and Cresta Way (at the top of the Cresta Drive) and the project's noncompliance with the City's requirement for useable open space. The non -design related issues focus on the incomplete noticing to tenants for vacation of units, insufficient notification regarding the construction program, and relocation assistance payments to tenants. 6-3-08 List of tenants. Staff requested the applicant for a list of tenants and review of their tenant records by City's housing specialist. Mr. Polodua wanted a meeting to discuss all this. Meeting fixed for 6-17-08. The applicant did not want to submit .the tenant list, but agreed to provide construction logistics and phasing plan and perform resident outreach. 6-13-08 The vacation The applicant notifies staff that they rescinded the vacation. notice rescinded. June- Negotiations Staff works with applicant in sorting out the misunderstandings Nov. regarding Below about Below Market Rate (BMR) units. Staff determines that the 2008 Market Rate units. BMR are not related to ED project and need to be addressed separately. 10-7-08 Vegetation Management Plan approved by Fire Department 12-1-08 Supplemental information submitted by applicant On October 7, 2008, the Fire Department approved a Vegetation Management Plan required for fire defensible space under Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) regulations. The applicant submitted a construction logistics and phasing plan and community outreach plan. Peak West Development, LLC 5347 South Valentia Way Suite 240 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone 303.706.0410 Fax 303.706.0482 December 1, 2008 DEL City of San Rafael Planning Commission n ;? ATTN: Sarjit S. Dhaliwal, Associate Planner coumJ/yl City of San Rafael COn.pI,7,G7 Community Development Department -Planning Division „r A, ..,jqT 1400 Fifth Avenue 0ALE� P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Re: File No. ED08-01 Environmental and Design Review Permit for 1050 Cresta Drive - Highlands of Marin I & If Dear Mr. Dhaliwal: This letter responds to the appeal of the Environmental Design and Review Permit for 1050 Cresta Drive - Highlands of Marin I & 11 filed on June 3, 2008 by David Therein and Maurice Burckhardt. In their letter to you of June 3, 2008, the appellants cited the following grounds for appeal: "1) Notification to tenants of San Rafael City Ordinance 14.16.279 covering relocation assistance to low- income tenants was incomplete as the referenced income level attachment was not provided so we could not ascertain if we are eligible for payment." Peak West Response: Although the wording of our initial notice to tenants complied with Ordinance 14.16.279, the attachment referencing eligible income levels was inadvertently omitted. As a result, the notice was subsequently rescinded on June 13, 2008. All future notices will both comply with the Ordinance and have all required attachments. "2) Insufficient public disclosure of major elements of the project, namely the extensive interior renovations to HOM it and the required vacating of the entire 104 unit complex. Such omissions have severely hindered resident awareness and response. This was noted in the minutes of the last public hearing held May 21� 2008 when 'no one from the public addressed the meeting'." Peak West Response: Descriptions of the elements of the project requiring approval by the Design Review Board (exterior renovations, site improvements, and the new Leasing Office) were submitted. Exhibit 7 Letter to Mr. Sarjit Dhaliwal — Page 2 Interior renovations are not subject to approval by the Design Review Board. However, the Zoning Administrator noted in his April 22, 2008 report to the Design Review Board that after notices of the Design Review Board hearing were sent to all property owners and occupants within a radius of 300 feet of the property "So far staff has received quite a few phone calls from the residents. They did not express any concern regarding the proposed changes, but have expressed concern that [they] would have to move for interior remodeling of the units. Staff has expressed that some residents may qualify for relocation assistance consistent with the Zoning Ordinance Section 14.16.279 Relocation Assistance." The issue regarding interior remodeling of the units was raised at the April 22, 2008 Design Review Board hearing. I responded for Peak West Development that while interior renovations at Highlands of Marin I could be performed independent of the exterior renovations, the substantial scope of work required at the Highlands of Marin II buildings would require those buildings to be vacated. "3) In ZA minutes dated 5/27/2008, a property owner's representative's promise to 'try to accommodate as many tenants as possible by relocating them in different units as construction progressed', and hope that'staff could work with them regarding the relocation notice' are vague and inadequate provisions given the number and seriousness of tenant housing needs. A. To address, it is proposed that some new conditions of.approval be specified to 1) evaluate and balance necessary requirements of the renovation work with maximum retention of displaced tenants, 2) assess the impact to residents forced to relocate under current market conditions which make the equivalent of two month's rent an insufficient amount of assistance, 3) that a detailed plan be proposed requiring approval by the city to ensure fair and reasonable accommodation of all parties, and 4)require under findings #17 pertaining to Ordinance 14.16.279 that all standards for a) proof of mailing, b) a list of all tenants qualifying, c)deposit of sufficient funds in escrow and d) proof of relocation payments to all qualified tenants be satisfied prior to issuance of any building permits." Peak West Response: My statement that Peak West Development and UDR will accommodate as many tenants as possible by relocating them in different units as construction progresses is consistent with our plan for the project which has been communicated to the residents in detail over the last several months (see our Communications Plan). As required by the City of San Rafael, we will provide a 60 -day notice to vacate to all tenants in Highlands of Marin II buildings based on the construction schedule. As noted in the Logistics Plan, the renovation of the Highlands of Marin II buildings will take approximately 10 months to complete; each individual building will take 30 to 60 days to complete. Peak West Development will be performing construction on only a few buildings at a time. We will temporarily relocate or permanently relocate tenants who qualify for a newly renovated apartment at Highlands of Marin to another unit that is vacant on the property, based on availability at the time. We will credit one month of free rent at their current rent rate to tenants who qualify for and sign new leases to assist in their moving costs for the temporary or permanent relocation within the Highlands of Marin property. For those tenants who live in Highlands of Marin II that will be required to vacate due to construction and who will not be relocated within the project, Peak West Development and UDR will abide by the City of San Rafael's ordinance regarding assistance for low income residents. Following receipt of the 60 -day notice to vacate, these tenants will have the Letter to Mr. Sarjit Dhaliwal — Page 3 opportunity to demonstrate their status as "low income' during the prescribed time periods in the 60 -day notice. All tenants who qualify as "low income' who will not be relocated within the project will receive relocation assistance prescribed by the City of San Rafael's ordinance. We will accomplish the renovation of the interiors of Highlands of Marin I units by scheduling work to coincide with lease terminations and renovating units as they become vacant. Should the need arise at some point during construction to temporarily or permanently relocate a resident in Highlands of Marin 1, we will provide those residents one month's free rent, at their current rent rate, and the opportunity to be temporarily or permanently relocated to another unit to accomplish renovations. We will use reasonable efforts to work with each resident to qualify them to stay at Highlands of Marin I and 11 in a new unit and will work with all residents who need relocation to assist them with information on other properties. We will comply with all applicable provisions of state law and the City's municipal code to notify and provide assistance to qualified low income residents as noted above. We have hired a Tenant Coordinator for the project who will be contacting each tenant individually as the project moves forward to determine their needs. "4) The proposed conversion of HOM I's 2,100 square feet of leasing space into 'recreational area' is insufficient in detail and does not compensate for the would-be loss of outdoor recreational area now provided by the tennis court, its fenced perimeter and adjacent grassy areas." Peak West Response: The conversion of the Highlands of Marin I leasing office will allow us to double the size of the existing fitness center, create a new community room complete with a new full-service kitchen, and provide a screening room with a large -format flat screen television. In addition, we plan to completely renovate the Highlands of Marin II swimming pool including adding a changing cabana and hot tub. In our opinion, the majority of our residents will find these amenities preferable to a tennis court, and these improvements should be viewed as a substantial upgrade to the premises. "5) The only roadway that serves this hill top community is Cresta Drive. Already there is observed confusion in motorists when first encountering the island at the top of the hill as no signs indicate traffic flow and sight is limited in both directions of oncoming traffic. For pedestrians to access the public sidewalk that begins about 40 feet down hill from the island requires an awkward traverse of the roadway precisely at the area of the hill where visibility is limited. To add a leasing office building with visitor parking spaces so close to and/or facing this already awkward approach to the property, without correcting existing traffic and pedestrian hazards, might increase the level of confusion and potential for accidents." Peak West Response: Peak West Development agrees that the existing triangular intersection on the private road at the entrance to the property is confusing to motorists. Our renovation plan includes construction of a rotary intersection that will slow traffic at this area. Combined with improved directional signage, clearly demarcated pedestrian crossings, and "speed humps", the rotary will greatly improve access to the property for both motorists and pedestrians. The improvements will also improve safety for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. We Letter to Mr. Sarlit Dhaliwal — Page 4 are working with the City's traffic engineer and the Public Works Department to finalize the details of these improvements. "(3) The proposed conversion of the previous HOM II management/leasing office into a place for resident mailboxes makes little sense. There is already limited parking in that area of Cresta Circle and tenants entering the area to retrieve their mail would contribute to congestion and potential hazards to residents." Peak West Response: Concurrent with the renovations we plan to renumber the buildings to create a clear and consistent address scheme for the property that, along with improved directional signage, will make it easier for visitors and emergency response personnel to locate their destinations. In our experience, the U.S. Postal Service generally requires that mail delivery be centralized when requesting address changes for a multifamily property. If the USPS does not require us to centralize mail delivery, we have no interest in relocating the resident mailboxes from their current locations and would keep the existing mailbox system in place. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss any of these issues in further detail or if any of the Planning Commissioners have questions. Sincerely, Gary Polodna Principal Peak West Development, LLC cc: Paul Jensen, Planning Manager, City of San Rafael Mark Wallis, Senior EVP, Northbay Properties Warren L. Troupe, Senior EVP, UDR Brad Hodack, Principal, Peak West Development Mitchell S. Randall, Esq., Morrison & Foerster Susan Barnes, Barnes & Company Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan The following outlines the anticipated construction phasing and schedule for the Highlands of Marin renovation project. The schedule is based on the assumption that the City of San Rafael will grant final approval of the project by February 16, 2009. As with all construction schedules, it is subject to change based on weather, labor and materials availability, timely issuance of building permits, and market conditions. The project will proceed in four phases: • Phase 1— Common Area Facilities consists of the new Leasing Office building, the renovated Highlands of Marin I Community Building, and the renovated swimming pool and cabana at Highlands of Marin II. This work is anticipated to start on February 23, 2009 and take approximately five months to complete. • Phase II — Highlands of Marin I Exteriors consists of the rebuilding the patios and balconies and installing new windows, siding, and stucco at Highlands of Marin I. New landscaping at building perimeters will be installed as each building is completed. This work will be done without the need for residents to vacate the buildings, and is anticipated to start on March 2, 2009. The work should take approximately ten months to complete. • Phase III — Highlands of Marin I Interiors consists of installing new kitchens, baths, and central heating and.air conditioning in the apartment units at Highlands of Marin I. This work can be scheduled independently of Phase II and will be done as existing leases at the property expire. This work is anticipated to start on May 1, 2009 and take approximately twelve months to complete. • Phase IV — Highlands of Marin II Exteriors & Interiors consists of extensive renovations to the apartment buildings at Highlands of Marin II: new roofs, windows, siding, and stucco; new entry stairs; new kitchens and baths; and installation of clothes washers and dryers and central heating and air conditioning. New landscaping at building perimeters and associates site improvements will be installed as each building is completed. Due to the extensive repairs and replacement of building infrastructure, these buildings will need to be vacated for renovation. Residents will receive a notice to vacate at least 60 days prior to the start of construction for each building in accordance with San Rafael Municipal Code 14.16.279. This work is anticipated to start on June 11 2009 and take approximately ten months to complete. Anticipated construction start and completion dates and the sequencing of work through the property is shown on the following pages. Peak West Development, LLC November 28, 2008 Page 1 t I Peak West Development, LLC November 28, 2008 Page 2 Q$g & N N N �k�4 H H 4+ d C '� F � !� Aar iyNN� Nry a 1�% 4aMQ} HryWWy •��a7 G1 z pp F O z yp S z U pp 4 �p V z Z Z 2 Z Z. 2 Z Z Z Z Z n n th n n n n n ri n ri h' 1� n M1 ri I`h ri M1 n n n M1 n f W 2 L W W 2 W 2 Z� aI 2 L W W 2 W 2 W 2 W 2 2 W 2 W W 2 W 2 m 2 W 2 W 2' W W 2 W W 2 ' e1 L E� fl L E�°�� e1 L ei L '1 11 Z ei L fti t •". ti L `_ter2 =aa a aaaaa.o IL IY LL LL LL s�.tiaa LL LL aayya LL a.cians` W W LL as-'gPg _� ggFg �R lee IaL 1L /L lL IL LL tL ILL {L IaL IL Q m ni 5i•oi •ni `a a`, `a o`r a E .p+ .7, h a ami � o•(v� Y' ca O E E •c �! Q ? 4 Q Q Q¢ Hi d d Z Z & H 8 2 Z p a LL kC rc1 Q rl Yp f`j• T �0 9 N 00' vt > .ti � c V �y a a T W c Tia DE ^ Q H H Z Z. e f:€ e�•T';•. C a e, au�i Cc 0 dr 7 h4 �Q� "Q�' �Qj u6��Qj v1 ✓� a .y �y eNe � �C � �uy5 � Q Q Q rl M YI N �R W rl eni G e -I ei Z scv_Lf^oa'a'vMal vgx�+_avtfti+ G iav'v'vv_e3 = C o'i1�os3 Y T M m m m m m m m m m m QUI m m Qom! a m � W a m m of a m m m m m m Peak West Development, LLC November 28, 2008 Page 2 Peak West Development, LLC November 28, 2008 Page 3 Highlands of Marin Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan The following outlines the anticipated construction phasing and schedule for the Highlands of Marin renovation project. The schedule is based on the assumption that the City of San Rafael will grant final approval of the,project by February 16, 2009. As with all construction schedules, it is subject to change based on weather, labor and materials availability, timely issuance of building permits, and market conditions. The project will proceed in four phases: • Phase I — Common Area Facilities consists of the new Leasing Office building, the renovated Highlands of Marin I Community Building, and the renovated swimming pool and cabana at Highlands of Marin 11. This work is anticipated to start on February 23, 2009 and take approximately five months to complete. • Phase 11— Highlands of Marin I Exteriors consists of the rebuilding the patios and balconies and installing new windows, siding, and stucco at Highlands of Marin I. New landscaping at building perimeters will be installed as each building is completed. This work will be done without the need for residents to vacate the buildings, and is anticipated to start on March 2, 2009. The Work should take approximately ten months to complete. • Phase ill — Highlands of Marin l Interiors consists of installing new kitchens, baths, and central heating and air conditioning in the apartment units at Highlands of Marin I. This work can be scheduled independently of Phase II and will be done as existing leases at the property expire. This work is anticipated to start on May 1, 2009 and take approximately twelve months to complete. • Phase IV—Highlands of Marin 11 Exteriors & Interiors consists of extensive renovations to the apartment buildings at Highlands of Marin Il: new roofs, windows, siding, and stucco; new entry stairs; new kitchens and baths; and installation of clothes washers and dryers and central heating and air conditioning. New landscaping at building perimeters and associates site improvements will be installed as each building is completed. Due to the extensive repairs and replacement of building infrastructure, these buildings will need to be vacated for renovation. Residents will receive a notice to vacate at least 60 days prior to the start of construction for each building in accordance with San Rafael Municipal Code 14.16.279. This work is anticipated to start on June 1, 2009 and take approximately ten months to complete. Anticipated construction start and completion dates and the sequencing of work through the property is shown on the following pages. Peak West Development, LLC November 28, 2008 Page 1 Exhibit 8 r-" I.. Y 1 � a o eo m m ww t 721 �99 � �99 S S m m 6 A m 13 a 99 m m � �� m MJ a m ' m Peale West Development, LLC November 28, 2008 Page 2 9 N N N 11 Y 1 1 I N N N f'� h 1� h` h' fK h•' N I� h N 1^ r ri N Y*`•' N I' N W- N t� N Ix 1'� rN ii N t' W P N ry W W P t - rrr'rrzrrrrrrrrrrrrr ry m = m m m m � p m �, r rym� W LL W. LL ,�e}1 W do t6 ❑3� tY LL W � 'LL 22 LL ^' LL am1 W N —a, ai 4 Q 6 D 9 v a a y O Z w r-" I.. Y 1 eo 721 �99 � �99 S S m m A m 13 a 99 m m � �� m MJ a m ' m Peale West Development, LLC November 28, 2008 Page 2 p �y f� E � �1 Peak West Development, LLC November 28, 2008 Page 3 a -- _ �m �� Peak West Development, LLC December 1, 2008 5347 South Valentia Way Suite 240 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone 303.706.0410 Fax 303.706.0482 40: San Rafael Planning Commission ATTN: Mr. SaijitDhaliwal. FR: Peak West Development RE: Highlands of Marin- Resident Communication Plan and Communication Outreach Activities from August — December 2008 The following outlines the anticipated Resident Communication Plan for the renovation project as well as the details from the communication outreach program UDR implemented from August through December 2008 with residents of Highlands of Marin. From August through October 2008, UDR focused on several communications outreach activities with the Highlands of Marin residents regarding the renovation plans, anticipated schedule and construction sequencing. UDR shared with residents detailed information about the renovation project, described how the project would impact them, and communicated the anticipated schedule of construction by building. These efforts included a dedicated staff person walking door to door over a three week period, twelve (12) open house meetings, individual resident meetings, phone calls with residents and written information. These activities provided numerous opportunities for residents to comment on the project and get answers to questions. The following communication outreach occurred from August and October 2008. Communications Outreach Efforts: August 2008 to October 2008 1 Resident Notice UDR provided residents notice of upcoming door to door outreach efforts and upcoming open house meetings on the renovation plans. Please see Attachment A. Door to Door Communication UDR representatives walked door to door from 4:00 — 8:00 PM during the week and from 11:00 AM - 6:00 PM on the weekends trying to reach every resident in person to discuss the renovation project, answer questions, listen to any concerns and encourage residents to attend the open house meetings for residents about the project held from August 20 to September 3 (described below). Every resident received two handouts on the project. One handout described the project and provided illustrations of the renovation work while the other provided a timeline and construction details by building. Please see Attachment B. HiAlands of Marin Resident Communications Plan December Page Exhibit 9 Page 1 of 3 If residents were not home, a handwritten note was added to the handout encouraging them to attend one of the meetings with a reminder of the upcoming dates and times of meetings occurring that week, in addition, the name and phone number of Eva DeFina was provided if they had any questions. Eva DeFina has been hired by UDR to work individually with residents during the renovation project to coordinate resident needs and any relocation needs. Individual Resident Meetines & Phone Calls For residents who were not home during the door to door communication or who could not attend one of the twelve (12) open house meetings, UDR representatives made appointments with residents at a time convenient for the resident when any resident asked form more information, had questions or wanted to meet on the project. UDR representatives also talked with residents by phone that did not need to meet in person but had questions or comments. Open House Resident Meetines UDR held twelve (12) open house meetings during a three (3) week period staffed with Peak West representatives as well as UDR staff to discuss the project, answer questions and discuss resident concerns. These meetings were held from 5:15 PM to 8:00 PM on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday evenings. Residents were provided with the schedule of these meetings in the Resident Notice described above and attached as Attachment A. Su¢¢estion/Ouestion Box UDR provided a question and suggestion box in the lobby of the Community Center for residents to share their opinions and questions. Questions asked were answered directly for residents who provided contact information. Other questions included in the Resident Update (described below) summarizing the material covered at door to door resident interaction and the open house meetings. Resident Update- October Several suggestions made by residents have improved our plans. The questions asked door to door and at the open house meetings helped inform us of what additional information residents needed. UDR sent all residents a Resident Update as a follow up to the communication outreach activities from August and September. The Resident Update included a summary of the information discussed at the door to door contact and at the open house meetings. In addition, UDR provided a "Q & A" document that provides additional information answering questions that came up at open house meetings or door to door conversations. Again, Eva DeFina's contact information was provided to all residents in case they had any questions or concerns. Please see Attachment C. Communications Outreach Efforts: December 2008 to February 2009 1 Resident Update -December UDR plans to provide another Highlands of Marin Resident Update during the mouth of December. Resident Coordinator Eva DeFina is available to residents as needed to address any resident needs, questions or concerns. The following page details the Resident Communications Plan for the project once approved by the City of San Rafael. Highlands of Merin Resident Communications Plan December 1, 2008 Page 2 of 3 l Highlands of Marin Resident Communications Plan UDR will coordinate with the project contractor to finalize the construction schedule based on the construction sequencing and logistics plan. Weather, building permits, availability of materials, scheduling of personnel, and market conditions all impact the construction schedule. As the Logistics Plan details, the first two phases of construction do not require the relocation of any residents. Only Phase III renovation of Highlands of Marin I apartment interiors and Phase IV construction work on the Highlands of Marin 11(Cresta buildings) requires the relocation of residents. It will take approximately twelve (12) to thirteen (13) months to complete all the buildings. Resident Update -'February At the conclusion of the project approval process with the City of San Rafael, UDR will provide another Highlands of Marin Resident Update to all residents outlining the outcome of the approval process and detail the construction time line as known at the time. This update will again provide the contact information for Eva DeFina as a resource for residents. Pre -Construction Update Hithlands of Marin I Buildines: 10 days Prior to Start of Construction The Highlands of Marin I buildings do not require residents to vacate the units during the renovation of the exteriors of the buildings. Prior to the start of construction on the exterior of resident buildings, UDR will provide a letter to residents in each building where work is to start. The letter will outline the start date of construction, construction hours, anticipated length of construction and describes the work that will be done on the building. In addition, the letter will provide the name and contact information for the construction coordinator for residents to contact if any problems arise. Monthly Construction Updates After the start date of construction, UDR will provide all residents with at least a monthly construction update that would inform residents of construction related issues, indicate which areas/buildings under current construction and which building are anticipated to start construction in the following month. These updates would always have the construction coordinator's contact information for any construction related problems as well as Eva DeFina's contact information as a resource for resident needs. 60 -day Notices for Highlands of Marin I Buildings The Highlands of Marin I apartment interiors can be renovated independently of the building exteriors, and construction will be scheduled as units are vacated upon lease expiration or move -out, minimizing disruption to the residents. Working around lease expirations will require twelve (12) to thirteen (13) months to complete the work. Individual residents will receive notice of non -renewal at least 60 days prior to their lease expiration. 60 -day Notices for Highlands of Marin H Buildines The Highlands of Marin II building renovations require all residents to vacate the buildings during construction. However, Peak West Development will be working on no more than two Highlands of Marin 11 buildings at a time so the construction process will take approximately ten (10) to eleven (11) months to complete. Thus, UDR plans to provide residents in buildings scheduled for construction a 60 -day notice to vacate prior to the start of construction for each building. The notice will follow the requirements of City of San Rafael Municipal Code 14.16.279. UDR will comply with all noticing requirements of Ordinance 14.16.279. Highlands of Marin Resident Communications Plan December 1, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Opening doors to the future - ATTACHMENT A: RESIDENT NOTICE OF OPEN HOUSE / DOOR TO DOOR OUTREACH August 15, 2005 Dear Highlands of Marin Residents: We want to thank you for your patience as we have been in the planning process for the renovation of Highlands of Marin. We know it is frustrating without a schedule of the construction to make future plans. We are hopeful we can gain approval of the project in September or October from the City of San Rafael so that we can provide you with an exact schedule moving forward. In the meantime, this weekend and throughout the next 10 days, UDR representative Susan Barnes will be walking door to door to talk with residents about the project, provide more detail about the plans and discuss how it impacts you and your specific building. Susan will be distributing information that provides a snapshot of how each building's construction schedule will proceed once the project is approved so you can better understand the schedule moving forward. UDR has also added staff member Eva -Marie DeFina to serve as our Repositioning Coordinator for the upcoming redevelopment project. Eva is in the office daily from 9:00 to 5:30 and will be your day to day resource on the project. She will be able to answer your questions on scheduling, relocation and rental assistance as we move forward. You can reach Eva by phone at 415.491.0309.or by email at edefina@udr.com. In case we miss you at your door or you would like to further discuss details of the project, we will be having information meetings during the next three weeks. These meetings will be during the week in the evening at the Community Building. Due to the size of the community building, we are unable to host everyone at once and will be hosting the meetings on specific nights for specific buildings. The schedule for meetings at Highlands of Marin is on the reverse side. If you want to come to an information meeting, please note the day of your building meeting on the reverse side. If for some reason you can't attend that day, please call Eva -Marie DeFina at 415.491.0309 and she will arrange another meeting date. Again, thank you for your patience and we hope these additional resources will help provide more clarity to how the plans impact you. Sincerely, Lorraine Dahler Community Director 1050 Cresta Way San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: 415-491-0309 Fax: 415.4914645 Opening doors to the future - Information Meeting Schedule Highlands of Marin Building Numbers Date of Meeting Time of Meeting - 1 Wednesday 8/20 5:15 — 6:30 PM 2 Thursday 8/21 5:15 — 6:30 PM 3 Wednesday 8/20 5:15 — 6:30 PM 4 Thursday 8/21 5:15 — 6:30 PM 5 Wednesday 8/20 6:45 — 8:00 PM 6 Wednesday 8/20 6:45 — 8:00 PM 125 Thursday 8/21 5:15 — 6:30 PM 130 Thursday 8/21 6:30 — 8:00 PM 135 Thursday 8/21 6:30 — 8:00 PM 145 Thursday 8/21 6:30 — 8:00 PM 150 Thursday 8/21 6:30 — 8:00 PM Building Date of Meeting Time of Meeting 1010 Tuesday 8/26 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1020 Tuesday 8/26 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1030 Tuesday 8/26 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1025 Tuesday 8/26 6:45— 8:00 PM 1035 Tuesday 8/26 6:45 — 8:00 PM 1040 Tuesday 8/26 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1060 Wednesday 8/27 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1070 Wednesday 8/27 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1065 Wednesday 8/27 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1057 Wednesday 8/27 6:45 - 8:00 PM 1045 Wednesday 8/27 6:45 — 8:00 PM 1055 Wednesday 8/27 6:45 — 8:00 PM 1053 Tuesday 9/2 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1051 Tuesday 9/2 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1047 Tuesday 9/2 5:15 — 6:30 PM 1049 Tuesday 9/2 5:15 — 6:30 PM 122 Tuesday 9/2 6:45 — 8:00 PM 124 Tuesday 9/2 6:45 — 8:00 PM 126 Tuesday 9/2 6:45 — 8:00 PM 128 Tuesday 9/2 6:45 — 8:00 PM BUILDING A FRONT ELEVATION The Highlands of Marin community and living experience will be greatly enhanced when the renovation project is completed. Planned Highlands of Marin renovations will substantially upgrade your amenities, community facilities and unify the apartment community visually. Design of the interior and exterior renovation project began with the focus on protecting the environment, reducing energy costs and conserving water. Apariment Upgrades New double -insulated windows, additional insulation, upgraded appliances, and high -efficiency lighting and heating and cooling systems will conserve electricity and natural gas and help lower residents' energy costs. Low -flow plumbing fixtures and automated landscape irrigation systems will conserve water. Carpet and other building materials discarded during renovations will be recycled, and new flooring materials will be manufactured from recycled materials. At Highlands of Marin 1, new resident storage closets will be built on the patios and balconies creating semi -enclosed, "outdoor rooms" for the apartments providing privacy for residents while maintaining the desirable views. The apartment homes will be updated with new cabinets and granite countertops, energy-efficient stainless steel appliances, doors and hardware, and flooring. Central heating and air conditioning will be installed, as will clothes washers and dryers in every apartment. n n Exterior Enhancements Building exteriors will be rebuilt to provide a craftsman aesthetic with a combination of stucco, lap siding, and trellis trim elements. Four complementary exterior color schemes will be used throughout the property to create individual "neighborhoods", and new directional and identification signage will be installed. Landscaping will be refurbished and updated in a natural style appropriate to the region and conserving water resources. The entrance to the property will be reconfigured with a rotary intersection and a new leasing and management office building. Combined with the exterior renovations, the new entrance and office building will serve to integrate the two different phases of the property into an attractive and cohesive apartment community. Community Building, Pool and Spa The existing Highlands of Marin community building will be renovated to include a high-end fitness center, a resident lounge with a large screen television and audio/video system, and a full gourmet kitchen. The east swimming pool area will be augmented with an outdoor kitchen, and the west pool area will receive a major facelift including a new spa and changing cabanas. BUILDING 6 REAR ELEVATION The Highlands of Marin community and living experience will be greatly enhanced when the renovation project is completed. Planned Highlands of Marin renovations will substantially upgrade your amenities, community facilities and unify the apartment community visually. Design of the interior and exterior renovation project began with the focus on protecting the environment, reducing energy costs and conserving water. Apartment Upgrades New double -insulated windows, additional insulation, upgraded appliances, and high -efficiency lighting and heating and cooling systems will conserve electricity and natural gas and help lower residents' energy costs. Low -flow plumbing fixtures and automated landscape irrigation systems will conserve water. Carpet and other building materials discarded during renovations will be recycled, and new flooring materials will be manufactured from recycled materials. At Highlands of Marin 11, the carports will be replaced and exterior lighting will be upgraded. The apartment homes will be updated with new cabinets and granite countertops, energy-efficient stainless steel appliances, doors and hardware, and flooring. Central heating and air conditioning will be installed, as will clothes washers and dryers in every apartment. Exterior Enhancements Building exteriors will be rebuilt to provide a craftsman aesthetic with a combination of stucco, lap siding, and trellis trim elements. Four complementary exterior color schemes will be used throughout the property - to create individual "neighborhoods", and new directional and identification signage will be installed. Landscaping will be refurbished and updated in a natural style appropriate to the region and conserving water resources. The entrance to the property will be reconfigured with a rotary intersection and a new leasing and management office building. Combined with the exterior renovations, the new entrance and office building will serve to integrate the two different phases of the property into an attractive and cohesive apartment community. Community Building, Pool and Spa The existing Highlands of Marin community building will be renovated to include a high-end fitness center, a resident lounge with a large screen television and audio/video system, and a full gourmet kitchen. The east swimming pool area will be augmented with an outdoor kitchen, and the west pool area will receive a major facelift including a new spa and changing cabanas. Puppy Park & Business (enter Other ways in which the property will be improved for resident convenience include building a "puppy park' where residents can spend time outside with their pets off leash and providing a business center for resident use within the new leasing and management office building. 11 nced living and Environmental Vision Highlands of Marin II Exterior Enhancements Building exteriors will be rebuilt to provide a craftsman aesthetic with a combination of stucco, lap siding, and trellis trim elements. Four complementary exterior color schemes will be used throughout the property - to create individual "neighborhoods", and new directional and identification signage will be installed. Landscaping will be refurbished and updated in a natural style appropriate to the region and conserving water resources. The entrance to the property will be reconfigured with a rotary intersection and a new leasing and management office building. Combined with the exterior renovations, the new entrance and office building will serve to integrate the two different phases of the property into an attractive and cohesive apartment community. Community Building, Pool and Spa The existing Highlands of Marin community building will be renovated to include a high-end fitness center, a resident lounge with a large screen television and audio/video system, and a full gourmet kitchen. The east swimming pool area will be augmented with an outdoor kitchen, and the west pool area will receive a major facelift including a new spa and changing cabanas. Puppy Park & Business (enter Other ways in which the property will be improved for resident convenience include building a "puppy park' where residents can spend time outside with their pets off leash and providing a business center for resident use within the new leasing and management office building. 11 �Np m Renovation of the entire Highlands of Marin project is anticipated to finish approximately 10 months from the start of construction. The work will begin on buildings near the entrance to the property and proceed simultaneously on the east and west side of the property (See the construction sequencing diagram on the reverse side). How does the construction impact residents who want to stay? Due to theextensiveinfrastructure work required at the Highlands of Marin If apartment buildings, each building will need to be completely vacated prior to the start of work. Existing residents who wjsh to lease a newly renovated apartment will not need to leave the property, although some may be required to relocate temporarily to an un -renovated apartment with a similar floor plan for several months while their new apartment is being renovated. Three bedroom unit tenants who desire to stay and rent renovated apartments can be accommodated in temporary relocation but will need to relocate to two bedroom units. M The Highlands of Marin Community Building will be closed for renovations in month 4 and reopen in p approximately 60 days. The new Leasing & Management Office Building, including a business center available for resident use, will open in month 6. M M The start of construction is contingent upon completing our City planning and building department I approvals. The sequence and timing of the work will be as follows: F? Build tiff Requ 1 Month 1 Month 2 3 1 Month 3 ;;}},M��onnt�t�hh 00011%14 t MR 5 Month 2 Month 4 � yr 125 Month 4 Month 6 135y. Month 5 Month 7 Mft 150 Month 6 - Month 8 As with all construction schedules, timing of the work may vary depending upon weather, materials deliveries, and other factors. Once the project has received building permits, we will provide all residents with the construction timeline specific to their unit and work with residents who want lease a new apartment to minimize disruption and temporary relocation. Please contact Eva Marie DeFina at 415-491-0309 or edefina@udr.com if you have any questions regarding the construction schedule. C ^ ` Renovation of the entire Highlands of Marin project is anticipated to finish approximately 10 months from the start of construction. The work will begin on buildings near the entrance to the property and proceed simultaneously on the east and west side of the property (See the construction sequencing diagram on the reverse side). Work on the exteriors of the Highlands of Marin I apartment buildings will not require the buildings to be vacated. Renovation of apartment interiors at Highlands of Marin 1 will be scheduled around vacancies and.Iease terminations. The Highlands of Marin Community Building will be closed for renovations in month 4 and reopen in approximately 60 days. The new Leasing & Management Office Building, including a business center available for resident use, will open in month 6. How does the construction impact residents who want to stay? Existing residents who wish to lease a newly renovated apartment will not need to leave the property, although some may be required to relocate temporarily to an un -renovated apartment with a similar floor plan while their new apartment is being renovated. The start of this construction is contingent upon completing our City planning and building department approvals. The sequence and timing of the work will be as follows: BUILDING START WORK 1010 �$ /Month 1 Month 2 - 't 'o2i`=atlat L SRM"o- i n�.x` � n.'.. 1030 Month 2 Month 3 f M-, im 1035 Month 3 Month 4 0. as WIN 1060 Month 3 Month 5 WN 1065 _ Month 4 Month 5 1045 Month 5 Month 6 1053 Month 6 Month 7 p'"st�ivaa .� mnrsnzn w'� wl�.naaax�u -s fl 1047�£i. Month 7 Month 9 TIMM' , 1» l�"^'.i'YlzF1N C6 4 122 Month 8 _ Month 10 126 Month 8 Month 10 391M W.L"Imz@WMLFbqlM-WAV-wvwO-l" As with all construction schedules, timing of the work may vary depending upon weather, materials deliveries, and other factors. Once the project has received building permits, we will provide all residents with the construction timeline specific to their unit and work with residents who want lease a new apartment to minimize disruption and temporary relocation. Please contact Eva Marie DeFina at 415-491-0309 or edefina@udccom if you have any questions regarding the construction schedule. ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin I Resident Update - October 2008 NONE Opening doors to the future - October 10, 2008 Dear Residents: As you know, last month and late August, UDR held Open House Meetings and representatives walked door to door to provide residents with the most up to date information on the renovation plans for Highlands of Marin. We dropped off literature when residents were not home. We recognize you live busy lives and many people were unable to attend the meetings and were not home during our door to door visits. This letter contains information that was discussed at the meetings and during our door to door visits to update you on the current status of the renovation plans. In addition, this letter is a follow up on timelines, maintenance and answers to common questions asked by residents. Resident Coordinator- Eva Marie DeFina Many of you met Eva at the Open House meetings or in the leasing office. Eva has been hired to coordinate resident needs during the renovation project Our goal is to work with you to minimize disruption to your home environment during the construction period and provide up to date information on the schedule for construction. Eva will be contacting every resident after the project is approved by the City of San Rafael and the construction schedule is established to work with each resident on their options for renting a renovated apartment, staying in their current unit, and assisting with temporary or permanent relocation during renovations based on lease end dates. If you have any questions or needs moving forward, please contact Eva and she will be happy to assist you. Eva Marie DeFina Phone: (415) 948-9401 Email: EDefina(a)udr.com: Introducing New Leasing Office Staff Community Director—TBA Acting Community Director—Jindalea Jones Planned Construction Schedule for Hiahiands of Marin I We anticipate the renovation project will complete the approval process with the City of San Rafael sometime in the first quarter of 2009. Renovation of the entire Highlands of Marin project is anticipated to finish approximately 10 months from the start of construction. The work will begin on buildings near the entrance to the property and proceed simultaneously on the east and west side of the property. We will notify residents before construction begins with a specific building by building construction schedule. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 1 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin I Resident Update - October 2008 Work on the exteriors of the Highlands of Marin I apartment buildings will not require the buildings to be vacated. Renovation of apartment interiors at Highlands of Marin I will be scheduled around vacancies and lease terminations. For those of you who are in apartments that already have been renovated, we will be installing new windows as well as a new heating and air conditioning unit Again, this work will be done without requiring you to vacate the apartment. The Highlands of Marin Community Building will be closed for renovations in month 4 and reopen in approximately 60 days. The new Leasing & Management Office Building, including a business center available for resident use, will open in month 6. Building exteriors will be rebuilt with a combination of stucco, lap siding, and trellis trim elements designed in a craftsman aesthetic. Four complementary exterior color schemes will be used throughout the property to create individual "neighborhoods", and new directional and identification signage will be installed. Landscaping will be refurbished and updated in a natural style appropriate to the region. The entrance to the property will be reconfigured with a rotary intersection and a new leasing and management office building. Combined with the exterior renovations, the new entrance and office building will serve to integrate the two different phases of the property into an attractive and cohesive apartment community. The existing Highlands of Marin community building will be renovated to include a high-end fitness center, a resident lounge with a large screen television and audio/video system, and a full gourmet kitchen. The east swimming pool area will be augmented with an outdoor kitchen, and the west pool area will receive a major facelift including a new spa and changing cabanas. Other ways in which the property will be improved for resident convenience include building a "dog park" where residents can spend time outside with their pets off leash and providing a business center for resident use within the new leasing and management office building. At Highlands of Marin I, new resident storage closets will be built on the patios and balconies creating semi - enclosed, "outdoor rooms" for the apartments providing privacy for residents while maintaining the desirable views. The apartment homes will be updated with new cabinets and granite countertops, energy- efficient stainless steel appliances, doors and hardware, and flooring. Central heating and air conditioning will be installed, as will clothes washers and dryers in every apartment Renovations will be accomplished with the goal of protecting the environment New double -insulated windows, additional insulation, upgraded appliances, and high -efficiency lighting and heating and cooling systems will conserve electricity and natural gas and help lower residents' energy costs. Low -flow plumbing fixtures and automated landscape irrigation systems will conserve water. Carpet and other building materials discarded during renovations will be recycled, and new flooring materials will be manufactured from recycled materials. How does the construction impact residents who want to stay? We expect that existing residents who wish to lease a newly renovated apartment will not need to leave the property, although some may be required to relocate temporarily to an un -renovated apartment with a similar floor plan while their new apartment is being renovated. If you need to be temporarily relocated, UDR will provide you one month of free rent at your current rental rate that can be used to defray moving costs. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 2 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin I Resident Update - October 2008 As with all construction schedules, timing of the work may vary depending upon weather, materials deliveries, and other factors. Once the project has received building permits, we will provide all residents With the construction timeline specific to their unit and work with residents who want lease a new apartment to minimize disruption and temporary relocation. The sequence and timing of the construction work will be as follows starting with the first month of construction. We anticipate construction to begin after February 2009. Building Start Work Completed 1010 Month 1 Month 2 1020 Month 2 Month 3 1030 Month 2 Month 3 1025 Month 2 Month 4 1035 Month 3 Month 4 1040 Month 3 Month 4 1060 Month 3 Month 5 1070 Month 4 Month 5 1065 Month 4 Month 5 1057 Month 4 Month 5 1045 Month 5 Month 6 1055 Month 5 Month 7 1053 Month 6 Month 7 1051 Month 6 Month 8 1047 Month 7 Month 9 1049 Month 7 Month 9 122 Month 8 Month 10 124 Month 8 Month 10 126 Month 8 Month 10 128 Month 9 Month 10 Reporting a Maintenance Problem We have recently completed a Maintenance Audit of maintenance requests completed earlier in the year to evaluate and improve our maintenance process. Our goal is to resolve maintenance issues promptly. Please contact UDR Regional Director Pam Leeper at (360) 882-2543 if you have reported a maintenance issue in the last 12 months and believe it is still unresolved. Some residents attending the Open House Meetings and others who talked to our representative during the door to door visits mentioned maintenance issues within their units. When asked if they had reported the issue to the leasing office, many people said they had not yet reported the problem. in order for UDR to properly maintain our community, it is critical to report any maintenance problem immediately to the leasing office staff so they can initiate a work order and track the maintenance issues to completion. Please help us keep our community in the best condition possible by reporting any maintenance issues immediately. Keep in mind that in community buildings, problems in your unit that remain unaddressed if not reported could impact your neighbors such as a plumbing leak or electrical problem. The following is the procedure to report a maintenance problem. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 3 of 8 F I ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin I Resident Update - October 2008 How dol report a Maintenance Problem? Maintenance Problems are to be reported to the Highlands office staff in the leasing office. You can call or stop by the office to submit a request For your convenience, you may also submit a request online. Just follow the instructions on the following page. Reporting a Maintenance Problem Online 1) Please visit the community's web site at www.highlandsofmarin.com 2) On the left side of the home page click the link email community, a WV WemPoVAwerywu Naimm,Gvemnlyl NWnilurarvq IN91bnMof Mx6x PpxRndlS FlarRw Mryn V,M w IFyJenvtl Mp Po�dsLPrn I .wawrurmenen..ro......nw wrve+wwx m.ix�n—ee...vwrr m«mx.nr.m w..axrwn...e,.al � 3) Select "Maintenance Request' from the drop down menu on the Contact Community Pager 4) Fill out the template and press the "Send" button. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Pape 4 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin I Resident Update - October 2008 Thank you for taking the time to be informed about your community. We will be sending out another project update in the coming months as the project moves forward. In the meantime, please contact Eva Marie DeFina at (415) 948-9401 if you have any further questions regarding the renovation project Sincerely, Pam Leeper District Manager UDR Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10,2008 Page 5 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin I Resident Update - October 2008 Q and A Follow Up from Highlands of Marin Community Meetings 1) What will the new rents be when the project is complete? ANSWER: We will renovate the units to raise them to market quality and charge corresponding market rate rents. The following are rental rate information from websites of nearby properties: Property 1 BDRM 2 BDRM 3 BDRM Lofts at Albert Park $1635 to $2150 $1980 to $2150 Deer Valley $1705 Jo $1825 $1740 to $2520 $2335 to $2540 Larkspur Shores $1725 to $1825 $1975 to $2435 Larkspur Courts $1945 to $2213 $2485 to $2832 $2971 to $3247 2) Why isn't the pool on the Highlands of Marin II (Cresta) side fixed? ANSWER: The City of San Rafael has yet to approve the repair and upgrade of the pool. 3) The buildings at Highlands 11 are old and things break easier on old buildings. What is UDR doing about this? ANSWER: The buildings at Highlands of Marin II are in essentially the same conditionas they were when UDR acquired the property last October. The rents are essentially the same as they were last October as well. UDR purchased the property and immediately began the process of plans for renovation of the property. The renovation project will fix the building issues but it will take a complete overhaul because the buildings are over 40 years old. Many of the building maintenance issues can only be solved through the renovation of the building. Many repairs at this point are temporary, because the plumbing, electrical and other systems may need to be completely replaced. 4) What if I am a low income resident and can't pay a higher rent for a renovated apartment? ANSWER: The construction will proceed a few buildings at a time in phases. You will be notified before the construction begins at your building and we will provide you with information on your options. UDR is complying with the City of San Rafael ordinance regarding low income housing and relocation assistance. We will act as a resource to help existing residents find other suitable housing. 5) Is there a waiting list 1 can sign up for so I can reserve the floor plan I want? ANSWER: UDR is working to establish a sign-up process for reserving floor plans and unit preferences. We will contact all residents with the information on that process when it is in place. 6) Why do Highlands II (Cresta) residents have to move out during construction and residents at Highlands l do not? ANSWER: The buildings of Highlands II were built during the 1969s and have significantly older plumbing, heating and electrical systems. The replacement of those systems is extensive and will require removal of floors and work into walls to complete. The buildings simply will not be habitable during construction. The Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 6 d 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin I Resident Update - October 2008 buildings of Highlands I were built during the 1980's and have more up to date infrastructure and do not require the extensive work needed at Highlands II. 7) Why are you renting to new residents now? ANSWER: The project approval process is delayed and may be delayed up to nine months from when construction was anticipated. There is no need to keep units vacant when construction is not occurring. All new residents are made aware of the project at the time of leasing and have agreed to appropriate lease terms that accommodate the upcoming construction timeline. 8) Is there a waiting list for the three bedroom units? ANSWER: UDR is working to establish a sign-up process for reserving floor plans and unit preferences and will contact all residents with the information on that process when it is in place. 9) If I want to move out, how many days notice do I need to provide UDR? ANSWER: Residents are required to give UDR a 30 -day notice if they wish to move out without penalty. 10) In Highlands II, all residents will need to temporarily relocate for construction if they want to rent a renovated apartment and stay due to the extensive construction. When I get a 60 day notice, my options are to a) Qualify and sign a new lease for a renovated apartment or b) Vacate the apartment in 60 days. What if I decide I want to move but I move out on day 30 or 31 instead of day 60. Is there a penalty? ANSWER: Residents are required to give, us a 30 -day notice if they wish to move out without penalty. You can move out anytime during the 60 day period without penalty by providing 30 -day notice. 11) When will the storage units in Highlands If be under construction and when will 1 have to move the contents of my storage unit? ANSWER: We will attempt to phase the construction so every resident has access to a storage unit during their tenancy. We haven't worked through those details of our schedule but will provide exact dates and schedules once the project is approved. 12) What are the construction days and hours? ANSWER: Our contractor will adhere to the City of San Rafael guidelines limiting construction days and hours. 13) If I qualify for being considered low income and I want to move from Highlands of Marin now instead of next year, do I get relocation assistance? ANSWER: No. Per the City of San Rafael ordinance, relocation assistance is provided when a landlord provides a low income resident with a 60 -day notice to vacate. This project has not been approved yet by the City of San Rafael. No resident will receive a 60 -day notice on the construction until sometime in 2009. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 7 of 8 ` , f ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin I Resident Update -October 2008 14) Are the new decks going to be bigger? ANSWER: The new decks will be bigger to accommodate the addition of outside storage which will be placed on the side of your deck next to your neighbor providing more privacy. 15) Where in the apartments will the air conditioning and heating units be placed? ANSWER: The air conditioning and heating unit will be installed in the bedroom closet connected to a control panel in the living room. 16) The landscaping at Highlands of Marin II is dead in areas. Why hasn't this been fixed? ANSWER: Many of the sprinkler systems at Highlands of Marin If need to be completely replaced and this work is part of the renovation project and permits we are seeking from the City of San Rafael. UDR has been repairing sprinklers that can be repaired. However, due to the age of the system, many of the issues can only be fixed with a total overhaul of the system. 17) Who can I talk to if I am dissatisfied with service I received at the leasing office? ANSWER: Please contact UDR District Manager Pam Leeper at 360-882-2543 18) Who can I talk to regarding Below Market Rent issues? ANSWER: Please contact UDR Regional Director Teresa Barker at 408-8448925, 19) Who can I talk to about relocation assistance or other questions I have on the construction project? ANSWER: Please contact Eva Marie DeFina at (415) 948-9401. Legal Disclaimer: The information in this letter is for informational purposes only, and is merely a statement of Highlands of Marin's plans and intentions regarding this subject matter. Highlands of Marin reserves all rights to make changes to this information at any time for any reason, without obligation or notice to any person or party. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin H Resident Update - October 2008 Opening doors to the future - October 10, 2008 Dear Residents: As you know, last month and late August, UDR held Open House Meetings and representatives walked door to door to provide residents with the most up to date information on the renovation plans for Highlands of Marin. We dropped off literature when residents were not home, We recognize you live busy lives and many people were unable to attend the meetings and were not home during our door to door visits. This letter contains information that was discussed at the meetings and during our door to door visits to update you on the current status of the renovation plans. In addition, this letter is a follow up on timelines, maintenance and answers to common questions asked by residents. Resident Coordinator- Eva Marie DeFina Many of you met Eva at the Open House meetings'or in the leasing office. Eva has been hired to coordinate resident needs during the renovation project Our goal is to work with you to minimize disruption to your home environment during the construction period and provide up to date information on the schedule for construction. Eva will be contacting every resident after the project is approved by the City of San Rafael and the construction schedule is established to work with each resident on their options for renting a renovated apartment, staying in their current unit, and assisting with temporary or permanent relocation during renovations based on lease end dates. If you have any questions or needs moving forward, please contact Eva and she will be happy to assist you. Eva Marie DeFina Phone: (415) 948-9401 Email: EDefina(a)udr.com Introducina New Leasing Office Staff Community Director—TBA Acting Community Director— Jindalea Jones Planned Construction Schedule for Highlands of Marin II We anticipate the renovation project will complete the approval process with the City of San Rafael sometime in the first quarter of 2009. Renovation of the entire Highlands of Marin project is anticipated to finish approximately 10 months from the start of construction.. The work will begin on buildings near the entrance to the property and proceed simultaneously on the east and west side of the property. We will notify residents before construction begins with a specific building by building construction schedule. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 1 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin H Resident Update - October 2008 The Highlands of Marin Community Building will be closed for renovations in month 4 and reopen in approximately 60 days. The new Leasing & Management Office Building, including a business center available for resident use, will open in month 6. Building exteriors will be rebuilt with a combination of stucco, lap siding, and trellis trim elements designed in a craftsman aesthetic. Four complementary exterior color schemes will be used throughout the property to create individual "neighborhoods", and new directional and identification signage will be installed. Landscaping will be refurbished and updated in a natural style appropriate to the region. The entrance to the property will be reconfigured with a rotary intersection and a new leasing and management office building. Combined with the exterior renovations, the new entrance and office building will serve to integrate the two different phases of the property into an attractive and cohesive apartment community. The existing Highlands of Marin community building will be renovated to include a high-end fitness center, a resident lounge with a large screen television and audio/video system, and a full gourmet kitchen. The east swimming pool area will be augmented with an outdoor kitchen, and the west pool area will receive a major facelift including a new spa and changing cabanas. Other ways in which the property will be improved for resident convenience include building a "puppy park" where residents can spend time outside with their pets off leash and providing a business center for resident use within the new leasing and management office building. At Highlands of Marin II, the carports will be replaced and exterior lighting will be upgraded. The apartment homes will be updated with new cabinets and granite countertops, energy-efficient stainless steel appliances, doors and hardware, and flooring. Central heating and air conditioning will be installed, as will clothes washers and dryers in every apartment. Renovations will be accomplished with the goal of protecting the environment New double -insulated windows, additional insulation, upgraded appliances, and high -efficiency lighting and heating and cooling systems will conserve electricity and natural gas and help lower residents' energy costs. Low -flow plumbing fixtures and automated landscape irrigation systems will conserve water. Carpet and other building materials discarded during renovations will be recycled, and new flooring materials will be manufactured from recycled materials. Due to the extensive infrastructure work required at the Highlands of Marin II apartment buildings, each building will need to be completely vacated prior to the start of work. Existing residents who wish to lease a newly renovated apartment will not need to leave the property, although some may be required to relocate temporarily to an un -renovated apartment with a similar floor plan for several months while their new apartment is being renovated. Three bedroom unit tenants who desire to stay and rent renovated apartments can be accommodated in temporary relocation but will need to relocate to two bedroom units. If you need to be temporarily relocated, UDR will provide you one month of free rent at your current rental rate that can be used to defray moving costs. The Highlands of Marin Community Building will be closed for renovations in month 4 and reopen in approximately 60 days. The new Leasing & Management Office Building, including a business center available for resident use, will open in month 6. As with all construction schedules, timing of the work may vary depending upon weather, materials deliveries, and other factors. Once the project has received building permits, we will provide all residents Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 2 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin H Resident Update - October 2008 with the construction timeline specific to their unit and work with residents who want lease a new apartment to minimize disruption and temporary relocation. As with all construction schedules, timing of the work may vary depending upon weather, materials deliveries, and other factors. Once the project has received building permits, we will provide all residents with the construction timeline specific to their unit and work with residents who want lease a new apartment to minimize disruption and temporary relocation. The sequence and timing of the construction work will be as follows starting with the first month of construction. We anticipate construction to begin after February 2009. Building Reguired to Vacate Ready for Occupancy 1 Month 1 Month 2 2 Month 3 Month 4 3 Month 1 Month 3 4 Month 3 Month 5 5 Month 2 Month 4 6 Month 4 Month 6 125 Month 4 Month 6 130 Month 7 Month 9 135 - Month 5 Month 7 145 Month 5 Month 7 150 Month 6 Month 8 Reporting a Maintenance Problem We have recently completed a Maintenance Audit of maintenance requests completed earlier in the year to evaluate and improve our maintenance process. Our goal is to resolve maintenance issues promptly. Please contact UDR Regional Director Pam Leeper at (360) 882-2543 if you have reported a maintenance issue in the last 12 months and believe it is still unresolved. Some residents attending the Open House Meetings and others who talked to our representative during the door to door visits mentioned maintenance issues within their units. When asked if they had reported the issue to the leasing office, many people said they had not yet reported the problem. in order for UDR to properly maintain our community, it is critical to report any maintenance problem immediately to the leasing office staff so they can initiate a work order and track the maintenance issues to completion. Please help us keep our community in the best condition possible by reporting any maintenance issues immediately. Keep in mind that in community buildings, problems in your unit that remain unaddressed if not reported could impact your neighbors such as a plumbing leak or electrical problem. The following is the procedure to report a maintenance problem. How do I report a Maintenance Problem? Maintenance Problems are to be reported to the Highlands office staff in the leasing office. You can call or stop by the office to submit a request For your convenience, you may also submit a request online. Just follow the simple instructions on the following page. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 3 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin H Resident Update - October 2008 Reporting a Maintenance Problem Online: 1) Please visit the community's web site at www.highlandsohadn.com 2) On the left side of the home page click the link email community. WgMeMsolMannPpaMcerK fm qw imyu Vmnnaw MNewvvelavp apmm�ifl.gn I I _ I .+-+R v.ur.vwanmmew. mr..i. w. w....,m.iw.�wamm iwn — nwxi.hnm�wmo-.rgarmgr. I 3) Select "Maintenance Request' from the drop down menu on the Contact Community Page. 4) Fill out the template and press the 4Send° button. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 4 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin H Resident Update - October 2008 Thank you for taking the time to be informed about your community. We will be sending out another project update in the coming months as the project moves forward. to the meantime, please contact Eva Marie DeFina at (415) 948-9401 if you have any further questions regarding the renovation project Sincerely, Pam Leeper District Manager UDR Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 5 of 8 r. ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin H Resident Update - October 2008 Qand A Follow Up from Highlands of Marin Community Meetings 1) What will the new rents be when the project is complete? ANSWER: We will renovate the units to raise them to market quality and charge corresponding market rate rents. The following are rental rate information from websites of nearby properties: Propeft 1 BDRM 2 BDRM 3 BDRM Lofts at Albert Park $1635 to $2150 $1980 to $2150 Deer Valley $1705 to $1825 $1740 to $2520 $2335 to $2540 Larkspur Shores $1725 to $1825 $1975 to $2435 Larkspur Courts $1945 to $2213 $2485 to $2832 $2971 to $3247 2) Why isn't the pool on the Highlands of Marin If (Cresta) side fixed? ANSWER: The City of San Rafael has yet to approve the repair and upgrade of the pool. 3) The buildings at Highlands 11 are old and things break easier on old buildings. What is UDR doing about this? ANSWER: The buildings at Highlands of Marin II are in essentially the same condition as they were when UDR acquired the property last October. The rents are essentially the same as they were last October as well. UDR purchased the property and immediately began the process of plans for renovation of the property. The renovation project will fix the building issues but it will take a complete overhaul because the buildings are over 40 years old. Many of the building maintenance issues can only be solved through the renovation of the building. All repairs at this point are just band-aids because the plumbing, electrical and other systems need to be completely replaced. 4) What if I am a low income resident and can't pay a higher rent for a renovated apartment? ANSWER: The construction will proceed a few buildings at a time in phases. You will be notified before the construction begins at your building and we will provide you with information on your options. UDR is complying with the City of San Rafael ordinance regarding low income housing and relocation assistance. We will act as a resource to help existing residents find other suitable housing. 5) Is there a waiting list I can sign up for so I can reserve the floor plan I want? ANSWER: UDR is working to establish a sign-up process for reserving floor plans and unit preferences. We will contact all residents with the information on that process when it is in place. 6) Why do Highlands II (Cresta) residents have to move out during construction and residents at Highlands I do not? ANSWER: The buildings of Highlands 11 were built during the 1969s and have significantly old plumbing, healing and electrical systems. The replacement of those systems is extensive and will require removal of floors and work into walls to complete. The buildings simply will not be habitable during construction. The buildings of Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 6 of 8 ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin H Resident Update - October 2008 Highlands I were built during the 1980's and have more up to date infrastructure and do not require the extensive work needed at Highlands IL 7) Why are you renting to new residents now? ANSWER: The project approval process is delayed and may be delayed up to nine months from when construction was anticipated. There is no need to keep units vacant when construction is not occurring. All new residents are made aware of the project at the time of leasing and have agreed to appropriate lease terms that accommodate the upcoming construction timeline. 0) Is there a waiting list for the three bedroom units? ANSWER: UDR is working to establish a sign-up process for reserving floor pians, and unit preferences and will contact all residents with the information on that process when it is in place. 9) If 1 wantto move out, how many days notice do I need to provide UDR? ANSWER: Residents are required to give UDR a 30 -day notice if they wish to move out without penalty. 10) In Highlands 11, all residents will need to temporarily relocate for construction if they want to rent a renovated apartment and stay due to the extensive construction. When I get a 60 day notice, my options are to a) Qualify and sign a new lease for a renovated apartment or b) Vacate the apartment in 60 days. What if I decide 1 want to move but I move out on day 30 or 31 instead of day 60. Is there a penalty? ANSWER: Residents are required to give us a 30•day notice if they wish to moue out without penalty. You can move out anytime.during the 60 day period without penalty by providing 30 -day notice. 11) When will the storage units in Highlands II be under construction and when will I have to move the contents of my storage unit? ANSWER: We will attempt to phase the construction so every resident has access to a storage unit during their tenancy. We haven't worked through those details of our schedule but will provide exact dates and schedules once the project is approved. 12) What are the construction days and hours? ANSWER: Our contractor will adhere to the City of San Rafael guidelines limiting construction days and hours. 13) If 1 qualify for being considered low income and I want to move from Highlands of Marin now instead of next year, do I get relocation assistance? ANSWER: No. Per the City of San Rafael ordinance, relocation assistance is provided when a landlord provides a low income resident with a 60 -day notice to vacate. This project has not been approved yet by the City of San Rafael. No resident will receive a 60 -day notice on the construction until sometime in 2009. Highlands of Madn Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 7 of 8 f ATTACHMENT C: Highlands of Marin H Resident Update - October 2008 14) Are the new decks going to be bigger? ANSWER: The new decks will be bigger to accommodate the addition of outside storage which will be placed on the side of your deck next to your neighbor providing more privacy. 15) Wherein the apartments will the air conditioning and heating units be placed? ANSWER: The air conditioning and heating unit will be installed in the bedroom closet connected to a control panel in the living room. 16) The landscaping at Highlands of Marin If is dead in areas. Why hasn't this been fixed? ANSWER: Many of the sprinkler systems at Highlands of Marin It need to be completely replaced and this work is part of the renovation project and permits we are seeking from the City of San Rafael. UDR has been repairing sprinklers that can be repaired. However, due to the age of the system, many of the issues can only be fixed with a total overhaul of the system. 17) Who can I talk to if I am dissatisfied with service I received at the leasing office? ANSWER: Please contact UDR District Manager Pam Leeper at (360) 882-2543 18) Who can I talk to regarding Below Market Rent issues? ANSWER: Please contact UDR Regional Director Teresa Barker at (408) 8448925. 19) Who can I talk to about relocation assistance or other questions I have on the construction? project? ANSWER: Please contact Eva Marie DeFlna at (415) 948-9401. Legal Disclaimer: The information in this letter is for informational purposes only, and is merely a statement of Highlands of Madn's plans and intentions regarding this subject matter. Highlands of Marin reserves all rights to make changes to this information at any time for any reason, without obligation or notice to any person or party. Highlands of Marin Resident Update October 10, 2008 Page 8 d 8 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL San Rafael Fire Department Vegetation Management Program SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA DATE: June 3, 2008 TO: Brian Powell & Associates — Landscape Architects 181 Carlos Drive, Suite 101 San Rafael, CA 94903 FROM: Bradley R. Mark, Captain Specialist SUBJECT: Re: Vegetation Management Plan Comments — Highlands of Marin Thank you for your VMP submittal for the above referenced location. By my observation the vegetation at this facility is aged, very combustible and in many locations a threat to the facility. I believe what you have presented will begin to provide the necessary "Fire Defensible Space" for this location. Please note my comments below: 1) You have noted in your summary notes Fire Department Ordinance requirements for vegetation Management, distinguish by summary notes the other work suggested by consultant and or property management/owner that is not Fire Department required. 2) Removal of Pampas Grass from the center "round -about' is not indicated. If the species we talked about are Pampas, they are required to be removed within 100 feet of all structures. 3) NOTE: Although there is work indicated on the VMP that may not be City Ordinance required, any and all reduction of the fuel load at this facility is encouraged to create and maintain a Fire Defensible Space, Bradley R. Mark Vegetation Management Program San Rafael Fire Department Exhibit 10 Mayor Albert J. 8oro ........... .... r . Council Members Greg Brockbank Damon Connolly Barbara Heller Cyr N. Miller Fire Chief October 7, 2008.:. Christopher Gray Peak West Development, LLC Attn: Scott Sherick 5347 South Valentia Way Suite 240 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Re: Vegetation Management Plan -Highland of Marin Dear Scott: Thank you for the submittal of the vegetation management plan (VMP) for the Highland of Marin. I do understand the phasing of vegetation management in conjunction with construction. It appears that the (VMP) once fully implemented will meet the Municipal Ordinance requirements. I understand that without the final permit in hand to begin work you cannot give an exact date of VMP completion. I will set the reinspection date for VMP completion for January 4, 2010. Please remember to keep me informed as to the progress of the VMP project. If for some reason the project does not go forth, the Vegetation Management Plan will need to be fully implemented within a timeframe established by the San Rafael Fire Department. Should you have any questions I can be reached at 415-485-3309. Sincerely, Bradley R. Mark, Captain Specialist Vegetation Management Program San Rafael Fire Department cc: Community Development Fire Department Offices: 1039 C Street, San Rafael, CA 94901 Administration (415) 485-3304 Fax: (415) 453-1627 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING -)SIGN REVIEW BOARD 1 --} You are encouraged to attend the Design Review Board meeting to review the following proposed project: PROJECT: 1050 Cresta Way— Highlands of Marin and Cresta Marin — Environmental and Design Review Permit for exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: 155-251.20, etc.; Planned Development (PD)1547 District; Northbay Properties ll, LP, property owner; Jill D. Williams, Architect, applicant; File No.: ED08-011. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Tuesday, April 22, 2008, 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/designreviewboard. WHAT IS DESIGN REVIEW: A key goal of the City is to insure that excellence of design is achieved with all new development. An Environmental and Design Review Permit is required for new projects and for most exterior changes to buildings. The application is evaluated based on General Plan and Zoning Ordinance design policies and criteria which require projects to harmonize with the natural environment and surrounding area. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: Some applications for Environmental and Design Review Permits are evaluated by the Design Review Board (DRB). The Board has five members appointed by the City Council. Members are architects, urban designers, or landscape architects and they serve without compensation. The Board's evaluation is strictly advisory ON DESIGN ISSUES ONLY— it does not approve or deny permits. Policy and environmental issues should be discussed with staff and/or raised at the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission public hearing. Design Review Permits may be approved by the Planning Division staff, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council depending on the complexity of the project. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TOD) at least 72 hours In advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whist/estop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow Individuals with environmental Illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. Exhibit 11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -QNING ADMINISTRATOR S You are invited to attend the Zoning Administrator hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 1050 Cresta Way— Highlands of Marin and Cresta Marin (Highlands of Marin II) — Environmental and Design Review Permit for exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: 155-251-20,21,24, 25 and 155-280-01 thru 16 and 18; Planned Development (PD)1547 District; Northbay Properties II, LP, property owner; Jill D. Williams, Architect, applicant; File No.; ED08-01.1. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 (existing facilities). If the Zoning Administrator determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 10:00 a.m. Planning Division Library, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The Zoning Administrator will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a. letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all Interested parties will be heard. If you challenge In court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this no0ce, or In written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Appeals of decisions by the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission shall be made by filing a notice thereof in wrong with the required fee to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department within 5 working days of the decision (SRIvC Section 14.28.030). Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours In advance. Copies of documents are available In accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow Individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain fmm wearing scented products. (4) ED08-011 Environmental and Design Review Permit for interior and exterior renovation of apartment building, carports and a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building. 1050 Cresta Drive (Sarjit Dhaliwal) Dhaliwal summarized the staff report and requested the Board's comments and recommendations to the ZA on the design aspects of the project. Jill Williams, architect, explained that they carefully reviewed how to integrate these two complexes. It is important to upgrade, bring in high quality materials and create a new look along with some interior enhancements. They appreciated the staff report and provided an aerial photograph and a few photographs of the existing complexes for the Board's review. They feel the proposal before the Board provides several benefits by providing additional recreation space by moving the leasing office function out of the current building and into the new building. The new building will provide a nice entry sequence. The project would provide new additional storage units onto the decks for the renters. They will replace the shingle sidings and give the complexes a fresh appearance. Chair Huntsberry opened the public hearing on this item. Marine Carlson, Cresta Dr. resident, desired to know a timeline for construction. She is currently a tenant and wanted to know when the building will be evacuated. Gary Polodna, Peak West Development, explained that the plan for the project is to start work on the exteriors of the building as soon as the permit process is completed. The Highlands of Marin II (formerly, Crest Marin) will be renovated by evacuating the entire complex. For the Highlands of Marin I, the work will be done in two phases. They will do the exterior work without moving any residents. The second phase would be interior work for which they will work on the property one building at a time and they will need to relocate some of the tenants at that time. They will make every effort to make other units available to the residents, but there are no guarantees. There being no further public testimony on this item, Chair Huntsberry closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion and action. Summers visited the site and a facelift is in order and it will make the entire complex seem much more cohesive. In regard to the leasing office, he does not believe it will be visible from down below, but the tower height is a concern so the leasing building should be lowered. Crew understands why the shingles must go, but she. always liked that shingle style. The stucco and hardy plank will be much more durable and noted her support. She expressed concern for the roof overhangs and deck coverings. She agreed with Summers that the leasing office does not fit in well with the rest of the project and believed that should be further reviewed to pick up some of the elements in the apartment buildings. EXHIBIT 12 Chair Huntsberry appreciated the color scheme and felt it is a rich palette. He had a concern with the tower at the entrance element and did not see any need for it. If the tower was replaced with a flat roof on that side mirroring the other one would resolve the issue. He further noted that he would support the project without the tower. Chair Huntsberry asked for a motion. Summers moved and Crew seconded, to approve the project as conditioned with -removal of the tower on the leasing building. Crew recommended an amendment to the motion to review that particular design again on consent in regard to the removal of the tower. The Board agreed to Crew's amendment. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Members: Summers, Crew, Chair Huntsberry NOES: Members: None ABSTAIN: Members None ABSENT: Members: Kent, Olmstead r� } 1 � Chair Huntsberry appreciated the color scheme and felt it is a rich palette. He had a concern with the tower at the entrance element and did not see any need for it. If the tower was replaced with a flat roof on that side mirroring the other one would resolve the issue. He further noted that he would support the project without the tower. Chair Huntsberry asked for a motion. Summers moved and Crew seconded, to approve the project as conditioned with -removal of the tower on the leasing building. Crew recommended an amendment to the motion to review that particular design again on consent in regard to the removal of the tower. The Board agreed to Crew's amendment. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Members: Summers, Crew, Chair Huntsberry NOES: Members: None ABSTAIN: Members None ABSENT: Members: Kent, Olmstead 14.16.279 Relocation assistance. A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to mitigate the impact of development projects which displace low-income tenants from their residences by requiring applicants to provide certain limited relocation assistance to such tenants. B. Application. This section shall apply to any development project which will result in displaced persons. This section shall not apply to any development project which is subject to a legal requirement for the provision of relocation assistance under any provision of federal or state law. C. Notice. The owner of the real property subject to the development project shall give any displaced person written notice at least sixty (60) days in advance of the date such displaced person is required to vacate the real property. The notice shall be delivered personally or by first class certified mail. The notice shall specify the date on which the real property is to be vacated, include the following statement and attach a copy of current county median income levels provided by the community development department: The City of San Rafael requires property owners to provide certain assistance to low- income tenants who are forced to move because of development of the property. You are eligible to receive this assistance if you can establish that you or your family qualify under the attached income levels. To qualify for relocation assistance you must write the following statement on a piece of paper and sign it: " I declare under penalty of perjury that my annual income (or that of my family if they reside with me) meets the income limits for a low-income household." You must return this signed statement to the owner no later than two weeks following the date you received this notice. D. Relocation Assistance. The owner shall provide to each displaced person who declares that he or she is a low-income tenant, no later than thirty (30) days prior to the date of such displacement, the following: 1. A referral to the Marin Housing Assist Line to obtain a list of low-income rental housing units available in the area; and 2. The sum equal to two (2) times the current monthly rental of the real property being vacated, payable in cash, provided that the owner is only required to make one such payment for each dwelling unit on the real property. If more than one person or family in a single dwelling unit files a declaration that they are a low-income tenant, the payment shall be prorated based on the number of households. E. Revocation of Permits. Failure to comply with any provision of this section shall be grounds for revocation of any permit or other approval issued by the city in relation to the development project, subject to the procedures established by this code for revocation of the permit or other approval in question. (Ord. 1838 § 37, 2005). EXHIBIT 13 g'I Page IofI Sarjit Dhaliwal From: David Therien [davet42@sonic.net] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:56 AM To: Sarjit Dhaliwal Cc: D. Mcginnis; Tim Dow; Joe Helwee; Paul Cohen; Dave Coury Subject: Relocation Assistance Chronology Attachments: NEW RELO FILE.doc Good Morning Sarjit, We have one document, at this time, for your review and consideration for your staff report tomorrow. The focus here was to document the chronology, substance and status of communications on relocation assistance to tenants. As we have best been able to ascertain, UDR/PW's response to date lacks specific information as requested by the Planning Division's letter of June 18th. Thanks for your good service, David Therien HOMRA Pres. 415-499-3512 Exhibit 14 1/8/2009 Chronology of UDR's Handling of Relocation Assistance Issue na Highlands of Marin II 5/21/08 Mr. Polodna of Peak West told the Zoning Administrator at the public hearing "they would try to accommodate as many tenants as possible by relocating them in different units as the construction progressed... he hoped staff could work with tenants regarding the relocation notice." 5/30/08 Eviction notices delivered to Buildings 1 & 3 (24 Units), including the statement "we will be happy to discuss the possibilities for relocating you to another unit within the property... feel free to contact us with any questions you may have in this regard." Eviction notices referenced the City's relocation assistance ordinance (14.16.279) for low-income tenants forced to move because of the development of the property, yet neglected to attach the referenced h 5/31/08 Leading office 1. Had no copies of the relocation assistance attachment. 2. Had no waiting list, but two separate staff members agreed to start one. 3. Said they had "very few units" available for relocating tenants. 4. Several tenants were told "you probably wouldn't qualify for the new units"... even though they couldn't say what the new rents were going to be. 6/3/08 Appeal stalled issuance of permits. 6/12/08 Three "evicted" tenants meet w/Peak West reps & Lorraine Dahler to discuss their lack of respect and consideration in disrupting people's lives. Peak West promised a relocation assistance plan to the tenants within a few weeks. This never happened. 6/13/08 Letter from UDR rescinding Eviction Notices, citing unspecified delays. 6/15/08 An offer of relocation assistance made to one 3 -year tenant in good standing: You can move to another unrenovated unit in HOM.II, but you must give 30 days notice to quit, requalify @ a 40% increase over his current rent and sign a 6 month lease. When he asked why they were doing this to good tenants, the response was... "it's company policy". 6/18/08 Planning Department issues letter to Peak West requesting — among other things and within two weeks — a written "communication and logistics plan containing detailed information regarding how the tenants would be informed of the renovation and relocation process" and "specific information on temporary relocation including who would pay to pack and move the tenants in and out of their apartments." 7/10/08 Planning Department follow-up letter to Peak West, for their lack of response. Letter reiterates requested information stating "the information... is critical in responding to several of the points/issued cited in the appeal", and that "until the requested information is submitted to the City, we will not be able to schedule the appeal for a Planning Commission hearing." 7/17/08 Peak West letter to Planning Department promising "an updated timeline regarding our delivery of information that the City has requested." Therein Peak West states, "We have agreed to provide a plan detailing phasing, sequencing and scheduling of the renovation, as described in your letter. We are still working on this plan and will provide it to you at least four weeks prior to the Planning Commission hearing..." Peak West goes on to say, With respect to tenant relocations generally, our working assumption is that, with just a few exceptions, we can make a renovated unit available to all tenants." 7/30/08 UDR begins aggressively advertising short-term rents on Craig's List with lowered rents and $199 move -in costs. 8/15/08 UDR hires Repositioning Coordinator who will be able to answer your questions on scheduling, relocation and rental assistance as we move forward." 8/20/08 UDR hosted a "Question and Answer" session for tenants... no formal presentation was made by them. In answer to questions from tenants regarding relocation assistance, the following was offered: If an existing tenant wants to remain in the complex and there is a unit available, tenant will be given one month's free rent (at rate they are now paying) to defray cost of moving. No need to qualify. No Application fees. When a renovated unit is ready, the tenant would need to qualify at the new rate, which has still not been determined. No provision or exception for tenants in good standing. No quarantee you can return to your original unit after renovation. Eva Marie DeFina, the Repositioning Coordinator for UDR, passed out information sheets on the City's Relocation Assistance ordinance with incorrect income levels for determining eligibility (65% of median instead of 80%). 8/31/08 UDR continues aggressively advertising short-term rentals on Craig's List. 9/26/08 Residents' Association proposed to UDR three possible scenarios for relocation of existing tenants, at reasonable expense to UDR for moving costs and inconveniences. 10/13/08 Eight page letter from UDR 1. Working to establish a sign-up process for reserving floor plans and unit preferences. We will contact all residents with the information on that process when it is in place. 2. UDR changes terms of temporary relocation if tenant wants to stay. Now a tenant wanting to stay must first qualify at undisclosed higher rental rate and sign a new lease for a renovated apartment. 3. The cost of the renovated units is addressed by citing local complex's rental rates (easily available on the internet). 4. At the end of the letter is a legal disclaimer which basically says "you can't hold us accountable for anything we've said in this letter." 12/15/08 Repositioning Coordinator was reassigned to another UDR project. 12/27/08 An informal survey by the Residents' Association of vacant available units in HOM II for tenants wishing to stay in the complex reveals 5-7 units currently available. Their initial eviction will displace 8 families; 21 days later. another 16 families. 12/27/09 Leasing Office still does not have an official waiting list for people wanting to relocate temporarily and then occupy newly renovated unit. Said they needed to talk to the Corporate Office and would get back to me. 12/30/08 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2009 , ROLL UNAPPROVED Commissioners Present: Chair Kirchmann, Vice Chair Pick, Colin, Lang, Mills, Paul, Sonnet Commissioners Absent: None Community Development: Bob Brown, Community Development Director Paul Jensen, Planning Manager Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Stephanie Lovette, Housing Specialist Rob Epstein, City Attorney AGENDA CONSENT 1. Minutes, December 9, 2008. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 1050 Cresta Way (includes 1010-1065) Cresta Way; 122-150 Cresta Drive; 1- 6 Cresta Circle) — Highlands of Marin and Cresta Marin Apartments — Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit for exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: 155-251-20, 21, 24, 25 and 155-280-01 thru 16 and 18; Planned Development (PD) 1547 and Multi -Family Residential (MR2.5) District; NorthBay Properties II, LP, property owner; Jill D. Williams, architect, applicant; David Therien and Maurice Burckhardt, appellants, File No.: AP08-004. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ZA action conditionally approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit. City Attorney Epstein made it clear that while they have offered the opinion that the BMR conditions that were originally placed should be removed for the reasons stated, a lack of sufficient nexus with the subject ED permit. Staff did not want that to be Attachment 6 misinterpreted by anyone present tonight that the matter is being dropped off the radar. It is not the appropriate subject of what is before the Commission this evening, namely the appeal of the ED Permit. The City Attorney's office and the Housing Specialist will continue to work with the applicant regarding the appropriate interpretation and the application of that agreement recorded approximately 20 years ago. David Therien, appellant, thanked the Commission for their voluntary service on behalf of the City and citizens of the community. He commended staff for their excellent communication, knowledge and service to this community. He acknowledged and welcomed members of their own association as well as representatives and agents of UDR and NorthBay properties. He clarified that page 6 of the staff report under Item 2 and noted that it is not so and the information was buried in the ZA minutes and only a few residents found the information and residents received only a portion of that Relocation Communications Plan. They received resident notice of open house and resident update portion. The proposed plan has many flaws. There is a history of harmful disregard, broken promises, forsaken responsibilities, violations to decency, unsanitary practice, withheld communications, and neglected rights. He stated that the destruction of the tennis court and surrounding grass area will be loss of a large mixed-use outdoor recreation space not compensated for by the required 200 square feet of useable outdoor area or conversion of existing clubhouse into recreation space. There would be a change to the residential character at the entrance of the property in that an outdoor recreation space would be replaced with a leasing operation. Traffic is already confusing without adding a building upon the proposed rotary. He asked the Commission to consider why the construction of a third leasing office building to the loss of outdoor community space when the existing two leasing offices have been sufficient for 20 years and especially now since both complexes are owned by one owner. He asked if they need 2,700 sq. ft. of leasing office space while taking away outdoor tenant space. He questioned the use of accessory structure in referring to the proposed leasing office building. Ordinance Section 14.16.020 states, `Accessory structure shall not exceed IS feet in height. " Highlands II offers a unique western mission style architecture with exposed beams and columns. The cedar shingle Highlands I building is unique since there is no other building in that area with that exterior. He encouraged the Commission to review as a neighborhood, not an apartment complex. 300 families call this home. He then asked the Commission to consider this ED Permit as Gerstle Park. He added that apartment housing is not exempt from the General Plan Element on "Community Design. " Regarding traffic hazards at the roundabout, he thanked the owners for recognizing the danger of this top of the hill triangular island and limited visibility. He asked the Commission, due to present conditions, the fact that the complex will be at full occupancy at the time of renovation and that Phase 1 calls for construction of a leasing office in properties roadways and walkways that a formal traffic study be required and designed mitigations installed, including a future proposed roundabout prior to any construction related equipment, deliveries and crews arriving at the site. Related to traffic, these conditions are pedestrian hazards and limits to access, there is no sidewalk that continues from the public part of Cresta Drive onto the property. Safe resident access to the leasing office and converted recreation building must be considered. He appreciated the owner's efforts to communicate the logistics plan, but the request to the City in a letter of June 16, 2008 were not adequately supplied by the owners. The City had requested a written communication and logistics plan containing detailed information regarding how tenants would be informed of the renovation and relocation process, which is included as an exhibit in the staff report. The wording implies that if there is not, there should be a defined and specific relocation process on behalf of displaced residents. He is aware of deficiencies in the owners current obligations to the City such as BMR fees. He then asked the Commission to: 1) reconsider approval of the proposed leasing office building as superfluous, and compromising pedestrian and traffic safety; 2) deny proposed exterior treatments to preserve neighborhood identity and character; 3) commission a formal traffic study to include proposed roundabout and that approved mitigations be installed prior to any issuance of any building permits; 4) require a plan for code conformity regarding pedestrian access and circulation on the property; 5) present future approval of conversion and use of existing Highlands II as a mailbox terminal for reasons of public safety and traffic congestion; 6) require owners to prepare and present to City substantive resident Relocation Plan detailing the process, logistics, options and terms of temporary relocation on the property and similar, as renovated units become ready for re -occupancy; 7) require investigation of all fees and reportings and enforce all measures of compliance on the owners past and present obligations to the City; 8) deny the ED Permit unless and until these issues are appropriately examined and addressed to the satisfaction of the City, and 9) should this action be appealed to the City Council that no building permits would issue until the appeal is resolved. He came to this property because of its affordability, unique character, stability of residence and neighborhood and planned to stay for the foreseeable future. He then became a tenants rights activist and did not ask that UDR or its agents be denied rights. He is seeking only what is fair to all. Those who live have built homes and have suffered so much at the hands of this owner reserve the right to preserve this North San Rafael neighborhood and ensure that fairness and justice is served. He then submitted photographs for the Commission's consideration. Gary Playdna, Peak West Development/Project Manager, explained that Highlands of Marin is home to about 800 residents and built in two parts. Highlands Marin I consist of 220 apartments and 20 apartment buildings. Highlands Marin I was built in 1990 and it has been managed by the existing owner since they acquired it in 1998. Highlands Marin II consists of 104 apartment units and 11 buildings. It was built in the late 60s, early 70s and managed by existing owner since they acquired it in 2007. Their plan is to renovate this property over a period of 20 months, several buildings at a time. Phase I of the work consist of improving the common area facilities of their property and proposed starting work as soon as possible after receiving approval. The scope of work consists of constructing a new leasing office of approximately 2,700 sq. ft. near entrance of the property, including business center by use of residents. The new leasing office will allow them to relocate the existing leasing and business functions from Highlands Marin I community. That building will be completely renovated to double the size of the existing fitness center, add resident lounge, gourmet kitchen, and screening room with large format television. The third portion of the common work is renovation of the swimming pool with changing cabana and hot tub. Phase II of the work consists of renovating exteriors of Highlands Marin I property consisting of replacing existing weathered shingle siding, windows and reconstructing the balconies. The plan is to start at entrance of property working toward the back of the property, renovating two buildings at a time. Phase III of the work starts two months into project schedule that consists of interior renovations of Highlands Marin I that included installing new kitchens and bathrooms and installing new central heating and air conditioning. Since they do not have to work on the electrical or plumbing systems at Highlands Marin I, they have no requirements for sequencing the work or grouping those apartments. They will work on a schedule based on apartment vacancies and lease expirations to minimize dislocation of tenants. Phase IV will start three months into project schedule consisting of exterior and interior renovations of Highlands Marin II buildings. The renovations consist of replacing windows, rebuild balconies, new roofs and replacing exterior entrance stairs. Interior_ renovations consist of new kitchens and baths, new central heating and air conditioning and the addition of washers and dryers to individual apartment units. They will need to vacate those buildings to accomplish that and the plan is to start at the entrance to the property and work through vacating one or two buildings at a time. Other improvements include re -landscaping entire property. Replacing all carports at Highlands Marin Il and that would be phased along with the work on the exterior of the buildings. In discussion with the Public Works Department about replacing existing T-shaped intersection at entrance with circular island to improve traffic flow. He farther noted that several persons are present tonight who have worked on this project and are available to answer questions. Chair Kirchmann opened the public comment on this item. Denny McGnnis, Cresta Circle resident, has lived in the area for 20 years, so the prospect of leaving her home is major. In May, the Commission requested from UDR a Relocation Assistance Plan for displaced tenants. It was requested again in June and again in July and it still has not been addressed, except with the vague verbiage such as "we will try to accommodate as many tenants as possible... we hope staff can work with tenants regarding relocation issues, " or "our working assumptions is that with a few exceptions, we should be able to accommodate the existing tenants. She asked what does that mean? Does "trying, hoping, assuming and should be able to " sound like they have put any effort into creating a comprehensive relocation plan for the 104 families they are displacing? They were told, ' feel free to ask questions " and when questions were asked, the standard response is "we do not know yet. " At a Tenant Q &A meeting in August, the Repositioning Coordinator UDR hired and then reassigned handed out incorrect income eligibility numbers for qualifying for relocation assistance. She is requesting the Commission hold UDR accountable to produce comprehensive Relocation Assistance Program in writing with no disclaimer at the bottom that spells out specifics of what will happen and when. She then explained how the Relocation Program would work: 1. Registration Process 2. Who in the leasing office is in charge and can actually answer questions without "checking with the Corporate Office" first. 3. When and in what amount are security deposits going to be refunded? 4. When is the Relocation Assistance payment going to be made? If the same level of detail were forthcoming regarding relocation assistance as has been provided with their construction schedule and logistics, they would be in the position of making "informed decisions" about moving forward. That is clearly not the case. In fact, she called the leasing office on December 27`h to inquire about a waiting list for renovated units and rents on the renovation units and was told "we don't have a formal waiting list yet and we will be able to quote rents after we get our permit approval on January 13`h. " Please do not grant their permit until the requested Relocation Assistance Program has been fulfilled so that everyone involved knows what the rules are and how they will be enforced. Send a clear message that, in San Rafael, they do not get to displace 104 families and at the same time, disregard the request from the Commission. Left to their own devices, UDR has proven time and again, they will not do the right thing. Joanne Syverben, Cresta Drive resident, stated that UDR is incompetent and has not taken care of business. She is aware of five incidences where problems were reported and no help was provided. They cannot be trusted with small items and she does not see any hope. They turned this apartment complex into a pest hole. They are not trustworthy and she did not believe this big project would be any kind of piece of cake. Dave Cory, Affordable Housing Advocate, stated that San Rafael recognizes the need for affordable housing. The term "vacation " is a nice term, which means eviction. The improvements are occasioned by a lot of neglect. There are opportunities for improvements, denial of service, pool closed and tennis court shut down with no adjustment to rents. Question of character is a question in this case. There is a level of trust and ability of the applicant to follow through with particular plans. Specific requirements must be set forth. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider policy questions. As they move forward as a built out town, what are the requirements for major rehabs like this. It is unlikely they will get new developments. and it would behoove this progressive town if similar requirements for major rehabs be instituted that are there for new developments, namely inclusionary housing. This Commission should consider not only for tonight, but also for future purposes. There are some places that would support preservation of affordable housing that would be very useful to consider. He asked that they stop the cleansing of the workforce and losing of diversity of these neighborhoods. This is community preservation and what is occurring is a wholesale eviction of a whole class of people. John Bakhlis, Cresta Drive resident, discussed the tremendous fire in the Oakland Hills and they are living on a hill in a tremendous densely populated situation. He wanted to know what safety measures are in place and available in the case of a major fire. He requests that the Fire Department look into the matter and submit a feasibility or non - feasibility report. Also, a secondary fire escape road for citizens should be explored. Paul Cohen, Executive Director Legal Aid of Marin, agreed with staff that there are a lot of landlord tenant issues at this complex, but the rescinding of the vacation notices makes UDR's application incomplete or void. The ordinance indicates that prior to issuance of the building permit, an escrow account for $100,000 must be established. Tenants required to vacate their apartments shall receive a notice of no less than 60 -days prior to the date that they required and this proof shall be submitted at an appropriate time prior to the issuance of a permit. The vacation notices are essential to granting of their application. Since those vacation notices have been rescinded means their application is incomplete or void. They are talking about a corporate citizenship that is lacking. In fact, it is lacking in how they handled the BMR units with respect to Highlands Marin I where 11 units are subject to disappear. They miscalculated that even if $1 or I% of that Association of Bay Area Governments' loan that they want to prepay is federally based, then Title 49 -Sub Title "A" under Part 24 of the code of federal regulations kick in and they are required to comply with the fact that any federally financially assisted project must be subject to federal relocation benefits. Those 11 units of BMR that are potentially affected by this grant of an application could be entitled to up to 42 months of relocation benefits. That has not been seen in UDR's application because they failed to analyze it. UDR breached their lease. If a tenant were to breach their lease and leave early, UDR would provide demonstration of their effort to re -rent an apartment. hr this case, UDR is in breach and they allowed the place to turn into an area no longer worth what it once was. There is a problem with how UDR does business in the City of San Rafael. Barbara Burman, Highlands Marin tenant, stated that she is on a limited income and her first experience with UDR was when she came home to find her locks were changed without notice and her rent was raised. Then the pool was closed and was informed that they could not fix the pool because the Commission would not allow a permit to fix the pool. There was no notice that the pool would be closed. In terns of vegetation management, there is none. A rotary does not make traffic better, but worse. There is no room for a rotary. She suggested relocating the leasing office where there is parking and maintain the tennis courts. Residents are on limited incomes and must be protected. Marianne Mabin, Cresta Circle resident, stated that the traffic area is extremely dangerous. The configuration must be addressed and encouraged the Commission to visit and understand the blind intersection. It is a very dangerous situation and it must be addressed. Roundabouts do not work. She further requested that there be a formal traffic study in order to avoid the safety hazards. Gene Dougherty, Cresta Marin resident, many issues will be more properly addressed by the City Council, but four key issues are within the Commission's purview that compel the Commission to uphold the appeal as presented as follows: 1) the lack of a Relocation Assistance Plan. It was requested by the Commission that UDR present a comprehensive relocation plan, only a construction schedule announcing when residents will be evicted was provided. 2) City's General Plan to uphold the unique characteristics of the neighborhood. This is not an apartment complex. The General Plan requires that this work retain unique characteristics of San Rafael. That is being ignored. He invited the Commission to visit the site and understand how dangerous the roundabout is, it is a blind hill. 3) Loss of affordable housing. He further requested that the Commission require a formal traffic study. Susan Barnes, UDR Tenant Communication, clarified that Exhibit No. 9 is the communication plan submitted to the City. They went door-to-door over a 4 to 6 week period to provide tenants with two documents. The first is the handout in color that describes the changes being made as well as construction sequence document to give residents a sense of how many months it will take to finish which buildings. They held 12 informal meetings within a 12 -week period. The communication sent out in October provided the outcomes of those meetings and the information staff provided in December. They have been providing as much information as possible as they go through the approval process. Catherine Ross Fairy, Fair Housing Attorney, discussed affordable housing being eliminated, which eliminates diversity from the County and it may impact seniors, people of color, disabled people and families with children that tend to live in affordable housing. By turning affordable housing into housing that is less affordable that has a disproportioned impact on these protected groups and that may be of concern to both the State and fair housing laws. Teresa Barker, VP Pacific Northwest/UDR, stated that the property is in the same condition as when they bought it. They have not raised the rents for Highlands Marin H. They looked at maintenance. Staff members were changed and more staff added. Buildings are old and in need of renovation. As a regional director of UDR and Pacific Northwest, they are doing all they can to take care of the situation, but the renovation of the project must occur. Brad Hodack, Principal, Peak West Development, met with San Rafael Fire Chief and developed a vegetation management plan to address issues fire issues. There is an enormous amount of vegetation that had to be removed due to the new ordinance for fire to help control those issues and that will be completed by the end of the month. The current roundabout is a danger. They will work with the City's Engineering Department to fix the roundabout, which is safety issue. Maxine Carlson, Cresta Way resident, wanted to know what UDR is doing to preserve their neighborhood. Cheryl August, Cresta Way resident, lives in a BMR unit and has enjoyed living at Highlands Marin. She does not want granite countertops. In terms of communication, they were paying for hot water and trash for about $28 and this month her bill increased to $83 without any explanation. She contacted a director to ask who would stay and who would be evicted and was informed that it has to do with the City and a lottery to determine who will remain or who must leave. It has been very disconcerting not to know where one stands. She has received several contradicting communications and has no assurance if she will have a home in November of 2009. Commissioner Pick asked staff what if any requirements are there for disclosure of the terms or at least explanation of any potential impacts are there for abandonment of the tax credit financing that would lead to the reduction of 11 BMR units. What details of that abandonment might impact their decision making. Planning Manager Jensen indicated that 33 of the units in Highlands Marin I are regulated by the City BMR agreement that runs through the year 2030. Housing Specialist Lovette explained that ABAG and Marin Housing Authority issued the tax credit bonds. The State law requires when abandoning federal tax credits, the tenants were required to receive certain notification as with the City and the Department of Housing and Community Development in Sacramento. The first notice was not adequate under State law and UDR has now gone back and issued proper notice. The bonds were refunded by ABAG in a pool transaction and it was a State low income housing tax credit deal, but staff cannot verify if it was a federally tax credit deal. Planning Manager Jensen responded to an earlier comment and pointed out that a condition of approval requires that the requirement be met prior to issuance of a building permit. It is a condition of approval and does not make the action null and void. Nothing is really rescinded or becomes null and void. City Attorney Epstein noted that the notice results from the City's relocation policy. Commissioner Pick asked staff if the relocation notice requirement applies to 104 families. Planning Manager Jensen responded in the affirmative. Chair Kirchmann asked staff if the outdoor useable space requirement satisfied on a parcel -by -parcel basis. Planner Dhaliwal noted yes, complex -by -complex, not parcel -by - parcel. Chair Kircbmann stated that groups of buildings could be sold without selling the rest of the complex. Planning Manager Jensen explained that the Highlands Marin complex built in 1980 is contained on two parcels. For the older complex the City approved a subdivision for the Cresta Marin complex, so each building is contained on an individual lot, but linked entirely by CC&R's, with a condo type of arrangement. If someone were to buy one building in the Old Marin complex on one lot, they are also buying part of the common area that is collectively part of the entire complex. Chair Kirchmann asked staff if it is set up as a planned unit development with common area that is commonly owned or subject to restrictions that would in effect give the right to use outdoor areas on other parcels. Planning Manager Jensen cannot answer in certainty because they do not have the CC&R's. This is a building on a lot that may contain a building that has 6 or 12 units. Commissioner Pick asked staff if there were any conditions from the Fire Marshal. Planning Manager Jensen responded that initially there was a condition requiring the development of a vegetation management plan consistent with the fire hazard issue on this ridge. The property owners have worked with Fire Department on developing that plan. They would not typically require the development of a second egress and ingress since there is not a significant addition to the complex such as adding units. Planner Dhaliwal stated that they do not have separate conditions from the building division. Planning Manager Jensen added that the fire prevention section of the building division looks at fire prevention measures over and above building issues. Commissioner Mills asked staff how much can the City require of a complex in regard to traffic study. Planning Manager Jensen stated a traffic study is required if there is a major change in circulation or additional residential units. The roundabout shown on the plan has been severed from the proposal. There is a condition that clearly notes that, as it was not explained in the application, it does require that if they want to pursue with the roundabout they must request an amendment to the ED Permit and have it reviewed by the Fire Department. Planner Dhaliwal indicated that it must reviewed by Traffic and the engineering divisions as well in order to get sidewalk and landscaping improvements. Commissioner Mills clarified that the concerns discussed tonight about pedestrian safety and traffic will be addressed. Planner Dhaliwal stated that the specifications would be addressed. Planning Manager Jensen noted that it is subject to an amendment of the Design Review Permit on Exhibit No. 3 under Condition No. 1 that requires that the roundabout come back for review. If it does come back it might be appropriate to require adequate review by Fire Department and the City's Traffic Engineer. Planner Dhaliwal explained that it has been severed from the application because there was not any detail of the roundabout design in terms of width, sidewalks and landscaping, so it will be a separate project if they desire to move forward. Commissioner Colin asked staff if the BMR units would be required for a remodel. Planning Manager Jensen stated that General Plan polices are translated into zoning polices. The provisions require that BMR units be provided for new development. If adding units, the City would have an opportunity to review compliance with BMR requirements, but no new units are being added. Commissioner Colin stated the whole point was to have BMR units in this type of complex. Planning Manager Jensen stated that this policy, when initially developed in 1985, always applied to new development projects. Director Brown stated that it specifically applied to new development when land is bought and financing of a project is being arranged. They do not want to discourage maintenance of properties and by adding BMR requirement on maintenance would discourage a great deal of maintenance of buildings in San Rafael, so that has never been a consideration. Commissioner Sonnet asked staff if there are other considerations beyond notice as far as meeting a certain income threshold. Housing Specialist Lovette explained that there were 44 units at the newer complex that had bonds and the bonds require those 44 units to be affordable. In addition, the City had another 33 BMR units, which were City required. They always put the 33 into the 44 since it was the same unit, so 44 total. Because they are paying off State and/or federal bonds, the State of California requires 12 -month notice to the tenants. If people are being evicted, they would get 2 -month relocation payments under City ordinance. However, the people being evicted are not in the units that were covered by the City's BMR agreements because those units were built prior to those requirements. In terms of the BMR units, the 44 units now going down to 33, unless they are being evicted they would not get any consideration. Commissioner Sonnet asked staff if the facility and roads comply today with fire safety or is this a grandfathered situation. Planning Manager Jensen responded that the road is steep and narrow, and whether it complies with current standards staff could not elaborate. The City's Traffic Engineer looked at the road width and steepness as fire prevention staff reviews, and there were no recommendations to make any modifications. Commissioner Colin noted that only parking spaces were discussed and asked staff to discuss traffic movement. Planner Dhaliwal responded that parking spaces are for new leasing office building. None of the other parking spaces are being relocated, they are existing. Commissioner Colin asked staff about the circulation. Planner Dhaliwal responded that the project was a renovation of units and a new office building, so staff is not sure if circulation was reviewed. Commissioner Sonnet noted that the roundabout would only be looked at if the applicant desired to return for improvements. Also, he did not see in the documentation where specific rent was mentioned. He wanted to know as to who qualifies or at what level of income to qualify for the relocation fees. Planner Dhaliwal indicated that City has set standards for income qualifications. Housing Specialist Lovette explained that the City ordinance states that those low income are eligible for that and the zoning code also states that when property owner sends out a notice they must send out the income that meets low income with it and this property owner did not do that the first go around. The requirement is low income, which is at or below 80% of median. Commissioner Mills asked staff if a complete eviction notice was finally sent. Planning Manager Jensen responded that they have been completely rescinded. Staff directed the applicant that no notices be sent until they progress through this process. Commissioner Mills asked staff if a Relocation Assistance Plan was submitted. Planner Dhaliwal responded that the matter becomes very complicated. It is difficult to get a handle on that. When the applicant explained that they would be doing renovations on one or two buildings at a time. Those buildings will have to be vacated and then the following two buildings will be vacated. Possibly residents from the next two buildings may be able to relocated in the previous two buildings that have been completed. They cannot expect a _ hard and fast Relocation Assistance Plan. Commissioner Mills stated that Condition No. 16 requires UDR to have a Relocation Consultant work on the Relocation Assistance Plan, and if that is correct, then that must be developed earlier on, which is not included in the resolution. Planner Dhaliwal noted that it requires a relocation consultant to work on the Relocation Assistance Program. Commissioner Mills asked staff if the City recognized this complex as a unique neighborhood or as a complex. Planning Manager Jensen stated that it is part of the Smith Ranch Neighborhood, so it is part of a neighborhood. Commissioner Mills asked staff if the General Plan applies to this complex. Planning Manager Jensen stated of course it would in terms of reviewing consistency of polices. Each project is reviewed individually. Making the two projects similar also creates more similarity in the neighborhood. Commissioner Sonnet stated that part of the confusion maybe that residents have hope that the Relocation Plan will do more than the applicant is intending it to do. Ms. Barnes explained that they provided construction sequences. They will only do a couple buildings at one time. They are talking about Buildings No. 1 and No. 3. They will provide 60 -days notice to those residents. Their intent is to retain residents who would like to stay and rent a new apartment. They stopped leasing units about six months ago and with 300 apartments people come and go. When approved, they will look at the entire site and when they know apartments will be vacated they will stop renting those apartments and keep them vacant. If folks in Buildings No. 1 and No. 3 want to stay then they are relocated to those units during the construction time. They offered residents the desire to stay and will provide one-month free rent to pay for moving cost. For residents who chose not to stay and are low income they will abide by the City's ordinance and provide 2 -months relocation assistance, if they qualify. Their relocation plan is to look at the site once approved because they cannot, until it is approved. They had to maintain the property and continue to rent. They have plenty of vacancies to relocate people when only renovating a couple of buildings at one time. Commissioner Sonnet asked when would they know the amount of rent, and qualifying thresholds. Ms. Barnes stated that rents are comparable rents with properties surrounding the project. They have not set rents. They are set at market rate. When approved they look at market and send notices out. Construction schedules cannot be set until the project is approved. When approved they will review market rates, peg rents and inform their residents. Commissioner Sonnet asked if there is a financial formula. Ms. Barnes stated that the Q & A was sent out that discussed the range back in October. They have several types of products. Chair Kirchmann asked if one makes 81 % of median income would they qualify under that system. Ms. Barker responded that tenant selection criteria is consistent and does not change. It is 2.8 times on a monthly basis. They contract with a company to pull credit reports and look at credit history and it comes back as accept or deny. For an existing resident, they will go through that tenant selection criteria and then determine if it is accepted or denied and all will be treated the same. She does not know if 81 % would qualify because the rents have not been set yet. Chair Kirchmann stated that the first comment was about whether accessory structures can exceed 15 feet in height and wondered how that applies. Planner Dhaliwal indicated that it is accessory to the use of the property. Planning Manager Jensen clarified that the 15 -foot height limit for accessory structure of the ordinance applies to accessory structures on single-family lots, such as detached garage or shed. Chair Kirchmann asked staff if proposed construction invoked those requirements. Planning Manger Jensen unless over 5,000 sq. ft. Chair Kirchmann asked staff if they have a City regulation requiring Relocation Program explaining under what circumstances tenants will be moved around. Planning Manager Jensen responded that they do not. Chair Kirchmann asked staff if this renovation requires any sort of sustainability requirements. Director Brown stated that the ordinance applies only to new construction. Chair Kirchmann asked staff if the City has authority to stop processing applications since the applicant is in violation. Attorney Epstein stated that there is some $26,000 currently owed. Also, the communication with the applicant on that issue, so if there is a clear statement that $26,000 is owed and has not been paid, the demand has been made, and either ignored or refused, then the answer would be "yes. " Housing Specialist Lovette explained that the BMR agreement was on the property and staff did not receive any reports on the property starting from 2000 to 2006. In 2006, staff realized there were bonds on it and that there was a bond trustee through ABAG and staff did start to receive reports. Staff also required $3,300 per year for monitoring to review those reports and that has not been received. They have two letters in the report requesting $3,300. A bill for $26,000 has not been mailed. They did not receive any certifications either. Chair Kirchmann pointed out that they are in violation of the BMR agreement. City Attorney Epstein informed the Commission that the applicant's attorney indicated that he believes the point would be mooted by language in the agreement concerning bond requirements. Staff needs more time to review. If there is a basis for foreclosed processing subject to payment owed to the City, they will be pursuing that remedy. Staff is not in a position to move farther tonight. Chair Kirchmann asked about proposed Condition No. 55 on page 15 of Exhibit 3 that condition must be fine-tuned for a situation such as this. Final inspection should be tied to completion of each building. Also, proposed exterior renovations may take place without any break in occupancy, so different triggers for final inspection Commissioner Pick stated that building code requires each individual building to have each own building permit, so that would happen on a building -to -building basis. There being no farther public testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Pick stated that they cannot prevent a private property owner from upgrading or modernizing its property. Process of gentrification and adjustment of rents are always disruptive to a community. They cannot prevent an owner from taking a property out of an affordable financing program and releasing their obligation. They can direct staff, as they process the application, to suggest or require further study of the issue of fire safety at that site and communication with tenant population. They can direct staff to take a hard look at the roadway improvements and site improvements for vehicular and pedestrian safety. They are looking for modernization of the circulation patterns on this property. This is a substantial rehabilitation and addition of an accessory use. They can suggest best practice management. In terms of Relocation Plan, the details must be met. All want to plan their lives and if they will have opportunity to meet the requirements. He further noted that this is a construction project before the planning Commission. Commissioner Paul pointed out that the accessory use does not increase traffic. It is nice that the applicant decided to maintain and upgrade buildings, but that will come at a cost and it will involve increased rents. BMR units are protected, but if the bond is paid off they will lose some units. The housing market is not that good. Some of the tenants will stay and some will go. It is hard with relocation because sometimes people just want to move away. He finds the architectural improvements to the buildings quite nice. It will be a much better project when completed. These are very affordable units since it is an older project. They should encourage maintenance of these buildings and the cost has to pass on somehow to the owner or rental. He supported the project. Commissioner Mills felt the major problem with the Relocation Plan and wanted the consultant present. There is a lack of trust between residents and owners. Clearly that is a situation where a third party is needed. She wanted to know when that consultant would be hired in order to inform residents what is occurring and to make decisions. This is a large maintenance project and many lives will be impacted. She wanted to direct staff to require further study of the fire safety since it is such a concern of residents as well as look at road and safety. She further suggested best management practices and with those stipulations, she could approve the project as well. Commissioner Lang sees no factual basis for upholding this appeal. There are no grounds. The basis for stopping the project processing would be a violation of BMR or any other requirement. It is important that they get to the bottom of the BMR issue and make sure they are in compliance. That issue aside, focusing on the project, although there is no basis for upholding the appeal, she had not reviewed the Relocation Plan. She was very surprised with the ambiguities and expectations it creates and room for improvement. She has a number of fairly lengthy suggestions for conditions. One of the problems with the ordinance is that it allows for self -certification and includes a declaration of penalty of perjury of five years. More explanation is needed about what that means and what a perspective claimant is doing when the form is filled out. A draft or sample declaration that includes a reference to penal code for perjury is important. Also, they might piggyback off other programs that are income based. She then focused on the tenant, the ordinance is not clear about who is the tenant, so that must be distinguished to focus on tenant of record. There is an odd requirement that amounts be paid in cash 30 -days before the end of the tenancy and believed there should be some opportunities for offsetting and there may be obligations as well. She further agreed to submit language to staff outlining her comments. Commissioner Sonnet stated that they have an obligation to review the fire safety issues even though it is not new construction. Based on testimony, he could not state for sure that the City's Traffic Engineer was considering the egress to preserve maximum life. It must be analyzed in more detail. Condition No. 15 suggestions are good and part of the Relocation Plan should include publishing rents, rights of tenants and potential payments, so it is specifically part of the plan. Commissioner Colin appreciated all the testimony heard tonight. They recognize a large population of renters in San Rafael and a lot of General Plan policies applied to this population. It is unfortunate that all unclear communication created such problems. Hopefully UDR is on a better foot with more open communications. Hardest part is that rents will increase and tenants will have to move and she is saddened that the diversity in this neighborhood will change. For the project before the Commission, they cannot make decisions on losing diversity. They meet the requirements and it is a major renovation project. She has concerns about circulation and agreed that along with fire safety should be reviewed in more detail. Design is in the eye of the beholder. DRB liked it and had very little discussion, and it looked good to her as well. Chair Kirchmann stated aside from making sense of locating the leasing building in the middle of the tennis court, there is adequate useable outdoor space. He has no objection to the design of the proposed leasing building and no objection to the exterior renovations. He disagreed on fire safety being prompted by this application. Fire codes are enforced separately and independently of this application. With circulation, the problems faced currently exist and no additional traffic is being generated. He does not see the nexus between this application and re-examining circulation, fire access or fire safety. They are important and mandated by codes. They face tougher policy questions, but agreed under current regulatory structure, the relocation assistance ordinance provides help that does not exist in other communities. He is prepared to deny the appeal. Commissioner Pick is satisfied with the record that has been developed in regard to the roadway, circulation and fire safety. The conditions of approval included provide for appropriate level of review. Chair Kirchmann asked for a motion. Commissioner Lang moved and Commissioner Paul seconded, to deny the appeal and make revisions to Condition No. 15 to clarify the workings of the ordinance for the Relocation Assistance. Chair Kirchmann noted there is a suggested change to Condition No. 16 that requirement can be satisfied through relocation firm and consultant approves scope of work. Also, modify Condition No. 55 to trigger final inspection requirements on buildings. Commissioner Lang accepted the revisions to Condition. No. 55. With Condition No. 16, she is not sure how it occurs in terms of supervision. Planner Dhaliwal stated the consultant could enforce or create a Relocation Plan and deal with payment of money. Commissioner Lang stated that the open-ended suggestion that some outside party will resolve issues is not feasible. Commissioner Mills felt a consultant would be a third party due to lack of trust between tenants and the property owner. Commissioner Lang believed they have no basis for such requirement. Commissioner Paul suggested leaving Condition No. 16 as written. Commissioner Lang objected to a professional relocation firm. Commissioner Mills felt it is important to have a third party. Chair Kircbmann stated that the property owner is required to comply with local and State requirements. Planning Manager Jensen agreed that it can be done by the property owner or a third party. Commissioner Mills stated that if a third party is not required, then oversight is needed. Commissioner Paul stated that any conditions require the owner to comply and if there is mistrust and the owner is not compliant, then the permits will not be signed off. Commissioner Lang amended the motion by deleting Condition No. 16 entirely, amending Condition No. 15 and accepting the Chair's modifications to Condition No 55. Chair Kirchmann seconded the amended motion. Commissioner Colin pointed out a typo in Condition No. 41. In terms of circulation, she believed the property owner would eventually end up modifying and applying for the environmental permits. Commissioner Sonnet pointed out that one issue was confusion in communication, so this whole process has solved that portion of it at least due to the residents' efforts. Commissioner Mills desired Condition No. 16 to remain. Chair Kirchmann explained that if the owner of the property is not motivated to communicate well with tenants that matter is settled in the market place. Ordinances and conditions must be complied with and extra vigilance by staff is appropriate: Motion carried 6-1. Mills opposed. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners Lang, Chair Kirchmann, Colin, Paul, Pick, Sonnet Mills None None Chair Kirchmann believed it would make sense to bring back the detailed language changes discussed with regard to Condition No. 55 and Condition No. 15. Commissioner Lang agreed to provide her comments to staff for further review. City Attorney Epstein stated that the action just taken by the Commission would be brought back by way of a formal resolution and presented to the Commission for further consideration at the next meeting. The appeal will not triggered until the item is brought back. Planning Manager Jensen explained that the intent is to seek action on the resolution with the amendments. Chair Kirchmann explained that the entire action is deferred until the next meeting and an appeal cannot be filed until formal action is taken on the resolution at the next meeting. City Attorney Epstein noted that it could be placed on the consent agenda at the next meeting. Planning Manager Jensen discussed his interpretation in terms of what just occurred. It is not unusual where the Commission has taken action with a number of edits with a second action. When this returns, the hearing is not opened, it is just to review to confirm that it addressed changes requested and take action on that. The appeal period does not start until that formal action on that resolution has occurred. Information on the resolution might be modified at the next meeting. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL _ u You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 1050 Cresta Way (includes 1010-1065 Cresta Way; 122-150 Cresta Drive; 1-6 Cresta Circle) — Highlands of Marin and Crest Marin Apartments —Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator approval of an Environmental and Design Review Permit for exterior renovation of apartment buildings, carports, a recreation building and replacement of an existing tennis court with a new 2,785 sq. ft. leasing office building; APN: 155-251-20,21,24, 25 AND 155-280-01 thru 16 and 18; Planned Development (PD)1547 and Multi -family Residential (MR2.5) District; Northbay Properties II, LP, property owner; Jill D. Williams, Architect, applicant; David Thenen, Denny McGinnis and Eugene Dougherty, appellants; Case Number: AP08-004. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staff recommends that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section15303 (New Construction). If the Planning Commission determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, March 2, 2009, 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www. cityofsa n rafael. org/Govemm ent/City_Clerk/City_Counci l_Redeve lopment_Agency_Agendas. htm. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all Interested parties will be heard. if you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be fled with the Court not later than the 90'h day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.61 Sign Language and Interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (4 15) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit Is available by calling Whlstlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. Attachment 7 Contol Map -Highlands of Marin N SCALE 1 :12,518 p\� 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 _ 3,000 / FEET (//` Thursday, February 12, 2009 7:47 AM M M M M 0 0 0 O M O � M M M M MLO M LO M tO O M O O M M M M M M OO N OO(O CD OO M000 7 0 0 000 V 000 (O N (D OO (0000000 m d) a1 O) CO LO In co to M M W d) m 0 O) O) O d) d) W W O) fA d) M O CO rO 0) o d) O) O d) N W O) N 0) N N O a 000 0) 0) W rn w 000 0) N H w U U U< Q U U U Q <00 Q U U U U U U U U UU U U U Q U Q U U U U U U U O O O O U U U U J J J J J J J J J J— J — J J J J J J J J J J [u- LU <<<<< az¢° 0 LL z a<<<<<<< ��LL ��LL ��°rP-99a99a990 LL LL >-Zzzzozzzoozzoz>ZZZzz>zzzzDozozzzzzzz Uc¢n�v¢ivaivvivaioi�uviaivaicQnuviu¢zzuaivaivaivaivazzu¢icQi�v¢iu¢i�aiu¢ivvivaivaiu¢iv¢iv¢ivaivai J J J J Q Q Q Q K Y K No LO J ❑ ❑00 O O M❑❑❑❑❑ 0LL 00 ❑❑❑OW SKF-WZ� Z Z ❑wwwwd' wm _ ❑ >- V)}- >}}}}} >- Ft wOLU WWLU OJa W OJo O O mJ JI Jf JJ JF- 0 J JOO❑J J J J� J J (O J J J J J F J (� ❑— J [O Z J J J J>- <<< >_>d� ❑ rn°D00❑")O>>>>>F-->w❑p❑rn>❑- >>>>> (n❑u) LUOU WW wvv-w->o'' W' W' W' d'ZD_'Y❑mZvO_' W LO- d'Kd'd' W �wp�wZU0 ZOOOZOZ W W W W W 0_' W Q�Q0OW ZOJ W W W W W �Z❑ ❑�I-m ❑mo]mz)m�❑❑❑❑❑w❑MZ2o_'m❑nmw❑❑❑❑❑ ❑ N 0 0 Lf) w o LO O 0) n M (0 O LO O r- 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ f O F- 0) W W O W O O O W O n cr V V d'M V MNmMM O0) W ONOOOOO Q Lo M co W'O �.« aaa a r�r, r- r -r 0 r' -to NRMd'n. Vt NN -It V d' 0 w U U U ry Q w = z o a- a O a J = a zz o� �o CL o Q wWoa� wow 06 --a <F- CC ut,�o apwzWw�a� LLI W0Za. d}LL�a' Jk_-F-dF-�OZod'w z0 <Jd LLL Z0 ( WCC) =M wwc) Ow0 QIQ-�FQ-ZO0�W U)-Jww�>FU W OZT9� Jozw 0zqF-Qr wQ wr�UQ}Q¢zaw-JWLLWZMO <3:0 <22�:-05 ca LL w LL U) W' F 11. Co LL W M ED Z U O S O¢ m 0 Of O W Q❑� w W Q Z W= O Y 2 w W U W Q2 W O�F-ZZwH ti Uw(1) ZJd(��'Q�2-Yf- U��❑Y❑ Z9U)0-( OZ(¢Uu OZ22UzUUOU?K22m9(Qi�wm�zUUm(nuQi;�o. r M d' N V' d* 0 M M M M O M M M CO O] O r 7 LO LO M LO N M M 0 M � <f N d' O t- ❑ N CO <h N M V M N O O e- N — N N N 1`7 N ll�, N M O O M N 7, O O ? V 0 0 0 0 O O LO N N N N LO rO In N N N N N M N N N N rI -T Ln Ln Ln LO rO 4) N r� C) r- M LO- � m m �. r` m m r a N � 'cY V N N N N N N N N N N d' d- q' V '1 '1 N d' N N N N N V N N M M M M M co O 1f) Lo 6 LO L6 A L() L(7 Lf) L6 L(7 L() L() IIJ LI') to lf) Lf) II) to t!') l(7 l() to LC) L(') N L6 6 L6 L() L(7 Ln N LO Lo to LO LO m N Lo LO 10 N N LO LO N Lo Lo N UO N Lo M Lo U) Lo LO Lo N Lo Ln LO M LO � N a te— r r r r r r= r r r r r r r= r r f r r= r r r r r r r r r r r MCD M no 7 m M M M no no M M m ('M M M M M LO M M O M M N M M M m M no M O r O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O d' O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O m 0 0 0 W W m m 0 0 0 W O O) O MO 6) O m O m O W O W O W W O O W 7 O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 0 W J D J J J W J =� J J J J J J J J J J J a J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W U W W W W U W W w w W w w w W W W> W W W W WW W W W W W W W W QQ LZZ qQ qQ qQ �a qQ LQZC QQ QQ QQ qQ qQ qQ QQ QQ qQ QQ qQ QQ QQ qQ qQ ❑ <<O<<<<<<<< Q❑QQQQQQQQ IL LL LL LC. lL W LL LL LL L.0 LL lL lL LL l.0 l.L LL LL LL !L l.0 LC LL ¢ O LL LC. J LL lC LG lC LL LL L.L LL ZZzzzwzzzzzzzzzzzzz>-ZzzzyJzzxzzzzzzzz <<<<ivaquait¢nc¢QiuQivaivaitgaiu¢i< Oyu¢ic¢i�<<<<naQnaiaiaicaai<< LL V M M m 0 r My- M2 - Uu.Y U� H ❑w n. 2 M �} 4 Z d d M N. r r d in M d' W M d Z (n M i 7 Q Q i . Q i > 0 i Q D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O O 000<x ❑ ❑ O ❑ O O O O O K KO'Kd'd'd' W'�d'Kd' W XXX W KK d'K4'd'd'd'R' W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Z U)Q W W W W W W W W W w w J J(n J J J J J J J J J U J (n J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J S J J Q J J J J J J J iZ>QQ<>o>»»>»»> Wli>i(DZZiio>>>>>>>Q aa'f ¢'w'KKCCQ'2'w'd'd'd'Nd'a'd'U)7E jxOfxd'2'K'w' - wUWflzwQwwwwwwwwwWwxWWWQ��wWpwWWwWWW� wo,wwwpwgwwwwwwwwwwwpwwwJQQwpww wWwwwww ❑ m ❑ V UmM ❑O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑❑❑❑❑❑ U O N O N O O O O O O O ,tt - ,t LO (Of) M V N dT V V 7 It It V' N N N V d d0' V� N W N 7 7 N N N 7 7 V V Vt 0 a a 06 0 t ��W C) a �a a ofa �W J U)�wa oato°Ca��ZCa�aK aa�C WF -m'° 2w O W W�gtxsoYJa"Crn❑z�Qh-yin Cwwz�i-`nQ�ZwC2 QtmQ=OJU' ❑��=❑UO-QwmwJ WJKW W 2a❑jHt�(_nwJ�w=WSCO I-2U_UI �O0'w_QQQ WO❑OQHJ(DJ��p ZaWFJ Q Oo❑2(7 Ur WZ�5 Q<DW WLLwwz��Q J�OZJz�g�O❑ZZ�d' W(n d' W Wp W d'F Qj W -jaY❑Ow2> < W H❑FI--Z-O❑00NOH cn W g(n CMZ❑ WDUQ❑QQ¢QwJOaw?OwZ) OQQQw0a0OQw0WF--O(DFaZU)MU) Of-jr _3wQOwpO 2Y la a: ti,(nC79YF2U)2,�OO:O co❑wSfn�LLd(ndaxM�Ur O M m O r V) r7' M N M�- M O 0 I- O M M N O r (O 0 0 0 M N M M M O O d' r 0 0 0 N N N N N N O M M M V 7 V' M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M V 1n to M (f) (!) (n (f) in N V) LO Uj N If) (n (() 4') UF) (n Ln M to In LO to (() (n (n LO N In LO LO (n (n M LO tl7 YJ M N tIJ (n � t(7 to � to � N M to to to tf) rfJ � M LO to N � � (!J 1n � to M (n Ln M N to to O O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) O) O) O) O) W O O) W O) d) O O) O W D) O O) O) W O) O) O D) O a1 O O) d) O) W D) 0) O) O) O O)It 'Ir It H z J J J J ._I J x J J J J W W W W W WC/) W W W W LLLLLLLLLL LLQ¢LLLLLLLL@�@�� mM@wMcacacamwLL cu w m m w m�� z z z z z Z Z z z z m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m la (n (n u¢i < (¢n 0 � of (n (n (¢ (n f0 (n (n (n (7 (n (0 fn fn 0 fn f7 (n (n (n (n fn [n (n (n (n (n (n (n (0 7 r r M O U) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) O Mc1' W #r a0 c0 ik it (0 ik Orr O a Nrn O a a a a C14N ¢ o LO N yk r m m m m m 0 00 0 0 0 ¢¢¢¢¢¢Z¢¢¢c0> 3xt�tpQ m m mea m m m»>�a> 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 F-1-HHI-HC7 I-I-I-rn aUU rn rn rn N v�>> m aaaaaaaa U) (n (0 (0 CO (0 Q' CO CO (0 N N rn N a) N w LU W L U W W— W W W x m� � :° d r n a) a) a) N a) 0�� ol� K w Of K U U U U U U o U U U m o z o U (jL� o o m o 0 o U o z z z z z z z z 000000 000 LO)�CiU N o 0000000 LO LO 1000 Nu (i00 (i00 (D (0(100 m LO cLO o LO O L0 U) U) U) r t0 U) N n. N r M N r U) r r r r r U) U) N N N r N r r r r r r r r 5 O a) rn E Y _ O a) y CL x p0 T U 2 J d 06 W O T 0 06 06�m(n� o m a o gra 05 0 Z w WWwW� om��m� �am� maca w() X03 ,m� >- m .6 > O V Z) w '� d 0 m o 0 m 0 (o LL ¢ a m J¢ m a) W w x W>¢¢ g m U m 55 m o m 2 o d c c ami =U J��=�wZ�w .6u) o_O�U� C c� cLi? 3 W> 3 o Ev �Z�=m0� W Lu aoa°U°�,' 0 0 m m a`ni aNi��zY cF aoi�mx u-mdYU J LL j of � � Q Q� h K O� U N (0 u- 3 C: (D .L_. w L N 0 0 0 a) E Y m C m` _ww�c) J¢¢O main aa�-a¢¢ E E o `m onto v m O 2OJ 22a l ('D n>�w¢(n 2¢¢ ¢z W J 000020 LL¢ N0 a W J m 22 rC U) W M M 7 U) I N OO N U) r O O N U) M M m t0 M M U) U) M L0 M N M M M M M N M r O r O O O O O O r W r O r N N N N N N N N W T W N W O O O O O O O O O O r 0 r O O r r ti Cn�mmo�NNm(n(n (n(n(n(�CnCnn��C.�NNN N N N N N V' N N N N N V' d' N N N N N N N N N N N N N L() m U) m 0 0 M LO M 0 m In LO M m m LO In U) U) 0 In LO 0 LO 0 LO m M LO LO M m U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) N U) U) t0 N U) U) U) t0 U) U) U) L0 U) t0 U) L0 U) l0 U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W tT 41 d) W a) O a1 Q1 D) m W O D) O W D) d) d) W O O Q1 d1 W W W O O) O m d) O O) OJ O d> V d' O d) W O) d) m O a1 O) a) m W O CA O W W CA O W W O D1 O a) W W a1 d) O m W O d) d) d) O) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J J J J J J J —I J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W mZ Z Z 5 Z a a) a a) d d _Q3 ¢Q QQ Q Q Q QQ Q QQ QQ QQ Q a QQ Q ¢Q Q a a a QQ m @www :a mw as co m m:' m m m as m m as m m m m m m m m m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm¢Q¢QQCQ¢¢Q¢Q¢¢¢¢¢Q¢¢ N O O N O r 04 N m WOr� N M ��iC4 04 Cq Nt F - I- FHF- F- -F-F- F-hI-HHHI-'I- � � � �� amaaaaaaaaaaaaa.aaaa a Qa Q a a a Qa Q a aQ Q Qaa aQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c ca v v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> L m yK��QQQQQQQQQQQQQI-- F- K K 0- U EU Y W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z a) U O D U U O co U) U) %% x x Of ly of x x Of � x ft x x Of w x of x af (NO ComN (00 co (m00U M O N r 000) O) 00U UU UUUUUUUU L) C) UUUUU 0 r r r 0 0 0 r M 0 0 N 0 CO N CO N CO 0 0 (0 N N N m m U0 d' N r C N m O C rn O a0 E O w.@ C N U ca U N C a) Co rn m 0— (0 j' U O C U) w .0. (a E ow 0 a) (n m O U' 0 -=O a) y U Q d Q U LL 3 o E0 Qao0 L.w o N rn(3 Q�is am�>oa>EQa '0 0 m >:.0 = a) a) -Q' 0 0 0 U o Z-0- D>LL a) j 0 0 E 0 LL a x. 0 a) y.2 0 aa))0 LL a) ��a)OQLLL a`))a, E m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mm cL o c rnd a) 0)0U OU0� o�_ M O L ca m L 2) N O Lo O W fO la U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Om ��U w�(�F-oYrr00000000000000000000000 M M N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O N N I� N r x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C` N N N m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to In In to M 0 6 US m Un to Un Un Un Un Uo Un Un Uo Un Uo Un Un to to N Uo m to to Lo Un N Un Lo to N m N m N m N m m m N m m m m m m m m N m m m N N m m m m m m m m M m N m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T (S) O T m O W m tT O O m O O m O m O O O tT O O O O tT tT O m W O] O W tT tT tT O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LLL LLL LL LL LL LLL ILL LL LL LL LL LLL LL LL LLL LL LL LL LLL.. LL LL LL LL LLL ILL LLL LL LL LLL LLL LLL LL LL LL LLL LLL U- Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< N M It N CO W r r r F- aaaaaaaa O_—N_ — r � Ln—r V Ln CO I� ap O � N M 7 Ln 0 h W � .-- r N M 7 N CO m F- F- F- F- F- F- F- I- F- I- F- F- F- I- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m (L 0. m 0- 0- CL Q- m a- m a- W Lu W W W Lu W W Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q¢¢ Q Q¢ Q¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ Q Q Q¢ J J J J J J J J QQQQLQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q L Q Q Q Q L Q L Q Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q w K R w K K F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- W W w W W W W W W W w U U w U U U U U (n U U U U U w U U w w U U U U w U W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W w W w W w W W W W W W W W W W d'Q'd'Q'<L'd'd'd'CCd'd'd'd'Q'd'2'd'Q'd'd'[if d'd'd' W'd' W'Q' CL'o0oo0000 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U LO N U) M LO Ln U) N Ln Lo 0 LO M m V d' It 'd' 'I I d' d' V M m M M M M M M M M M. M M M M N N N N N N N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n a n n a n a a a a a a n a a a a a a a n a n a a a a n n n a n na a a n U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U V U U U U U U U U U U U U U N NN N N N d' It It Iv<t 7 d' r Ln Ln Ln 0 M Ln MM OOO 0000000000 OOOO 00000000 o 000 C0 0] W cO W CU CO W O O W O W W W W W W W W W W W W O W W W W O W W W W O W O LO 0 LD LO CO CD W W N CO W W W W CO CO W 10 CO CD W W W C0 CD W CO CJ 00 N CO W CO N Ln N LU N Ln Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LO in Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln in Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln -Ln Ln N In In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ul in Ln N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LO Ln Ln 0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LO Ln Ln Ln I I I r r. r r r r r r r. r r r= I r c I r= r r r r r I r r= r r r T M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U V 0 U U 00 V 0 0 0 0 U V U V O 0 U U O D U J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W w W W w W w w W W W w w W W W W w w w W W W W W W W w w w w W w w W w w L¢L LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LL.LLLLL¢LLLL¢LL¢LL¢LL¢L. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLLL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z r • �- � N N (V (V LV (V N M M M M M CJ M V � cD h W N M V' N r r r r r r r r F F F F F F F F F F- F F F F- F- F F F F F F- F F F F F- F- F F F- F F F F F F F aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J) JJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J »»»»»»>>>>i»>>>>>>>%iii»»»> W W w W W W W W W W w W w W w w w W w W W w w W W w w w W W w W w w w w W W w W w W w w w w W W W W w W W W w w w W W w W w W W W W W W W W W w w W 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In Lo LO In 0 Lo 00 N 0 LO LO Lo Ln 0 LO 00m In to N LO Lo 0 M Lo Lo LO LO M LO m LO 00 C C C G G C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n a a a a a a n a n a a a a n n a a n a n a a a a a a a n a a a a a a a a v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 LO U� 0 LO LO 0 LO In LO 0 0 LO M In m 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO LO 0 to LO LO n LO LO 0 LO 0 m M LO MW W 00 00 00 ao w oo ao m m co d ao Op C? C? m o? op oo co ao ao Op co op t Ln op op OD cO W 0000 m L J m OM LO M N OOLOMOMMMMM LO N N O N Lo Lo N m Lo to M Lro M LO M M LO LO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LO LO LO LO LO Lo LO N LO LO LO Ln LO LO Ln Ln Lo Lo Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Lo Ln Lo Lo Ln In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 6 to Ln 6 6 In 6 Ln LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO Lo LO LO LO LO LO Lo LO LO LO r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa J _1 J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ..J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W W W W W W W W LLLL LL LL LLL Lal. LL LL LL LLL LL LL LLL LLLL LLL LLLLLL LLL LLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLL LL LLL LL LLL LL LL LLL LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z <C < < < < < N < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < W N < < < < < < < A N N (V N N N M M M M M M r N M 7 LO 0 n r N M V 0 0 n r N M 7 r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F= F- F- F- F- F- F-- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< -aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO LO tMO m LOO Lo L06 40J 0 LO LO N N N LOO N M LOO LOO Lo M LOO LOO LOU LO LO l00 l00 N t00 t00 M N LOO m LOO C C G G C C C C C C G C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C G G C C G C C C C C G N @ (6 N W (4 QS (6 (6 (6 f6 t6 N N N L6 N (0 (6 (II (0 (6 (6 N N @ N (6 N (6 t6 L4 N (0 (0 L6 N o. n n n n a n n n n n n. n. a o. a a a n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n a a n U U U U U U U U U U U U V U U U U U U U U U V U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U V U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 to LI') to 0 0 0 LU LO LO M Lo 0 LU N Lo 0 N 0 LO 0 LO LO LoN 0 LU 0 0 M LO LO LO 'LO LO 0 LO LO W W W W W aD W W F a0 W� W W o0 a0 W W W W W c0 a0 � a0 a0 W W W W W a0 QO o0 W W W r L{i IO LO In Ln LI') LO N I.n N Ln LO Ln LO LO LO LI') In lO Lo LO LO N LO LO N LO Ln Ln to LO to Lo L(1 Ln Ln Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Lo to to Lo Ln Lo LI) Lo Ln Ln Lo Lo Ln Li) Ln Ln 6 Ln Ln Ln Lo Lit Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Ln Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo N Ln Lo LO LO LO Lo Lo LO LU Lo LO LO LO LO LO LO LO N Lo LO LO LO Lo LO Lo LO Lo LO Lo LO Lo Lo Ln LO Lo LO LO LO LO M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M d) O O O m O O m W W O) O) O O O O O m O W W O O W O O W W W m 0 O) W O O D m vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J w W w w W w w w W w W W W w W w w W W W w w w W W W w W W W W w W W w w W U- LL LL U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- U- LL LL LL LL U- LL U- U- U- LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L N W i� r N cM N M r N M r N M of M W N M V to W N M'* 0 W r N_ M r N M q M M M r N N N M M M N N N N N N Ct M CM M M M r NNNMMMMMMMMMd' V'77 V'd'd' V V V V V'd'd' V'd'd'd'tn Ln N co co co W H F- f- I-F- ¢¢a¢asaaa¢aaa¢¢aaaaaa¢aaaaaaaaaaa¢¢aa wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i»>i»»»iii>> W w w W W w W w W W W W W w w W w w w W W W w w w W w w w w w w w W w W w W W W w W W w w W W w W W W W w W w W W w W W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O o 0 o 0 O M M o O o O o o 0 0 0 o o O o O o O O o o O O o o O o o O LI) Ln Ln cq N N to cq cq� to N N S NOLD N N Lo Ln to LOOMN N N N N Ow N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N. N a a a n a n a a a a a a a a n n n a a a n a a a a a a a a n a a a a n a a 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 to O O W LOW M M LOO M N O m m m m w MW 000 O M to M M O M N M M O M M N W W a0 W W W a0 00 W W W W o0 oD tb W aD W W W W W W W W W W W. T c0 00 W W W T W W Lo to to Lo Lo to m Ln m to to to to 0 In to Lo Lo to 0 m Lo N to N to Lo m M In In M U) Lo m m to N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to Ln L0 N 0 Lo to Lo Lo N uJ Lo Ln Lo Lo Lo Lo LL') to to N to N Lo N . m to Lo to Lo to Lo U) N Lo Lo Lo Lr) Ln to LtJ L() Ln Ln to to N Lf) O to t[) Ln Lo to to N LL) In Lf) tL) Ln to try L2J Lo Ln tf) to to to Ln h to N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 6) O O O W W a1 41 O) O) O O O O m 0) 41 O O) O O O O d1 m to 0) D1 41 d1 a1 41 a1 0 W U��U�UUU��UUUc�c�Uc�UUc�c�i..)UUc�000UUc�Ui.>i.>UUc� J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J _I J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W W W W LLLLLLLLLLL¢LLLL¢LL¢LLLLLLLL¢LL¢LLLU.LLLLL¢LLLLU-LLLLLLLLLLLLL¢LL¢LLLLLL¢LL¢LL¢LL¢LL¢LLL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z L0 W N M V M 0 N M 7 M 0 .-- N M V r N M Vt LO (0 n W N M It LO W h WM N M W W CO W W W W W c0 W W W W W 1� r r r W W W aD cD W� W W W W W W W W W W W W F- f- H H H f- H F- F- H f- F-- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J w W wC� wC� w0� w w wll� a� 0� w w w aY w[If Of[If Of w w w w ofC� w w w Of w w w W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O o o O o O O o o O o O O o O O O o o O o O O o LO LO 0 NNN NNNNN N C4 Ln N N Ln N LO N Ln N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N. N G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C a a a a a a a a a n a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a as a a a a a a a U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 LO M u7 0 0 W W N L0 0 0 LO m 0L0 (0 (0 L0 (0 L0 LO UJ L0 LO W N Ln L0 LO M M LO LO 0 LO aD W M 0 W 00 o? W W W W W 00 C0 00 cO C? W W a0 W 00 00 00 00 00 W W 00 W W W 00 00 00 00 00 L() In L0 L0 Ln L0 L0 L[) L0 N try N to to op V) N N p o Lo o o m m u') LO W Lou) L0 o Lf L0 L0 m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LLC LO LN LO Lr) LLO LLC U) L N LLC Lo LO LO LO LO L� Lo L LLC U) LLf Lo Lo N Lo 4 N Lo LLf LLo LLMC) LLC LLo La Lo Lo LLo LC r r C- I I r. C. r r r r r r. r r= r= r= r � r c- r c r= r [ r= r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O) W Cfl O W 0 0 W m 0 0 0 tT m 0 0 m CA 0 m W 0) m Q) CA CA m m m 0 0 CA W O m O O O O W O O O m O O W lT CA O m 0 0 m W O O lT 0 O CA lA (fl O m m 0 0 0 W O O lA U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J .J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U N U U U U U U U U U U U N U rn U U Cl) rn rn, U CO rn U rn rn rn U U U CO rn rn rn M M M M r N M 0 0 0 0 r r r W [O tp W 0 0 0 r r r r F- F- F- F aaaa_aaaaan.aaaaa ¢¢aQaaa¢aQ¢aQQQ OrN O R N M v Ln ro r c- M M M M M M M F- F- CL F- F M CL }}}>-}}W}LUUJWWrWWFFa-FFELa-aadaaaaaaaaaaaa wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn,aaaaaaaL¢¢.a¢¢¢a¢a¢aa¢ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Q¢¢ a Q Q¢¢ W af()f C• Q• Q• Wcjf W of W W K K J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J >> >> >>>>> >> >> »¢¢¢aQ¢a¢QQQaa¢ OfwwofwOfw[IfwlyofOfwwwF- F- F- F- F- F- F- rF-�-r wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwLLQ¢¢aQQ V)rnv)rnrAu)rnwwu)u)www O 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W WW U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Loo LOC) N LO M m M LO M 0 Loi N N N 0 U U U U UUU U U') N LO LO LO Loo Loo l00 too Lor) LO m V 7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r. r C C C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C m m m m m La m m m m m m m m m Lo m m m m m m La m mm m m m m La La Lo m Lo m m n n n n n a n a n n n 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 N m 0 Ln Lt) 0 LO N 0 0 N N m 0 LO O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 h r- r�- r- I� t` n 1I- n n n 0 0 W W W ap CO 0? 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L() CO Cn Lf) tr) Lf) Ln Ln ClLn N N Cn Cn N W W W C] W W W C7 Cp W W W W C� W W CA W W C W CO N N N N N N N N. N N N N N N� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -N N N N N N N LO Lir) N LLn U) U) to LO N M m N U m m m 0 4 0 M L N m m N 0 Lo LM Lm m L0 N LLo LM N U LL M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 00 CA (A (A W m CA O W O O O W O CA O (A W O (A fA fA (A (A O (A m W m O O O V m 0 O to (A (A O O W O O O CA W O (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fA O O (A fA (A m W m (A O O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U v U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J J J J J J J J .J J -J J J J J _1 J J J J J J J J J J J .J J J J J J w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w LLILL LLLLLLLL LLLLLLILL LLL LLLL LLLLLL LLLL LL LLL LLL LL LL LL LL LL LLLal. LL LL LLL LL LLL LL LLL LL LLLL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z (L�(Ln(Ln(Ln<(q(q(q(A(AlLn(LOILn(A(A(LA(q(LntLn(LO(A(Ln(Ln(LA(Ln(aA(Ln(q(q(Ln(L�(LD(A(4(Ln(Ln(L4 M V Lo CO r N (M d' M (D r r .N- N M d' Lo (O r w O O r�� d' N t0 `� N W to r 0 r F -F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- E- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- �--' F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- aaaaaaaEL(La.a a n. aaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas aaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ❑000000000000000000000000000000000000 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa CO CO CO 0 CO U) F- F- �o(n(n(n(oWWWWwWWUILUWW n(4(nWWLU(n(nw(n(nw�n<ncn�n<n( WWW wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU M M M 0 M 0 M Lo L0 L0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N V d' 7 M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 CO w (O CO L0 O 0 0 0 0 w w W O M w w W w 00 W M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 i i i i i C i i L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r CO CO W N W W W W CO N N N N N N N N N of N N M L0 C0 Cn L0 L0 N LO L0 N C0 C0 L0 CJ L0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6LD 6 6 Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo N N LD L6 Ln Ln Ln 6 6 6 Ln Ln Ln L() Lo Lo Lo La Lo Lo M L() Lo N Lo Lo Lo Li) LO LO M M LO LO LO LO M LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 0 N LO M LO l0 l0 LO LO L0 m LO M LO M LO LO LO LO N LO r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 rnrnrnrnrnrnwrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv�vvvvvvvvvv�rvvvvvvvvvv rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVUU J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w LL U- LL. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Ll- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL. LL LL U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N M d' L!J CO h aD O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r F- F- F- F- F- F- an. a as a a a a a as a a a a a a amn.aaaaaaaaaaaan.aas aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ❑000000000000000000000000000000000000 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww UUUUUUUVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU d' V 7 7 7 7 7 7 V 7 V d' d' 'V' V' O O O O N N N N N N W W c0 c0 e0 a0 c0 N a0 W c0 a0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C C C C C C C C C G G C C C C C C C G G C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a a a n a a a a a a a a o. a o. n o_ a a a a Oa o. a a a a a Q a a. o. o. a a a 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r -------------- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to to 4J to m 0 0 m to 0 LO N 0 to UJ to 0 m N 0 m M to N O LO to In In N 0 to 0 N m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N InLO Lo Lo Lo to LO to U0 In Lo Lo to LO to Ln V) to N N N Lh L6 Lo to L6 Lo Lo to to N N LO Ln to LO In LD to to Lo N Lo to N to Lo to to Lo Lo to M Leto to to Lo to Lo Lo to In N to N Lo Lo Lo M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O W O 67 W O m (n (n O W W W O 07 O W O 67 -07 m O 0) W 0 0 0 W 67 67 O O O O !P W O O W O O m O m W O O O m W m 0 0 0 O O W 07 O) 07 O O O O) W W 6) O O7 m m (n W i.iUUUUUUUUUU:.:i.:000UC.>UUUUUUUUUc.�UUUUUUUUU J .J J J J J J J -1 J J J _I J J J J J J J J J J J -I J .J J J J J J J J J _I J w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL U. U- LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z r .~- N M V' M CD W 07 r N "T r N M 7 r N d d d d d d d Q. LL 11 d d d d d d aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa< aaQaaaa asalasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 000000°°ooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w www w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ��w��w�w��w��of Q� w w w w of ��UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU U U U U U U U U U U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rn ;t rn o 0 0 0 0 0 OON W wNaOMMMMI- I�l I�f��f�l�nl-l�I��ni. r`vvv NN m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m J J 7 J 7 J J 7 7 7 J J J 7 J 7 7 7 J J 7 7 J J J J 7 J J 7 7 J J 7 7 J J U U U Y7 U U U U U U U U V U V U U U U U U U U U U V U U U U U U U U U U U 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 M W M O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M dt V' V 117 M M M M M N N N N N N O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r 00 O O M U U OLD U cm moo mm N m N M M In OLD 0 M M M M M M M to m N to M M N 117 to M N N N N N- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i i i i i i i i i i a i 1 i i 0 177 m M m N M 17j M 177 M M M 177 M Ln M M M M M m M m M 1.7) M M M N M 0 0 M 0 n 0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r W m O W 01 O O 0 0) m W O m O O) 0 0) W W O O O) W W O tT W m O m to O W O) W m O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J J J J J J J .J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J _1 J J J J J J J J J _I J W W W W W W W W W W W w W LI W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W w W LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL. LL LL LL LL LL LL- LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z .Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z M V' r r r r r N M It L!7 O !- W W r N M d' r N Cl) d' LfJ CO n W r aaaaaaaaaaao~.o~.<aaaaaan~.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< }< aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa F- F-- F-��rrr i � cnwwwwtnwwwwu�v�cnwwww<nv�tncn<n<n<ncocncncncncna�cnv�<nwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU O O 0 LO M LO M N LO LO m LO 0 0 0 M LO LO LO 0 O o O O LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------- 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 CCCCCCCCCC0000000000000000000000000000000000000 LO LO w LO LO m LO m N m m 0 m N LO Lo LO LO m LO LO m LO Ln LO LO Lo LO Lo LO Ln Lo Ln LO Lo Lf) LO N Cl N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 M LO 0 m m LO w LO m 0 LO 0 0 M LO LO M LO Ln m o m LO m m 0 LO Un LO m m 0 m 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i i i i L i i i i a i i L Ln LO Ln LO m Ln Lo N LO LO Lo LO LO Ln LO LO Lo Lo Ln Lf) L(J U) LO LO Liz Ln LO LO Lo LO LO Ln LO LL) Lo Ln LO l/7 Ln LL) ll7 Ln Ln ll') In LA In In in tf) Ln In lO Ln ll7 lL') Ln Ll7 lO ll7 Ln ui Liz t♦7 ll') In In Li') Ln Ln ll7 Ln In to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J .J J J J J J J J _I J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W w W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W w W W W W W LLLL LLLLLLLL LL L¢LL¢LL¢L LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLLL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z It LO co .r- OD O r N M T M(D p- M H F- F-F- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa a¢a¢aa¢¢a¢aaa¢¢¢aaaaa¢¢¢¢¢ aa¢aa¢a¢aa aaaa¢aaaaa¢a¢aaaa¢a¢¢aaa¢¢¢¢aaaaaaaaa ��F F- F - F -r -F F- F - F - F - w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w (if ol fr Of UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU O O O O O O O O O O O O O LOAD O M� h f` � f� � f� 0 0 r 4t d' i' d' V�� V dt d' V V' V 7 7 d' d' d' dt dt O O O M M M M O O O O C C C C C C C C C C C C G' C G C C C C C C G G G C C C C C C C G C C G C G m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn fi n n n n n n o_ n n n n n n n n n n n n n n UUUUUYJUUUUUUYJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUYJUUUVUUUU 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 O M M O M M M M O M M M M M O M Min O M O O O M O M O O M O O O O O M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r N N O N O M M N N N M M M N N M N O M M O M N O O O N N O N O O O N M O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i i i i r L6 L6 i i L6 Lo Lo M M i 6 L6 Lh L6 i i i r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m W O) W O to m 0 0 m O O W m O m 0) a) O tT m O tT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W tT 0) O O) UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUc..%000UUUUUUUUUUUUUi..)UUUU W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Ll1 W W W LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLL LLL. LL LLL LL U-LLLL LLL LL LL LLL LLL ILl LLL. LL LLL LLL LL LL LL LL LLL LL LL LL.LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < M < < < < < < O r C\l O r Cq M 7 LO O ` M N M V M O M O r N Mt M O r W O aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa¢aaaaaaaaaaaaa¢aaaaa r}<<<<<<r}rrrr<<<<< aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa¢aaaaaaaaaaaa w 0 w w w w U) H H h H h H U) h H H h H H H h U) h H h h U) t- h h H U) h ww�Lnw�LnLnwwwLnLUwwLuLuujLUwwww�wwLULULULuwwwwwLnw wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww UVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU r M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Ln M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C C G C C C C C C C C C C C G G C C C C C C W (6 l0 (4 N [6 (0 l6 (6 L6 f0 L6 N (6 t6 f6 (6 @ N N L6 N (6 N (6 W f6 N f6 (4 L6 N N l0 (6 L6 l6 CL a a a n a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a n n a n n a a n a a a n a 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M LOW M M M LO M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to M LO M M L j M M L � M M M M Ln 0 M Lrn 0 M L j M M L) 0 M M M M M M M M m Ln M In Ln N N N N N N 'N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N Ln Ln Ln M Ln Ln Ln Lnln Ln LI) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M lT tT O O a1 0 0 0 0 0 0 tT O O m W m W m 0 01 O m O W m 0 0 0 O O O m O N O) - O O V O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U O D U J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LL U- U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U- Ll- LL LL LL LL LL U- U- LL LL LL LL LL LL @LLLL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Y C Z Z UU�cnLnUUtoUcnU��UtoU�to�U�Ln�Lnu7�UUUtorn��OUu7� fn (V � r �U ��NNM7�co t` W LA�NM7Lo c0r W .bJ F-F-HHHHI-F-H F- I-•I--I-I-HhHI-F-'F-HNHF F - Soo Soo E ~ aQQ¢¢<Qaaa<QQQ¢¢¢<<<QQQa¢an.aaaaaallo a ¢aQaaQaQaQQQQaQaaaaQ¢QQ¢a��g�g-jO� F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- U U U U U U U U fl. p wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww NrU �Ktr��K�K�CC��KKd'K��d'Kd'KKI-F-F-F-F-F-F-F-dx m UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU��UUUU��O mP-rl. n 000000000 C) 0 0 m w 0 M LO M 0 w W W W W W W W W�ym M LO Ln M Lo 0 00000 OO co OOO 0 to 00 W 00 to UUUUU O U U c N w c Q C N @ c �s m w m fl 0 a � N c Ep`a mm 0 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c co a a a a aaaaaaaaoaan aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa=ao� U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 000000000000000000000000000000000=iowi C N N m N 0 0 N m 0 Lo M Lo 0 0 Ln 0 0 Lo M LU to Ln to M Lo Lo r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N =— � � � � � ) )000 N In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln to N Lo IfJ t[) Ln Ln Ln LA tt� N tm Lf7 to tU Lo ifJ Ln W CO W W W N O W N. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -O 0 N Lo US Lo m Ln Lo LLS LL) LL) Lo Lo Ln Lo 6 Lo Lo m Lo Ln m N Lo Lo LLQ Ln Lo 0 Lo Lo Lo Lo > Ln m Ln LU Ln LL) Ul 0 m m 0 0 m Lo Lo m LO Ln LO Ln. 0 m N In m m m Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 m Q Peak{ West Development, LLC ' 5347 South Valentia Way Suite 240 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone 303,706,0410 Fax 303.706.0482 February 20, 2009 City of San Rafael City Council ATTN: Ms. Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk City of San Rafael City Hall, room 209 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Re: File No. ED08-01 Environmental and Design Review Permit for 1050 Cresta Drive - Highlands of Marin I & 11 Dear Ms Beirne: This letter responds to the appeal of the San Rafael Planning Commission's January 27, 2009 resolution denying Appeal AP08-004 and upholding the Zoning Administrator's action to approve the Environmental Design and Review Permit for 1050 Cresta Drive - Highlands of Marin 1 & I1 (file ED08-011), filed on February 3, 2009 by David Therein and Eugene Dougherty. Project Background Highlands Marin I (HoM 1) consists of 21 two and three story wood -framed apartment buildings with wood shingle siding and sloped asphalt shingle roofing constructed in 1990. The property contains a total of 220 apartments and a Community Building and Leasing Office with a fitness center, sauna, and swimming pool. U DR has managed the property since acquiring it in December 1998. Highlands of Marin It (HoM Il) is directly adjacent to Highlands Marin I and consists of 11 two and three story wood -framed apartment buildings with stucco exteriors and sloped asphalt shingle roofing constructed in 1968. The property contains a total of 104 apartments and a swimming pool and tennis court. UDR acquired and assumed management of the property in late October 2007. Highlands of Marin 11 suffers from extensive lack of maintenance under the previous ownership; for example, the roofing needs to be replaced, a number of windows leak, portions of the building trim suffers from extensive dry rot; the sanitary sewers have been disrupted by tree'roots causing chronic blockages, apartment finishes and appliances are extremely worn, furnaces are beyond their useful life and need to be replaced, etc. UDR acquired the property with the intent of restoring it to a market -grade property, which will require extensive renovations. The City of San Rafael Community Development Planning Department granted an Environmental Design and Review Permit for exterior renovations of Highlands of Marin 1 on February 28, 2007. When the opportunity arose for UDR to acquire the HoM 11 property, work was stopped on the Attachment 8 Letter to Esther C. Beirne — Page 2 original plans for renovating the exteriors for Highlands of Marin. When the acquisition of HoM 11 was completed, we began work on a new renovation scheme that would integrate both of the properties into a single multifamily residential community. In February of 2008 we submitted an environmental and design review application to the City of San Rafael Community Development Planning Department. The scope of our proposed renovation project includes: • replacement of all roofs at HoM II • replacement of all carports at HoM 11 • installation of new exterior wall finishes and replacement of window at both properties • renovation of apartment interiors to include new kitchens and baths and central heating and air conditioning, and installation of clothes washers and dryers in apartments in HoM Il • construction of a new Leasing and Management Office Building at the enhance to the combined properties and consolidation of lensing and property management activities in that location • remodeling the existing HoM I Conununity Building to provide an upgraded fitness center, media room, and resident lounge • construction of a new cabana (restrooms and dressing rooms) at the HoNI II swimming pool • construction of exterior storage units for use by residents at the Howl t patios and balconies • upgrade landscaping, signage, and site lighting throughout the properties We expect the renovation project to take approximately one year and cost $23 million, generating over 100 construction jobs in the process. The project was granted an Environmental and Design Review Permit on May 27, 2008. This approval was appealed by the appellants, and the Planning Commission upheld the approval on January 27, 2008. The February 3. 2009 David Therein and Eugene Dougherty ppeal In their letter to you of February 3, 2009, the appellants cited the following grounds for appeal: "1) Discretionary renovations will displace over 300 San Rafael residents and children from their apartment homes." Peak West Response: The bulk of the renovations we propose to undertake are not "discretionary" if we are to maintain suitable living conditions for our residents. At Highlands of Marin 11, We are dealing with leaking roofs and windows, failing plumbing and heating systems, appliances at the end of their useful lives, a swimming pool that has been closed due to its untenable condition, and carport structures that are collapsing. At Highlands of Marin 1, we have exterior wall cladding that is falling apart and is past due replacement. Our goal is to retain all tenants who desire to stay by qualifying them for a new lease for a renovated unit. We've heard from numerous residents who appreciate the improvements we will be making to the property and are interested in moving into a renovated apartment unit; many of these current tenants will likely qualify for a new lease.. Only the renovations at Highlands of Ntarin 11, which consists of 104 apartment units, will require us to vacate entire buildings at a time. We will be renovating no more than two buildings at a time in order to both facilitate temporary relocations and minimize the number of residents who leave in any given month. Further, the renovation project has been delayed for almost a year; residents have had and will have ample time to determine if they desire to stay or relocate. The appellant's statement that over 300 residents will be displaced is no more than speculation. Letter to Esther C. Beirne — Page 3 "2) Most displaced residents will not be able to re -quality for a renovated unit due to the owner's planned luxury upgrades, rates, and qualification requirements." Peale West Response: The bulk of our renovation budget for Highlands of Marin 1 will be spent renovating the building exteriors with new siding, stucco, and windows. The bulk of our renovation budget for Highlands of Nlarin 11 will be spent replacing the aforementioned leaking roofs and windows, failing plumbing and heating systems and appliances, repairing the closed swimming pool, repairing carports, and building facilities to properly deal with trash and recycling. We do not consider these "luxury upgrades" but rather required maintenance in order to maintain suitable living conditions. Highlands of Marin Il was built in the late 60s and early 70s. It is not practical to make piecemeal repairs to the property, given that replacement parts for many building components are no longer available, the buildings do not have plumbing shutoffs, and that repairs of any magnitude require asbestos abatement and therefore vacating the units. Our rental rates for apartment units in the renovated property will be similar to apartment units in comparable properties in the Nlarin County market If we can't charge market rate rents, we can't afford to provide market quality housing. The Owner uses an objective qualification process to review prospective tenant applications that is administered by a third party and is based on credit history and reasonable financial capability to pay the rents. This process is consistent with accepted practice in the multifamily Teal estate industry. "3) Residents who are forced to leave the property will enter an already constricted rental market with a limited supply of affordable housing options and very few vacancies. Thus, to secure equitable, local housing at their currently affordable rates will be extremely difficult. These residents will face disproportionately significant challenges in maintaining important social, emotional, community, and educational ties, as well as the means for their economic survival in Marin --especially under current and looming economic conditions." Peak West Response: All residentswill have an opportunity to qualify to rent renovated units. We empathize with those residents that will be displaced, but again, most of the planned renovations are required in order for the Owner to provide suitable housing. We will regularly update and make available to residents a list of other apartment complexes which may be able to accommodate them. "4) Residents who are able to qualify for an upgraded unit, and choose to stay, will be afforded only one month's free rent for the inconvenience of being displaced, will have no guarantee for return to their own upgraded unit, and will have to absorb the cost of substantially increased rents—according to the owner's market -rate projections." Peak West Response: We believe that one months free rent is an appropriate offset to the inconvenience and costs of the move to a renovated unit. Due to construction logistics, we cannot guarantee that every resident who leases a renovated unit will be able to return to the same unit that they vacated. We are projecting rents at market comparable rates in order to finance the cost of the needed renovations. Letter to Esther C. Beirne— Page 4 "S) The City's Relocation Assistance Ordinance (SRMC Section 14.16.729) provides a significant and appreciated benefit to residents who are of low-income and who qualify, However, our research shows that current relocation costs far exceed the amount of this assistance. Also, a significant number of residents will neither qualify for assistance or an upgraded unit — according to the owner's expected qualification requirements." Peal< West Response: We will comply with the low income relocation assistance requirements of SRivfC Section 14.16929. As the Council is aware, San Rafael is the only city in Nlarin County that requires such relocation assistance. "6) There remain, in our estimation, certain issues not wholly addressed or conditioned by the Planning Commission's resolution of January 27"}', 2009. These include, but are not limited to, the addition of a third leasing office building and its severe safety implications for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as well as the owner's failure to respond to the City's request for a comprehensive resident relocation plan." Peak West Response: As a matter of fact, we are not proposing to add a third leasing office. When the new leasing office is built, the existing leasing office at Highlands of Marin I will be vacated and that space will be converted to additional resident amenities. The former leasing office at Highlands of Marin 11, a one -room structure of approximately 180 square feet in floor area, is hardly adequate for a 324 -unit multifamily property and was vacated when the Owner acquired the property. Regarding the existing traffic intersection at the entrance to the property, we have been working with the City on an improved configuration For the property entrance. The improved entrance configuration is the subject of Condition of Approval No. 1. With regard to a comprehensive resident relocation plan, we have provided to the City a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan which details our construction schedule and phasing so that residents will be informed of the timing for unit vacations; this Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan was communicated to residents through four written comnuutications and twelve open house meetings starting in August 2007. We have also outlined our resident communications and relocation plan giving forward, which includes; March Resident Update. At the conclusion of the project approval process with the City of San Rafael, UDR will provide another Highlands of Marin Resident Update to all residents outlining the outcome of the approval process and detail the construction time line as known at the time. Pre -Construction Update for Highlands of Marin I Buildings Residents of the Highlands of Marin I buildings will not be required to vacate their apartments during the renovation of the exteriors of the buildings. Ten days prior to the start of construction on the exterior oFeach resident building, UDR will provide a letter to residents in each building where work is to start. The letter will outline the start date of construction, construction hours, anticipated length of consd•uction, and the work that will be done on the building. Monthly Construction Updates. After the start date of construction, UDR will provide all residents with a construction update at least once a month that will inform residents of construction related issues, indicate which areas/buildings are under current construction and which building are anticipated to start construction in the following month, 60 -day Notices For Highlands of Marin I Buildings, The Highlands of Marin 1 apartment interiors can be renovated independently of the building exteriors, and construction will be Letter to Esther C. Beirne — Page 5 scheduled as units are vacated upon lease expiration or move -out, minimizing disruption to the residents. Individual residents will receive notice of non -renewal at least 60 days prior to their lease expiration. 60 -day Notices for Highlands of Marin 11 Buildings. The Highlands of Marin Il building renovations require all residents to vacate each building during construction. However, Peak West Development will be working on no more than two Highlands of Marin 11 buildings at a time. UDR will provide residents in buildings scheduled for construction a 60 - day notice to vacate prior to the start of construction for each building. The notice will complywith all requirements of Ordinance 14.16.279. In addition to the 60 day notice, UDR will provide each resident receiving a 60 -day notice the following: • The anticipated rental ranges for the renovated apartments known at the time of the notice. • Information on the UDR process for qualifying for a new lease for a renovated apartment. • Information on the availability to be temporarily relocated on the property to a different apartment unit during construction for tenants who sign a new lease renting a renovated apartment. • A list of addresses and phone numbers of other apartment complexes listed as such in the Marin County phone book current at the time of the notice. • The contact information for Legal Aid of Marin. All resident communications will include the contact information for our on-site renovation coordinator who will serve as a resource for residents. "7) The project will result in the loss of no less than eleven (11) designated affordable (low- income/BMR) housing units from the City's current compliance with the San Rafael Housing Element." Peak West Response: This project is a renovation project and does not add any residential units. There is no connection between this project and the below market rate CBMR) units which were a requirement of the original approvals for building Highlands of Marin 1 in 1989. The pending reduction of BMR units at Highlands of Marin I Brom 44 to 33 apartments is a function of the financing of the property, unrelated to the renovation project. The current requirement for the Owner to provide 44 BMR apartment units at Highlands of Marin 1 is a stipulation of bond financing under an agreement with the ABAG Financing Authority for Nonprofit Corporations. When those bonds are retired, the Owner will no longer he obligated to provide 44 BNIR apartment units under that agreement. The property is also subject to a Below Market Rate Rental Unit Agreement with the City of San Rafael, which requires the Owner to provide 33 BMR apartment units at Highlands of Marin 1. The City of San Rafael BMR agreement will remain in force after the ABAC bonds are retired. "8) Any additional grounds that community may raise to the City Council for their review and consideration." Pe�ulc West Response: We will respond to additional objections to the renovation project if and when they arise. Letter to Esther C. Beirne — Page 6 Please feel free to contact me ifyou would like to discuss any of these issues in further detail or if any of the City Council members have questions. Sincerely, Gary Polodna Principal Peak West Development, LLC cc: Paul Jensen, Planning Manager, City of San Rafael Sarjit Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, City, of San Rafael Mark Wallis, Senior EVP, Northbay Properties Warren L. Troupe, Senior EVP, UDR Brad Hodack, Principal, Peak West Development Mitchell S. Randall, Esq., Morrison & Eoerster Susan Barnes, Barnes & Company